During the experiment, both sets of participants were read two studies: One that supported daycare over home care, the other that supported home care over daycare.
During the experiment, both sets of participants were read two studies: One that supported daycare over home care, the other that supported home care over daycare.Subjects were asked to evaluate both studies based on the validity of their methods and how convincing they were.Tags: Essay Test TypeBusiness Strategic Plan TemplateImportance Of Essay WritingCase Study On Schizophrenia ScribdPrimary Research In DissertationEssay On Media Influence On SocietyOpen University Creative Writing CourseBusiness Plan Agenda
(AP Photo/Jeff Chiu) That’s not the whole issue, though.
Others would point to the souring relationship between NBA players, coaches and officials, and with recent events in mind they’d have a point.
More reasonable folks will suggest tweaks to improve accuracy, though will often miss the fact that many such tweaks have already been tried at the G-League level without success (think four-ref crews, for instance, as NBA VP of Referee Training and Development Monty Mc Cutchen recently confirmed).
The endpoint is the same: NBA refs are actually really good at this, and there’s no realistic path to improve them meaningfully.
It’s hard to accept that some of those missed calls might hurt your team as they happen; it’s even harder when they seem obvious from your TV angle; it’s even tougher still when they come at big, game-defining moments. The same obstacles that make calling a perfect game impossible are still present in these moments.
Conspiracy theorists will yell themselves hoarse and get the eye rolls they deserve, sure.Almost as populous as stories about the incredible high-level basketball taking place on the court – even more common, depending on your outlet choice – have been think-pieces, breakdowns and sourced reports about NBA officials and all the problems they have right now.The Houston Rockets publicly alleged that referee error cost them a Finals berth last season, a hilariously-timed cry for attention “supported” by remarkably shoddy investigative practices (especially for such a numerically-inclined organization); a decently-marked high school statistics student could point out the obvious flaws in their methodology.The atmosphere has never been so volatile, certainly not in such visible ways. Is it on the refs themselves, a group who we’ve just established hasn’t gotten any worse at their jobs over that period of time?Or is it on other groups, namely players, coaches and secondarily the league itself, for the creation of – and failure to properly head off – this brewing issue?Again, we’ve established that refs haven’t gotten worse recently – so why is there a perception that they have?Because those fueling that conversation want it to be true.A collection of expecting parents were split into two groups: Those expecting to send their upcoming child to daycare, and those expecting to keep their child at home for such early care.All subjects originally that home care was the best approach, even those who planned to use daycare for whatever reason (job, school, etc.) – a reality that made the eventual conclusions all the more interesting.And lo and behold: People who originally planned to care for their children at home put much more stock and legitimacy into the study supporting home care; people originally planning to use daycare were far more convinced by the study supporting daycare. They were planning one approach with their children, and were happy to legitimize any information that backed up that choice, even when it went against their original beliefs.These results were found even though this latter group originally in the value of home care over daycare, a remarkable reversal. The sharpest readers have already picked up on the basketball connection here.