4 ms·
Symbolic Self-Completion, Attempted Influence, and Self-Deprecation (1981) [pdf]
- brudgers 11y agoThe title is incorrect and editorializes.
- drethemadrapper 11y agoI object your comment. It is point no. 14 here - http://higherperspectives.com/psychology-facts/?c=ss http://higherperspectives.com/psychology-facts/?c=ss It's a fact!
- yequalsx 11y agoWell, number 11 is stated incorrectly so that puts doubts on the rest of the claims in your link. But I suspect your comment is sarcasm. Hmmm...what to think...
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- dang 11y agoOk, we changed it. Submitted title was "Announcing your plans makes you less motivated to accomplish them".
- brobinson 11y agoDerek Sivers also wrote about this phenomenon, complete with sources: https://sivers.org/zipit https://sivers.org/zipit
- anacleto 11y ago>Four different tests of 63 people found that those who kept their intentions private were more likely to achieve them than those who made them public and were acknowledged by others. Uh, sample size seems to be too small to be significant, though. From a statistics point of view working with such minimal samples is fairly useless.
- rando289 11y ago> From a statistics point of view working with such minimal samples is fairly useless. Not true at all.
- anacleto 11y agoReally constructive comment- and it was very easy to guess the 9 points you wanted to mention why it's not true at all.
- rando289 11y agoSorry. The sample size is not actually "minimal", and it's this is a common criticism where the critic, surprise surprise, never says what a non-minimal sample size is. "NCHS also typically requires at least 30 observations": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_error https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_error. Here are some key concepts to keep in mind. The central limit theorem states: regardless of the shape of the parent population, the sampling distribution of the mean approaches a normal distribution as N increases. This means we can generalize what the size of n means to many many things, generally including all sorts of traits in people, and including flipping a coin. So for an intuition, flip a coin 30 times, and 95% of the time, you will be within 5.5 of the mean (15) and it follows the standard bell curve, 99% I will be within 8.22 of the mean, etc. So, if say "there is a greater than 20% chance a coin flips will end up with heads" and you say, "from a statistics point of view, your sample size is too small", I can say, "not true at all", with consideration to my sample size, I'm 99.9999...% likely to be right. And just glimpsing, I'm confident the study did their math right. There are other very important things to be critical of, and it is certainly reasonable to be skeptical of the study. Much more likely to cause a false result: getting unbiased, representative sample, publishing bias, causation vs correlation, etc, etc. And when you think about sample size, the accuracy with respect to the population follows 1/sqrt(n). So n=200 is twice as accurate as n=50.
- anacleto 11y agoNow that makes sense. Thanks.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- blincoln 11y ago"That's the problem with goals. They become the thing you talk about instead of the thing you do." (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1077258/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1077258/)
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- hosay123 11y agoePub conversion of the main article: https://mega.nz/#!hgpB1ShB!VInAzElZFa5VwWz5ydnNLDzwDwOgSlSnc2PZhXUdT78 https://mega.nz/#!hgpB1ShB!VInAzElZFa5VwWz5ydnNLDzwDwOgSlSnc...