Reply to comment
worthless drek
February 29, 2008
by Anonymous,
1 year 38 weeks ago
Comment: 27853
Reply
About us
Science Blog was started in August 2002. It lives, breathes and eats press releases from research organizations around the globe. Most of what you read here are press releases from the outfits named in the stories themselves. Got a news story you think belongs here? Let's talk. The other half of the equation is blog posts from readers like you. So if you have an interest in science, please register and join others like you in an ongoing, vibrant dialog about what makes the world tick. Meantime, please take a minute to read our Privacy Policy and Site Disclaimer.Recommended
Andrew Sullivan Dan Sullivan Doug Arellanes Emmanuelle Richard Faith Sullivan Fred Bortz Heather Havrilesky Henry Copeland Kate Sullivan Ken Layne lagreenbean.com LAist.com Maggie Sullivan Matt Welch NewYorkology Opinion L.A. Ron Kaye Slashdot Steve Elzer & Family TheNewsroom.org Thor Garcia Tony Pierce Wonkette OlderThanks CNET for naming Science Blog one of your Blog 100!
The article is such worthless drek that it's hardly worth acknowledging. Percentages tell us nothing. What are the means and standard deviation? What are our sample sizes? What are out F ratios? Spouting out a bunch percentages with out references to these are worthless for truly understanding this sort of data.
And the sample data all comes from college students. Sampling only college students is hardly representative.
So he's maybe he's found that certain percentages of college students who were spanked as children have these tendencies? Just because there may be a correlation relationship (which we have no idea of just how strong that correlation it is) does not necessarily imply there is a causal one. There could be any number of other contributing factors, such prevalence of home violence, socioeconomic factors (we already know that these children come from homes with the ability and motivation to send them to college), religious and moral background, etc.
In order to say that corporal punishment leads to significant deviation in sexuality one must design a experiment to test this hypothesis. I very much doubt Straus gathered a random group of subjects as children and randomly assigned them to spanked and not spanked.
It also looks a lot like Straus taking any instance to mean trend:
In the fourth study, Straus asked 207 students at three colleges about whether they had ever been sexually aroused by masochistic sex: imagining that they were being tied up when having sex, engaging in rough sex, or by spanking, and if they had been sexually aroused by actually doing these three things.
Really? Ever? Even one random thought means one is a masochist?
And finally, what was the peer reviewed article Straus published this all in? Oh wait, he didn't. He presented at a conference. One that he's not even listed as a speaker at! A published write and foremost researcher in his field not being listed as a speaker he spoke at? And even if Straus was a last minute addition presenter, how was this information received by the other attendees at the conference? Did they accept it? Did they reject it?
-sable