There was a recent study which I did find interesting (I cannot remember if it was mentioned on this list), a simple one that did not require much in the way of statistics. Starting with Freud's (I think this right) assertion that homophobia stemed from latent homosexuality, a number of homophobic men (based on responses to a questioniare) and non-homophobic self-described hetrosexual males had an a pressure gauge attached to them.
Then in private they were shown some pornography on a video screen and their responses were recorded, most was hetro-sexual, some female homosexual and then interdispersed some male homosexual pictures.
Guess what? Freud was right. The homophobes were markedly aroused by the male homosexual pictures. Unfortunately the researcher did not explore whether this was conscious or unconscious (which would have added a whole dimension to the study).
My point being was that the test which was not overly sophisticated nor needed to be, was based on a sophisticated hypothesis of causual relations, within these parameters it suggested the type of test (which did not need to make overly scientific pretenses) and illustrated some of the strengths of the original idea.
Psychology does not normally work this way, rather than a clear and theoretical hypothesis, it begins with prejudices and "common sense" assertions which examined by themselves have little or no validity, and then constructs elaborate "quasi-sciencitific" testing environments which like Gould's rightly famous "Mismeasurement of Man" suffer one or a number of gaping methodological holes, covered over by massive statistical proofs.
Psychology is one of my pet hates for this reason, measured in the time wasted wading through their "conclusions" the simple and stupid assumptions made at the base level, it usually amounts to a lot of reading for very little reward. Worse is that the more intelligent psychologists are unconsciously aware of their sham and go to great lengths to disguise what they doing which makes wading through the dross all the harder.
I am about to wade through Michael's reference to rape and pronography mentioned in this thread. I will comment on it later but unread I will predict that the assumption at its base will mistake simple male arousal, with rape itself (sexual objectification by males, and I suspect both sexes, inevitably being a part of active love making - given how our brains generally work - ie by association). Sorry Michael to prejudge, but I am finding the most predicatable human behavour to be that of psychologists finding a thesis which confirms "common-sense"at the expense of truth.
Greg
--- Message Received --- From: joanna bujes <joanna.bujes at ebay.sun.com> To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 12:12:34 -0800 Subject: Re: TV & violence & studies
I agree. Here's another example for your arsenal. A friend of mine was doing "conservation" tests for a Piaget-inspired study some years ago. This is the one where you pour blue liquid from a cup into a tall skinny tube. Then you pour the liquid back into the cup. Then you pour the blue liquid into a short fat tube. Then you ask the kid who is watching all this which tube has more liquid: the tall thin one or the short fat one. Most kids, Piaget argued, will argue that the tall thin tube has more liquid....up to a certain age, then after that age, most kids will realize that it's the same amount of liquid. OK. So he's doing the experiment and all the kids are younger than the age at which they understand about conservation and they're all saying that the tall thin tube has more liquid. So my friend gets bored and he goes to the soda machine and he gets some orange crush, which he drinks with visible delight. Then he decides to see what happens if he uses the orange crush rather than the blue liquid. And guess what, now all the kids can conserve!!! Moral of the story: sometimes a subjective interest in what is going on can make you more intelligent. The kids didn't give squat about the blue liquid; but they cared very much what wasa happening to the yummy soda.
Joanna ______________ Greg Schofield Perth Australia g_schofield at dingoblue.net.au ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ Modular And Integrated Design - programing power for all
Lestec's MAID and LTMailer http://www.lestec.com.au also available at Amazon.com ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________