|
FrostedFlake -> RE: Name who you would like to rape on campus (12/19/2011 8:39:34 AM)
|
Sorry this took me so long, Folks.
quote:
Using round numbers- 1,000 people get a letter asking them to take part in a study on rape. Roughly one quarter (I think I have that right) respond. What about the people who didn't respond?
In fact you misread. One half of the land lines called were written to first. The overall participation rate was over 80% meaning 4151 contactees of 22,200 declined for any number of reasons. reasons ranging from don't care thru busy to scared. That is the extent of self selection. 18.7%, not 75%. I suspect the likelihood is the majority of the self selectors are those who got no notice.
quote:
In terms of interviewers- a whopping 18 hours of training...wow...and in 25 minutes, you're going to get enough information to have a lot of faith in it?
I think that, given the task and reasonable personnel selection, 18 hours is sufficient training to enable a/ read and ask questions b/ probe repeatedly to gage the emotional state of the interviewee. And given that people value their time, a half hour is pushing it. Regarding the information sought in so small a window of time, perhaps you would Google "Linda E. Saltzman PhD". This is the person who developed the methodology, unfortunately deceased. She was the lead scientist involved in the early stages of the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey. She pioneered improving the consistency of definitions and measurement of intimate partner violence, sexual violence and stalking. Dr. Saltzman spent twenty years on this project. It is not an amateur enterprise.
quote:
The other problem with such a survey is although it's statistically easy to quantify the data, the type of questionnaire approach often misses a lot compared to a less structured interview. Plus, there can be bias based on the survey questions, which I didn't see. Often the design of the question and the language used gives you an idea of the answer the interviewer is looking for- notorious in political polls. People responses vary on whether or not
I know in medicine, that clinical trials for psych meds are being designed in a very sophisticated fashion to be given over to people that are poorly trained (cheap) and that these trials are often deeply flawed- that the person conducting the trial doesn't have the experience to figure out whether the diagnosis was correct, whether the patient was compliant, and whether or not there are any side effects- that type of work used to be done by highly trained individuals, but it was too expensive.
This report has all the hallmarks of a large, cheaply and quickly done, survey that will probably reflect the bias of the survey writer. How do you get someone to trust you with the intimate details of their sex life in less than half an hour?
With all that being said though, there are probably some areas of the report where if the conclusions cannot be fully trusted, due to the biases noted above, the report does provide some interesting looks at the nature of rape.
I think I have already completely refuted everything in that last box. At least, everything in that box which is not completely irrelevant on its' face. Having addressed every point you pointed at me, I am now going to say a few things on my own hook.
I find it interesting that you would use a CDC report to support your argument of bias when nothing you have said about it stands the light of day.You say the statistics are inflated and and the method flawd and that you know this because you are a chemist. It happens that my best friend just two days ago submitted an 800 page audit report to the Pennsylvania department of Ecology. She is the quality control director at a large chemistry lab (and a sub) and has a degree that looks just like yours. She sees nothing wrong with these statistics and methods. It follows that you are very likely not using your doctorate when you make this assertion. But my friend could be wrong, so I should look for more support before I continue, just to remove all doubt.
The first name on the CDC report is Thomas R. Frieden, MD, MPH, Director, Centers for Disease control and Prevention
The second name on the CDC report is Linda C. Degutis, DrPH,MSN, Director National Center for Injury Prevention and Control
The third name on the CDC report is Howard R. Spivak, MD, Director, Division of Violence Prevention
And there is also the names of Black, Basile, Breiding, Smith, Walters, Merrick, Chen, & Stevens
To summariz to this point, I have myself demolished you argument. My friend Dr.J has given me the nod, and I have just named the entire front office of the CDC and their staff. Names you would already know if you had read the document you called flimsy. Names of some of the most eminant Doctors and Sociologists in the country, against whom you must be aware your Chemistry degree avails you nothing.
To turn to what I would like to say, and not for the first time, but directly this time, on this thread several women have said several times to you directly that you frighten them. And they have told you why. And you have pointedly failed to listen. You have instead continued to act in a threatening manner.
I don't like that. I want you to stop it. I want that because a person is only as free as she acts and you are drawing lines in other peoples lives with you obtuse nonsense. Lines made of fear. You are beyond wrong, and I am not arguing. Because you do not have an argument.
This video is something you need to listen to, loud.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wTJ3ZdZrBA
|
|
|
|
