Stand Your Ground Forums > Main

Response to Mr. Bad re: Farrell, Koss, and Archer

(1/29) > >>

ampersand:

--- Quote from: "Mr. Bad" ---
--- Quote from: "ampersand" ---
--- Quote from: "Mr. Bad" ---
--- Quote from: "ampersand" ---Can you cite a peer-reviewed paper which used results from surveying shelters to improperly claim that "one in four women are beaten by their loved ones"?
--- End quote ---


Not off the top of my head, but I know that they exist.  For example, Johnath Archer (2002)  wrote peer-reviewed responses to his critics outlining cases such as the ones I describe and you challenge in his defense of his work "Sex differences in physically aggressive acts between heterosexual partners: A meta-analytic review.  (Aggression and Violent Behavior, 7, 213-351).  I suggest that you pick up a hard copy of the source journal; I did and the letters back and forth - all peer-reviewed - were fascinating and enlightening.
--- End quote ---


I skimmed Archer's article, and couldn't find any support for your claims in there. What in particular did he say, that you think supports the claim that peer-reviewed papers by feminists used results from surveying shelters to improperly claim that "one in four women are beaten by their loved ones"?
--- End quote ---


Like I said, in his response to letters and reviewers comments he addresses the excessive politicization of the domestic violence industry - particularly the workers - and he includes citations in his responses.  As I said, you have to get a hard copy of the journal, and you most certainly have to read it thoroughly and carefully and not "skim" it.  It appears to me that at least in this response you are not being sincere re. trying to truly understand the issues.
--- End quote ---


Are you positive you're citing the correct article? It sounds to me like you might actually be talking about Archer's article in Psychological Bulletin (September 2000, Vol. 126, No. 5, p 651-680), which included three response articles and then a counter-response by Archer. Although nothing Archer said there actually supports your claim, at least he sort of addresses the subject there, which he doesn't in the issue of Aggression and Violent Behavior you cite.

Also, I think it's a bit much for you to accuse me of lack of sincerity. Since when is it my job to do your research for you? You made a claim (that feminist researchers have used samples of battered women only to claim that "1 in 4" women are beaten by loved ones) that you've been entirely unable to back up, instead telling me to go do research, giving as a clue only an article that you gave incorrect page numbers for in a journal that did not, as far as I can tell, include the responses and counter-responses you're telling me to read.

In short, it's clear that either you made a bad mistake and sent me on a wild-goose chase (wrong page numbers and all), or you know you can't back up your claim and so you've cited stuff you know doesn't exist.

The bottom line is, you made a claim that you're unable to back up. That's not my fault.


--- Quote from: "ampersand" ---
--- Quote ---(By the way, letters in peer-reviewed journals do not typically go through the peer-review jury process.)
--- End quote ---


You clearly do not understand the process vis-a-vis publishing in peer-reviewed journals Amp.  I'm an academic and publish manuscripts regularly, and I'm here to tell you that an author's responses to criticisms by reviewers and/or readers most certainly are peer-reviewed and thus must be thoroughly documented, i.e., cited, and supported by fact.  

You're dead wrong on this one Amp.
--- End quote ---


In most peer-reviewed journals, there's a difference between letters to the editor - which are not peer-reviewed (see the letters column in JAMA, for example) - and formal responses and counter-responses, which are peer-reviewed. The articles in Psychological Bulliten, which is what I think you're referring to, are formal responses, not mere letters. (You can tell because they're listed as distinct articles in the table of contents, in contrast to letters which are just grouped together in a lettercolumn rather than being listed separately).


--- Quote from: "Mr. Bad" ---
--- Quote from: "ampersand" ---
--- Quote ---However, noteworthy is the fact that the Koss study has been reviewed and criticized by many other people, (e.g., Cathy Young, C.H. Sommers, Wendy McElroy, et al.) beside Farrell, so IMO the preponderance of evidence suggests that it was Koss who mischaracterized her data and results, not Farrell or other reviewers.
--- End quote ---


That's illogical, because the two choices you present - Koss mischaracterizing her data, and Farrell mischaracterizing her data - are not exclusive. Even if Koss misrepresented her study or results (and I don't think she did in any serious way), that would not prove that Farrell did not also mischaracterize Koss' study or results.

Furthermore, I'm confused about why you think that stuff is relevant, because my criticisms of Farrell were binary. Either Koss' study used that question to calculate rape prevalence, or it did not. Either Koss' study found that approximately 25% of women in her sample had experienced rape (as opposed to rape and attempted rape combined), or it did not. The truth or nontruth of these binary, yes-or-no questions is not changed one way or the other because a bunch of right-wing feminists have crticized Koss.
--- End quote ---


Ok, first of all it's invalid to criticize and dismiss analyses of what you perceive as "right-wing" feminists unless you want to open the door to similarly criticizing and dismissing analyses of  what we perceive as "left wing" feminists.  Otherwise, full stop.
--- End quote ---


If I said to you, "well, MacKinnon, Dworkin and Morgan have all agreed that X is untrue, therefore X is untrue," I doubt you'd find that a compelling argument, and I'd be foolish to expect you to find it compelling.

In the end, what you're talking about is argument from authority; but arguments from authority only work if both debators agree that the people cited are legitimate authorities. Given your views on feminism, it would be unreasonable of me to expect you to accept feminist theorists (or polemic writers) as authorities on disputed issues; it is similarly unreasonable of you to expect me to accept Hoff-Sommers, et al, as authorities on disputed issues.


--- Quote ---Next, I can't be 100% certain, but based on what you've written I believe that I recall why the Koss 'study' has been so thoroughly criticized and debunked, the reason being the definition of "rape" that she used.  You said "Either Koss' study used that question to calculate rape prevalence, or it did not. Either Koss' study found that approximately 25% of women in her sample had experienced rape (as opposed to rape and attempted rape combined), or it did not."  So yes, perhaps the Koss 'study' did find that 25% of the respondents answered affirmatively to the question, however, from what I recall the question was 1) quite 'loaded' re. the wording, and 2) used a ridiculous and frankly ludicrous definition of "rape."  

Like I said, I'll have to review the Koss work, but I believe that it has been thoroughly - and rightfully - discredited for using absurd defninitions and loaded/leading survey techniques.
--- End quote ---


I disagree, but until you actually make an argument, I can't make a counter-argument.

However, I do want to point out that this is entirely non-responsive regarding Farrell. Even if everything you say is true - even if Koss used a bad definition of rape, for example - that still doesn't justify Farrell reporting falsehoods about Koss' study to discredit Koss. If Koss did bad work, then truthfully reporting on what she did wrong is justified; but lying (through malice or carelessness) about Koss' work is not.

I'm willing to discuss Koss's research in detail, if you want, but I don't want that to be an excuse for you to avoid the issue of Farrell getting his facts wrong. You challenged me to support my claim that Warren Farrell had dishonestly described Mary Koss' research. I did support that claim with facts you haven't even attempted to refute. In response, you've claimed that Koss' research was bad; but logically, whether Koss' research was good or bad does not effect whether or not Farrell's description of her research was accurate or inaccurate. So your argument is a non sequitor.


--- Quote from: "Mr. Bad" ---
--- Quote from: "ampersand" ---
--- Quote ---That's the thing about the scientific method Amp:  If various independent researchers can repeat the experiment  - this case a review - and come up with consistent findings, then the evidence piles up.  And so in this case, the evidence against Koss and in favor of Farrell's interpretation is IMO strong.
--- End quote ---


Funny, I thought that most scientists consider peer-reviewed journals to be more compelling evidence than non-peer-reviewed polemics.
--- End quote ---


We do, which is why most all of what feminists write is considered pure, unadulterated bullshit by most of us.
--- End quote ---


Yet so far every source you've cited to criticize Koss' study has been non-peer-reviewed pop books, rather than peer-reviewed research or criticism.


--- Quote from: "ampersand" ---
--- Quote ---That aside, would you say the same thing if the evidence leaned in the other direction - that is, in support of Koss' findings regarding rape?
--- End quote ---


Maybe, but from what I recall Koss' work was most definitely in the realm of "polemics," to use your terminology above; certainly her discussion and conclusions sections were.
--- End quote ---


What do you mean, "maybe"? When three non-peer-reviewed anti-feminists agree that Koss' research is bad, you think that's strong evidence; but if other peer-reviewed research and reviews support Koss' conclusions, then that's not strong evidence? It seems to me that's a double-standard.

Sir Jessy of Anti:
IIRC, one of the main reasons I consider Koss's study to be discredited is due to the fact that when the same questions on her survey that she used to categorize the victimization rate for women were applied to the men of her survey, similar victimization rates occured for men.  This fact was not highly publicized as it didn't have the desired political effect.  The study was funded by Ms. Magazine, so this is hardly surprising.

ampersand:

--- Quote from: "Sir Jessy of Anti" ---IIRC, one of the main reasons I consider Koss's study to be discredited is due to the fact that when the same questions on her survey that she used to categorize the victimization rate for women were applied to the men of her survey, similar victimization rates occured for men.  This fact was not highly publicized as it didn't have the desired political effect.  The study was funded by Ms. Magazine, so this is hardly surprising.
--- End quote ---


Koss's study didn't ask men and women the same questions, so it would have been impossible for her to do what you've described here.

I do know of one study which did a gender-neutral Koss survey, asking Koss' questions equally of male and female students. The study had a tiny sample size, so it's statistical power is pretty low (as the authors themselves admitted). What they found is that men and women were equally likely to "experience unwanted sexual contact" - but unwanted sexual contact, as the authors used the term, is a broader category than rape, and includes things like giving in to a partner's frequent arguments.

That was the finding the authors emphasized. However, they also found that women were seven and a half times as likely as men to report a partner having attempted or succeeded in using physical force to make them have sex. So I don't think your criticism is really accurate.

(Citation: "Male and female recipients of unwanted sexual contact in a college student sample: prevalence rates, alcohol use, and depression symptoms," in Sex Roles: A Journal of Research,  Feb, 1999  by Mary E. Larimer,  Amy R. Lydum,  Britt K. Anderson,  and Aaron P. Turner).

aknapp1112:

--- Quote ---Koss's study didn't ask men and women the same questions, so it would have been impossible for her to do what you've described here.
--- End quote ---


so, in other words, she asked the right questions to specific persons to get the answers that were wanted?

isnt this pretty much what that one survey did, about men getting custody 70% of the time in contested custody fights? they asked specific people, specific questions to fit into what they wanted the "survey" to say? so, along these lines, couldnt i then come up with a survey showing that 85% of men of beaten by their wives (all i have to do is ask the right people)

whome112:
The best of the best in sexuality studies is the book "Sex in America." It has the most science behind it and by a massive margin.

SiA puts the forced sex (by opposite sex) rate at:

1 in 20 for females and
1 in 50 for males

(Lifetime risk of one or more incidents. Females, in general, have a higher risk of repeat incidents. Male survivors also have a higher risk of repeat incidence.)

The one in four is too high.

whome

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version