Latest discussions in the Method of Levels Section in Discourse
- by @bnhpct Bruce E. NevinThose are excellent observations. Another and I think more fundamental reason that de Weerth did not replicate van de Rijt and Plooij (1992) is that she admitted confounding variables that obscure the data, extrinsic sources of stress. This is detailed in Plooij & van de Rijt-Plooij (2003) and Woolmore and Richer (2003), among other places. […]
- by @rsmarken Richard MarkenI have read the relevant papers by Rijt-Plooij & Plooij (1992) – RP&P – and by de Weerth and van Geert (1998) – W&G – and the winner is… RP&P. This is not because there was anything particularly wrong with the work of W&G (1998). RP&P and W&G were just measuring different things that they […]
- by @bnhpct Bruce E. NevinThere is a good reference list at The Wonder Weeks Scientific History The Wonder Weeks | The Wonder Weeks Read all about the Scientific History of The Wonder Weeks and the authors. Plooij authored several very popular parenting books. Est. reading time: 14 minutes
- by @wmansell WarrenHelpful post Rick, thanks.
- by @bnhpct Bruce E. NevinYou are correct that opinions about the science cannot be based on a popular book. It does not provide data. It has a different purpose, a useful interpretation and application of results. References are in the Wikipedia article. Van de Rijt & Plooij (1992) is the first human study. Reports of their earlier primate results […]