powered by Google  
  Track your favorite teams and players.
Free membership, Register Now
Already a member, Log In
 


Community | Help
One-sided article Sports News
  Home   Fantasy     NFL  |  MLB  |  NBA  |  NHL  |  College FB  |  College BK  |  Golf  |  Racing  |  Tennis  |  Cycling  |  MMA  |  More CBS College | High School | Mobile | Shop  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Horses Home
 Live Racing
 Youbet Update
 Carryovers
 Free Selections
 Contests
 U. of BET
 Message Board
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Cycling Home
 Results
 Standings
 Stages
 Teams
 Riders
 Message Board
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Arena Football
 Boxing
 CBS College Sports
 CBS Sports TV
 College Baseball
 College Hockey
 Horse Racing
 Collegiate Nationals
 Message Board
 Poker
 Soccer
 SPiN
 Tour de France
 Video
 WNBA
 Women's Coll BK
 World Sports
 
 Site Index
 
 
 CBS College Sports
 Coll Sports Tonight
 Get CBS Coll Sports
 XXL - Watch Now
 Talent Bios
 Schedules
 School Sites
 
 
 Find your School
 '08 Football Preview
 Football Rankings
 Football Stats
 Hoops Recruiting
 Hoops Rankings
 Hoops Stats
 Video Highlights
 
 
 Featured Application
 Mobile Web
 Alerts
 Applications
 Video
 
 
 Home
 NFL
 NCAA
 MLB
 NBA
 NHL
 Fantasy
 
Community Home | My Profile | My Blog | Groups | My Settings | My Account | Member Search | Blog Search | About Community
 

One-sided article


View Message Board ·  Return to StoryViews:      


One-sided article
-
Reputation:66
Level:Pro
Since:Mar 22, 2008

April 16, 2008 1:26 pm
Why doesn't Freeman quote some researchers who believe that Multiple Personality Disorder is a genuine phenomenon?

I have seen research done, in which the subject under study exhibited varying breathing rates, heart rates, and even markedly different electroencephalographs (EEG's-brain wave scans, basically) depending upon which personality was dominant at the time.

These sorts of features can not simply be faked, even if one is trying to sell a book.

Be fair, Freeman, and make the case from both sides.



One-sided article
-
Reputation:96
Level:Superstar
Since:Oct 22, 2006

April 16, 2008 3:31 pm

Don't just tell us you've "seen research done".  Tell us where it was published.  Give us the journal it was published in along with volume and date.

To just say you've "seen research done" is ludicrous.  Since when is research a spectator sport?


One-sided article
-
Reputation:96
Level:Superstar
Since:Aug 16, 2006

April 16, 2008 3:45 pm
Since Freeman started taking it as one.  He didn't even read the book he's attacking here.

Both sides are inherently flawed here because neither makes a case with unbiased research, you have to grant that.  Freeman never considers the opposition with actual research, just a little disclaimer he makes towards the beginning before he floods you with research he's done to the contrary.

One-sided article
-
Reputation:98
Level:Superstar
Since:Sep 21, 2006

April 16, 2008 11:23 pm

Excellent point here.  It's pointed out early on that some people believe in this, and some don't -- but then all the experts quoted (both of them) cast doubt, and the rest is conjecture.

It doesn't mean I think Walker's really a good guy with a problem, but the case for the other side wasn't made, either.