Week 9 dq response Mary Jean 

After working on next week’s final assignment, I had to read for content of the articles not just what I was looking for to answer questions.

In a couple dozen articles I found almost verbatim the same sentence in almost all of them. Across the board in most of the types defined and described in the week 10 instructions.

“This is an insufficient tool for measuring x. The other fields are insufficient tools for measuring y, z, a, b, c, etc.” It appears that the best thing these authors are good at (which in some of the articles) is being critical of other authors and entirely inappropriate with other forms of research methodologies. From Quantitative “Qualitative sucks and this is why” sucks being a generalized term other words were used but the adolescent intent was beyond clear in almost every one of the articles. Exact same goes; from Qualitative “Quantitative sucks and this is why”. Ditto for Mixed Method, “The others suck and treat us badly, and this is why”.

After a few hours all I wanted to do was to collectively get the authors in a room and say “Children, are we still in elementary school saying the red ball is better than the blue ball? Seriously”. So, let’s do a thing, boys and girls. Use the scientific method correctly and if something is broken “Fix it”.

Since the overwhelming majority of the articles use the above “the other methods suck and this is why” format for at least a paragraph if not (one had said descriptions for more than half the article, insulting other articles seemed to be the entire point to that one article. I could not get the voices of children out of my head as I read it “No my ball is better”) most of the article.

So, psychology needs to focus on “mine is better than yours” which has no foundation in science. Pointing out the differences is great, but unless the solution comes next it is just being a child. This is not unlike the medical argument that illness and disease came from the fictional concept of “bloodletting”. There was an “imbalance” in the bodies fluids, said imbalance needed to be corrected by taking in some cases not a small amount of blood from the patient to help them recover. All it did was make the patient anemic, sometimes the “cut” would become infected, or the patient would die of blood loss. The whole time the entire scientific community was completely convinced other methods did not work, and the clear/white fluids pouring out of the wound after were proof they were correct. When all it was, proved an infection had set into the wound. Focusing on insulting the others rather than performing a proper AMA, reviewing the physical evidence to find a solution. That should be the one and only point to any thing done in science, what is wrong, how to fix it. Not what is wrong with everyone elses ideas, mine is obviously the best of the best of the best. While ignoring the facts and evidence of the rather obvious mathematical and observational errors in their own work.

The IQ test comes to mind as hard evidence of said “mistakes” built in, which are ignored. The IQ test is built to determine how well someone functions in a factory. Not how does that person actually think. My last IQ test, I was penalized x points because I did not answer a given question and set of questions like a factory worker, I answered them as the person who thinks up how the build a factory in the first place. Think too independently or outside the box and you get penalized.