Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rochester!ritcv!cci632!rb From: rb@cci632.UUCP (Rex Ballard) Newsgroups: sci.research Subject: Re: MALE SEXUALITY RESEARCH Message-ID: <595@cci632.UUCP> Date: Mon, 27-Oct-86 17:49:27 EST Article-I.D.: cci632.595 Posted: Mon Oct 27 17:49:27 1986 Date-Received: Mon, 27-Oct-86 23:34:25 EST References: <620@dg_rtp.UUCP> <526@cci632.UUCP> <656@dg_rtp.UUCP> Reply-To: rb@ccird2.UUCP (Rex Ballard) Organization: CCI, Rochester Development, Rochester, NY Lines: 64 Summary: Emotionally loaded questions In article <656@dg_rtp.UUCP> throopw@dg_rtp.UUCP (Wayne Throop) writes: >> rb@cci632.UUCP (Rex Ballard) >>> throopw@dg_rtp.UUCP (Wayne Throop) >>>> charlesd@tekig4.UUCP (Charles Davis) > >>>> (questionaire) > >>>Just what does this mish-mash measure, anyhow? >> The composite "score" is a pretty good measure of one's attitude or leanings. > >This is precisely what I dispute. I think it is largely a measure of >what one thinks the assertions mean. > > 12. A woman will only respect a man who will > lay down the law to her. > 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. 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". On the flip side, someone who feels that a woman should be free to express her "rules" or "needs", and should be able to say no, would probably consider his "ideal woman" to repect him for giving her room. He would probably disagree as well. >I repeat that I do not find claims that "interpretations will 'cancel >out'" so that the results still reflect only or primarily attitudes, or >"but it 'correlates well' with 'other measures'" very reassuring. Thus >I think the results of tests with muddy questions like these are at best >worthless and at worst misleading. You seem to be treating this as some sort of test in sociology. There are no "right" or "wrong" answers, just how you feel. If you are dominant, agressive, and macho, that will show in various responses, and they will be interested in what made you that way. If you are submissive, passive, and effeminate, this will also show, and they will be interested in what made you that way. Each question has an effect on your score, and the score is much like "Kinseys score". In fact, I would even suggest you look at the "Kinsey report", or the Masters and Johnson reports to see how these questions are interpreted. >> 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. If you try to see if people agree with "facts", then you will find a majority of people who will answer "correctly". >Wayne Throop !mcnc!rti-sel!dg_rtp!throopw Rex B.