| Author |
Message |
    
eeyore_conspiracy
New member
Username: eeyore_conspiracy
Post Number: 1
Registered: 06-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, June 27, 2006 - 12:16 am: | 
|
http://www.news.cornell.edu/Chronicle/00/8.17.00/Lynn-tipping.html
Tipping is more prevalent in countries whose populations are achievement-oriented, status-seeking, extroverted, neurotic and tenderhearted. These findings suggest that tipping exists to serve several functions, i.e., to increase the social attention/esteem that servers give customers, to reduce consumers' anxieties about being served by others and to allow consumers to financially help servers. |
eeyore_conspiracy
New member
Username: eeyore_conspiracy
Post Number: 2
Registered: 06-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, June 27, 2006 - 12:18 am: |
|
http://money.cnn.com/2003/05/15/commentary/everyday/sahadi/index.htm
"The major reason people tip," said Lynn, "is to avoid social disapproval."
....
In fact, Lynn, found that how customers rate service has a very small effect on the amount they choose to tip in restaurants. About 4 percent of the variability in tip size is due to their rating of the service provider, his research revealed. That's the same level of variability that the sun has on tip size. (Folks tend to tip more on sunny days.)
It also has been argued, Lynn said, that our willingness to tip regardless of service reflects a sense that the customer is in a better position financially than the server and wishes to avoid incurring the server's envy. A tip, then, is "a payment to reduce that envy," Lynn said.
It's also a way for the equality-minded to feel less guilty about being served. Looking across cultures, he has found that tips tend to be higher in countries where there is greater neuroticism about and intolerance of ambiguous situations. |
tipqueen
Member
Username: tipqueen
Post Number: 123
Registered: 03-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, June 27, 2006 - 09:53 am: |
|
seems as if you were doing "homework" at the same time your other names were "quiet" here....Do you have multiple personalities or do you think that changing your name on here will fool us??? just curious?? |
eeyore_conspiracy
New member
Username: eeyore_conspiracy
Post Number: 21
Registered: 06-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, June 27, 2006 - 09:56 am: |
|
You actually have it backwards. I was looking up tipping articles and I found this site. |
byron
New member
Username: byron
Post Number: 7
Registered: 06-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, June 27, 2006 - 11:02 am: |
|
I am not going to bash you for sharing your opinion, you are certainly entitled. However, I would hope that you are intelligent enough to accept points of view even if they are contrary to your own without getting angry. What is your occupation? |
eeyore_conspiracy
New member
Username: eeyore_conspiracy
Post Number: 24
Registered: 06-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, June 27, 2006 - 12:15 pm: |
|
My occupation doesn't matter. This isn't a personal issue. And I'll happily accept other points of view inasmuch as they are well defended. |
tipqueen
Member
Username: tipqueen
Post Number: 125
Registered: 03-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, June 27, 2006 - 12:26 pm: |
|
another mail sorter or miserable stock boy maybe???
Why the defense and secretness of such a freaking simple question???? |
eeyore_conspiracy
New member
Username: eeyore_conspiracy
Post Number: 25
Registered: 06-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, June 27, 2006 - 12:35 pm: |
|
I don't want the discussion to get side-tracked with irrelevant personal issues. There's no use in having people say, "What's an extra $15 to you? You can easily afford it" or "If you're that poor, you shouldn't be eating out in the first place." And I don't want to end up like that other person talking about $60,000/year engineering jobs. I like to stick to the substance. |
thegirl
Member
Username: thegirl
Post Number: 204
Registered: 04-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, June 27, 2006 - 12:40 pm: |
|
If you are coming on here to use your pseudowit and intelligence to insult and argue about servers being paid more than they are worth and the issues you have with tipping, then by rights, you should have no qualms about disclosing your occupation so that we may dissect it and hold up what we believe to be the flaws in your income.
Turnabout, donkey, turnabout.
"Life's gonna suck when you grow up"
|
rev_rund
New member
Username: rev_rund
Post Number: 19
Registered: 06-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, June 27, 2006 - 12:49 pm: |
|
Lynn's "study" is about as close to scienctific as Jurassic Park was to paleontology.
1) Tip percentages are only weakly related to customers' ratings of service quality in restaurant settings. This finding suggests that restaurant tips are poor measures of customer satisfaction with service and that they provide weak incentives for delivering good service.
In the study Lynn concludes this from a random sampling of people - I think about 1000 (could be wrong. Great you proved that random people randomly visiting restaurants don't recieve better service because of tips. I nor anyother saloon or restaurant owner, desire random people as customer. I want a good solid group of regular patrons who pay the bills for me. Had you surveyed people who consider themselves regular patrons of any establishment Lynn's study would be thrown out the window. In other words Lynn didn't prove anything scientifically he manipulated the study group to achieve a predetermined result.
3) Tipping is more prevalent in countries whose populations are achievement-oriented, status-seeking, extroverted, neurotic and tenderhearted. These findings suggest that tipping exists to serve several functions, i.e., to increase the social attention/esteem that servers give customers, to reduce consumers' anxieties about being served by others and to allow consumers to financially help servers
There is not one despcriptive word in the above paragraph that can categorically describe any one country. All of the terms are subjective to the person using them. For instance, Native Americans may cast a dimmer view of Euro-Americans classifying themselves as Tenderhearted than say, Jewish persons liberated from death camps. So it goes with all the other terms. The terms could easily describe a person from any Asian or European culture, yet neither have a tipping system.
Once again, Lynn, and his study are no more scientific than if I pulled a random sampling of Dennys comment cards and determined that 80% of Americans think Moons over Myhami "FREAKING ROCKS". Yes he has tools to measure output, but he completly determines input, and by doing so can ensure that the tools will measure in a way he finds fitting. |
goldenfoxx
Member
Username: goldenfoxx
Post Number: 115
Registered: 10-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, June 27, 2006 - 01:02 pm: |
|
Thank you rev....
good analysis |
eeyore_conspiracy
New member
Username: eeyore_conspiracy
Post Number: 27
Registered: 06-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, June 27, 2006 - 01:50 pm: |
|
Rev_rund, you very fundamentally misunderstand how studies like that are done.
In the study Lynn concludes this from a random sampling of people - I think about 1000 (could be wrong. Great you proved that random people randomly visiting restaurants don't recieve better service because of tips. I nor anyother saloon or restaurant owner, desire random people as customer.
That's precisely what you get. You don't get to choose your customers. What you want doesn't matter. The ones who walk in are the ones you get. And the study didn't prevent regulars from visiting the restaurants. And the staff didn't change. With respect to the customers, all they did was measure satisfaction and tip size.
I want a good solid group of regular patrons who pay the bills for me. Had you surveyed people who consider themselves regular patrons of any establishment Lynn's study would be thrown out the window.
It's something to look at, but that doesn't mean the results would be thrown out the window like you say. First, regulars weren't prevented from visiting the restaurant. Second, it's perfectly possible that regulars would tip well and receive good service. Moreover, it may even be likely that regulars would actually reduce the correlation. A perfect positive correlation would mean that if you do better, each and every bit of change in your tip is due only to how well you performed. Similarly, if you serve the person worse, the tip would always go down and every bit of the decrease would be attributable to your performance and absolutely nothing else. The correlation he found in his big study was 0.11. That means that means that 0.11^2 is the percentage of the variance attributable to service quality. That's really low. Regular customers would be more likely to give the person a break on an off night. That would reduce the correlation between service quality and tipping.
In other words Lynn didn't prove anything scientifically he manipulated the study group to achieve a predetermined result.
You can't honestly believe that. He's a huge restaurant industry booster. His whole goal in life is to assist the hospitality industry from his position as a Cornell professor in their hotel school.
There is not one despcriptive word in the above paragraph that can categorically describe any one country.
No, no, no, no, no. It has nothing to do with categorical descriptions. It's very important that you understand that. That's just not how it works. Various personality and preference studies are given to people in those countries. Those studies capture a range of preferences and personalities. Regression analyses and then run between the tipping data sets and the personality data sets. A major point of doing regression analysis is precisely to avoid the thing you're criticising. In other words, the study was specifically designed to not be subject to your critique.
All of the terms are subjective to the person using them. For instance, Native Americans may cast a dimmer view of Euro-Americans classifying themselves as Tenderhearted than say
That's not how cultural studying is done. What you've described is a study that would be tossed out in an undergraduate introduction to empirical methods in social sciences class. The studies most definitely do not ask things like "are you tenderhearted?" or "are you extroverted?" They ask very specific questions. They will ask how you prefer to interact with crowds or whether you would rather do activity X than activity Y. Your critique has no teeth because the people do not classify themselves according to the final categories; they provide responses to narrowly-tailored questions, and the researchers later categorize the responses. The respondants never get within a mile of being allowed to classify themselves according to the final categories.
Once again, Lynn, and his study are no more scientific than if I pulled a random sampling of Dennys comment cards
You think that only because you massively misunderstand the type of analysis he was doing. The sample was a random sample of restaurant diners, not a random sample of the United States or something like that. The countries were not categorically defined. People were not asked to classify themselves.
So, I'm sorry, goldenfoxx, but that was not a "good analysis." Rev_rund fundamentally misunderstood the study's methodology. Each and every critique he offered was specifically avoided by the study. Even marginally competent social science studies would do that, much less studies done by tenured professors. |
rev_rund
New member
Username: rev_rund
Post Number: 21
Registered: 06-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, June 27, 2006 - 02:54 pm: |
|
As both a reformed social scientist and the co-owner of a bar you have no mortal idea how well I understand Lynn's study. I have no urge to delve into the minutia of a debate of this study. You haven't shown yourself a willing listener, and at best an insulting debater. I will allow you to believe what you want. I will leave this alone I hope everyone here remembers that at the end of the social science (especially in this case) is nothing more than a shell game, hoping to move fast enough and talk technical enough so as not to be questioned, by the people reading it.
~You don't get to choose your customers. What you want doesn't matter. The ones who walk in are the ones you get. And the study didn't prevent regulars from visiting the restaurants. And the staff didn't change. With respect to the customers, all they did was measure satisfaction and tip size.~
This piece shows how unqualified you are to make assessments of the industry. I most certainly do get to choose my customers, as much as they choose me, and the regulars, are the absolute life blood of the business.
You can make excuses for whatever you want but Lynn's study purposely disregards regular patrons, yes they were free to come in and some may have been there, but to act as if all people coming into a restaurant are just random agents acting with no compulsion is foolish. To ignore this critical dynamic of the restaurant industry is intentionally done to skew the study to what Lynn wants.
Again, I'm done with this you simply don't have the ability or the willingness to discuss it intelligently. Although you don't know this, which is what would make the discussion so frustrating.
(Message edited by rev_rund on June 27, 2006) |
rev_rund
New member
Username: rev_rund
Post Number: 22
Registered: 06-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, June 27, 2006 - 03:52 pm: |
|
Sorry I don't think I explained one point as clearly as I would like. What eyore seems to misunderstand is that its not the tools used to implement the study, such as not asking the tenderhearted question. The issue is that unlike real science, social scientists can control the outcome by determining what is and isn't measured. I have taken a thousand personality tests and each one in its own way, tries to guide you to an end. Lynn, chose to evaluate the entire relationship between tipping and service through the lense of random sampling. Whether he you or anyone else admits this or is even conscious of it, the choice was done to influence results. You could use the same testing measures that Lynn does, but if you changed the study group to persons who frequent the same establishment more than 3 times a month you would get a very different - and no more correct - evaluation of tipping and service quality. The fact is that the notion of what "Good" service is is so highly personal and uniques there is not a study capable of guaging it. Especially, not using 1-5 quality rankings, but eyore, feel free to believe whatever you want. |
byron
New member
Username: byron
Post Number: 9
Registered: 06-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, June 27, 2006 - 03:53 pm: |
|
eeyore, I am not going to debate with about scientific data and stats because that information in regards to application is somewhat limited. You could compare stats to a bikini, where it shows a lot, it doesn't reveal everything. I really don't believe any waiter in this forum is saying they should be tipped undeservingly. In various industries, employees are given automatic merit raises every year. Now do you think every employee performs so far above par level to receive this raise? The answer is NO. Also where do you think the money for these merit raises comes from???? It comes from average folk like waiters in this forum because they are consumers of goods and services. I am not saying you are an idiot, I actually admire that you have done some homework to substantiate your stand. I do though, RESPECTFULLY disagree with some of your more slanted views on this issue. |
tipqueen
Member
Username: tipqueen
Post Number: 126
Registered: 03-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, June 27, 2006 - 09:29 pm: |
|
You could compare stats to a bikini,
would that be a thong or a fullpiece bottom cover!?!?!?
Sorry.... couldnt resist... just trying to add some humor and peace to the threads!!!!! Just getting tired of all the controversy and repeated arguements.... looing for something more enlightening and postive I guess... just the type of person I am. (or try to be) |
goldenfoxx
Member
Username: goldenfoxx
Post Number: 118
Registered: 10-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 02:17 am: |
|
Thanks rev and byron,
Good response,
Very intelligent and easy to understand, |
eeyore_conspiracy
New member
Username: eeyore_conspiracy
Post Number: 29
Registered: 06-2006
Rating: 
Votes: 2 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 07:12 am: |
|
As both a reformed social scientist and the co-owner of a bar you have no mortal idea how well I understand Lynn's study.
You made all sorts of really big mistakes in your critique. The most glaring of which was your absolutely ridiculous belief that your "categorical" argument carries some sort of weight. You demonstrated a complete lack of understanding about basic research tools.
You haven't shown yourself a willing listener, and at best an insulting debater.
Maybe that's best. You haven't shown that you understand basic social science techniques.
Lynn's study purposely disregards regular patrons,
PROVE IT. The studies did nothing to alter to normal flow of customers.
but to act as if all people coming into a restaurant are just random agents acting with no compulsion is foolish.
You still don't understand. The people were selected randomly from the pool of customers. Random people were not shoved into restaurants. That's a massive difference. No one is acting "as if all people coming into a restaurant are just random agents acting with no compulsion." Again, you completely misunderstand the study. The people in the restaurant are sampled randomly. Random people are not shoved into the restaurant. The people selected from within the restaurant would include regulars as well as first-timers. Repeat after me: nothing about the normal flow of customers was altered.
To ignore this critical dynamic of the restaurant industry is intentionally done to skew the study to what Lynn wants.
I challenge you to explain how randomly sampling a restaurant's normal clientele ignores "this critical dynamic."
What eyore seems to misunderstand is that its not the tools used to implement the study, such as not asking the tenderhearted question.
Good thing you're backing away from that. You really screwed that up.
The issue is that unlike real science, social scientists can control the outcome by determining what is and isn't measured.
So make an argument. Every critique you've offered so far was flat out wrong because the study was specifically designed to avoid those problems. Show us how he fudged the numbers.
Lynn, chose to evaluate the entire relationship between tipping and service through the lense of random sampling.
Yeah, they randomly sampled the people who were customers in the restaurant. There's nothing inherently wrong with random sampling. And you've not shown that he committed any errors that made his sample not random.
Whether he you or anyone else admits this or is even conscious of it, the choice was done to influence results.
Do you even know what random sampling is? I don't think you do. Please explain to me how you think random sampling in the case of the Lynn studies influenced the results in a distortionary way.
You could use the same testing measures that Lynn does, but if you changed the study group to persons who frequent the same establishment more than 3 times a month you would get a very different - and no more correct - evaluation of tipping and service quality.
Why would that be "more correct"? Why is excluding a huge portion of the clientele "more correct"? Moreover, I already offered an argument explaining how sampling more regular customers would lead to a lower correlation. You chose to ignore that argument. It's still waiting for your answer.
The fact is that the notion of what "Good" service is is so highly personal and uniques there is not a study capable of guaging it.
Again, you demonstrate your profound misreading of the study. The study wasn't designed to gauge good service. The study was designed to determine the correlation between the perceived service quality and tipping amounts. That's very different. The study shows that even when people think they got great service, the tip barely budges. It doesn't matter how "good service" is defined. Whatever it is, people think they got it. And the tips didn't change much at all.
feel free to believe whatever you want.
Feel free to re-read the study and take a quick course in statistical methods or empirical methods in social sciences. Your critiques of Lynn's study aren't critiques at all.
(Message edited by eeyore_conspiracy on June 28, 2006) |
rev_rund
New member
Username: rev_rund
Post Number: 23
Registered: 06-2006
Rating: 
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 07:46 am: |
|
My critique of social science stands whether you acknowledge it or not. The fact is no matter what means you use the system is fundamentally flawed. It is flawed for two reasons the first being that every social science experiement starts out with an expected outcome, this is the same as other sciences except that social science is not bound by the same testing and provability laws as others. Take your personality tests for example. Yes they ask questions that do not allow the subjec to know what the tester is trying to get at but the tester knows and that is enough to flaw the system. Lets say you gave a test that wanted to define characteristics of motivation, leadership, and persuasiveness among a group of people. No matter how you word it no matter what steps you take, at the end you are still identifying what Your idea of those characteristics are not the things themselves. Because donkey they don't exist they aren't tangible. So to say you did studies to identify characteristics of people is to say the same as I stood on the street corner and asked people to define those same characteristics. It is this inability to acknowledge that social science's findings are nothing more than the opinions of the testers that make it so dangerous. Now, Lynn's study is a joke as all social science studies are. I'll offer the subject most familiar to me educational psychology. Do you know how many theories or hypothesis on the subject are found to be in error during the experimentation phase? That would be zero, the same is true in all social science. Get this through your head social sciencentists choose what is studied and the tools to study it specifically to prove whatever it is they want to prove. This is not science, Lynn himself does not replicate the study he was critiquing in order to see if it is duplicatable (a quality of real science) no he changed the methods of testing and came to a different result (who saw that coming). If everything is provable, which argue all you want, in social science it is, than actually nothing is provable. It is a ridiculous endeavor taken on by hacks who feel the need to pretend that their arguments are not their own. That they are the "findings" of some study. Comparing social science to hard science is like comparing astrology to astronomy. Please find me a study wherein a social scientist in any field came up with a hypothesis, and was unable to prove it during testing. You are so hell bent on defending the field that I can't point any flaws out to you because you see them as irrelevant or "covered" by the designed structure of the study. So let's just agree to disagree |
rev_rund
New member
Username: rev_rund
Post Number: 24
Registered: 06-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 08:55 am: |
|
I am happy that we seem to be arguing over somehting other than: "Tip me Cheapass!", "Why Should I?". It's nice to see there are many other things we disagree on. I don't think anyone changed anyones mind but it certainly was a nice break. Cheers! |
rev_rund
New member
Username: rev_rund
Post Number: 25
Registered: 06-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 09:23 am: |
|
~A tip, then, is "a payment to reduce that envy," Lynn said.~
I think this explains how studies are done to "prove" personal beliefs. There is no test or method in the world to guage this statement. It is a social commentary, or an argument. Rather than being comfortable making social commentary Lynn seeks to lend an air of science to his personal belief.
~Tipping is more prevalent in countries whose populations are achievement-oriented, status-seeking, extroverted, neurotic and tenderhearted~
If you can't see that his belief in the former would directly influence every facet of any test done in the latter, you're delusional. He doesn't prove anything about the personality makeup of anyone, he only proves that in order to see tipping as means to reduce envy, he needs to clasify Americans in a way that makes this possible. Nonetheless, cheers on the lovely thread. |
eeyore_conspiracy
New member
Username: eeyore_conspiracy
Post Number: 37
Registered: 06-2006
Rating:
Votes: 2 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 10:37 am: |
|
My critique of social science stands whether you acknowledge it or not.
Because you say so, apparently. You haven't answered my arguments.
It is flawed for two reasons the first being that every social science experiement starts out with an expected outcome, this is the same as other sciences except that social science is not bound by the same testing and provability laws as others.
WTF do you think confidence intervals and things like that are? They are measures of "provability." And while we're on this subject, what are those "provability laws" in the first place? If you can't tell us what they are, you can't claim that they've been broken. You can't violate a law that doesn't exist.
Take your personality tests for example. Yes they ask questions that do not allow the subjec to know what the tester is trying to get at but the tester knows and that is enough to flaw the system.
How does that introduce flaws? You have a claim but you have no evidence and you have no analysis. It's just one conclusory claim after another with you.
Lets say you gave a test that wanted to define characteristics of motivation, leadership, and persuasiveness among a group of people.
If you don't give us the design of the study, we can't comment on it. What was the methodology? You can't very well critique something that is so vague.
No matter how you word it no matter what steps you take, at the end you are still identifying what Your idea of those characteristics are not the things themselves.
Why?
So to say you did studies to identify characteristics of people is to say the same as I stood on the street corner and asked people to define those same characteristics.
You're wrong. You're wrong because you're not identifying the study's goals. You're not identifying the methodology. You don't know what you're talking about at all.
It is this inability to acknowledge that social science's findings are nothing more than the opinions of the testers that make it so dangerous.
You know virtually nothing about social science. Let's say I want to determine whether for U.S. born babies residing in the U.S. there's a correlation between being born last in a family and making lots of money by age 25. Economics is a social science, so we're safe there. I go get a random sample of family birth records. I go get their incomes after they turn 25. I collect all sorts of other data like like their education level, their parents' education level, etc. Then I run a mutivariate analysis of the data so I can seperate out all the effects that aren't birth order. In the end I'm left with a some correlation at some confidence level. What does that have to do with my opinions as a tester?
Get this through your head social sciencentists choose what is studied and the tools to study it specifically to prove whatever it is they want to prove.
That's one of the reasons it's independently peer reviewed. I challenge you to prove that there is a correlation of 0.0 between the federal funds rate and 15-year ARM interest rate.
This is not science, Lynn himself does not replicate the study he was critiquing in order to see if it is duplicatable (a quality of real science) no he changed the methods of testing and came to a different result (who saw that coming).
DID YOU REALLY JUST SAY THAT?! Lynn did a meta-study of tipping. You would know that if you had actually read the study. The tipping data was collected independently by tons of different people who were duplicating the same experiment in different places.
find me a study wherein a social scientist in any field came up with a hypothesis, and was unable to prove it during testing.
It happens all the time. Did you not go to college?
Journal of Men's Studies v. 14 no. 1 (Winter 2006) p. 1-12: "Contrary to our predictions, our analyses fail to demonstrate that adolescents' task performance facilitated equitable task sharing between adult partners."
"Sex, Fear, and Greed: A Social Dilemma Analysis of Gender and Cooperation," Social Forces 82 no1 35-52 S 2003: "A series of hypotheses about the conditions under which sex affects cooperation are proposed and tested against the results of two new studies. Results from both studies support two of the three hypotheses....Hypotheses 1 and 3 received consistent support and, in both studies, the findings were inconsistent with hypothesis 2."
I can do this all day long. I'm simply searching for "hypothesis" and "failed OR inconsistent OR unable" in a journal database. I've got a couple hundred hits.
So let's just agree to disagree
Whatever. I maintain that you're flat wrong becaues you're ignorant of social scientific methods. You are so ignorant of social scientific studies that you made the foolish claim that hypotheses aren't rejected. Anyone with even limited experience with social science research knows it happens all the time. If you had read just ONE JOURNAL in your life you would have almost certainly come across a hypothesis that was rejected by its author. I can't wipe away your ignorance of social scientific study methods. |
vozveratu
Advanced Member
Username: vozveratu
Post Number: 683
Registered: 01-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 11:23 am: |
|
Nah, not going to debate the science of study, whether it's fact or opinion based.
Read the article and he makes valid points on why people tip on the person and not the service.
This actually reminds me of how a jury of people in court can have emotions impact the decision. It's against the law to take the law into your own hands, but it would be hard for a jury to prosecute a crying father who killed the rapist of his 10 year old daughter. Emotions get involved.
Although not as grim, I would surmise that a number of customers do tip based on the personality of the server rather than gage the server's work. The look of the server, the service, the atmosphere, and the food come into play as to what is included in the tip.
I've had food come out that the customer didn't like. Nothing wrong with the service, but I get stiffed.
I've had service be piss poor, but my smile and charm will still earn me a 15-20% tip.
So what do we do? Does it require fixing? What harm is it doing to the customer who tips based on his/her emotions and not the actual service performed? Who is suffering? |
rev_rund
New member
Username: rev_rund
Post Number: 26
Registered: 06-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 12:11 pm: |
|
Toe-may-toe, to-mah-toe. Having a fundamentally different views of social science doesn't make one wrong. I fail to recognize any of its measurements as valid. Therefore, it wouldn't make any sense for me to argue about the specifc merits of any form of analysis because I reject them all as pointless and harmful. All social scientists should be rounded up and beaten like mules for the long term damaging effects they have wrought over the last 100 plus years. Once again, glad we could step away from tipping for a moment, back into the abyss! Cheers
(good call on the rejected hypothesis thing, I didn't think you'd actually look stuff up. I'll be more careful of what I ask in the future) |
eeyore_conspiracy
New member
Username: eeyore_conspiracy
Post Number: 43
Registered: 06-2006
Rating: 
Votes: 2 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 06:03 pm: |
|
Having a fundamentally different views of social science doesn't make one wrong.
Right, but what makes you wrong is that you don't have an even basic understanding of social science methods in the first place. You don't know how random sampling works. You don't know what regressions are. You don't know what multivariable analysis is. You thought that hypotheses were always confirmed. You ignored the fact that studies (like Lynn's and the ones he used) are peer reviewed by people with different perspectives.
Therefore, it wouldn't make any sense for me to argue about the specifc merits of any form of analysis because I reject them all as pointless and harmful.
It would make sense for you to understand that which you critique before you critique it. |
rev_rund
New member
Username: rev_rund
Post Number: 28
Registered: 06-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 08:06 pm: |
|
I wrote hastily earlier and I hope this clarifys my position on social science as a whole.
I think I can explain my disdain for social science using two questions:
What effect does spanking and parental guidance have on the educational success of children?
What effect do the laws of gravity have on planets?
Both questions were asked by contemporaries. Newton in the field of physics (please forgive my scientific missteps I would never claim to understand the field at all). Rousseau as the pionoeer in the field of child psychology. The effects of gravity have been proven to such a degree that they are now considered laws.
What has social science given in return? Rousseau was among the first modern men to make assumptions about the effects of parenting and discipline on childrens future success. After 200 years scientists don't bicker over Newton's findings they accept them as a base to start from (again apologies to math/science people). After 200 years what have child pyschologists and other social scientists agreed upon on Rousseau's original theories on child discipline? Nothing, not one shred of conclusive proof about the most effective way to raise children has been forumlated. Using every single testing method you could think of and many more, people in this field have made claims and contradicted each other since the days of Washington. From Piaget, and Skinner to Gardner, people have forumulated ideas about the effects of parenting on children and after all this time after all the papers written, after all the supposed incontrovertable means of testing what are we left with? We are left with me asking you to tell me what effect parenting and discipline has on childrens future success. You can't answer it, no one can. More proof you want? Darwin hypothesizes on the origin of species. Social scientists grab hold of the idea, create many differnt tests tests that are "PEER REVIEWED" - and they come up with the theory that some people are predestined by NATURE to be inferior to others. Then some wisenhymmer social scientist in the southern US applies this theory to African Americans and convinces a large number of people that it is natural for blacks to be inferior (I know the theory existed before, but social scientists gave it gravitas). Then some other wisenhymmer in Germany uses this this theory - set forth by social scientists using EVERY SINGLE TESTING METHOD THAT YOU MENTION AND OTHERS THAT YOU DON'T MENTION - INCLUDING YOUR #*@!^ STUPID PEER REVIEW- and then with this evidence behind them they proceeded to wipe out 6 million or so people.
Take economics for example, after the great deppression a huge debate began over whether government spending helped or hurt countries move out of stagnant economic periods. Was Smith right? Was Keynes? How about Friedman? Each a legend in the field of social science, and each is mocked whole heartedly by people who disagree with them. And every naysayer of each one cites some EMPIRICAL study done by someone about why the other ones are full of !%^#.
Let's take Lynn - His study with all its evidence contradicts Bondvardseen (sorry about spelling I'm not looking it up for perfection) and if Bondvardsen wanted to he could create models and standards to test a new theory that would contradict Lynn.
So I'm sorry but - in the last 200 years social science has attmepted to re-enslave a people wipe another from the face of the earth, completely emsacualted almost every parent in America, and created an impotent economy where politicians refuse to make decisions because they do not want to be cast into the camp of some long dead economist (I'm only 90% sure Freidman is dead). There is not one single method - not sampling, not, any analysis, not one thing that hasn't been used by social scientists in the past to harm people or misrepresent a theory - So believe what you want, but, and this time I really mean it. Show me one thing that social science has proven to be incontrovertable fact, something on the level of Newton, or Einstein. If you can't prove fact, than no matter how you say it, you are just postulating opinion. And no matter how cleverly you disguise opinion it like all other things will be dragged down by gravity. I hope this will explain clearer why, while I have no quarrel with you, and I respect your right to your opinion, I hope you will understand why history has given me such a healthy disrespect for the work and methods of people in the social science fields. And if it doesn't it will further reaffrim my disdain for the field so either way I'm cool. Cheers!
(Message edited by rev_rund on June 28, 2006) |
eeyore_conspiracy
New member
Username: eeyore_conspiracy
Post Number: 44
Registered: 06-2006
Rating:
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 09:15 pm: |
|
What has social science given in return?
Economics.
A higher standard of living.
The knowledge necessary to avoid results suggested bt the Stanford Prison Experiment.
Knowledge about the human condition.
Reduced workplace ghettoization.
Voting mechanisms that reduce voting distortion and increase the representation of democratic preferences.
After 200 years scientists don't bicker over Newton's findings
Scientists still don't even know what gravity is. And Newtonian mechanics were found to be only an approximation of what happens on a large scale. Newton had essentially no knowledge of subatomic physics, and his science completely falls apart at that level.
After 200 years what have child pyschologists and other social scientists agreed upon on Rousseau's original theories on child discipline?
Humans are more complex than apples falling from trees. It makes sense that it would take longer to understand a more complex process.
Nothing, not one shred of conclusive proof about the most effective way to raise children has been forumlated.
The fact that we don't know the most effective way to raise children doesn't mean we we haven't gained valuable knowledge. We know all sorts of things that lead to outcomes. For instance, we know that when controlled for other variables education reduces one's propensity to commit crime.
Using every single testing method you could think of and many more, people in this field have made claims and contradicted each other since the days of Washington.
It's complex. It takes a long time to figure out complex things. Physical scientists haven't reconciled general relativity and quantum mechanics either. That's a complex problem, too. Does that mean electron tunneling doesn't occur? Does that mean we really weren't able to make nuclear weapons? Does that mean we haven't observed time warping due to speed? The answer to all of those things is no.
We are left with me asking you to tell me what effect parenting and discipline has on childrens future success. You can't answer it, no one can.
We are left wondering how general relativity and quantum mechanics can be reconciled. You can't answer it; no one can.
Then some other wisenhymmer in Germany uses this this theory - set forth by social scientists using EVERY SINGLE TESTING METHOD THAT YOU MENTION AND OTHERS THAT YOU DON'T MENTION - INCLUDING YOUR #*@!^ STUPID PEER REVIEW- and then with this evidence behind them they proceeded to wipe out 6 million or so people.
That's not a criticism of social science. How many millions of people have been wiped out thanks to ballistics technology? How many hundreds of thousands of people were wiped out by nuclear weapons? All you're saying is that people can use social science for bad ends. That's right. People can also use physical science for bad ends.
Take economics for example, after the great deppression a huge debate began over whether government spending helped or hurt countries move out of stagnant economic periods.
You should have seen how pathetic economic knowledge was 1,000 years ago. And, for example, you should see how physical scientists debate about whether negative climate feedback loops will be able to eventually stop or reverse global warming. They've been fighting about that for decades.
Was Smith right? Was Keynes? How about Friedman? Each a legend in the field of social science, and each is mocked whole heartedly by people who disagree with them.
There are debates in physical science, too. In the 1970s there were people predicting a coming ice age and those predicting catastrophic global warming.
And every naysayer of each one cites some EMPIRICAL study done by someone about why the other ones are full of !%^#.
Quantum mechanics researchers and relativity researchers also have empirical research. They still can't reconcile the two. Scientists aren't even certain what causes ice to be slippery. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/21/science/21ice.html?ex=1298178000&en=5dc162576f 801e16&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
So I'm sorry but - in the last 200 years social science has attmepted to re-enslave a people wipe another from the face of the earth
Science doesn't do anything. People do things. Social science has been used for bad ends. Physical science has been used for bad ends.
Show me one thing that social science has proven to be incontrovertable fact, something on the level of Newton, or Einstein.
Oh, you mean something that's they're fairly confident about but not actually certain? William McComas, "Ten myths of science: Reexamining what we think we know," Vol. 96, School Science & Mathematics, 01-01-1996, pp 10: "a hallmark of scientific knowledge is that it is subject to revision when new information is presented. Tentativeness is one of the points that differentiates science from other forms of knowledge. Accumulated evidence can provide support, validation and substantiation for a law or theory, but will never prove those laws and theories to be true. This idea has been addressed by Homer and Rubba (1978) and Lopnshinsky (1993)." Well, social science has shown that children who grow up without human interaction from birth into puberty have never gained a median level of language proficiency. Economists know that prices are not explained by what it took to make a product or service (i.e. there is no intrinsic value). |
jammie
Senior Member
Username: jammie
Post Number: 1174
Registered: 06-2003
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 09:52 pm: |
|
I find very irritating that a person who will not divulge what their source of income is has so much to say about another's. That really doesn't make an equal platform now does it? Why dont certain people just worry about the way that they get paid? |
eeyore_conspiracy
New member
Username: eeyore_conspiracy
Post Number: 50
Registered: 06-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, June 29, 2006 - 12:49 am: |
|
I find very irritating that a person who will not divulge what their source of income is has so much to say about another's.
Too bad. It's not relevant. My arguments stand or fall on their own. What I do for a living has nothing to do with whether the arguments are strong. I could be a server for all you know. It doesn't matter. How would knowing my occupation and income affect my claims? |
thegirl
Member
Username: thegirl
Post Number: 205
Registered: 04-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, June 29, 2006 - 01:09 am: |
|
It would lend credibility to your arguments in that you would a)not appear to be hiding something, and b)we would know whether or not your opinion should be given any credence. After all, you wouldn't listen to a mechanic's opinions about your upcoming neurosurgery, would you? Of course not. Neither would or should you listen to someone, such as a mail room clerk, who has no real understanding of an entirely different and unique industry. You can do 5 million studies, but they don't give the same insight as one night of experience.
Of course, to actually disclose your occupation would mean opening up your own industry for the same scrutiny that you are subjecting the service industry workers to...and it would allow us to do to your source of income what you are doing to the servers'. It would allow us to hold up the flaws of your industry to the light and expose those things which we find as abhorrent as you find tipping. That would take courage and strength, and not many have that kind of guts anymore. It's easy to postulate from a hazy throne, not so much when you're down here with the peons.
But since you do not wish to divulge that information, I'm going to have to conclude that you are the standard hypocritical desk jockey. You choose not to change that impression, so there it sits.
And that is my only comment on all this.
"Life's gonna suck when you grow up"
|
penelope
New member
Username: penelope
Post Number: 5
Registered: 05-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, June 29, 2006 - 01:12 am: |
|
paco if you registered here under 2 names...you are pathetic. sadly mr. winnie the pooh and the diner1923 sound very much alike with all their bulls... |
jammie
Senior Member
Username: jammie
Post Number: 1176
Registered: 06-2003
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, June 29, 2006 - 06:11 am: |
|
But you take the liberty to thoroughly discuss many aspects of my occupation. Without giving the same benefit. What gives you the right to share your thoughts, and all knowing opinion ? What makes you qualified? |
rev_rund
New member
Username: rev_rund
Post Number: 29
Registered: 06-2006
Rating:
Votes: 2 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, June 29, 2006 - 08:19 am: |
|
~For instance, we know that when controlled for other variables education reduces one's propensity to commit crime.~
This is the sort of thinking that I find so reprehensible about the craft. The things you speak of simply don't have real world application. They sound good among colleagues at the collegiate level but they fail in real world application. The reason is that the essence of life is uncontrolled variables. One could just as easily argue that in the case of Columbine or the Unibomber, education increases ones propensity for crime. If you expand to include non violent crime, you could include the S and L scandal of the late 1980's, Watergate, Iran Contra, and the Enron/Worlcorp/Adelphia, scandals to prove that education actually increases the likelyhood of crime. People with higher levels of education knew how to manipulate the system and were therefore more likely to commit crime. We could do this forever, you can cite studies and I can cite real world examples where the studies fail. I'm not saying that it isn't valuable to study the human condition. I'm only saying it becomes dangerous when you believe that personal biases and beliefs can be completely accounted for through the different safeguards you mention. It sounds to me like our experiences with social science have been too different for us to talk about it any longer. I have a wealth of time spent watching the science fail in its attempts to be applied to children, specifically in classrooms. You apprently have spent your time with the people who make the theories, and have no contact with their real world implementation. So as before, agree to disagree, on the grounds that neither of us can conceptualize what the others experience with the subject matter is.
(Message edited by rev_rund on June 29, 2006) |
vitalryan
New member
Username: vitalryan
Post Number: 31
Registered: 03-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, June 29, 2006 - 11:35 am: |
|
According to this loser, on another forum, he's an entreprenuer, he's also a lawyer, has several degrees, and is never wrong. Absolutely fantastic!
Paco, GO AWAY... does it hurt your feelings that even on the internet, no one likes you?
Actually, education en-masse, DOES decrease the how likely someone is to commit crimes. How do we know this? Jails are filled with the MAJORITY of under/uneducated people. Proof enough. Besides, ask ANY cop about his opinion on this... |
penelope
New member
Username: penelope
Post Number: 11
Registered: 05-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, June 29, 2006 - 12:09 pm: |
|
don't forget he is an economics god, he is a restaurant service consultant (don't forget the bbq tasting scenario), and is a doctor/nutritionist.
two words for you: SPEED DATING
if that doesn't work...go grab some scissors from your "desk" or from your parents desk, go to the end of the room and then take of running as fast as you can toward the wall in front of you. take the scissors and place them in front of your stomach, and then ram your self as hard as you can into the wall, try not to miss. |
eeyore_conspiracy
Junior Member
Username: eeyore_conspiracy
Post Number: 58
Registered: 06-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, July 02, 2006 - 03:42 am: |
|
It would lend credibility to your arguments
I don't want to be credible. I don't want my claims to be believed or doubted based on something irrelevant. You can judge them based on the text on your screen.
Of course, to actually disclose your occupation would mean opening up your own industry for the same scrutiny that you are subjecting the service industry workers to..
And what would be the point of doing that on a tipping board? You're free to go to the car mechanics board (or wherever) and criticize their vocation.
I'm going to have to conclude that you are the standard hypocritical desk jockey. You choose not to change that impression, so there it sits.
I don't care. Do what you want. Do you really think that the assumptions made by some anonymous internet personality are going to bother me? If you make an actual argument, I'll be happy to talk with you. But I'm not interested in you as a person.
paco if you registered here under 2 names...you are pathetic. sadly mr. winnie the pooh and the diner1923 sound very much alike with all their bulls...
You're being paranoid. I honestly think you do it because it discomforts you to think that there are several people who disagree with you. But if it makes you feel better, you can pretend that I'm Lord of Acid, Yakup, Diner, Pooh, Paco, and whomever else you'd like. |
eeyore_conspiracy
Junior Member
Username: eeyore_conspiracy
Post Number: 59
Registered: 06-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, July 02, 2006 - 03:50 am: |
|
One could just as easily argue that in the case of Columbine or the Unibomber, education increases ones propensity for crime.
Where's your data? Where's you methodology? When is the peer review going to be done?
It sounds to me like our experiences with social science have been too different for us to talk about it any longer.
You're right. I know something about them, and you know virtually nothing about them. Even worse, you didn't even seem to realize that your physical science comparison doesn't provide the support to your argument that you thought it would. After all, you really seem to think that physical science haven't been used for evil ends. How ridiculous is that?
I hope you didn't answer my argument in response to your physical science comparison because you finally realized just how inept a comparison it was. |
rev_rund
New member
Username: rev_rund
Post Number: 41
Registered: 06-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, July 02, 2006 - 10:54 am: |
|
This is where the above mentioned "What do you do?" would help alot. As I said you clearly know heaping teaspoons about social science experimentation. How much real world experience do you have with the implementation of any work in the subject you speak of. As I said, I live in a world where the works of educational psychologists influences law and therefore influences on the job practices. I am here to tell you that in regards to your -peer review, methodology, and data- you can shove up your arse. So if you can prove something in a study but can't prove it in real life what use is it? So tell me what it is you do for a living that would let me know that you have real world experience with the subject matter at hand. I can walk onto any college campus in America, throw a stone and hit 100 professors that can tell me the "conclusive" evidence shows that inclusion is definetly the best method for bringing the learning level of Severe behavoraly handicapped kids up. Not a single one of those professors could or would walk into a classroom and try to manage the turmoil that ensues when some kid bumps into the SBH kid and a brawl ensues. The professors have no answers for why after years of implementatoin of full inclusion they don't know why the scores of normal functioning students has declined while the SBH kids have remained stagnant. (you want stats on it go look'em up) So tell me what point are all you methodologies and studies are if they break down almost immediately in the real world. And what experience do you have assimilating the two? |
penelopemarie
New member
Username: penelopemarie
Post Number: 4
Registered: 06-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, July 02, 2006 - 11:56 am: |
|
i am not paranoid, i think you are pathetic. there are like what 100 people that think like you out there. i actually went into that ant tipping site and the same 20 people posted there opinions and no one has written anything since 2004. you are still being viewed like a cheap very unhappy person taking it out on servers. why you take out on the fact that we are overpaid by your standards, well i have my theories which i am not going to share because they are for my personal amusement. then again i might encounter 3 people like you every 6 months in my restaurant. what about the other maybe 300 people i serve in a month. they still tip accordingly, others more than others depending on a lot of factors. i still make my money. if you came to my restaurant and told me it was you or what you believed i wouldn't serve you. i don't need a basket case trying to go all psycho and taking out his frustration out on random people, especially on me. i work there to serve not to get harassed by people a little cuckoo. i already have had cuckoo customers trying to get all cuckoo, they ended up with criminal charges for a)not wanting to pay their whole bill b) threatening me, c) grabbing me among other things. these were all very entitled people that think way to highly of themselves. pity
why i think you are the same person? not because you believe the same thing, everybody is entitled to their opinion, but because the writing is extremely the same style. the same quotes and replies, the same responses to.... the same quotes from studies and the same tone of oh i have so much education and oh i am so smart i am going to crush your little tipping system. you all servers are overpaid unskilled people that are robbing the american public. all of your blah blah blah trying to explain your same lame opinion over and over. |
teleburst
Advanced Member
Username: teleburst
Post Number: 998
Registered: 06-2003
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, July 03, 2006 - 08:45 am: |
|
"After 200 years scientists don't bicker over Newton's findings"
Einstein did.
"Scientists still don't even know what gravity is".
Wrong. They know WHAT it is. They can even calculate it well enough to "break the surly bounds of Earth" and put a man on the moon. They can also calculate quite easily the time it will take for a certain mass to strike the Earth from a given point in free space. They just don't know WHY it works, just as they don't know the why behind sub-atomic particle attraction and repulsion.
Just thought I'd clarify this. |
|