Holy Donald Campbell, Batman!

That instrument may have a couple of serious issues. I would like to see the data before trusting it.

1. It uses uses a bunch of negative statements that would work better as positive statements with reverse coding.

2. It has an odd number of response categories. (This is somewhat of a religious issue in the field.)

3. Each item is scored a a straight 5-point scale. The assumption that each response is at equal intervals may or may not be true. A Rating Scale Model (1-parameter logistic) would establish the extent to which that is true for each item.

Add to this issues of perception vs. reality (which is a concern with all self-report scales) and you get a practically useless instrument.

As a professor, I agree with your observation that empathetic behaviors have not changed in the last 20 years. I wonder if real empathy has remained the same or are students today just better at faking it. (Conversely, they could be more empathetic and worse at showing it.)

The relation between the measurement results and the actual trait would need to be established, assuming we could get an objective measure of empathy.

All TFA shows is that student perception of their own empathy, as measured by self-report instruments, has decreased. The "why" is another study.

That's known as SDR (Socially Desirable Response) in psychometrics and it's a well-explored phenomenon. For self-report instruments such as this, SDR is an accepted risk because there is really no better way to measure these traits. (The legendary Donald Campbell tried for 20 years, but gave up.)

I'm not saying this scale is a good scale, only that we must temper our interpretations of the results (which is central to validity in measurement). About all we can say is that the resulting scores have decrease over the last two decades. Tying that to actual empathy is a huge stretch.

For example, I do a lot of work in measuring confidence, specifically the trait of self-efficacy. When I write up my results, I am very careful to only talk about perceptions, not actual traits.

For those of you one the West Coast: Wegmans is a Rochester-based grocers that puts anything else to shame. Seriously, I moved here from the Bay Area.

How is it faith to take the basis of this description at face value? How can scientific evidence be revelation if it's tested again and again?

That's the way it works in theory... Let me know when you get you own LHC fired up so you can personally replicate those findings.

I already commented, so I can't mod you up, but you're right.

Scientists overstate their claims all the time. I am a peer reviewer for an international journal and this is one of the most common revisions I request of manuscript authors.

Thank you.

Those who deny scientific evidence out-of-hand probably don't understand science. Those who hold scientific evidence as absolute truth definitely don't understand science... Any many of those people call themselves scientists.

I'm no petrol engineer, but I would venture that a gusher a mile underwater is under a lot more pressure than a comparably-sized gusher on the surface of the Arabian Peninsula.

Same here. Our social circles are all parents with kids and kids are still playing the Wii. My 4yo has a Go Diego Go title that he can play, my 8yo is working on NSMBW, and I have golf, baseball, etc. games that I can play casually as a break from my more pressing responsibilities.

Enter Marcel Duchamp's snow shovel, comb, and urinal, and other "readymade" or "found" art.

Or at least, if we want to affect racial attitudes, should we be focusing on treating "fear" as well as correcting for the effects of racism? I suppose psychology is very familiar with fear and has some treatment for it.

It would, at least, change the format of diversity/sensitivity training.

See, modern White Privilege theory defines racism as gaining unearned benefit from belonging to the privileged race. Because whites cannot divorce themselves from this privilege, all whites are racist. Conversely, because Blacks cannot claim white privilege - upon which racism is predicated - Blacks cannot be racist.

Whether these children exhibit racist tendencies is irrelevant. The real question is, "What color is the child's skin?" If it's white, they are racist. ...

Wow. Did I just type all that without laughing? Yes, it was tongue-in-cheek, but if you read Kendall's book, that is her model of racism and white privilege.

The interesting part is that I posted my comment from my black MacBook - a computer that I chose for the reasons you stated (plus its openness - runs Windows and Linux just fine *in addition to* the "just works" Mac OS X). But I've never been interested in iPod or iPhone because the fine engineering is useless when it locks me out of it.

But you and I are in the vast minority of Mac users. Microsoft couldn't survive on the techies, neither could Apple. They make their money on the less-savvy masses. In the MP3 and smartphone market, Apple has embraced that lack of knowledge and extended it into a locked-in content/applications model.

The iPad extends that further, which is why it would be a bad thing even if (*especially if*) everyone bought one.

I appreciate Apple somewhat because - for example - the iPod did increase the competition in the DAP market. I don't think my iRiver Clix would exist sans Apple.

But we shouldn't overlook the fact that Apple has been successful because they market locked-in solutions to largely technology-ignorant consumers. Very intelligent (but less computer-savvy) people buy iPods and iPhones because they don't know anything else exists. (How many people do you know who a) owned an MP3 player before buying an iPod? or b) owned a smart phone before buying an iPhone?) Now those people don't know that there are other iPod-compatible music outlets besides the iTunes store, and there *isn't* anywhere else to buy apps for the iPhone besides the app store.

So forgive us for hoping the iPad fails. If it succeeds, it will only further ingrain the vendor-lock-in model in the psyche of American consumers. That would be a loss for all of us.

Great point.

The obvious parallel here is hearing impairment. The deaf community does not consider themselves to be disabled (though that confuses me when a deaf individual sues for accommodation under ADA). When cochlear implants became possible in the 80's, deaf protests were held outside Senate hearings on whether to cover them with Medicare.