>Go read the actual study then rather than the article, and find out how she justified her decisions. If you've got $11.95 to spare, I'll take you up on that.

>Go read the actual study then rather than the article, and find out how she justified her decisions. If you've got $11.95 to spare, I'll take you up on that. Unfortunately all that's available is the abstract. But if you want me to analyze that, I will. 232 words, not counting the copyright. 122 unique. 'Tiger' occurs 7 times -- 4th behind 'parenting' (15), 'the' (12), and 'and' (9). My analysis concludes that Kim doesn't just have something she wants to say, she has something she wants the public to hear. I.e., right or wrong, Kim has an agenda. >Most likely, she based them on definitions that were defined and validated by multiple previous studies before her I don't see how; she openly states in the quoted section of the parent comment that her delineation of categories was aimed at challenging the standard in the field. >a whole load of very critical people have to agree with your judgement before something gets published. In this case, it was the fine people over at the AAJP. The Asian American Journal of Psychology. Most def not a journal oriented toward "their version" of the truth, I'm sure.