Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-crg!lll-lcc!qantel!ihnp4!houxm!mtuxo!mtune!mtunf!mtx5c!mtx5d!mtx5a!mat From: mat@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile) Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,net.legal,soc.singles Subject: Re: Re: Re: The Evidence on Pornography Message-ID: <1556@mtx5a.UUCP> Date: Wed, 24-Sep-86 01:11:19 EDT Article-I.D.: mtx5a.1556 Posted: Wed Sep 24 01:11:19 1986 Date-Received: Sat, 20-Sep-86 20:51:47 EDT References: <777@mtund.UUCP> <1529@mtx5a.UUCP> <780@mtund.UUCP> <1547@mtx5a.UUCP> <781@mtund.UUCP> Distribution: net Organization: AT&T Information Systems, Middletown, NJ 07748-4801. Lines: 87 Xref: mnetor talk.politics.misc:199 net.legal:3622 soc.singles:13 > > > AG's commission: >>>> In an attempt to approximate a ``real world'' situation, Malamuth and >>>> Check (1981) had male and female subjects view full-length features >>>> as part of a campus cinema showing... > > > I stand by my observation that *appropriate controls*, namely ... > > > were never done. The "pornographic" materials used by Malamuth (et al) > > > were in fact *violent* as well as pornographic, ... Moreover, > > > Malamuth uses a significance level of .05, so that *even with proper > > > controls* the probability of any single contrast yielding a spuriously > > > significant result would be .05 . ... [the study] involved at least 5 > > > contrasts , so the probability of at least one spuriously significant > > > result is .23, about one in 4. And this is the *best* of the studies > > > cited by the commission. Not much to go on, is it now? > I am referring to the five separate dependent measures administered in > *one* study, the only one by Malamuth et al which included anything > resembling a control condition: Malamuth and Clark (1981). Only one of > those five contrasts yielded a result significant at the .05 level. > > > Since you have apparently worked with Malamuth's data before (have you, in > > fact?), what have you to say on the other studies? > > I can't answer the first question directly without appearing to > violate the confidentiality of the scientific peer review process, so I > won't. As for the second: None of them used *either* appropriate > controls or reliable analyses. ... I found that examples of bad > methodology could be most readily found in "studies" motivated by > political axe-grinding. ... If it is any consolation to those who were > hoping for something sounder from the anti-pornography "studies", the anti- > handgun "studies" are worse. Ok. Let's take this one point at a time. Malamuth and *Clark* or Malamuth and *Check*? Yes. Assuming that the trends all had no less than 1 chance in 20 of being random occurrences (in other words, that all of the trends were *just* barely within the level of significance) there is about 1 chance in four that one of the five trends observed was a random event, in the absence of further data. The likelyhood of all five were flukes, however, would be 1/(3 200 000). By the way, I suspect that the worst methodology can probably be found in the area of ``psi'' ``research'', no? Or is that so far off on another planet as to be unworthy even of ridicule? Have you on hand a full list of the references that the ``social sciences'' section of the report lists? I would be (genuinely) interested in your specific comments about the other studies cited conducted by Malamuth, or Malamuth, et. al., as well as those done by Donnerstein. I would be even more interested to hear what you have to say about the studies cited in which neither Malamuth nor Donnerstein is listed as an author. Naturally, you understand that I will not be *entirely* unbiased but I will try to approach the matter realisticly -- which means to me accepting the realities of statistics, and within *some* limits of subjectivity, the question of what constitutes an appropriate control. Are you aware of any properly controlled studies (by your criteria ...) which attempted to observe what these studies attempted to observe? If so, what did they find? If not, are there any *better* ones than those cited? If not, can the apparent indications that there is *something* to what these ``axe- grinders'' (your term) claim to have shown be ignored entirely? Once again, would you agree that the appropriate action is prompt and properly controlled study? Or do you feel that the entire question can be ignored? (If you answered this question before I must have missed it.) Next, if reports from individuals involved in social work, in law enforcement, in criminal psychiatry, as well as the testimony of victims all indicate an apparent link between behaviour that is either criminal or just short of it (the ``no means yes'' and the ``c'mon honey, look at how they do it in the picture -- it looks like fun'' syndromes), what do you think is the appropriate response from social science research? And (realisticly) do you think that a way can be found to bring investigators whom you would call unbiased into that response? Finally, when the people who are ``offenders'' in the situation of the previous paragraph do not show outward indications of abnormality in the absence of specially designed tests, and if a non-vanishing portion of the population, when given these tests, shows the sam abnormality, does you characterization of the Psychiatric Fantasy still apply? Why? -- from Mole End Mark Terribile (scrape .. dig ) mtx5b!mat (Please mail to mtx5b!mat, NOT mtx5a! mat, or to mtx5a!mtx5b!mat) (mtx5b!mole-end!mat will also reach me) ,.. .,, ,,, ..,***_*.