In the early’ 80s, unwritten social rules restricted men to wearing a single ear stud in the left ear. Anything too flashy or in the wrong ear was considered taboo. If, men wanted to be taken seriously, they daren’ t wear ear studs to work. All tha…

Sound research is indeed quoted often. So is bullshit. So is politically expedient trash.

This is ridiculous. Bullshit gets cited in the MSM or on internet sites and blogs, but BS studies do not get cited in academic journals. If so, give me an example. BTW, what is your research area?

I am disappointed to witness how easily the liberal ‘mind’ resorts to ad hominem and verbal abuse.

Here are exerpts from your first three posts:

Why am I not surprised that so much of the HA readership has failed to see the angle Wrangler are taking here?.. but clearly they’ve fluffed the shot because so many of you dummies are misconstruing the campaign…
Maybe this will help you clots figure it out…And if that’s not simple enough, here it is in big, bold crayola for you.

The reason I have verbally abused you is because that is your technique. First to everyone, then to me as well. People say a lot of stupid things to me, and if they don’t use your language above, I simply try to correct them as nicely as I can. But when you combine abusive language with a sub-90 IQ, I simply must return the favor. You are a complete nitwit, and you have no idea. It’s entertaining, though, and one of the biggest reasons I come here.

dave742 on August 18, 2008 at 6:17 PM

PS. yet again, I am disappointed to witness how easily the liberal ‘mind’ resorts to ad hominem and verbal abuse. You are everything I have come to expect of academia in America.

Once again, it means nothing anyway, because the stats I quoted are from the same study with the same methodology

No. It highlights the fact that there is variance in methodology between studies, and that the resultant variance diminishes the confidence one can place in any particular study. Perhaps you should take some remedial education. Try some simple english comprehension and preliminary logic.

There is a direct relationship, you f**king idiot.

A direct relationship? Something like “the correctness of a study is proportional to its level of citation” perhaps? The Journal of Citation Reports simply crunches numbers. It does not judge scientific soundness – only peer review can do that. As for libraries, well, perhaps citation level is some indication of what should be stocked on their shelves….but it in no way confers ligitimacy or correctness to the study. Plenty of bullshit studies lie on many library shelves. Sound research is indeed quoted often. So is bullshit. So is politically expedient trash. If you were actually the competent person you pretend to be, you would know this.

Go bullshit someone else.

You think that a lack of standards is not a methodological flaw?

A lack of standards for researching a particular issue cannot be a flaw in any particular study, you complete imbecile. Your citation did not say that any one of the methods used in the papers it cited was flawed, but only that they used different methods. It simply said that definitions and methods should be standardized. Once again, it means nothing anyway, because the stats I quoted are from the same study with the same methodology. Your cited article would only mean something if I was comparing results from different studies, which I am not doing. Why is it that that every time I post here I feel like I’m teaching 5th grade?

“tell me what the relationship between the number of people that point to a study (and why) and its correctness is.”

There is a direct relationship, you f**king idiot. That is what the Journal of Citation Reports is based on. It is the standard by which journals, and the scientific soundness of the papers contained in them, are evaluated. JCR reports is how every library evaluates journals to decide what to put on their shelves. Sound research is quoted often. If you ever did any research beyond high school and Google, you would know this.

it does not point out any flaw in the “Rape in America” study. It is calling for standardization of methods. You’re an imbecile

You think that a lack of standards is not a methodological flaw? Imbecilic indeed.

You ever heard of the “citation circle-jerk”? It’s an academic phenomenon.

I said “within certain interest groups”, and indeed, we see all the usual suspects here. No surprises. Lots of health and a couple of law citations. Which is not a problem in and of itself, but I shake my head at your definition of “famous”.

Now, Mr. PhuD, tell me what the relationship between the number of people that point to a study (and why) and its correctness is.

Hint: google “ad numerum”

I’m really not interested in arguing about this particular study. I am most amused by your mentality – you seem to think that you can waltz into a ‘debate’, fling some unchallenged stats around without having expended any effort to qualitatively and methodologically assess them (yes, the burden is on you – we’re not your lackeys), then waltz away convinced you have ‘won’ something.

Imbecilic indeed.

Really? How odd that nobody would do that

The article you site here says nothing at all about a flaw in the “Rape in America” study. All it says is that data on rape statistics can vary depending on methodology. Yes, of course it can. So what. The rape statistics I quoted for the US and Europe were determined in the same study, using the same methodology. There was no cross-study comparison done. Your article is meaningless. It does not relate to the rape stats I showed, and it does not point out any flaw in the “Rape in America” study. It is calling for standardization of methods. You’re an imbecile.

study done at the behest of groups looking for legislative reform vis-a-vis rape victims

The study was not done by the groups, it was funded by them. Unless you are claiming a conspiracy theory and that the funding groups paid-off the researchers to fabricate data, it does not matter who funded the study. Groups that fund studies of course are interested in the results, and probably looking for a certain result. That does not mean they influence them. For instance, the Pentagon funded a study that was done by the University of Chicago to correlate suicide bombing with religion. There was no correlation, and the study actually found that most suicide bombers are secular. Just because the Pentagon funded the study did not change the results (of course, when the initial results were published, the Pentagon ceased its funding of the study – surprise).

at some point in their lives

The quote you refer to is here:

“Based on the numbers of respondents who said they had been raped sometime in their lives, the researchers estimated that about 6.8 million women nationwide would say they had been raped once, 4.7 million more than once and almost 600,000 would say they did not know how many times they have been raped.”

Some of what you say here is nonsensical, but asking people in a rape study if they have ever been raped at some point in their lives is a standard question. This is not the only question that was asked. Some results reflect data from this question, some do not. The quote I gave from this report was this:

“A Government-financed survey released today estimated that 683,000 adult women were raped in 1990, a figure more than five times as high as the number of sexual assaults reported for the same year by the Justice Department.”

The number of women raped in 1990 is not determined from the question about being raped at some point in your life. You act like the researchers asked this one question and built an entire study around it. You’re an imbecile.

“Widely cited” – Within certain interest-groups, perhaps

Here are some recent articles that cite the study. I can give you dozens more if you like:

Hart, Rebecca A.; Lowther, M. Alexander. California Law Review, Feb2008, Vol. 96 Issue 1, p185-233, 49p

Ullman, Sarah E.; Filipas, Henrietta H.; Townsend, Stephanie M.; Starzynski, Laura L.. Journal of Traumatic Stress, Oct2007, Vol. 20 Issue 5, p821-831, 11p

Straight, Jeanette D.; Heaton, Pamela C.. American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy, 9/1/2007, Vol. 64 Issue 17, p1845-1850, 6p

Gidycz, Christine A.; Loh, Catherine; Lobo, Traci; Rich, Cindy; Lynn, Steven Jay; Pashdag, Joanna. Journal of American College Health, Jul/Aug2007, Vol. 56 Issue 1, p5-14, 10p

Starzynski, Laura L.; Ullman, Sarah E.; Townsend, Stephanie M.; Long, LaDonna M.; Long, Susan M.. Journal of Community Psychology, Jul2007, Vol. 35 Issue 5, p619-638, 20p

Russell, Patricia Logan; Davis, Cindy. Best Practice in Mental Health: An International Journal, Summer2007, Vol. 3 Issue 2, p21-37, 17p,

Henderson, Holly. Berkeley Journal of Gender, Law & Justice, 2007, Vol. 22, p225-253, 29p

Masho, Saba W.; Ahmed, Gasmelseed. Journal of Women’s Health (15409996), Mar2007, Vol. 16 Issue 2, p262-271, 10p

Armstrong, Gaylene S.; Griffin, Marie L.. JQ: Justice Quarterly, Mar2007, Vol. 24 Issue 1, p80-105, 26p

Ullman, Sarah E.; Townsend, Stephanie M.; Filipas, Henrietta H.; Starzynski, Laura L.. Psychology of Women Quarterly, Mar2007, Vol. 31 Issue 1, p23-37, 15p

Cecil, Heather; Matson, Steven C.. Journal of Sex Research, Aug2005, Vol. 42 Issue 3, p203-214, 12p

Arangua, Lisa; Andersen, Ronald; Gelberg, Lillian. International Journal of Mental Health, Jun2005, Vol. 34 Issue 2, p62-92, 31p

Csoboth, Csilla T.; Birkás, Emma; Purebl, György. Journal of Women’s Health (15409996), Jun2005, Vol. 14 Issue 5, p441-448, 8p

Basile, Kathleen C.; Lang, Karen S.; Bartenfeld, Thomas A.; Clinton-Sherrod, Monique. Journal of Women’s Health (15409996), Apr2005, Vol. 14 Issue 3, p201-207, 7p

El-Bassel, Nabila; Gilbert, Louisa; Wu, Elwin; Go, Hyun; Hill, Jennifer. American Journal of Public Health, Mar2005, Vol. 95 Issue 3, p465-470, 6p

Raghavan, Ramesh; Bogart, Laura; Elliott, Marc N.; Vestal, Katherine D.; Schuster, Mark A.. Perspectives on Sexual & Reproductive Health, Nov/Dec2004, Vol. 36 Issue 6, p225-232, 8p

Baumer, Eric P.; Felson, Richard B.; Messner, Steven F.. Criminology, Aug2003, Vol. 41 Issue 3, p841-872, 32p

“Widely cited” – Within certain interest-groups, perhaps (NOW?)

“nobody has brought up any flaws in the studies methodology” – Really? How odd that nobody would do that. Or didn’t you google for longer than 15 seconds? Good research there, Mr. PhuD.

My suspicions would first be roused by the fact this is a study done at the behest of groups looking for legislative reform vis-a-vis rape victims. Of course, I’m sure you would never suspect stats of being misused for such ends. Never.

Anyway, on page two, the first paragraph leaps out as being statistically treacherous – respondents claiming to have been raped at some point in their lives – with no indication of any correction for age – then being extrapolated over an entire population’s lives. With boundaries so loose, huge numbers like this are trivial to fabricate. Utter statistical nonsense!

Back to page one, the study concluded that their results were ‘probably’ half the real number. Why? What statistical basis is there to extrapolate female rape across the entire male/child population? More nonsense!

I’m not trying to belittle the serious crime of rape (which should carry the option of a death penalty IMNSHO), but rather raise a serious question about your claims of statistical research competence. You shouldn’t have missed these big question marks.

Nobody could be blamed for interpreting the ones presented here as corpses without more information

Very true. It’s funny how a blog can distort something, huh.

Granted, some of the images make this clearer than others. Nobody could be blamed for interpreting the ones presented here as corpses without more information.

Can’t you google something a wee bit more current than a 1992 NYT article?

I have access to Harvard’s online library. I can bring up articles all day if you like. Here’s one:

“A statistically significant correlation…was found between rape rates and the proportion of Air Force personnel in the population.”
Title:
Rape Rates and Military Personnel in the United States.
Authors:
Rosen, Leora N.1
Source:
Violence Against Women; Sep2007, Vol. 13 Issue 9, p945-960, 16p

This is radically different from such highly variable sociological studies

And that is why I mentioned that my wife is a social psychologist. I know how these studies are run and the statistics used for them.

Can you highlight two glaring flaws in the glossed-over methodology

Of course the methodology is glossed-over. It’s an MSM articcle. They are not going to print 2 pages of methodology in the NYT. No, I don’t see these glaring flaws. This is a famous study that has been widely cited for over a decade, and nobody has brought up any flaws in the studies methodology. Why don’t you tell me what you see that the rest of the academic world does not. This will be interesting.

My guess – no you can’t.

LimeyGeek on August 18, 2008 at 3:33 PM

PS. Can’t you google something a wee bit more current than a 1992 NYT article?

I have a PhD in medicinal chemistry with over 20 years experience in cancer research and my wife has a PhD in social psychology.

Ah, an academic. Penny starting to drop.

I know very well what “valid research” is, because I do it for a living

Since you are so casually dismissing my first-hand experience, you’ll consider it ‘fair game’ to do so to yours.

I know how to evaluate data, and Limeygeek’s first hand experience does not get much weight.

If this is true, then you would know that I did not provide data, only experiential opinion.

Your career has equipped you to crunch stats in medical studies. This is radically different from such highly variable sociological studies.

Can you highlight two glaring flaws in the glossed-over methodology in the NYT article you linked?

My guess – no you can’t.

In one thread that has nothing to do with guns or chain saws, you have managed to let everyone know that you carry a gun and use chain saws
dave742 on August 18, 2008 at 3:19 PM

Again, your critical thinking and english comprehension skills are embarrassing you. The ‘gun’ reference was entirely tangential, and the ‘chainsaw’ reference was a gracious dose of humility to demonstrate my stupidity. Neither occurrence (if viewed ‘in context’, as you liberals are so moronically fond of saying) has anything to do with machismo.

You sound very manly. Do you lift weights, too?

I do not have time for such things. My activities felling trees, hunting deer and smoking cigars tire me out too much.

(For extra credit, try and figure out what literary device I was just using)

Unless I see something that shows the methodolgy of the study is flawed, of course I accept the data

There’s your problem, and I’ll bet you don’t understand why.

Are you of college-age? Or thereabouts? My experiences here in the USA are that today’s kids consider googling for ‘stats’ to be valid ‘research’. And boy, do they believe in those stats. They believe everything shoved under their nose, much like you.

real world evidence be damned

By evidence you mean what people at HotAir tell me. Got it.

In one thread that has nothing to do with guns or chain saws, you have managed to let everyone know that you carry a gun and use chain saws. You sound very manly. Do you lift weights, too?

you are content to merely accept what is shoved under your nose without critical thought?

So the National Women’s Study does a government funded study and comes up with some data. Unless I see something that shows the methodolgy of the study is flawed, of course I accept the data. What do you suggest I do to sharpen my “critical thought” capabilities? Should I ignore all studies and academic work and instead rely on what a bunch of right wing extremists tell me from their “first-person” experiences? Is that how it is done? I guess that’s how everyone on this blog does it.

dave742 on August 18, 2008 at 3:05 PM

I know how safe I am in the USA. I know how unsafe my family is in the UK. I know I am free to make personal choices about firearms and home/personal security here in the USA. I know that my family have been cruelly denied those choices and left in the hands of a grossly incompetent law enforcement establishment. I know you are a cliched American liberal smart ass that pretends to know it all – real world evidence be damned in the face of aggregated-beyond-meaning statistics that appear to support your flimsy ideology.

I know plenty. But I’m still stupid enough to fit my chainsaw blade the wrong way round. Mea culpa.

I stand as a first-person testimonial

This is what it always comes down to for me on this blog. I read, do research (usually much more than looking up a few stats), and find results that disagree with everything said on this blog. IN the end, nobody can ever refute what I say rationally, so I am usually told that either I’m stupid, a commie, or “trust me, because I know better.” Sorry. I will stick to the stats that can be found everywhere that say the same thing over “Limeygeek” at the Hotair blog.

Nice baseless accusation.

Actually, the UK media shines a fairly regular spotlight on such corruptions.

Here’s a related statement that is backed up:

You consider an article about “estimates” as being “backed up” do you? In the ongoing contest over statistical methodologies, especially on such contentious issues, you are content to merely accept what is shoved under your nose without critical thought?

We are blissfully crime-free here in the USA.

Is it Ron White that says “you can’t fix stupid” ?

And you back it up just as well as he does.

I stand as a first-person testimonial to the crime problem in the UK, having seen the problem from the civilian, political, and legal angles.

You are merely flinging around marginal statistics without any analysis of their underpinnings.

We are blissfully crime-free here in the USA.