Self-Expression
I recently found out that my first-year college roommate (20 years ago -- gaak!) is something of a celebrity. She published this book a few years ago. I read a few pages and couldn't help welling up with pride. That's Liza alright. Her sense of ethics hasn't changed a bit. She's the sweetest, kindest, most brilliant socialist I've ever met.
That got me thinking about a childhood friend who was equally brilliant. I googled her and discovered that Katrina published this book of poetry.
My friends' words say so much about who they are and what they believe in.
And my words? Here's a footnote from a forthcoming research article on boys' exposure to gaming magazines and their drive for muscularity:
Because some of these (questionnaire) items are attitudinal and some are behavioral, an exploratory principal components factor analysis was performed on the Wave 2 drive for muscularity scale to determine whether the appearance of multiple factors would justify the division of the scale into subscales. Three factors with eigenvalues greater than 1.00 emerged in the unrotated factor solution, accounting for 31.61, 16.06, and 10.88 percent of variance respectively. According to McCroskey and Young (1979), the unrotated factor solution should be used to determine whether individual items load divergently enough onto different factors to justify splitting the scale into subscales. In our factor solution, all of the items loaded positively onto the first factor, with no loading lower than .45. Following Reinard’s (2006) “60/40” rule (any individual item truly belongs to only one factor if the absolute value of its loading on that factor is greater than .60 and its loading on the other factors is less than .40), it was clear that no single item loaded onto factors 2 or 3 without simultaneously loading, equally if not more strongly, onto factor 1. The same analysis was repeated with the drive for muscularity scale measured at Wave 1, with identical results. Thus, there appears to be no compelling reason to divide the drive for muscularity scale into subscales.
Moves ya, doesn't it?
Sigh. I suppose this is why I keep a blog. Not that what I write here moves ya (globber.com? Come on), but at least it's a forum for self-expression. Scientific research standards and practices are so oriented toward masking the researcher's presence (note the passive voice in my passage), that writing sometimes feels like an exercise in invisibility. I've got something to say but I'm not really saying it! It's just sort of vibrating out of thin air! Don't touch the curtain--there's no man behind that curtain!
It's good to have someplace to say I I I and Me Me Me and not be slammed for it by blind reviewers.
That got me thinking about a childhood friend who was equally brilliant. I googled her and discovered that Katrina published this book of poetry.
My friends' words say so much about who they are and what they believe in.
And my words? Here's a footnote from a forthcoming research article on boys' exposure to gaming magazines and their drive for muscularity:
Because some of these (questionnaire) items are attitudinal and some are behavioral, an exploratory principal components factor analysis was performed on the Wave 2 drive for muscularity scale to determine whether the appearance of multiple factors would justify the division of the scale into subscales. Three factors with eigenvalues greater than 1.00 emerged in the unrotated factor solution, accounting for 31.61, 16.06, and 10.88 percent of variance respectively. According to McCroskey and Young (1979), the unrotated factor solution should be used to determine whether individual items load divergently enough onto different factors to justify splitting the scale into subscales. In our factor solution, all of the items loaded positively onto the first factor, with no loading lower than .45. Following Reinard’s (2006) “60/40” rule (any individual item truly belongs to only one factor if the absolute value of its loading on that factor is greater than .60 and its loading on the other factors is less than .40), it was clear that no single item loaded onto factors 2 or 3 without simultaneously loading, equally if not more strongly, onto factor 1. The same analysis was repeated with the drive for muscularity scale measured at Wave 1, with identical results. Thus, there appears to be no compelling reason to divide the drive for muscularity scale into subscales.
Moves ya, doesn't it?
Sigh. I suppose this is why I keep a blog. Not that what I write here moves ya (globber.com? Come on), but at least it's a forum for self-expression. Scientific research standards and practices are so oriented toward masking the researcher's presence (note the passive voice in my passage), that writing sometimes feels like an exercise in invisibility. I've got something to say but I'm not really saying it! It's just sort of vibrating out of thin air! Don't touch the curtain--there's no man behind that curtain!
It's good to have someplace to say I I I and Me Me Me and not be slammed for it by blind reviewers.
posted by WinterWheat | 8:05 PM
3 Comments:
In my very humble opinion, everyone needs an avenue for self-expression, whether it be crocheting (sound familiar?), playing an instrument, cooking, or in your case, blogging.
Right on, baby! Give us more of those I I I's and Me Me Me's.
Hugs!
You'll never be invisible! I guess there are multiple channels for the multiple ways we inhabit the world-- and even the scientific discourse you write (and write so well) enables you to express a facet of your personality.
Hooray! Visits from violetnoir and adamina! :-D
Adamina, you are a wiser woman than I, so I have a question: how many facets are there? My factor analysis reveals three with eigenvalues over 1.00...
Post a Comment
<< Home