Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Bobboau on October 01, 2015, 03:52:19 pm
-
https://www.researchgate.net/blog/post/porn-watchers-think-more-highly-of-women
full study (http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Taylor_Kohut/publication/281303513_Is_Pornography_Really_about_Making_Hate_to_Women_Pornography_Users_Hold_More_Gender_Egalitarian_Attitudes_Than_Nonusers_in_a_Representative_American_Sample/links/55eeef9808aedecb68fd824c.pdf?inViewer=true&disableCoverPage=true&origin=publication_detail)
-
I wonder when we as a forum will graduate beyond drive by posting an article and waiting for the ****storm. C'mon, Bob.
-
I think of it more as not trying to inject my own personal bias before someone has had a chance to read what I'm posting about and letting it stand or fall on it's own merit.
but whatevs
-
I wonder when we as a forum will graduate beyond drive by posting an article and waiting for the ****storm. C'mon, Bob.
Well, you could post articles then y'know.
EDIT: We only get the postings of the people willing to create posts, I'm saying. If they driveby, they driveby, that's who's going to OP it up if nobody else does.
-
Between this and the tendency of several people on Hard Light to berate discussion participants, this is why there are so few posts on here any more. I look at this and its interesting, but its instantly put down as a drive by and I know that any discussion will devolve into several people just not quite putting each other down enough to be a violation of any rules. </soapbox>
-
be the change you want to see in the world
-
I'm just wondering how on Earth they found a control.
From a quick look at the paper though, it looks like they just used the results of a more general survey rather than anything involving actual test subjects.
-
I'm going to agree with Kara - how the hell did they get a control group?
Hahahaha.
-
That question is a tad silly when you actually read the paper. It's a direct comparison between groups that have watched pornography in the last year vs those who didn't. There's no need for "control groups".
What the paper tries to show is how false the notion is that porn "is an efficient deliverer of ‘‘women-hating ideology’’ (‘‘So You Think You Know,’’ 2009)". And the data seems not only to support that notion (which would be proved if the numbers were basically the same), but even turn it upside down and actually assert that perhaps porn has a positive contribution to egalitarian mindsets.
My main problem with this analysis is that, to me, it is not clear how they controlled for age and how they controlled for the opposite cause-effect relationship (it might just be that more conservative people just watch less porn than liberal people, and it might still be true that porn still creates a "woman hating ideology", just not enough to counter initial predispositions). Now this is not to say they didn't. I'm just lacking in technical expertise to figure that one out. For instance, this paragraph
Because of the design of the GSS, not all participants were asked all of the variables that make up the out-comes of interest in this study. Consequently, it was not possible in this case to conduct a multivariate analy-sis of variance (MANOVA) to control for the inflated Type 1 error that occurs when multiple statistical tests are conducted. Instead, the current study employed the use of five separate analyses, with appropriate Bonferroni corrections.
is ****ing chinese to me, and it (and others like it) could well be the response to my concerns.
-
Yeah, I figured that's what was going on but since my background is hard sciences, I didn't bother reading much further.
I did read the bit where they wonder if this is simply a correlation with the fact that any guy who doesn't watch porn these days is probably religious and therefore is more likely to be anti-female for those reasons (Not saying all religious people have a problem with women, but it's pretty obvious to anyone that there are some who do).
-
Yes, one can easily guess that if you account for those, it is a wash (well, one could state that it is more than a wash, etc.). What I think the article makes it clear though, is the idea that any negative effect from porn is sufficiently negligible that it is pretty much undetectable by these methods.
-
Well, I only know a modest amount of econometrics, so here's my translation for the "Chinese."
Because of the design of the GSS, not all participants were asked all of the variables that make up the outcomes of interest in this study.
The survey (GSS) asks a core set of questions while participants were randomly selected to answer the more specific questions. (I had to figure this out from context from an earlier section).
Consequently, it was not possible in this case to conduct a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) to control for the inflated Type 1 error that occurs when multiple statistical tests are conducted.
Since each participant did not answer all of the questions we desired, we had to conduct several regression analysis instead of a single, traditional multi-variate analysis. A multi-variate analysis would have less error.
First, the association between pornography use and feminist identification was assessed using... blahblahblah binary regression... blahblah blahblah... that controlled for the first year of the survey.
We ran a binary regressions to determine the other factors we really cared about. These factors include: feminist identification, views on traditional family, attitude towards women in power, women in the workplace, and abortion. (Basically a binary regression is a statistical method that uses several variables to return a "yes" or "no" response, e.g. reg Is_Snarks_Cool post_counts sexiness other_stuff where the dependent variable Is_Snarks_Cool returns a 1 or 0. In the case of the study, they use a more complicated set up that has 2*(binary result 1) * 2 (binary result 2) for whatever reason, which is why we have numbers higher than 1 in Table 2, I think.)
To control for inflated Type 1 error we employed Bonferroni corrections to all of our analyses, which conservatively adjusted the significance threshold. Each of the analyses described here was also conducted with both weighted (adjusting for the undersampling of adults living in multiple-adult residences) and unweighted samples. The conclusions reached from both sets of analyses were identical, so the unweighted results are presented for the sake of simplicity.
To control for the larger margin of error because we ran a bunch of regressions instead of a single one, we use Bonferroni corrections on our analysis. (I have no idea what Bonferroni corrections are. Sorry! I'm guessing it's somekind of technique that compensates for errors when doing multiple regressions instead of one). We used weighted and unweighted samples to account for the fact that some of our data came from houses where there were multiple adults in one household. It turns that didn't really matter, so we used the unweighted data for simplicity.
There is this bit later down the line though:
It has long been known that individuals who volunteer for research involving exposure to sexual material differ from those who do not on a number of dimensions. Self-selectionp ressures were much stronger in Hald et al.'s study than the GSS study, which may have contributed to the differential recruitment of individuals who seek to avoid exposure to pornography. Arguably, the samples obtained by the GSS are more likely to contain individuals who were both less likely to consume pornography and as well as more likely to hold non egalitarian attitudes than the sample obtained by Half and colleagues.
So it doesn't really seem like they control for cause-effect relationships. Instead, it seems like this study defends that position by saying the GSS is less biased sample set than previous studies.
-
The fact it's using random sampling (not self selection) and a fairly large sample size are huge improvements over most research I have seen done in this field.
-
Yeah, I figured that's what was going on but since my background is hard sciences, I didn't bother reading much further.
I did read the bit where they wonder if this is simply a correlation with the fact that any guy who doesn't watch porn these days is probably religious and therefore is more likely to be anti-female for those reasons (Not saying all religious people have a problem with women, but it's pretty obvious to anyone that there are some who do).
They touched on that in the article.