Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!gatech!cuae2!ihnp4!ethos!rti-sel!dg_rtp!throopw From: throopw@dg_rtp.UUCP (Wayne Throop) Newsgroups: sci.research Subject: Re: MALE SEXUALITY RESEARCH Message-ID: <668@dg_rtp.UUCP> Date: Mon, 3-Nov-86 17:23:15 EST Article-I.D.: dg_rtp.668 Posted: Mon Nov 3 17:23:15 1986 Date-Received: Wed, 5-Nov-86 21:18:04 EST References: <620@dg_rtp.UUCP> <526@cci632.UUCP> <656@dg_rtp.UUCP> <595@cci632.UUCP> Lines: 82 Summary: still ambiguous questions >,>>> rb@cci632.UUCP (Rex Ballard) >> throopw@dg_rtp.UUCP (Wayne Throop) >>> The composite "score" is a pretty good measure of one's attitude or leanings. >>This is precisely what I dispute. > The question or statement is emotionally "loaded" in such a way that > in this case for example, a dominant "macho man" would probably agree, > a latent dominant would probably somewhat agree, a latent submissive > would probably somewhat disagree, and a full blown submissive would > probably strongly disagree. So much was obvious. My point was directed totally to the ambiguity in the question. And your further point doesn't clarify things: > As you point out, a "Ralph Crampden" type might even include brutality > in his definition of "laying down the law". A more moderate person > might feel that "laying down the law" means stating your "rules" and > expecting them to be followed. In fact, to determine how this was > interpreted, there was also a question about whether women liked to > be "roughed up". because 1) "and expecting them to be followed" was never stated anywhere in the question I used as an example, 2) the type of question you claim disambiguates the meaning of "laying down the law" doesn't even *MENTION* this concept, but talks about "roughing up", thus the two questions *CAN'T* reasonably be used to clarify each other. This is a little like saying that "Have you stopped beating your wife?" is a valid question, because later on they ask if you have stopped beating your dog. I still strongly maintain that before I can agree or disagree with a statement, I must know what the statement means. And further, before I know what someone who has stated agreement or disagreement with this statement "really" thinks, I must know what *THEY* thought the statement meant. Lacking the first, I can't honestly participate in the survey, and lacking the second will make me distrust any results. > You seem to be treating this as some sort of test in sociology. There are > no "right" or "wrong" answers, just how you feel. Sigh. No, I realized that there were no "right" answers, and that they were trying to get at how the respondents *are* rather than at how far they are from where they "ought" to be. I also realize that the survey doesn't even imply that there *IS* a way people "ought" to be. Nor, as a measurement tool, should it. I merely think it doesn't do a good job at measurement. As I said before. >>> It appears that the test was trying to determine any relationships between >>> sexuality attitudes, sexual interests, and pediphilic experiences. >>That much was obvious. It just seems to be doing a bad job of it. > Would you rather they simply have ONE question, or a test of intellectual > questions, so everyone could answer the questions correctly? The result > would be exactly what you complain about. Bias on the part of the survey. No, no, no! I don't want "only one" question. I don't want a suite of "correct" responses. I don't want another bogus "IQ" test, nor an exercise of "intelectual capacity". But I view the survey as being a group of assertions like these: Women always furglumple. When a man and a woman glignarltz, they often also froosniple. Men want blatzmimp from women. I contend that the use of context-dependant phrases like "lay down the law", "men only want one thing", and so on in a context-impoverished survey is equivalent to loading the questions with nonsense words like "blatzmimp". Blatzmimp could be sex, companionship, money, shoes, children, cold feet, panty hose, or abusive domination. Now, a respondent can assume a context, pick a meaning for all the nonsense words in the survey, and answer the questions. But I see no guarantee at all (certainly not apparent as cross-checks in the question set) that the researchers know what the chosen context will be. In fact, it is possible to be different for each respondent. I am not trying to say that the survey yields *no* information, just that it doesn't yield as much as it might, or "ought to". -- I know you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant. -- Wayne Throop !mcnc!rti-sel!dg_rtp!throopw