4 ms·

2400 schools and exactly the same school system the “scientific studies” are based on, so yes you are moving the goal post. What i have is a pretty clear indica

2400 schools and exactly the same school system the “scientific studies” are based on, so yes you are moving the goal post. What i have is a pretty clear indication that meeting early in school does not affect your abilities to perform well in fact when you compare SA which have the earliest meeting time they dominate of a top 30, 20 of those are SA. I was responding to a claim that Later was better for performance. Whatever that stude had in scientific rigor it lagged in sample size, if anything that was the very definition of anecdotal no matter how deep itcwent it was still only two classes on two different schools. Also notice how it talks about the sociodemographic reality as a way to explain some of thecredults yet SA is mostly from exactly that sociodemographic group yet outperform 98.2% of all other elementary schools in new york state. And no the later time is only better because they got more sleep, but that can wasily be solved by going to bed earlier. I dont for a second believe you cant see that your positive is simply not supported by your evidence and if you really cant see the holes in your position then i guess there is nothing more i can do. You are the one supporting anecdotal evidence, however detailed it is, not me. You loterally started claiming i was talking about one school only, then you just kept moving the goal post. That’s intellectually dishonest and not something i care continuing supporting. Thanks for the talk.

boomboomsubban 7y ago
>What i have is a pretty clear indication that meeting early in school does not affect your abilities to perform well in fact when you compare SA which have the earliest meeting time they dominate of a top 30, 20 of those are SA. All this shows is that there are more things that impact performance than start time. Those SA schools could still be performing better with a later start time, you have no idea. >anything that was the very definition of anecdotal no matter how deep itcwent it was still only two classes on two different schools. I gave you the definition of anecdotal, and it was not "based off of a small sample size." Only using two classes makes it a smaller experiment, but it still provides reliable data and it still cites other studies that have similar results. >And no the later time is only better because they got more sleep, but that can wasily be solved by going to bed earlier. Right, because children always do what is best for themselves and would never stay up later than they should. > You are the one supporting anecdotal evidence, however detailed it is, not me. I still can't believe you do not understand what anecdotal evidence is. >You loterally started claiming i was talking about one school only, then you just kept moving the goal post It was my mistake not to realize you were talking about a group of schools, I live in a rural area and a "school system" just means the elementary, middle, and high school in town. I have never moved the goalposts though, your statement was anecdotal whether talking about one school or a group of schools.
- ThomPete 7y ago
  Of course there are other factors, but what I was responding to what the claim that meeting early lead to poorer performance. THATS the context here. You are moving the goalpost whether you want to admit it or not. You made the mistake and you can't even live up to that. That says it all.
  - boomboomsubban 7y ago
    The mistake I admitted I made in my last post and gave context as to why I made the mistake? The mistake that doesn't even matter, as your evidence would still be defined as "anecdotal" either way? That says it all?

boomboomsubban 7y ago

>What i have is a pretty clear indication that meeting early in school does not affect your abilities to perform well in fact when you compare SA which have the earliest meeting time they dominate of a top 30, 20 of those are SA. All this shows is that there are more things that impact performance than start time. Those SA schools could still be performing better with a later start time, you have no idea. >anything that was the very definition of anecdotal no matter how deep itcwent it was still only two classes on two different schools. I gave you the definition of anecdotal, and it was not "based off of a small sample size." Only using two classes makes it a smaller experiment, but it still provides reliable data and it still cites other studies that have similar results. >And no the later time is only better because they got more sleep, but that can wasily be solved by going to bed earlier. Right, because children always do what is best for themselves and would never stay up later than they should. > You are the one supporting anecdotal evidence, however detailed it is, not me. I still can't believe you do not understand what anecdotal evidence is. >You loterally started claiming i was talking about one school only, then you just kept moving the goal post It was my mistake not to realize you were talking about a group of schools, I live in a rural area and a "school system" just means the elementary, middle, and high school in town. I have never moved the goalposts though, your statement was anecdotal whether talking about one school or a group of schools.

ThomPete 7y ago
Of course there are other factors, but what I was responding to what the claim that meeting early lead to poorer performance. THATS the context here. You are moving the goalpost whether you want to admit it or not. You made the mistake and you can't even live up to that. That says it all.
- boomboomsubban 7y ago
  The mistake I admitted I made in my last post and gave context as to why I made the mistake? The mistake that doesn't even matter, as your evidence would still be defined as "anecdotal" either way? That says it all?