3 ms·

That article didn't seem very coherent. E.g. on the original test he says: "His test is not a very good predictor: most of those who appear to use a model in

That article didn't seem very coherent. E.g. on the original test he says: "His test is not a very good predictor: most of those who appear to use a model in the pre-course test pass the end-of-course exam but so do many of those who do not." How many pass, how many do not? That is the information needed to determine a predictive test. Reading between the lines, I would guess that he got in trouble because his original article wasn't politically correct. One line in the retraction reads "We hadn’t shown that nature trumps nurture. Just a phenomenon and a prediction." I would guess he came under political pressure, and felt pressured to write this article in order to avoid further problems.

hyperpape 12y ago
You're right that this article is a bit hard to read in places. But as for your "reading between the lines", give me some reason to believe you're not just projecting your pre-existing assumptions onto this article. What did he actually say that let you read between the lines.
- QuantumChaos 12y ago
  The reasons were in my post: He has no real criticism of his original article. What he says about it is incoherent, not merely hard to read, as I point out in my comment. And he makes reference to nature vs nurture, which is completely irrelevant to the actual issue, and only makes sense in the context of a political apology.
  - hyperpape 12y ago
    The whole "our statisticians didn't find my claims supported by the evidence" didn't seem relevant?
    - QuantumChaos 12y ago
      where does he say that specifically? He refers to statisticians helping to do further analysis on the data, but I don't see where they showed that the main claim (that the test is predictive of success in the course) is refuted by statisticians.
pjscott 12y ago
Your guess is correct. From this (annoyingly politicized) article, http://retractionwatch.com/2014/07/18/the-camel-doesnt-have-two-humps-programming-aptitude-test-canned-for-overzealous-conclusion/ http://retractionwatch.com/2014/07/18/the-camel-doesnt-have-... ... comes the following quote from the author of the camel-humps paper: "I presented our latest results about 18 months ago at a PPIG workshop/conference in the UK. I felt it was helpful, since the claims I made had provoked hostility to the work, to retract those claims verbally. It had a dramatic effect, to the good. But I found (how I know is the confidential bit) that there are people who didn’t hear that retraction, and who are still hostile; and that hostility is doing harm. So I decided to retract more publicly. "Interestingly, one person who I would have counted previously as hostile heard (indirectly) of the verbal retraction, and this summer was more than supportive. Research inspired by our work is going forward. So the retraction was worthwhile." So, confirmed: there was an angry backlash, and this retraction is an attempt to calm people down.

hyperpape 12y ago

You're right that this article is a bit hard to read in places. But as for your "reading between the lines", give me some reason to believe you're not just projecting your pre-existing assumptions onto this article. What did he actually say that let you read between the lines.

QuantumChaos 12y ago
The reasons were in my post: He has no real criticism of his original article. What he says about it is incoherent, not merely hard to read, as I point out in my comment. And he makes reference to nature vs nurture, which is completely irrelevant to the actual issue, and only makes sense in the context of a political apology.
- hyperpape 12y ago
  The whole "our statisticians didn't find my claims supported by the evidence" didn't seem relevant?
  - QuantumChaos 12y ago
    where does he say that specifically? He refers to statisticians helping to do further analysis on the data, but I don't see where they showed that the main claim (that the test is predictive of success in the course) is refuted by statisticians.

pjscott 12y ago

Your guess is correct. From this (annoyingly politicized) article, http://retractionwatch.com/2014/07/18/the-camel-doesnt-have-two-humps-programming-aptitude-test-canned-for-overzealous-conclusion/ http://retractionwatch.com/2014/07/18/the-camel-doesnt-have-... ... comes the following quote from the author of the camel-humps paper: "I presented our latest results about 18 months ago at a PPIG workshop/conference in the UK. I felt it was helpful, since the claims I made had provoked hostility to the work, to retract those claims verbally. It had a dramatic effect, to the good. But I found (how I know is the confidential bit) that there are people who didn’t hear that retraction, and who are still hostile; and that hostility is doing harm. So I decided to retract more publicly. "Interestingly, one person who I would have counted previously as hostile heard (indirectly) of the verbal retraction, and this summer was more than supportive. Research inspired by our work is going forward. So the retraction was worthwhile." So, confirmed: there was an angry backlash, and this retraction is an attempt to calm people down.