A FroYo Throw Down

So, it turns out there are some haters and naysayers (actually, just one) of my amazing, fool-proof DIY FroYo method. Here we have this clearly novice DIY fro-yo-ers rebuttal to my last post. In color, bold and italics within the below rebuttal I provide my “response” to this ill-thought out ‘attack’. And by “response” I mean, the things you think when you read critiques of your work, that you can’t actually write back in reply! Enjoy 🙂

The Halliday Conjecture: More questions than answers (RUDE! You are starting off on the wrong foot, Mr. Loenneke)

 Dear Editor,

I am writing in regard to the newest post from Professor Halliday titled “Methodological Advancement in DIY FroYo Creations (Aka: How to Master the FroYo Bar).”  The author sought to investigate a method to improve the overall experience of eating frozen yogurt by offering up a new method of yogurt administration.  The author should be commended (you’re right, I should be. Thank you for noticing.) on investigating such an important issue that is presently understudied in the current literature.  Professor Halliday hypothesized that a mixed method approach results in a superior yogurt experience compared to the more traditional linear approach. However, I have some concerns (WHAT? concerns?? Clearly you are mistaken) with the interpretation of her findings.

 Professor Halliday starts off by describing three problems with the traditional model

1)       Unequal distribution of toppings within frozen yogurt

2)       Limited choices

3)       Risk of incompatible combinations.

 The author is quick to promote the limitations of the traditional linear model but the proposed “mixed method” does little to overcome these proposed “problems”. (Umm, actually they do. Did you look at the figures? Did you read what I wrote?)  In practice, there aren’t truly unequal distributions with the linear model because as bites are taken, toppings fall down to lower levels of the frozen yogurt. (WRONG. Mr. Loenneke is clearly delusional)  The second issue is not truly corrected by the “mixed method” because there is a finite amount of space in the yogurt cup, so by default limited choices exist no matter the model used (Strawman argument. sheesh. Yes, there are limited choices in all methods employed thanks to cup space…but greater limitations exist in the “mixed methods” approach. It’s science).  The third issue isn’t overcome by the “mixed method” either.  If anything, the linear model would be better because one could just remove the topping and enjoy the remaining frozen yogurt (I kind of stopped paying attention to what he is writing…but I am sure this is wrong and makes no sense either. I’ll come up with a nicer way to say that later….or maybe I won’t.)  This certainly would not be as easy to do if one were dealing with several different layers of toppings dispersed throughout.

 When investigating the “results” section, the author appears to have found a statistical difference between the traditional and mixed method methodology (p<0.001). Unfortunately little is known about what statistics were actually used for this investigation. How was this yogurt experience rated? Is the scale used valid and reliable? (Yes, OF COURSE the completely fabricated studies used imaginary tools/surveys/instruments that were VERY valid and reliable. Duh!) What was the magnitude of the effect? (Ginormous…obviously.) How many people was this tested on? (n= 58,343,090) All of these questions alone should call into question the results provided in this manuscript.  

 The author concludes by suggesting that this mixed method approach be recognized as the gold standard to be implemented immediately across populations.  I think it is clear to see from my editorial that this “mixed method” is currently too flawed (Actually it’s not flawed at all. It’s perfect. Just like me) to be called the gold standard and at present is nothing more than conjecture. The data presented by the author is vague and much more research is needed before such bold claims about this new model can be made.  The fact that most people are emotionally/spiritually/physically fulfilled using the traditional linear model in froyo institutions around the world, suggests that this method isn’t likely to be replaced anytime soon.  I think it is fair to say that the enjoyment is likely similar between models (except that it’s not) but no well controlled study exists to suggest that the mixed method is anything more than a complicated (COMPLICATED?? Not at all. More rudeness) way to enjoy your froyo.

 Regards,

Jeremy P. Loenneke PhD (c)

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s