Facelift (Lower)

A lower face lift improves the appearance of your cheeks and neck by tightening the skin, lifting the deeper structures and removing fat in undesirable areas. Neck and jaw lines will be more chiseled, and double chin and jowls should be greatly improved or eliminated. Deep creases from the nose to the corner of the mouth or jaw (nasolabial folds, or marionette lines) will be eliminated or softened. Overall, you should expect a more youthful appearance.

For the purpose of this discussion, a lower face lift will be used interchangeably with cheek lift and neck lift. Generally, the lower face lift will be defined as surgical rejuvenation of the face bounded by the cheek bone superiorly and the collar bone inferiorly, the ear laterally, and the “marionette lines”, medially.

Dr. Kasden offers the Facelift procedure to patients from Dallas, Fort Worth, Keller, Trophy Club, Grapevine, Southlake, Plano, Arlington, Sherman, Euless, McKinney, Las Colinas, Hurst, Haslett, Frisco, Denton, Coppell, Colleville, Burleson, Allen, Texas and the surrounding areas.

Request an Appointment


Figure 8: Diagram of determination of organic Facies by using the ratio of changes of HI Vs OI. Characteristics of specified range include: A: environment which is very regenerating. AB: marine regenerating environments are related to marine or lake regenerating environment: environment including marine and continental organic material and sedimentation in oxidant conditions. C environment with average sedimentation speed. CD: deep environment next to Orogenic point’s D continental environment with extreme oxidant [16].


Hibiscus Rosé Tea

250.00 INR

Brand Exalte

A stunning and vibrant blend of Hibiscus and rose buds makes this a health powerhouse. This tea helps reduce blood pressure and prevent the common cold and flu. Enjoy it as a hot tea or chilled ice tea.

Ingredients: Hibiscus, Red Rose Buds


zondag 23 juli 2017

Map: North Sea Drainage Project (1930)

Map: North Sea Drainage Project (1930)

In September 1930, there existed at least one wild plan to reclaim this particular piece of sunken real estate from the seas and increase the size of Europe by linking the British Isles to the Continent. The new one would be called…DOGGERLAND, ore maybe only in the pages of Modern Mechanix, an American magazine (1928-2001) that ran under a variety of titles.

Under the title 'North Sea Drainage Project to Increase Area of Europe', a caption reads:

Conspicuously absent are the scientists’ credentials. The logistics of building a 450-mile-long dyke connecting Norfolk (England) to Jutland (Denmark), rising 90 feet above the sea level, seem daunting enough for our own age, let alone for the 1930s. A similar dyke at the North Sea’s south end, barely 150 miles long, would only leave Antwerp and London with direct sea access, depriving the whole of the Netherlands and much of Germany and Denmark of a coastline.

Read more: http://alternate-timelines.proboards.com/thread/1227/map-north-drainage-project-1930#ixzz4neK8hAO1

Maps: The German Plan to Drain the Mediterranean (Atlantropa)

Maps: The German Plan to Drain the Mediterranean (Atlantropa)

The “Atlantropa” scheme proposed to form land bridges between Africa and Europe by damming and partially draining the Mediterranean

Perpetual war, grinding poverty and a time bomb of overpopulation resulting in millions of refugees crossing continents. A fitting description perhaps for the emergency facing Europe today – but those problems also fuelled a German architect’s extraordinary 1920s scheme to resettle millions of Europeans in Africa.

The “Atlantropa” scheme proposed to form land bridges between Africa and Europe by damming and partially draining the Mediterranean, allowing millions of Europeans to find a new life in what would become the southern zone of a Eurafrican supercontinent. It would, of course, lead to European domination of Africa – a fact deemed acceptable in an era scarred by racism and colonialism.

Map of proposed dams in the Strait of Gibraltar. From Herman Soergel, Lowering the Mediterranean, Irrigating the Sahara. Panropa Project (1929)

A German architect by the name of Herman Sörgel came up with it the idea of the “Atlantropa” scheme, not a Nazi himself, the rise of Adolf Hitler in the 1920s and 30s convinced Sörgel that radical new solutions were needed to solve Europe’s problems of high unemployment and what he believed was an impending energy crisis.

Exhibition poster, 1932

The plan called for the construction of dams at key points in the Mediterranean: first at the Strait of Gibraltar and the Dardanelles, eventually between Sicily and Tunisia. The sea would thus be converted into two basins, with the western part lowered by around one meter per year and the eastern part by two meters. Over the course of a century, that would lower the sea level by 100 and 200 meters, respectively, creating some 660,000 square kilometers of arable land.

The plan contained some fantastical details with dams across the Strait of Gibraltar, the Dardanelles, and eventually between Sicily and Tunisia, each containing gigantic hydroelectric power plants, would form the basis for the new supercontinent. In its final state the Mediterranean would be converted into two basins, the western part lowered by 100 metres and the eastern part by 200 metres and an area larger than France reclaimed from the sea.

Map of Herman Sörgel’s Atlantropa

A more modern map of Herman Sörgel’s Atlantropa

In line with the colonial and racist attitudes of the times, Mr Sörgel envisaged Africa to be entirely at the disposal of Europe, a continent with plenty of space to accommodate Europe’s masses.

While his proposal may sound absurd to our ears, it was taken seriously by architects, engineers, politicians and journalists at the time. The extensive Atlantropa archive in the Deutsche Museum in Munich abounds with architectural drawings for new cities, the dams and bridges of the future continent as well as letters of support and hundreds of articles about the project, which appeared in the German and international popular press, as well as in specialised engineering and geographical magazines.

What made Atlantropa so attractive was its vision of world peace achieved not through politics and diplomacy, but with a simple technological solution.

Atlantropa would be held together by a vast energy net, which would extend from the gigantic hydroelectric plant in the Gibraltar dam and provide the entirety of Europe and Africa with electricity. An independent body would have the power to switch off the energy supply to any country that posed a threat to peace.

Moreover, Mr Sörgel calculated the construction of the supercontinent would require each country to invest so much money that none would have sufficient resources to finance a war. He dedicated a large part of his work to the promotion and dissemination of the project through the press, radio, films, talks, exhibitions and even poetry and an Atlantropa symphony.

(YouTube) Clips from the 1951 Atlantropa film (deutsch) - Gibraltar Dam project

(YouTube) Atlantropa a new continent

However there were a few drawbacks to all this, in 1977 Popular Mechanics reported that Atlantropa would have shut some of the world’s busiest seaports, disrupted the economies of countries in Southern Europe and North Africa and possibly changed the ecology of the entire area.

Sörgel’s hope was that Atlantropa might satisfy Germany’s desire for Lebensraum as he calculated the construction of the supercontinent would require each country to invest so much money that none would have sufficient resources to finance a war.

Instead, under Hitler, it invaded Eastern Europe.


13 août 2011

the lid taken off

"Consumption is not, as one might generally imagine (which is why economic "science" is fundamentally averse to discussing it), an indeterminate marginal sector where an individual, elsewhere constrained by social rules, would finally recover, in the "private" sphere, a margin of freedom and personal play when left on his own. Consumption is a collective and active behavior, a constraint, a morality, and an institution. It is a complete system of values, with all that the term implies concerning group integration and social control.

We don't realize how much the current indoctrination into systematic and organized consumption is the equivalent and the extension, in the twentieth century, of the great indoctrination of rural populations into industrial labor, which occurred throughout the nineteenth century. The same process of rationalization of productive forces, which took place in the nineteenth century in the sector of production is accomplished, in the twentieth century, in the sector of consumption. Having socialized the masses into a labor force, the industrial system had to go further in order to fulfill itself and to socialize the masses (that is, to control them) into a force of consumption."
- Jean Baudrillard, Consumer Society
(via Zeynep)

"The “bloody week,” as it was called, also involved an enormous destruction of property. The Communards, to be sure, were not enamored of the privileges of private property and were not averse to destroying hated symbols. The Vendôme Column—which Napoleon III had doted upon—was toppled in a grand ceremony on the May 16 to symbolize the end of authoritarian rule. The painter Courbet was later held responsible for this act, and condemned to pay for the reconstruction of the monument out of his own pocket. The Communards also decreed, but never carried out, the destruction of the Chapel of Expiation, by which Louis XVIII had sought to impress upon Parisians their guilt in executing his brother. And when Thiers had shown his true colors, the Communards took a certain delight in dismantling his Parisian residence, stone by stone, in a symbolic gesture that Goncourt felt had an “excellent bad effect." But the wholesale burning of Paris was another matter entirely."
- David Harvey, Paris, Capital of Modernity

"We compile a new index that summarizes these variables, and then ask -- for every percentage cut in government spending, how much more instability should we expect? The data shows a clear link between the magnitude of expenditure cutbacks and increases in social unrest. With every additional percentage point of GDP in spending cuts, the risk of unrest increases."
- Jacopo Ponticelli and Hans-Joachim Voth, Austerity and Anarchy: Budget Cuts and Social Unrest in Europe, 1919-2009 (pdf)

"Lewis Namier famously described 18th-century British politics as ‘aristocracy tempered by rioting’. In fact riots often combine the form of radical protest with reactionary content.
As well established as the riot tradition is reactive alarmism that the country is going to hell in a looted shopping trolley. Namier’s bon mot could be rewritten for our times as ‘plutocracy tempered by riot’. Consumerism holds up varnished designer tat as the sine qua non of civic respect. Its supporting ideology holds that monetary access to consumer goods flows from desert, the sort of thing stockpiled by politicians’ beloved ‘hard-working people and their families’. But everyone – not least Keele University cleaning staff, employed for over thirty years, who get up before six every morning to earn the minimum wage – knows that that is all balls. Acquisitiveness and arson are, as far as this goes, two sides of the same coin. Consumerism may be a mug’s game; but acting as though it efficiently metes out rewards according to desert is a mug’s game run by the mugs. Small wonder when the lid is taken off that those who know the system is a put-up job fill their boots."
- Glen Newey, "To Hell in a Looted Shopping Trolley"

01 août 2011

Lenin on auteurism

- The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government


Diễn đàn rao vặt 24h miễn phí

Flavor from coffee grinders Yamanaka's paper

Thảo luận trong 'Linh Tinh' bắt đầu bởi hautran200594, 24 Tháng ba 2016.

  1. hautran200594 Member

    Flavor from coffee grinders Yamanaka's paper comes from Arabica coffee beans in the land of Da Lat romantic, fertile, taking technology from Japan into Vietnam modern style to intensive, creating the pure coffee beans, grind phase according to international standards, ensure no impurities, no flavorings. Yamanaka paper filter coffee filter paper coated with small, very convenient and does not pollute the environment. It is a great choice for busy people do not have time, or those who travel the necessary distance.
    Yamanaka Yamanaka created the brand in Vietnam, because Vietnam's flavor is somewhat richer, coffee should taste differently, with cà phê sạch products bearing slightly future, Japanese technology forming cup of coffee, but just a piece of paper to blow, this stimulates people to think of Vietnam, do enjoy coffee became more interesting, more and more strange substance that tradition now.
    Currently, brand coffee bags Yamanaka concentrated in Japan, Korea, Taiwan, the US, Thailand, ... and some countries in Europe. Thanks to the full development of this market will make Vietnam impetus to promote the development of its coffee bags abroad Bring more profits.

    Article sharing personnel, Yamanaka had supported and trusted style coffee bags completely new Yamanaka, your feedback will make us grow stronger, we always listen to you. There Yamanaka, busy without pure drinking coffee is a matter of yore then, the business trip or travel for several days with the coffee bags this, a new innovative style of Yamanaka (injured Vietnam's well-known brand).
Tags: Yamanaka

Chia sẻ trang này

Partner: liên hệ

Phiên bản iwin mới nhất - cach tri mun dau den - cach tri mun trung ca - thẩm mỹ viện - danh bạ thẩm mỹ viện - triệt lông vĩnh viễn - cach tri mun boc - giam can hieu qua - cham soc da mat - tap chi cong nghe - tai avatar - hướng dẫn nấu các mon ngon moi ngay Việt Nam - - tai iwin - tai game ban ca - game avatar - game iwin - Thời sự vn - khóa hoc photoshop - phòng khám phụ khoa ở tphcm với công nghệ mới nhất - phòng khám đa khoa chuyên phá thai an toàn ở tphcm - kham phu khoa nhanh chóng, chất lượng - Công ty thi công nội thất chuyên nghiệp nhất hiện nay


The image of achievement varies from person to person, and each individual vision of success evolves over time. Regardless of this fluidity, it’s helpful to learn from those who have risen to the top. As we expand H3Concepts and advance along our own journeys, we gather valuable insights from lots of accomplished people.

The founder of Blue Waters Products, Ltd., Dominic Hadeed, is one such individual. What was once a small operation of two trucks and a couple of workers selling purified water is now a company of over 500. They now sell all sorts of beverages as well. One of the biggest lessons he shares is specific to the individuals around him.

Hadeed indicates, “I have observed many business owners or professionals who barrel through their partners, staff, suppliers and customers just to try and make it to the top quickly. This is a very shortsighted strategy.” We agree, and make the happiness and success of all H3Concepts stakeholders top priorities.

We also concur with Hadeed’s take on culture. He likens it to gardening, saying, “Good nutrients like a worthwhile mission, fair compensation, and quality training will help you grow something that will bear long-term fruit. But if you neglect those things for short-term profits, eventually the soil will be barren and acidic. Then nothing will grow.”

These timeless lessons brighten the path to success. Follow H3Concepts on Twitter to find out who else inspires us.


June 2, 2017

Predictable genetic interactions

Researchers at IST Austria develop a model to predict how genetic interactions impact gene expression for the first time│ Study published in eLife

Even though we know the sequence of the entire human genome, scientist cannot determine what a particular person will look like. Part of the reason why we cannot read a genome like a book is because the genes, and individual base pairs within genes, interact with each other in many ways. This makes it hard to predict what different genetic combinations will result in. These interactions, also called epistasis, are important for understanding how complex genetic systems function and evolve. A team of researchers at the Institute of Science and Technology Austria (IST Austria), including first authors Mato Lagator and Tiago Paixão, developed a model of epistasis with which they can predict for the first time how two individual base pairs interact. This is the result of a collaboration between the groups of Nick Barton, Jonathan Bollback and Călin Guet at IST Austria, and was published on May 18 in the open access journal eLife.

One important type of interaction between genes is sign epistasis, which, as the name indicates, changes the direction in which a mutation influences a biological trait: from positive to negative or vice versa. This means, for example, that two mutations that are individually harmful can, when found together in the same individual, be beneficial. One example from the world of bacteria are toxins and the exporters that pump them out: on its own, a mutation that produces a toxin can kill a bacterium, while producing only a toxin exporter – but no toxin – wastes precious energy. However, a bacterium that both produces a toxin and a toxin exporter can kill competing organisms, an effect that evolutionary biologists say enhances its fitness.

Epistasis therefore plays a crucial role in the evolution of complex genetic systems, and understanding it is important for answering a wide range of questions, from the evolution of sex to the divergence of species. Predicting whether a specific mutation will be harmful or beneficial is, however, very difficult, and scientists have so far not been able to predict the effect of interactions between different mutations.

In their study, the researchers at IST Austria focused on a very simple model system to predict epistasis. They studied mutations in a bacterial regulatory element, which regulates gene transcription, the process by which a protein is made from a genetic sequence. In the regulatory element that was experimentally studied, gene expression is turned on when the activating RNA polymerase (RNAP) binds, and turned off when a repressive transcription factor (TF) binds. RNAP and TF bind to the same regulatory element, in a manner that is mutually exclusive. The researchers then studied the interactions between mutations in the RNAP and TF binding sites. They found that in their system, the sign of epistasis can switch depending on whether the repressive TF is present or not.

The researchers then went on to build a model with which they could predict the effect of epistasis. They developed a thermodynamic model, which relies on statistical thermodynamic assumptions to model when a gene is expressed. With this model, they can predict the effects of epistasis that they observed in the experimental system. Mato Lagator explains the significance of their work: “Knowing only whether the single mutations are deleterious or beneficial, and the magnitude of this effect, we can predict whether the interaction between two mutations is deleterious or beneficial. Our study shows that it is possible to build a model that accurately predicts epistasis, as long as the molecular mechanisms at play are taken into account.”

Interdisciplinarity - one of the core principles of IST Austria - played an important role in achieving this goal. “The two postdocs who performed the study brought together the knowledge of three fields: Mato Lagator who is both in Jonathan Bollback’s group and in my own has expertise in experimental evolutionary biology and molecular biology, and Tiago Paixao, a postdoc in Nick Barton’s group, brought the knowledge of theoretical aspects to the mix,” explains group leader Călin Guet. “Without combining those different fields the breakthrough would not have been possible,” he adds.

Original article:
Mato Lagator, Tiago Paixao, Nick Barton, Jonathan P Bollback, Călin C Guet: On the mechanistic nature of epistasis in a canonical cis-regulatory element. eLife 2017 DOI: dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.25192

Dr. Mato Lagator
Lead author of the study

Lead author Mato Lagator in the lab. Credit: IST Austria/Lisa Cichocki


The Galactic Republic

Unknown [SWTOR]

Star Wars: The Old Republic

An alliance of planets and mega-corporations that value democracy, justice and freedom, the Galactic Republic has stood for over twenty thousand years. Ruled by a Senate comprised of delegates from all its member worlds and overseen by a Senate-appointed Supreme Chancellor, the Republic struggles to restore its former greatness in the wake of the Sith Empire's invasion decades ago. Having emerged victorious in numerous conflicts in the past with the aid of its protectors in the Jedi Order, the Republic has no intention of allowing the Empire to consume the entire galaxy.

After its capital world of Coruscant was sacked by the Empire, the Republic was forced to sign a painful peace treaty, losing control of many outlying worlds. While the Empire consolidates its power, the Republic and the Jedi hurry to rebuild and prepare for the next conflict sure to come.


What Is Killing Your Ability to Dream?

What is killing your ability to dream?

This morning, my husband and I were running errands and chatting about our hustles. Jeff is working on a podcast, new website and finishing up his first book. I am working on this site and my new site, Accounting In Focus. All this is in addition to our day jobs and side businesses. We were sharing ideas and updates when something struck me.

I don’t think we could have done this five years ago.

Five years ago, we were drowning in debt. We could barely breathe, let alone dream. We were at the bottom of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs.

Abraham Maslow studied individual’s needs. His research is the basis for the Hierarchy of Needs. In short, Maslow’s research stated an individual’s needs must be met in a certain order before moving to the next level. A person will strive to meet the level of need and once those are fulfilled, he or she will naturally move to the next level.

First we must fill basic needs: food, shelter, and other basic survival needs. Then we move on to safety needs, like security and stability. I believe debt falls into this second stage because debt typically hurts our security and stability. It causes risk in our lives. While we have debt, it is hard to move on to the higher levels of the Hierarchy.

Esteem needs are those like achievement, mastery and self-respect. This is typically where we start to dream. Self-actualization is the point at which we start to realize our full potential and seek to grow. If dreaming and realizing those dreams is in the top two tiers of the pyramid, could debt be crushing those dreams?

In our case, I believe it’s true. As we have paid off our debt and have more security in our lives, we have less stress. Stress is tiring and sucks up a lot of our mental capacity. I remember how tiring the stress was. I remember the all consuming nature of it. It zapped my energy.

While we have not paid off all of our debt, the fact that we can now live on just one income has really helped us feel more stable and secure. It has helped us open our minds to creative projects and personal growth. My husband is writing again. We are both creating again. We are taking in knowledge and improving ourselves. Even though the days are generally long, we are both excited about our projects rather than exhausted from the stress of debt.

Is stress overwhelming you? What is stopping you from dreaming? Have you begun to dream again? What got you dreaming again?

  • Debt kills dreams. Can one pursue a dream with debt? Sure, but what a headache. Debt truly kills inspiration, creativity and adds so much stress to ones life. Being debt free is truly freedom. So awesome how you can now live on one income and pursue dreams while paying off the rest.


90th visitor, Write a Review

90 visits to this page. You are the 90th. Edit page foodpage.us
This is the food page of Rib Palace on 5607 W Lake St Chicago.

As of today, 90 visitors have visited this page. You are the 90th.

Rib Palace got its first review on May 15, 2017 and was last updated on May 15, 2017.

We rank Restaurants by first grouping them together by proximity, then analyzing their ratings, reviews and comments. Recent reviews carry more ranking weight. Rib Palace is currently ranked number 1 of 31 nearby Restaurants in Austin Chicago.


Rackets, which are approved for play under the Rules of Tennis, must comply with the specifications in Appendix II.

The International Tennis Federation shall rule on the question of whether any racket or prototype complies with Appendix II or is otherwise approved, or not approved, for play. Such ruling may be undertaken on its own initiative, or upon application by any party with a bona fide interest therein, including any player, equipment manufacturer or National Association or members thereof. Such rulings and applications shall be made in accordance with the applicable Review and Hearing Procedures of the International Tennis Federation (see Appendix VI).

Case 1: Is more than one set of strings allowed on the hitting surface of a racket?
Decision: No. The rule mentions a pattern (not patterns) of crossed strings. (See Appendix II

Case 2: Is the stringing pattern of a racket considered to be generally uniform and flat if the strings are on more than one plane?
Decision: No.

Case 3: Can vibration damping devices be placed on the strings of a racket? If so, where can they be placed?
Decision: Yes, but these devices may only be placed outside the pattern of the crossed strings.

Case 4: During a point, a player accidentally breaks the strings. Can the player continue to play another point with this racket?
Decision: Yes, except where specifically prohibited by event organisers.

Case 5: Is a player allowed to use more than one racket at any time during play?
Decision: No.

Case 6: Can a battery that affects playing characteristics be incorporated into a racket?
Decision: No. A battery is prohibited because it is an energy source, as are solar cells and other similar devices.


The file you have requested: Call of Pripyat / Mods / Realistic Combat Overhaul with Artifact Guns - 5.88mb is not available. Perhaps try browsing all files for the game S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Call of Pripyat and upload any files you want to share or are missing. This is the only information we could locate:

The goal of this mod was originally to make the weapons behave more realistically. Since then, the author has added other features that make the combat more realistic in general, including changes to the AI, mutants, and getting shot effects. He then later decided to replace all of Nimbles's guns with guns that are "Artifact Mods" instead; not because they are realistic (well, not anymore than an artifact itself anyway) but because they are a ton of fun.NOTE: THIS MOD IS INTENDED FOR MASTER DIFFICULTY. On lower difficulties it will be less realistic due to the player being able to take more damage from just about everything. Shooting in the open will get you killed fast.

More games


The Treasury

Global Navigation

Personal tools

Future outlook

Labour mobility is likely to increase, particularly from Asia. The increase in global migration in recent decades is unlikely to decrease, particularly as economic development in Asia sees a greater number of potential skilled migrants. The global competition for skilled talent is likely to intensify.[49]

‘Circular' migration is likely to become more common. Temporary residency is increasingly important globally, and there is a tendency towards making permanent migration decisions after arrival when the migrant has had an opportunity to ‘test out' the host country. Many ‘permanent' migrants move on to another host country or return to their home (i.e. circular migration).[50]

General policy lessons

Policies that can be made unilaterally

New Zealand's population growth between 1996 and 2006 that would have occurred without immigration
Source: Statistics New Zealand, Treasury calculations

Lift economic performance generally to create employment opportunities. Net migration is sensitive to economic growth, and the main driver of emigration is employment opportunities. Consequently, general economic performance is a core driver of migration.

Design immigration settings with a medium-term view that takes account of emigration and supports supply of skilled labour. Best practice selection involves a points system that targets skill levels of migrants and those most likely to successfully integrate and contribute, and can encourage upskilling (e.g. in English language) before entering New Zealand. Policy should be transparent, predictable, and aim to result in overall positive net immigration over the medium term to support the supply of skilled labour. The actual level of immigration depends on a variety of economic and social factors. Migration policies designed to emphasise employment will mean greater (or lower) labour demand will raise (or lower) short-term migration flows, but beyond these ‘automatic stabilisers', policies should not be changed as a tool for short-term macroeconomic stability.

Facilitate speedy integration to make the most of migrants' skills. In addition to selecting migrants more likely to integrate easily, integration policies can hasten the transition to migrants and returning expatriates reaching their potential in the labour market. General labour market policies include probationary periods, secondee and internship links, and integrated occupational licensing. Specific policies include providing migrants with specialist information, advice and guidance on pathways to improving employment outcomes; specialist English language training; systems to audit and recognise migrants' skills; opportunities for work placements or trial employment; and practical steps to reduce discrimination (e.g. anonymous CVs).

Proportion of all New Zealand-born people in the world who are living in Australia
Source: Bryant and Law (2004)

Encourage international students to become residents. International students are often desirable permanent immigrants as they face fewer barriers to integration than new arrivals. Most have a New Zealand qualification and good English skills, and many have already been employed part-time.

Encourage beneficial short- and medium-term migration. Some types of emigration are better than others. Policy settings should encourage temporary migration for study or working holidays, but also encourage return migration.

Keep in touch with the diaspora. Engagement with the diaspora should be coordinated in a coherent strategy. A public sector agency should have clear policy responsibility for emigration and diaspora engagement.

Policies that require international engagement and agreement

Determine and pursue New Zealand's ‘offensive interests' through international agreements. Encouraging beneficial short- and medium-term flows of people can be achieved through arrangements on the movement of business people, or temporary study and work visas, for example.

Figure 2: Summary of the main policy settings that influence circular migration
Figure 2: Summary of the main policy settings that influence circular migration.

Policy settings are organised by the different stages in circular migration that can be influenced. Starting at the top left, policy settings can affect the ease of migrating temporarily through visas, information and funding. Disincentives can be provided to leave permanently: the fact that KiwiSaver tax credits are clawed back on permanent emigration is one example, and policing student loans in (say) Australia could be another. Offshore, maintaining contact with New Zealand's diaspora can be achieved through private networks such as KEA and through government offshore posts. Attracting migrants, students and researchers can be achieved through marketing and information, and also potentially through direct incentives. The selection process for immigration is a core policy lever and has a number of aspects. Settlement of migrants onshore can have a large influence on how well migrants adapt to domestic conditions, and policy settings in language training, for example, can have an impact. Finally, the overall costs of moving include the ease of moving pension or health benefits, or the tax treatment of foreign income, for example.

  • [49]See, for example, Salt (2008).
  • [50]See, for example, Vertovec (2007).
Page top


Tag Archives: Questionable Research Practices

Dr. R’s comment on the Official Statement by the Board of the German Psychological Association (DGPs) about the Results of the OSF-Reproducibility Project published in Science.

Thanks to social media, geography is no longer a barrier for scientific discourse. However, language is still a barrier. Fortunately, I understand German and I can respond to the official statement of the board of the German Psychological Association (DGPs), which was posted on the DGPs website (in German).

On September 1, 2015, Prof. Dr. Andrea Abele-Brehm, Prof. Dr. Mario Gollwitzer, and Prof. Dr. Fritz Strack published an official response to the results of the OSF-Replication Project – Psychology (in German) that was distributed to public media in order to correct potentially negative impressions about psychology as a science.

Numerous members of DGPs felt that this official statement did not express their views and noticed that members were not consulted about the official response of their organization. In response to this criticism, DGfP opened a moderated discussion page, where members could post their personal views (mostly in German).

On October 6, 2015, the board closed the discussion page and posted some final words (Schlussbeitrag). In this blog, I provide a critical commentary on these final words.

The board members provide a summary of the core insights and arguments of the discussion from their (personal/official) perspective.

„Wir möchten nun die aus unserer Sicht zentralen Erkenntnisse und Argumente der unterschiedlichen Forumsbeiträge im Folgenden zusammenfassen und deutlich machen, welche vorläufigen Erkenntnisse wir im Vorstand aus ihnen ziehen.“

1. 68% success rate?

The first official statement suggested that the replication project showed that 68% of studies. This number is based on significance in a meta-analysis of the original and replication study. Critics pointed out that this approach is problematic because the replication project showed clearly that the original effect sizes were inflated (on average by 100%). Thus, the meta-analysis is biased and the 68% number is inflated.

In response to this criticism, the DGPs board states that “68% is the maximum [größtmöglich] optimistic estimate.” I think the term “biased and statistically flawed estimate” is a more accurate description of this estimate.   It is common practice to consider fail-safe-N or to correct meta-analysis for publication bias. When there is clear evidence of bias, it is unscientific to report the biased estimate. This would be like saying that the maximum optimistic estimate of global warming is that global warming does not exist. This is probably a true statement about the most optimistic estimate, but not a scientific estimate of the actual global warming that has been taking place. There is no place for optimism in science. Optimism is a bias and the aim of science is to remove bias. If DGPs wants to represent scientific psychology, the board should post what they consider the most accurate estimate of replicability in the OSF-project.

2. The widely cited 36% estimate is negative.

The board members then justify the publication of the maximally optimistic estimate as a strategy to counteract negative perceptions of psychology as a science in response to the finding that only 36% of results were replicated. The board members felt that these negative responses misrepresent the OSF-project and psychology as a scientific discipline.

„Dies wird weder dem Projekt der Open Science Collaboration noch unserer Disziplin insgesamt gerecht. Wir sollten jedoch bei der konstruktiven Bewältigung der Krise Vorreiter innerhalb der betroffenen Wissenschaften sein.“

However, reporting the dismal 36% replication rate of the OSF-replication project is not a criticism of the OSF-project. Rather, it assumes that the OSF-replication project was a rigorous and successful attempt to provide an estimate of the typical replicability of results published in top psychology journals. The outcome could have been 70% or 35%. The quality of the project does not depend on the result. The result is also not a negatively biased perception of psychology as a science. It is an objective scientific estimate of the probability that a reported significant result in a journal would produce a significant result again in a replication study.   Whether 36% is acceptable or not can be debated, but it seems problematic to post a maximally optimistic estimate to counteract negative implications of an objective estimate.

3. Is 36% replicability good or bad?

Next, the board ponders the implications of the 36% success rate. “How should we evaluate this number?” The board members do not know.  According to their official conclusion, this question is complex as divergent contributions on the discussion page suggest.

„Im Science-Artikel wurde die relative Häufigkeit der in den Replikationsstudien statistisch bedeutsamen Effekte mit 36% angegeben. Wie ist diese Zahl zu bewerten? Wie komplex die Antwort auf diese Frage ist, machen die Forumsbeiträge von Roland Deutsch, Klaus Fiedler, Moritz Heene (s.a. Heene & Schimmack) und Frank Renkewitz deutlich.“

To help the board members to understand the number, I can give a brief explanation of replicability. Although there are several ways to define replicability, one plausible definition of replicability is to equate it with statistical power. Statistical power is the probability that a study will produce a significant result. A study with 80% power has an 80% probability to produce a significant result. For a set of 100 studies, one would expect roughly 80 significant results and 20 non-significant results. For 100 studies with 36% power, one would expect roughly 36 significant results and 64 non-significant results. If researchers would publish all studies, the percentage of published significant results would provide an unbiased estimate of the typical power of studies.   However, it is well known that significant results are more likely to be written up, submitted for publication, and accepted for publication. These reporting biases explain why psychology journals report over 90% significant results, although the actual power of studies is less than 90%.

In 1962, Jacob Cohen provided the first attempt to estimate replicability of psychological results. His analysis suggested that psychological studies have approximately 50% power. He suggested that psychologists should increase power to 80% to provide robust evidence for effects and to avoid wasting resources on studies that cannot detect small, but practically important effects. For the next 50 years, psychologists have ignored Cohen’s warning that most studies are underpowered, despite repeated reminders that there are no signs of improvement, including reminders by prominent German psychologists like Gerg Giegerenzer, director of a Max Planck Institute (Sedlmeier & Giegerenzer, 1989; Maxwell, 2004; Schimmack, 2012).

The 36% success rate for an unbiased set of 100 replication studies, suggest that the actual power of published studies in psychology journals is 36%.  The power of all studies conducted is even lower because the p < .05 selection criterion favors studies with higher power.  Does the board think 36% power is an acceptable amount of power?

4. Psychologists should improve replicability in the future

On a positive note, the board members suggest that, after careful deliberation, psychologists need to improve replicability so that it can be demonstrated in a few years that replicability has increased.

„Wir müssen nach sorgfältiger Diskussion unter unseren Mitgliedern Maßnahmen ergreifen (bei Zeitschriften, in den Instituten, bei Förderorganisationen, etc.), die die Replikationsquote im temporalen Vergleich erhöhen können.“

The board members do not mention a simple solution to the replicabilty problem that was advocated over 50 years ago by Jacob Cohen. To increase replicability, psychologists have to think about the strength of the effects that they are investigating and they have to conduct studies that have a realistic chance to distinguish these effects from variation due to random error.   This often means investing more resources (larger samples, repeated trials, etc.) in a single study.   Unfortunately, the leaders of German psychologists appear to be unaware of this important and simple solution to the replication crisis. They neither mention power as a cause of the problem, nor do they recommend increasing power to increase replicability in the future.

5. Do the Results Reveal Fraud?

The DGPs board members then discuss the possibility that the OSF-reproducibilty results reveal fraud, like the fraud committed by Stapel. The board points out that the OSF-results do not imply that psychologists commit fraud because failed replications can occur for various reasons.

„Viele Medien (und auch einige Kolleginnen und Kollegen aus unserem Fach) nennen die Befunde der Science-Studie im gleichen Atemzug mit den Betrugsskandalen, die unser Fach in den letzten Jahren erschüttert haben. Diese Assoziation ist unserer Meinung nach problematisch: sie suggeriert, die geringe Replikationsrate sei auf methodisch fragwürdiges Verhalten der Autor(inn)en der Originalstudien zurückzuführen.“

It is true that the OSF-results do not reveal fraud. However, the board members confuse fraud with questionable research practices. Fraud is defined as fabricating data that were never collected. Only one of the 100 studies in the OSF-replication project (by Jens Förster, a former student of Fritz Strack, one of the board members) is currently being investigated for fraud by the University of Amsterdam.  Despite very strong results in the original study, it failed to replicate.

The more relevant question is how much questionable research practices contributed to the results. Questionable research practices are practices where data are being collected, but statistical results are only being reported if they produce a significant result (studies, conditions, dependent variables, data points that do not produce significant results are excluded from the results that are being submitted for publication. It has been known for over 50 years that these practices produce a discrepancy between the actual power of studies and the rate of significant results that are published in psychology journals (Sterling, 1959).

Recent statistical developments have made it possible to estimate the true power of studies after correcting for publication bias.   Based on these calculations, the true power of the original studies in the OSF-project was only 50%.   Thus a large portion of the discrepancy between nearly 100% reported significant results and a replication success rate of 36% is explained by publication bias (see R-Index blogs for social psychology and cognitive psychology).

Other factors may contribute to the discrepancy between the statistical prediction that the replication success rate would be 50% and the actual success rate of 36%. Nevertheless, the lion share of the discrepancy can be explained by the questionable practice to report only evidence that supports a hypothesis that a researcher wants to support. This motivated bias undermines the very foundations of science. Unfortunately, the board ignores this implication of the OSF results.

6. What can we do?

The board members have no answer to this important question. In the past four years, numerous articles have been published that have made suggestions how psychology can improve its credibility as a science. Yet, the DPfP board seems to be unaware of these suggestions or unable to comment on these proposals.

„Damit wären wir bei der Frage, die uns als Fachgesellschaft am stärksten beschäftigt und weiter beschäftigen wird. Zum einen brauchen wir eine sorgfältige Selbstreflexion über die Bedeutung von Replikationen in unserem Fach, über die Bedeutung der neuesten Science-Studie sowie der weiteren, zurzeit noch im Druck oder in der Phase der Auswertung befindlichen Projekte des Center for Open Science (wie etwa die Many Labs-Studien) und über die Grenzen unserer Methoden und Paradigmen“

The time for more discussion has passed. After 50 years of ignoring Jacob Cohen’s recommendation to increase statistical power it is time for action. If psychologists are serious about replicability, they have to increase the power of their studies.

The board then discusses the possibility of measuring and publishing replication rates at the level of departments or individual scientists. They are not in favor of such initiatives, but they provide no argument for their position.

„Datenbanken über erfolgreiche und gescheiterte Replikationen lassen sich natürlich auch auf der Ebene von Instituten oder sogar Personen auswerten (wer hat die höchste Replikationsrate, wer die niedrigste?). Sinnvoller als solche Auswertungen sind Initiativen, wie sie zurzeit (unter anderem) an der LMU an der LMU München implementiert wurden (siehe den Beitrag von Schönbrodt und Kollegen).“

The question is why replicability should not be measured and used to evaluate researchers. If the board really valued replicability and wanted to increase replicability in a few years, wouldn’t it be helpful to have a measure of replicability and to reward departments or researchers who invest more resources in high powered studies that can produce significant results without the need to hide disconfirming evidence in file-drawers?   A measure of replicability is also needed because current quantitative measures of scientific success are one of the reasons for the replicability crisis. The most successful researchers are those who publish the most significant results, no matter how these results were obtained (with the exception of fraud). To change this unscientific practice of significance chasing, it is necessary to have an alternative indicator of scientific quality that reflects how significant results were obtained.

The board makes some vague concluding remarks that are not worthwhile repeating here. So let me conclude with my own remarks.

The response of the DGPs board is superficial and does not engage with the actual arguments that were exchanged on the discussion page. Moreover, it ignores some solid scientific insights into the causes of the replicability crisis and it makes no concrete suggestions how German psychologists should change their behaviors to improve the credibility of psychology as a science. Not once do they point out that the results of the OSF-project were predictable based on the well-known fact that psychological studies are underpowered and that failed studies are hidden in file-drawers.

I received my education in Germany all the way to the Ph.D at the Free University in Berlin. I had several important professors and mentors that educated me about philosophy of science and research methods (Rainer Reisenzein, Hubert Feger, Hans Westmeyer, Wolfgang Schönpflug). I was a member of DGPs for many years. I do not believe that the opinion of the board members represent a general consensus among German psychologists. I hope that many German psychologists recognize the importance of replicability and are motivated to make changes to the way psychologists conduct research.  As I am no longer a member of DGfP, I have no direct influence on it, but I hope that the next election will elect a candidate that will promote open science, transparency, and above all scientific integrity.

R-Index predicts lower replicability of “subliminal” studies than “attribution” studies in JESP

This post compares articles in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology that contained the keyword “subliminal” to articles that contained the word “attribution”.

PHP-curves based on t-tests and F-tests in these articles are compared.  Both sets of articles show signs of publication bias (fewer non-significant studies are reported than predicted based on post-hoc power).

The shape of the histogram shows clear evidence of heterogeneity (the red curve fits the data better than the green curve).

The estimated power of studies with z-scores between 2 and 4 for subliminal articles is 31%.

The estimated power of studies with z-scores between 2 and 3 for attribution articles is 42%.

The R-Index for subliminal articles is 39%, whereas the R-Index for attribution articles is 49%.

The values for subliminal articles are also lower than the values for the whole set of articles in JESP.

In conclusion, these results suggest that subliminal priming studies are less replicable than other findings in social psychology and should be the target of high-powered replication studies.  These replication studies need to take into account that reported effect sizes are inflated to achieve high power.

When Exact Replications Are Too Exact: The Lucky-Bounce-Test for Pairs of Exact Replication Studies

Imagine an NBA player has an 80% chance to make one free throw. What is the chance that he makes both free throws? The correct answer is 64% (80% * 80%).

Now consider the possibility that it is possible to distinguish between two types of free throws. Some free throws are good; they don’t touch the rim and make a swishing sound when they go through the net (all net). The other free throws bounce of the rim and go in (rattling in).

What is the probability that an NBA player with an 80% free throw percentage makes a free throw that is all net or rattles in? It is more likely that an NBA player with an 80% free throw average makes a perfect free throw because a free throw that rattles in could easily have bounded the wrong way, which would lower the free throw percentage. To achieve an 80% free throw percentage, most free throws have to be close to perfect.

Let’s say the probability of hitting the rim and going in is 30%. With an 80% free throw average, this means that the majority of free throws are in the close-to-perfect category (20% misses, 30% rattle-in, 50% close-to-perfect).

What does this have to do with science? A lot!

The reason is that the outcome of a scientific study is a bit like throwing free throws. One factor that contributes to a successful study is skill (making correct predictions, avoiding experimenter errors, and conducting studies with high statistical power). However, another factor is random (a lucky or unlucky bounce).

The concept of statistical power is similar to an NBA players’ free throw percentage. A researcher who conducts studies with 80% statistical power is going to have an 80% success rate (that is, if all predictions are correct). In the remaining 20% of studies, a study will not produce a statistically significant result, which is equivalent to missing a free throw and not getting a point.

Many years ago, Jacob Cohen observed that researchers often conduct studies with relatively low power to produce a statistically significant result. Let’s just assume right now that a researcher conducts studies with 60% power. This means, researchers would be like NBA players with a 60% free-throw average.

Now imagine that researchers have to demonstrate an effect not only once, but also a second time in an exact replication study. That is researchers have to make two free throws in a row. With 60% power, the probability to get two significant results in a row is only 36% (60% * 60%). Moreover, many of the freethrows that are made rattle in rather than being all net. The percentages are about 40% misses, 30% rattling in and 30% all net.

One major difference between NBA players and scientists is that NBA players have to demonstrate their abilities in front of large crowds and TV cameras, whereas scientists conduct their studies in private.

Imagine an NBA player could just go into a private room, throw two free throws and then report back how many free throws he made and the outcome of these free throws determine who wins game 7 in the playoff finals. Would you trust the player to tell the truth?

If you would not trust the NBA player, why would you trust scientists to report failed studies? You should not.

It can be demonstrated statistically that scientists are reporting more successes than the power of their studies would justify (Sterling et al., 1995; Schimmack, 2012). Amongst scientists this fact is well known, but the general public may not fully appreciate the fact that a pair of exact replication studies with significant results is often just a selection of studies that included failed studies that were not reported.

Fortunately, it is possible to use statistics to examine whether the results of a pair of studies are likely to be honest or whether failed studies were excluded. The reason is that an amateur is not only more likely to miss a free throw. An amateur is also less likely to make a perfect free throw.

Based on the theory of statistical power developed by Nyman and Pearson and popularized by Jacob Cohen, it is possible to make predictions about the relative frequency of p-values in the non-significant (failure), just significant (rattling in), and highly significant (all net) ranges.

As for made-free-throws, the distinction between lucky and clear successes is somewhat arbitrary because power is continuous. A study with a p-value of .0499 is very lucky because p = .501 would have been not significant (rattled in after three bounces on the rim). A study with p = .000001 is a clear success. Lower p-values are better, but where to draw the line?

As it turns out, Jacob Cohen’s recommendation to conduct studies with 80% power provides a useful criterion to distinguish lucky outcomes and clear successes.

Imagine a scientist conducts studies with 80% power. The distribution of observed test-statistics (e.g. z-scores) shows that this researcher has a 20% chance to get a non-significant result, a 30% chance to get a lucky significant result (p-value between .050 and .005), and a 50% chance to get a clear significant result (p < .005). If the 20% failed studies are hidden, the percentage of results that rattled in versus studies with all-net results are 37 vs. 63%. However, if true power is just 20% (an amateur), 80% of studies fail, 15% rattle in, and 5% are clear successes. If the 80% failed studies are hidden, only 25% of the successful studies are all-net and 75% rattle in.

One problem with using this test to draw conclusions about the outcome of a pair of exact replication studies is that true power is unknown. To avoid this problem, it is possible to compute the maximum probability of a rattling-in result. As it turns out, the optimal true power to maximize the percentage of lucky outcomes is 66% power. With true power of 66%, one would expect 34% misses (p > .05), 32% lucky successes (.050 < p < .005), and 34% clear successes (p < .005).

For a pair of exact replication studies, this means that there is only a 10% chance (32% * 32%) to get two rattle-in successes in a row. In contrast, there is a 90% chance that misses were not reported or that an honest report of successful studies would have produced at least one all-net result (z > 2.8, p < .005).

Example: Unconscious Priming Influences Behavior

I used this test to examine a famous and controversial set of exact replication studies. In Bargh, Chen, and Burrows (1996), Dr. Bargh reported two exact replication studies (studies 2a and 2b) that showed an effect of a subtle priming manipulation on behavior. Undergraduate students were primed with words that are stereotypically associated with old age. The researchers then measured the walking speed of primed participants (n = 15) and participants in a control group (n = 15).

The two studies were not only exact replications of each other; they also produced very similar results. Most readers probably expected this outcome because similar studies should produce similar results, but this false belief ignores the influence of random factors that are not under the control of a researcher. We do not expect lotto winners to win the lottery again because it is an entirely random and unlikely event. Experiments are different because there could be a systematic effect that makes a replication more likely, but in studies with low power results should not replicate exactly because random sampling error influences results.

Study 1: t(28) = 2.86, p = .008 (two-tailed), z = 2.66, observed power = 76%
Study 2: t(28) = 2.16, p = .039 (two-tailed), z = 2.06, observed power = 54%

The median power of these two studies is 65%. However, even if median power were lower or higher, the maximum probability of obtaining two p-values in the range between .050 and .005 remains just 10%.

Although this study has been cited over 1,000 times, replication studies are rare.

One of the few published replication studies was reported by Cesario, Plaks, and Higgins (2006). Naïve readers might take the significant results in this replication study as evidence that the effect is real. However, this study produced yet another lucky success.

Study 3: t(62) = 2.41, p = .019, z = 2.35, observed power = 65%.

The chances of obtaining three lucky successes in a row is only 3% (32% *32% * 32*). Moreover, with a median power of 65% and a reported success rate of 100%, the success rate is inflated by 35%. This suggests that the true power of the reported studies is considerably lower than the observed power of 65% and that observed power is inflated because failed studies were not reported.

The R-Index corrects for inflation by subtracting the inflation rate from observed power (65% – 35%). This means the R-Index for this set of published studies is 30%.

This R-Index can be compared to several benchmarks.

An R-Index of 22% is consistent with the null-hypothesis being true and failed attempts are not reported.

An R-Index of 40% is consistent with 30% true power and all failed attempts are not reported.

It is therefore not surprising that other researchers were not able to replicate Bargh’s original results, even though they increased statistical power by using larger samples (Pashler et al. 2011, Doyen et al., 2011).

In conclusion, it is unlikely that Dr. Bargh’s original results were the only studies that they conducted. In an interview, Dr. Bargh revealed that the studies were conducted in 1990 and 1991 and that they conducted additional studies until the publication of the two studies in 1996. Dr. Bargh did not reveal how many studies they conducted over the span of 5 years and how many of these studies failed to produce significant evidence of priming. If Dr. Bargh himself conducted studies that failed, it would not be surprising that others also failed to replicate the published results. However, in a personal email, Dr. Bargh assured me that “we did not as skeptics might presume run many studies and only reported the significant ones. We ran it once, and then ran it again (exact replication) in order to make sure it was a real effect.” With a 10% probability, it is possible that Dr. Bargh was indeed lucky to get two rattling-in findings in a row. However, his aim to demonstrate the robustness of an effect by trying to show it again in a second small study is misguided. The reason is that it is highly likely that the effect will not replicate or that the first study was already a lucky finding after some failed pilot studies. Underpowered studies cannot provide strong evidence for the presence of an effect and conducting multiple underpowered studies reduces the credibility of successes because the probability of this outcome to occur even when an effect is present decreases with each study (Schimmack, 2012). Moreover, even if Bargh was lucky to get two rattling-in results in a row, others will not be so lucky and it is likely that many other researchers tried to replicate this sensational finding, but failed to do so. Thus, publishing lucky results hurts science nearly as much as the failure to report failed studies by the original author.

Dr. Bargh also failed to realize how lucky he was to obtain his results, in his response to a published failed-replication study by Doyen. Rather than acknowledging that failures of replication are to be expected, Dr. Bargh criticized the replication study on methodological grounds. There would be a simple solution to test Dr. Bargh’s hypothesis that he is a better researcher and that his results are replicable when the study is properly conducted. He should demonstrate that he can replicate the result himself.

In an interview, Tom Bartlett asked Dr. Bargh why he didn’t conduct another replication study to demonstrate that the effect is real. Dr. Bargh’s response was that “he is aware that some critics believe he’s been pulling tricks, that he has a “special touch” when it comes to priming, a comment that sounds like a compliment but isn’t. “I don’t think anyone would believe me,” he says.” The problem for Dr. Bargh is that there is no reason to believe his original results, either. Two rattling-in results alone do not constitute evidence for an effect, especially when this result could not be replicated in an independent study. NBA players have to make free-throws in front of a large audience for a free-throw to count. If Dr. Bargh wants his findings to count, he should demonstrate his famous effect in an open replication study. To avoid embarrassment, it would be necessary to increase the power of the replication study because it is highly unlikely that even Dr. Bargh can continuously produce significant results with samples of N = 30 participants. Even if the effect is real, sampling error is simply too large to demonstrate the effect consistently. Knowledge about statistical power is power. Knowledge about post-hoc power can be used to detect incredible results. Knowledge about a priori power can be used to produce credible results.

Questionable Research Practices: Definition, Detect, and Recommendations for Better Practices

How Power Analysis Could Have Prevented the Sad Story of Dr. Förster

[further information can be found in a follow up blog]

In 2011, Dr. Förster published an article in Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. The article reported 12 studies and each study reported several hypothesis tests. The abstract reports that “In all experiments, global/local processing in 1 modality shifted to global/local processing in the other modality”.

For a while this article was just another article that reported a large number of studies that all worked and neither reviewers nor the editor who accepted the manuscript for publication found anything wrong with the reported results.

In 2012, an anonymous letter voiced suspicion that Jens Forster violated rules of scientific misconduct. The allegation led to an investigation, but as of today (January 1, 2015) there is no satisfactory account of what happened. Jens Förster maintains that he is innocent (5b. Brief von Jens Förster vom 10. September 2014) and blames the accusations about scientific misconduct on a climate of hypervigilance after the discovery of scientific misconduct by another social psychologist.

The Accusation

The accusation is based on an unusual statistical pattern in three publications. The 3 articles reported 40 experiments with 2284 participants, that is an average sample size of N = 57 participants in each experiment. The 40 experiments all had a between-subject design with three groups: one group received a manipulation design to increase scores on the dependent variable. A second group received the opposite manipulation to decrease scores on the dependent variable. And a third group served as a control condition with the expectation that the average of the group would fall in the middle of the two other groups. To demonstrate that both manipulations have an effect, both experimental groups have to show significant differences from the control group.

The accuser noticed that the reported means were unusually close to a linear trend. This means that the two experimental conditions showed markedly symmetrical deviations from the control group. For example, if one manipulation increased scores on the dependent variables by half a standard deviation (d = +.5), the other manipulation decreased scores on the dependent variable by half a standard deviation (d = -.5). Such a symmetrical pattern can be expected when the two manipulations are equally strong AND WHEN SAMPLE SIZES ARE LARGE ENOUGH TO MINIMIZE RANDOM SAMPLING ERROR. However, the sample sizes were small (n = 20 per condition, N = 60 per study). These sample sizes are not unusual and social psychologists often use n = 20 per condition to plan studies. However, these sample sizes have low power to produce consistent results across a large number of studies.

The accuser computed the statistical probability of obtaining the reported linear trend. The probability of obtaining the picture-perfect pattern of means by chance alone was incredibly small.

Based on this finding, the Dutch National Board for Research Integrity (LOWI) started an investigation of the causes for this unlikely finding. An English translation of the final report was published on retraction watch. An important question was whether the reported results could have been obtained by means of questionable research practices or whether the statistical pattern can only be explained by data manipulation. The English translation of the final report includes two relevant passages.

According to one statistical expert “QRP cannot be excluded, which in the opinion of the expert is a common, if not “prevalent” practice, in this field of science.” This would mean that Dr. Förster acted in accordance with scientific practices and that his behavior would not constitute scientific misconduct.

In response to this assessment the Complainant “extensively counters the expert’s claim that the unlikely patterns in the experiments can be explained by QRP.” This led to the decision that scientific misconduct occurred.

Four QRPs were considered.

  1. Improper rounding of p-values. This QRP can only be used rarely when p-values happen to be close to .05. It is correct that this QRP cannot produce highly unusual patterns in a series of replication studies. It can also be easily checked by computing exact p-values from reported test statistics.
  2. Selecting dependent variables from a set of dependent variables. The articles in question reported several experiments that used the same dependent variable. Thus, this QRP cannot explain the unusual pattern in the data.
  3. Collecting additional research data after an initial research finding revealed a non-significant result. This description of an QRP is ambiguous. Presumably it refers to optional stopping. That is, when the data trend in the right direction to continue data collection with repeated checking of p-values and stopping when the p-value is significant. This practices lead to random variation in sample sizes. However, studies in the reported articles all have more or less 20 participants per condition. Thus, optional stopping can be ruled out. However, if a condition with 20 participants does not produce a significant result, it could simply be discarded, and another condition with 20 participants could be run. With a false-positive rate of 5%, this procedure will eventually yield the desired outcome while holding sample size constant. It seems implausible that Dr. Förster conducted 20 studies to obtain a single significant result. Thus, it is even more plausible that the effect is actually there, but that studies with n = 20 per condition have low power. If power were just 30%, the effect would appear in every third study significantly, and only 60 participants were used to produce significant results in one out of three studies. The report provides insufficient information to rule out this QRP, although it is well-known that excluding failed studies is a common practice in all sciences.
  4. Selectively and secretly deleting data of participants (i.e., outliers) to arrive at significant results. The report provides no explanation how this QRP can be ruled out as an explanation. Simmons, Nelson, and Simonsohn (2011) demonstrated that conducting a study with 37 participants and then deleting data from 17 participants can contribute to a significant result when the null-hypothesis is true. However, if an actual effect is present, fewer participants need to be deleted to obtain a significant result. If the original sample size is large enough, it is always possible to delete cases to end up with a significant result. Of course, at some point selective and secretive deletion of observation is just data fabrication. Rather than making up data, actual data from participants are deleted to end up with the desired pattern of results. However, without information about the true effect size, it is difficult to determine whether an effect was present and just embellished (see Fisher’s analysis of Mendel’s famous genetics studies) or whether the null-hypothesis is true.

The English translation of the report does not contain any statements about questionable research practices from Dr. Förster. In an email communication on January 2, 2014, Dr. Förster revealed that he in fact ran multiple studies, some of which did not produce significant results, and that he only reported his best studies. He also mentioned that he openly admitted to this common practice to the commission. The English translation of the final report does not mention this fact. Thus, it remains an open question whether QRPs could have produced the unusual linearity in Dr. Förster’s studies.

A New Perspective: The Curse of Low Powered Studies

One unresolved question is why Dr. Förster would manipulate data to produce a linear pattern of means that he did not even mention in his articles. (Discover magazine).

One plausible answer is that the linear pattern is the by-product of questionable research practices to claim that two experimental groups with opposite manipulations are both significantly different from a control group. To support this claim, the articles always report contrasts of the experimental conditions and the control condition (see Table below). ForsterTable

In Table 1 the results of these critical tests are reported with subscripts next to the reported means. As the direction of the effect is theoretically determined, a one-tailed test was used. The null-hypothesis was rejected when p < .05.

Table 1 reports 9 comparisons of global processing conditions and control groups and 9 comparisons of local processing conditions with a control group; a total of 18 critical significance tests. All studies had approximately 20 participants per condition. The average effect size across the 18 studies is d = .71 (median d = .68).   An a priori power analysis with d = .7, N = 40, and significance criterion .05 (one-tailed) gives a power estimate of 69%.

An alternative approach is to compute observed power for each study and to use median observed power (MOP) as an estimate of true power. This approach is more appropriate when effect sizes vary across studies. In this case, it leads to the same conclusion, MOP = 67.

The MOP estimate of power implies that a set of 100 tests is expected to produce 67 significant results and 33 non-significant results. For a set of 18 tests, the expected values are 12.4 significant results and 5.6 non-significant results.

The actual success rate in Table 1 should be easy to infer from Table 1, but there are some inaccuracies in the subscripts. For example, Study 1a shows no significant difference between means of 38 and 31 (d = .60, but it shows a significant difference between means 31 and 27 (d = .33). Most likely the subscript for the control condition should be c not a.

Based on the reported means and standard deviations, the actual success rate with N = 40 and p < .05 (one-tailed) is 83% (15 significant and 3 non-significant results).

The actual success rate (83%) is higher than one would expect based on MOP (67%). This inflation in the success rate suggests that the reported results are biased in favor of significant results (the reasons for this bias are irrelevant for the following discussion, but it could be produced by not reporting studies with non-significant results, which would be consistent with Dr. Förster’s account ).

The R-Index was developed to correct for this bias. The R-Index subtracts the inflation rate (83% – 67% = 16%) from MOP. For the data in Table 1, the R-Index is 51% (67% – 16%).

Given the use of a between-subject design and approximately equal sample sizes in all studies, the inflation in power can be used to estimate inflation of effect sizes. A study with N = 40 and p < .05 (one-tailed) has 50% power when d = .50.

Thus, one interpretation of the results in Table 1 is that the true effect sizes of the manipulation is d = .5, that 9 out of 18 tests should have produced a significant contrast at p < .05 (one-tailed) and that questionable research practices were used to increase the success rate from 50% to 83% (15 vs. 9 successes).

The use of questionable research practices would also explain unusual linearity in the data. Questionable research practices will increase or omit effect sizes that are insufficient to produce a significant result. With a sample size of N = 40, an effect size of d = .5 is insufficient to produce a significant result, d = .5, se = 32, t(38) = 1.58, p = .06 (one-tailed). Random sampling error that works against the hypothesis can only produce non-significant results that have to be dropped or moved upwards using questionable methods. Random error that favors the hypothesis will inflate the effect size and start producing significant results. However, random error is normally distributed around the true effect size and is more likely to produce results that are just significant (d = .8) than to produce results that are very significant (d = 1.5). Thus, the reported effect sizes will be clustered more closely around the median inflated effect size than one would expect based on an unbiased sample of effect sizes.

The clustering of effect sizes will happen for the positive effects in the global processing condition and for the negative effects in the local processing condition. As a result, the pattern of all three means will be more linear than an unbiased set of studies would predict. In a large set of studies, this bias will produce a very low p-value.

One way to test this hypothesis is to examine the variability in the reported results. The Test of Insufficient Variance (TIVA) was developed for this purpose. TIVA first converts p-values into z-scores. The variance of z-scores is known to be 1. Thus, a representative sample of z-scores should have a variance of 1, but questionable research practices lead to a reduction in variance. The probability that a set of z-scores is a representative set of z-scores can be computed with a chi-square test and chi-square is a function of the ratio of the expected and observed variance and the number of studies. For the set of studies in Table 1, the variance in z-scores is .33. The chi-square value is 54. With 17 degrees of freedom, the p-value is 0.00000917 and the odds of this event occurring by chance are 1 out of 109,056 times.

Previous discussions about abnormal linearity in Dr. Förster’s studies have failed to provide a satisfactory answer. An anonymous accuser claimed that the data were fabricated or manipulated, which the author vehemently denies. This blog proposes a plausible explanation of what could have [edited January 19, 2015] happened. Dr. Förster may have conducted more studies than were reported and included only studies with significant results in his articles. Slight variation in sample sizes suggests that he may also have removed a few outliers selectively to compensate for low power. Importantly, neither of these practices would imply scientific misconduct. The conclusion of the commission that scientific misconduct occurred rests on the assumption that QRPs cannot explain the unusual linearity of means, but this blog points out how selective reporting of positive results may have inadvertently produced this linear pattern of means. Thus, the present analysis support the conclusion by an independent statistical expert mentioned in the LOWI report: “QRP cannot be excluded, which in the opinion of the expert is a common, if not “prevalent” practice, in this field of science.”

How Unusual is an R-Index of 51?

The R-Index for the 18 statistical tests reported in Table 1 is 51% and TIVA confirms that the reported p-values have insufficient variance. Thus, it is highly probable that questionable research practices contributed to the results and in a personal communication Dr. Förster confirmed that additional studies with non-significant results exist. However, in response to further inquiries [see follow up blog] Dr. Förster denied having used QRPs that could explain the linearity in his data.

Nevertheless, an R-Index of 51% is not unusual and has been explained with the use of QRPs.  For example, the R-Index for a set of studies by Roy Baumeister was 49%, . and Roy Baumeister stated that QRPs were used to obtain significant results.

Sadly, it is quite common to find an R-Index of 50% or lower for prominent publications in social psychology. This is not surprising because questionable research practices were considered good practices until recently. Even at present, it is not clear whether these practices constitute scientific misconduct (see discussion in Dialogue, Newsletter of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology).

How to Avoid Similar Sad Stories in the Future

One way to avoid accusations of scientific misconduct is to conduct a priori power analyses and to conduct only studies with a realistic chance to produce a significant result when the hypothesis is correct. When random error is small, true patterns in data can emerge without the help of QRPs.

Another important lesson from this story is to reduce the number of statistical tests as much as possible. Table 1 reported 18 statistical tests with the aim to demonstrate significance in each test. Even with a liberal criterion of .1 (one-tailed), it is highly unlikely that so many significant tests will produce positive results. Thus, a non-significant result is likely to emerge and researchers should think ahead of time how they would deal with non-significant results.

For the data in Table 1, Dr. Förster could have reported the means of 9 small studies without significance tests and conduct significance tests only once for the pattern in all 9 studies. With a total sample size of 360 participants (9 * 40), this test would have 90% power even if the effect size is only d = .35. With 90% power, the total power to obtain significant differences from the control condition for both manipulations would be 81%. Thus, the same amount of resources that were used for the controversial findings could have been used to conduct a powerful empirical test of theoretical predictions without the need to hide inconclusive, non-significant results in studies with low power.

Jacob Cohen has been trying to teach psychologists the importance of statistical power for decades and psychologists stubbornly ignored his valuable contribution to research methodology until he died in 1998. Methodologists have been mystified by the refusal of psychologists to increase power in their studies (Maxwell, 2004).

One explanation is that small samples provided a huge incentive. A non-significant result can be discarded with little cost of resources, whereas a significant result can be published and have the additional benefit of an inflated effect size, which allows boosting the importance of published results.

The R-Index was developed to balance the incentive structure towards studies with high power. A low R-Index reveals that a researcher is reporting biased results that will be difficult to replicate by other researchers. The R-Index reveals this inconvenient truth and lowers excitement about incredible results that are indeed incredible. The R-Index can also be used by researchers to control their own excitement about results that are mostly due to sampling error and to curb the excitement of eager research assistants that may be motivated to bias results to please a professor.

Curbed excitement does not mean that the R-Index makes science less exciting. Indeed, it will be exciting when social psychologists start reporting credible results about social behavior that boost a high R-Index because for a true scientist nothing is more exciting than the truth.

Example 1:

Example 2:

Table 2

Study                    p             z

Study 1                .026       2.23
Study 2                .050       1.96
Study 3                .046       1.99
Study 4                .039       2.06
Study 5                .021       2.99
Study 6                .040       2.06
Study 7                .026       2.23
Study 8                .023       2.28
Study 9                .006       2.73


Headspace Albany is a part of the National Youth Mental Health Foundation. Headspace Albany supports young people aged 12 - 25 who are experiencing mild to moderate mental health concerns and/or substance use issues, and their family and friends. Headspace seeks to enhance young people's ability to seek help, and offer youth-centred support and services.


Murilo Bueno
More ideas from Murilo
Brazilian Advocates Raise A Stink Over Poor Sanitation At Ipanema Beach (PHOTOS, VIDEO)

Protesters Raise A Stink Over Poor Sanitation At Rio Beach

Don't judge

Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid. - Albert Einstein Art Print by Tracie Andrews - modern - artwork -

character isn't who you are in the spotlight.  it is who you are in the dark. #reach

Sincerity check: What if you could do a good deed but it wouldn’t have your name on it? Would you still do it? Would you give it May Allah make us sincere in everything we do!


Who’ ? ’ ghost? “time lives, 1,011 responses to who’s on first? who’s a ghost? “time of their lives” tonight!. Newsletters | win, Are you in? sign up for the for the win daily email newsletter for the top stories every day. yes! send me the for the win daily newsletter. Interbasket, Interbasket is a popular international basketball news site and hoops forum covering the world - africa, asia, europe, latin america - acb, cba, nba and.

Di women' college basketball - bracket | ncaa., See ncaa women' college basketball women' final bracket ncaa.. http://www.ncaa.com/interactive-bracket/basketball-women/d1 Printable ncaa bracket 2017: fill march madness, Here’ copy field 68 fill hand. printable ncaa bracket 2017: fill march madness picks. https://www.sbnation.com/college-basketball/2017/3/12/14871616/2017-ncaa-tournament-printable-bracket Education world: march fun: basketball lesson plans, Ready madness? survive prosper ncaa basketball championships lesson-planning resources.. http://www.educationworld.com/a_lesson/lesson/lesson228.shtml


Home Bangalore telewatch

    0 188

    Friday, July 15

    Two States (Romance/Comedy),
    Star Gold HD, 7.50 pm
    Cast: Arjun Kapoor, Alia Bhatt, Revathy
    Based on Chetan Baghat’s novel of the same name, the film revolves around the love story of a Punjabi boy and a Tamil Brahmin girl, and plays on the cultural and regional diversity of the country. Management students Krish Malhotra (Kapoor) and Ananya Swaminathan (Bhatt) fall in love at IIM Ahmedabad. After graduation, they introduce their respective families to each other, only to find that Krish’s loud mother and Ananya’s reserved parents find their alliance unacceptable. As the young pair frantically tries to convince them, other issues crop up. Priyanka Chopra was initially considered for the role of Ananya Swaminathan.

    July 15 - fantatsic fourFantastic Four (Sci-Fi), Star Movies HD, 9 pm
    Cast: Miles Teller, Michael B Jordan, Kate Mara, Jamie Bell, Toby Kebbell
    Having successfully created a teleporting programme titled Quantum Gate, five young researchers—Reed Richards (Teller), Sue Storm (Mara), Johnny Storm (Jordan), Ben Grimm (Bell) and Victor Von Doom (Kebbell)—want a chance to try it out. Denied formal permission, they embark on an unsanctioned mission to Planet Zero, a world filled with alien substances. But their presence there causes the ground to collapse and they are forced to withdraw without Doom. Soon they realise that their genetics have been altered on a molecular level, giving them superhuman powers. The uniforms of the team are inspired by containment suit designs.

    Saturday, July 16

    July 16 holidays_BLOW UPHolidays (Horror/ Comedy), Netflix India
    Cast: Ava Acres, Petra Wright, Mark Steger
    A collection of seven short horror films compiled into one, Holidays showcases supernatural occurrences centered on various celebrations, including Valentine’s Day and Saint Patrick’s Day. At The Devil’s Door, the Easter-related segment in the movie, directed by Nicholas McCarthy, explores the state of confusion faced by a little girl (Acres) who hears conflicting stories about Jesus Christ and the Easter Bunny. The film showcases her being driven to the point of delirium as her home is haunted by a half-naked bunny-man (Steger). Real-life couple, Seth Green and Clare Grant, play a married couple in the Christmas segment.

    Jazbaa (Crime/Thriller), Zee Cinema, 8.30 pm
    Cast: Aishwarya Rai Bachchan, Irrfan Khan, Shabana Azmi
    Anuradha Verma (Rai), a prominent criminal lawyer in Mumbai, finds her life turned upside down when her daughter is abducted by a convict. In an attempt to rescue her child, Verma is dragged into defending a murderer. With the assailants closely following her every move, she is bullied into lying to the police and the court as she desperately tries to win the case. But her search for evidence soon leads Verma on to a new path strewn with questions of right and wrong. Jazbaa is inspired
    by a Korean movie titled Seven Days.

    Goosebumps (Fantasy/Thriller), Sony Pix, 1 pm
    Cast: Jack Black, Dylan Minnette, Odeya Rush
    When Zach Cooper (Minnette) moves to Delaware with his mother, he befriends Hannah (Rush), the girl who lives next door. But her overprotective father, Shivers (Black), constantly tells Cooper to stay away from them. Despite being warned several times, Cooper decides to break into their house to unveil the mystery and ends up in the midst of several Goosebumps manuscripts (an American children’s horror fiction series by RL Stine). By the time Cooper realises that Shivers is the author of the books, he inadvertently ends up releasing the monsters in the books. Can Shivers send them back to where they belong? The movie was scripted with suggestions from the real RL Stine himself.

    July 17 - spy_BLOW UPSpy (Action/Comedy), Star Movies, 9 pm
    Cast: Jude Law, Melissa McCarthy, Jason Statham, Rose Byrne
    A desk-bound CIA agent, Susan Cooper (Mccarthy), suddenly finds herself in the middle of an agency operation, as her superior Bradley Fine (Law) gets shot during an encounter with arms dealers Tihomir Boyanov and Rayna (Byrne). With crucial information—including the identities of top officials—now available to the enemies, CIA is forced to send Cooper to Paris on an undercover mission to track down Rayna. While most of her senior officials feel Cooper is the wrong choice, her best friend Nancy volunteers to become her right hand as she chases leads across Europe, in a series of hilarious incidents. Spy also marks the Hollywood debut of Nargis Fakhri, in a cameo role.

    0 368

    0 297


19 July 2009

Six Days

1. No purchases of new outerwear, clothes, shoes, or accessories EXCEPT:
--undergarments/ underpinnings
-- socks
-- stockings/ tights
2. Particular items cannot be requested as gifts nor can I direct anyone to purchase a wardrobe item for me.
3. Gifts and freebies can be accepted and kept.
4. There can be no exchanging of the gift or freebie, unless it is the wrong size or damaged.
5. Hand-me-downs should not be accepted unless they are framed as a gift.
6. All wardrobe items can be repaired, hemmed, dyed, or otherwise altered to provide variety.
7. Special occasions will not warrant a new outfit, unless I am requested as a bridesmaid and need to purchase a dress.
8. Should a wardrobe staple such as a white tank top or t-shirt become stained or damaged, it can be replaced. This only goes for necessities.
9. New clothing may be purchased if a situation arises where I cannot get home to access the things in my closet. This only includes extreme predicaments such as: if my luggage gets lost or delayed while traveling or my shirt gets thrown up on while riding the subway to work-- both of which, I sincerely hope, never occur.
10. Borrowing items from other people is permitted. Permanently expanding my wardrobe is not.