sj,

~ma. If you have some questions after the meeting, etc. I think a few of us can help.

Calm~ma, sj. It actually ends up being more tedious than anything else. So much paperwork.

What Sail said, sj. Take a deep breath.

I woke up with a splitting headache. Not on, Saturday! Not on.

Much -ma to sj!!

I gave the cats some 'nip while I'm drinking my first cup o' joe of the morning. Hilarious fun waking up action!

Mortgage ~ma to SA.

Question for sociologists and other social scientists:

I was sent a study recently that consisted of firms who had taken money for projects which they claimed would meet certain goals voluntarily filling out a survey rating how well the completed projects achieved those goals. The forms to obtain the money were filled out by consultants, while the forms were (probably) filled out by firm internal staff. (There was nothing that actually prevented them using the same consultants to fill out the forms.) Is this a valid methodology in sociology and other social sciences? I know that for certain kinds of in-depth studies on technical issues voluntary surveys are sometimes used, but is it still valid when there is such a strong incentive to claim success? Every firm taking part has hopes of getting even more funding in the future.

Thanks, everyone. We're leaving in a couple minutes.

Calm~ma, sj. It actually ends up being more tedious than anything else. So much paperwork.

I just hate to have to sit there and say, "no I'm not working" and explain my income and explain my not as good as it could be credit. Mainly what I hate is being put in situations where other people get to judge me.

Well, so I suppose it is a valid methodology to collect information. The issue of course is validity and if the responses are accurate due to the design of the study.

I would say that such a study had a lot of problems if the main way in which effects are determined are by individuals who have financial incentives to show effects. If there could be additional methods to show these effects in addition to the survey, that would be ideal.

It is the main way. Certain issues are analyzed with the help of published literature. For for most issues that is the main source. Even for the other issues much of the data is the same initial promises being checked by the survey.

So if I want to critique this study a reasonable critique would not be that the methodology is invalid but that it is unlikely in this context to yield accurate result.

Mainly what I hate is being put in situations where other people get to judge me.

Very understandable. You'll be surprised, though, at how understanding a lot of loan officers are. They want to give you the mortgage, it means money in their pocket. They are going to want to work with you to help overcome any little blots that may negatively affect your credit rating. I suspect that your credit will ultimately have little effect on whether you guys get the mortgage or not, it will be based on TCG's more than anything else.

And SO many people aren't working now. I think (most) people are really understanding of that.

And if you get a judgmental vibe, just think "ASSHOOKS!" to yourself and smile. And remember, lurkers support you in email. And we're RIGHT!