Talk:Landmark Worldwide/Archive 19

Spacefarer

You gonna just chop the article or discuss it? Wait, I already have your answer. You do what you want to do, wiki process be damned. --Pax Arcane 16:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, I ask you to work with others and use the TALK page. --Pax Arcane 17:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

For the THIRD TIME, USE THE DISCUSSION PAGE LANDROID! --Pax Arcane 17:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

LE study in Israel

It was published in a British psych journal, published 2005. There was a control gorup, an LE group, and a combined therapy/LE group. It was a pretty solid piece of work. Any takers on editing that in? Reading the information hasn't been a problem, and neither has discussing the results, but I'm afraid I'm lacking editorial capacity to do other than quote the abstract, results, and conclusion. -- Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum (talk) 19:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I just added a section to include it in the framework, but I'm still finding that the wording to include it is either "too wordy" or lacks ease of read. I would appreciate it if someone would lend a hand in helping me syntheisize the paper into something that can be included here. From my interpretation, (and it goes without saying I could very well be off), there were 4 groups studied: C = Control, P = Counseling, F = Forum participants, and FP = Forum participants receiving counseling. We have a real challenge here. The data is what it is, and from what I can tell (again, I may be off), the best results were C followed by FP, with FP and P feeling the most-depressed/anxious of the four. A better way of stating this is that The C group was happier than the FP and P groups (in terms of subjective well-being). There seems to be no major significant differences between the F and P participants, but the FP group fared better because the psychotherapy/Fourm combination was possibly reinforcing a participant's perception of control. It's just a cross-sectional study, no implied causality that gives probably more questions for further research than anything else. It's fascinating...so I'm asking for someone to reach out and help me dig in. The more I read, the more I realise this would be a great NPOV addition. Pax Arcane 22:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

This study doesn't belong in the article for several reasons A) It is not about Landmark Education as it quotes work and references the 1970's and 80's a course called the Forum. Landmark Education began the "Landmark Forum" in 1991. B) More importantly the study lists several limitations and implications the first two of which are: (1) This study is cross-sectional, and as such cannot look at causality. (2) A sample of convenience was used, and therefore it may not be considered as representative. Triplejumper (talk) 18:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Didja...read the paragraph I wrote? Third to last sentence? Lemme quote it for you: It's just a cross-sectional study, no implied causality that gives probably more questions for further research than anything else. It's fascinating...so I'm asking for someone to reach out and help me dig in. The more I read, the more I realise this would be a great NPOV addition... Like, if you had even read the last few sentences before you responded with something I already stated.

TJ, guess we can count you out of the group that is helping examine the research. I took a grad class on being able to digest peer-reviewed scientific, research artcles. Give it a shot. It was less than the cost of an LE course and people really learned a lot of cool, useful stuff. We had a WP:3PO. It stays. Sorry. Limitations will be noted in the article, as I had to quote for you what I already stated that you failed to read. I need help on the other stuff. You know, if you actually read results of that article, it would give a BOOST to your org, but you'd have to read and understand the words there to grasp it. Cheers! --Pax Arcane 18:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Pax- I did read your paragraph. I gave my opinion as to why I think it should not be in this article. Limitations aside, it is not about Landmark Education and should not be in this article. Cheers back at ya. Triplejumper (talk) 19:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It is about Landmark Education, the basic part known as 'The Forum,' for without 'The Forum,' LE would non exist. It's a cross-sectional study. Read it. You're wrong. This isn't an opinion thing, this is a fact thing. Think critically and get back to me. --Pax Arcane 01:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know anything about this yet and am willing to offer services as 3rd party. See my POV page for any recusal. Lycurgus (talk) 09:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I have begun to burn the time committed to this matter. At this point I am having a little trouble disambiguating the "it" of contention but assume it will become clear shortly. As opinion, anything further I have to say on this matter will be posted on my talk page where I responded to one of the editors (Pax Arcane). As there appear to be multiple 3rd opinions now I don't expect to use anywhere near the max amount of time comitted for this. Lycurgus (talk) 22:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

You may want to reconsider User:Vassyana as a neutral 3rd Opinion, see below. --Pax Arcane 01:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• • Yeah, I'm going to disregard the Vassyana comment due the mess with Jossi. I'm glad the study stayed in. It actually gives a boost to taking "The Forum" when you really read the study. And I can't see how that would be a bad thing with either side of the coin here.--Pax Arcane 15:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

There are enough questions about this Israeli study that I have removed it from the article. I have also put the name of the section back to its original name of "Independent study" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Triplejumper (talk • contribs) 15:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)