But I'm going to say it now anyway. I've always half thought this, but just said it out loud for the first time last night. It's not going to be nearly as profound as that previous sentence implies. It's just that in the world of psychology, pretty much the only reason you get funded for a study is if you're attempting to demonstrate something new. Maybe a new trend or topic or idea. But maybe an old trend or topic or idea, applied to a new group of people ("population," we fancy psychologists call it). The lamest thing to do in the world is to do exactly what some other schmo did. But IRONICALLY, the validity of ANY schmo's paper is that it's replicable! So circular! So who's out there, getting grants and funding to literally recreate to the nose someone else's paper? And what does that paper actually look like? ("Yup.") Oh, and for those of you keeping score at home, that whole research thing I did where I wrote that study and that paper, it only had 13 participants or something crazy like that, so Dr. Josh and co tried to continue, but to no avail! The children's answers were suddenly more inconsistent than my .781 correlation. Sigh! They say it was because they were comfortable with me. I say it was because I fudged all their answers. KIDDING. Kidding. I didn't.
In other news, every day I am more and more grateful for my handwriting- and grammar-oriented family and Catholic elementary school (grammar school!).
ps, Can someone please tell me why people are still wearing Uggs?
pps, Working at my new school puts a whole new spin on life and death.