ian@loral.UUCP (Ian Kaplan) (10/13/86)
I too found the survey very poor. The survey was slanted and
I did not think that it would be worth the time to answer it. This
survey is just another example of the poor quality of a lot (but not
all) of psychological research.
Ian Kaplan
Flames to /dev/null. I don't have time to argue this garbage.rb@cci632.UUCP (Rex Ballard) (10/16/86)
In article <620@dg_rtp.UUCP> throopw@dg_rtp.UUCP (Wayne Throop) writes: >> charlesd@tekig4.UUCP (Charles Davis) >> (questionaire by Carmen Stukas, R.N., M.A) > >Is the first part of the questionaire in the referenced posting really >state-of-the-art in sexual attitude surveys? Actually, it looked very similar to an older test, given to determine "masculine/feminine" characteristics. >This first part certainly >has the "flavor" of being a "standard attitude survey". A personality profile test would be a more appropriate description. As mentioned before, this test (or something like it) has been given before, and results have been used in surveys. It appears they are trying to link profile to various causes, particularly pedophilic episodes. >If it is a >standard survey, then I'm disappointed in the current state of the art, >in particular the phrasings of the questions. >I found (especially in the first part of the questionaire, dealing with >"attitudes"), I could rarely understand what the statements were getting >at, and thus (to put it mildly) had some difficulty in saying how much I >"agreed" with them. If you feel most women seem to not respect men who don't make their intentions clear, put "somewhat agree". They're looking for a gut level reaction, not a philisophical analysis. >Just what does this mish-mash measure, anyhow? Does it measure sexual >attitudes, or just measure what the respondents think the ambiguous >questions mean? It measures attitudes, not philisophical integrety, moral superiority, or even intellegence. The composite "score" is a pretty good measure of one's attitude or leanings. >Don't others of you find this sort >of survey intriguing, and would just love to participate, but can't make >heads nor tails of the questions? Hmmmmm? Sure, after looking at my answers a third and fourth time, and letting someone else see the answers, I could probably have added a paragraph to each one. The intent however is more like a "free association" test. Put down the first answer that comes to your head. It appears that the test was trying to determine any relationships between sexuality attitudes, sexual interests, and pediphilic experiences. What I found even more interesting was the attempt to exclude certain types of information. It was interesting that they were specifically interested ONLY in pre-16 sexual experiences with adults. In some cases, an earlier experience with another minor may have had a more significant effect. The child-adult relationship may have either positively or negatively reinforced the earlier experience. It might have been more useful to include earliest experiences as well as early child-adult experiences. Whatever it was for, it was certainly an eye opener for me. >Wayne Throop <the-known-world>!mcnc!rti-sel!dg_rtp!throopw Rex B. P.S. when will the results be published? And where?
throopw@dg_rtp.UUCP (Wayne Throop) (10/21/86)
> 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? Does it measure sexual >>attitudes, or just measure what the respondents think the ambiguous >>questions mean? > 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. It is possible that what people think the assertions mean is in turn a measure of their attitude or leanings, but I doubt it. Let's take the example from the survey again: 12. A woman will only respect a man who will lay down the law to her. OK. Let us say that person X thinks that the question means that women in general only respect men who beat them up, and thinks that many women indeed only respect men who beat them up. X might say "somewhat agree". Let us say that person Y thinks that the question means that women in general for the most part only respect honest men, and that many women indeed only respect honest men. Y might also say "somewhat agree". Yet the attitudes of X and Y are nowhere near the same. Since many of the attitude assertions were similarly ambiguous, any attitudes revealed by the answers might well be masked by differing interpretations of the assertions. 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. > 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. -- "Mathematicians are a kind of Frenchmen. When you tell them something, they translate it into their own language, and right away it is something completely different." --- Goethe -- Wayne Throop <the-known-world>!mcnc!rti-sel!dg_rtp!throopw
rb@cci632.UUCP (Rex Ballard) (10/28/86)
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 <the-known-world>!mcnc!rti-sel!dg_rtp!throopw Rex B.
throopw@dg_rtp.UUCP (Wayne Throop) (11/04/86)
>,>>> 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 <the-known-world>!mcnc!rti-sel!dg_rtp!throopw
jgro@ur-tut.UUCP (Jeremy Grodberg) (11/06/86)
In article <668@dg_rtp.UUCP> throopw@dg_rtp.UUCP (Wayne Throop) writes: [about the question "Do you agree with the following statement: (something like) A woman wants a man to lay down the law to her." and that questions usefulness on psychological questionaire] >> 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... No one said it was stated. The comment was that it might be inferred. >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. > I think the key problem with your argument is the implication that such questions can be put unambiguously. The question (".. lays down the law...") posed would reveal a deeper attitude about how women want to be treated than simply whether or not they want to be beaten. While different people would interpret the question differently, their choice of interpretation is part of the test. The answer will reveal simply if the person feels women want to be controlled by a man. Unfortunately, any way of phrasing the question will be interpreted differently by different people. The people reading my statement will already have different opinions about my interpretation of the question based on what they thought I meant by "controlled." A man who feels women want to be physically dominated might not feel they want to be "controlled," because to him the word suggests _removing_ female initiative, rather than keeping it within boundaries. Any question that will be broadly understood (remember a huge number of people read below "sixth grade" level) will be ambiguous. The best you can do on a questionaire is to channel the ambiguity in a known direction with meaningful results. Of course it would be better to spend a year of analysis with each of 1000 randomly selected people, but obviously not as likely to find researchers, funding, or 1000 randomly selected people willing to participate. A theoretically perfect study is only thoretical. >.... 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. I find it hard to belive that "lay down the law" is as ambiguous as blatzmimp. "The only thing perfectly clear is a vacuum." --Jeremy Grodberg UUCP: ...!{allegra, seismo, decvax, bullwinkle}!rochester!ur-tut!jgro ARPA: ur-tut!jgro@rochester.arpa CS: ur-tut!jgro@rochester.arpa (as far as I know) USPS: Box 29073, Rochester, NY 14627-5073 (as far as they know)
throopw@dg_rtp.UUCP (Wayne Throop) (11/10/86)
> jgro@ur-tut.UUCP (Jeremy Grodberg) >> throopw@dg_rtp.UUCP (Wayne Throop) > I think the key problem with your argument is the implication that such > questions can be put unambiguously. I don't think I made such an implication. I only MEANT to imply that the questions could be put LESS ambiguously, and that this would, on the whole, be a Good Thing. > The question (".. lays down the law...") > posed would reveal a deeper attitude about how women want to be treated than > simply whether or not they want to be beaten. So many people tell me. I have yet to see it convincingly demonstrated. > While different people would > interpret the question differently, their choice of interpretation is part of > the test. Again, I do not find the evidence of this compelling. (In fact, I don't even FIND the evidence of this.) > The answer will reveal simply if the person feels women want to be > controlled by a man. OK. Now we have a paraphrase of what YOU think "lay down the law" means in this context. It certainly does NOT tell us what J. Random Respondent thought it meant, and therefore it does not tell us what J meant by J's degree of agreement. > Unfortunately, any way of phrasing the question will be > interpreted differently by different people. Fine. Wonderful. Agreed. Would YOU agree that it would be better if the question were phrased so that MORE people think it means the SAME thing? Would you agree that, to the extent that various people think the statement means different things, simple degree of agreement with the statement cannot be used to deduce what these people think? > The best you can > do on a questionaire is to channel the ambiguity in a known direction with > meaningful results. I agree. This is precisely what I think was NOT done. >>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. > > I find it hard to belive that "lay down the law" is as ambiguous as blatzmimp. What, I'm not allowed to exagerate to make my point? But OK, fine. "Lay down the law" is not as ambiguous as blatzmimp. Nevertheless, I, personally, COULD NOT TELL what the phrase "lay down the law" meant in the context of this survey, and so had NO IDEA WHATSOEVER whether I agreed with the statement or not. But that's OK, the instructions said that if you didn't know if you agreed, you could leave any response blank. Fine. I found that I had to leave about two-thirds of the survey blank, or risk being misleading. In speculating what the people who DID respond might take the various phrases I couldn't understand to mean, I came to the conclusion that the survey very likely might not measure what it seemed to purport to measure, and I haven't seen anything so far to make me change my conclusion. I really don't see myself as being unreasonable here. - I found I didn't understand very much of the survey. - I suspected that others (who THOUGHT they understood it) might be mistaken, in that the meanings of the terms I found ambiguous might not be widely shared in the respondent population. - I don't see persuasive evidence that the questions that seemed meaningless to me individually nevertheless form a coherent, unambiguous whole when taken together. - I am firmly convinced that, in so far as the respondents think that the statements in the survey mean different things, the results are meaningless. That is, the more disagreement among the respondents as to the meanings of the statements, the more meaningless the results of the survey. To sumarize: Proper interpretation of the survey depends on how the respondents interpret idiomatic English. This factor is largely uncontrolled for by the testing procedure and by the test itself. I haven't seen much to convince me otherwise. -- I know you understand what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant. -- Wayne Throop <the-known-world>!mcnc!rti-sel!dg_rtp!throopw