Learn the gorram difference between a statistical claim and a fact!

[robertliguori]

You know what's been really getting under my skin lately? People who make claims about individual cases based on statistics, without looking at the individual case at all.

Let's take the example that crystallized this peeve in my mind: an utter horror of a book by the name of She Comes First : The Thinking Man's Guide to Pleasuring a Woman. Picked it up in a bookstore, intrigued by the tasty fresh papaya on the cover, and started to read it. Put it back by chapter 4.

Now, leaving aside the author's projection issues, the biggest problem I have with the claims of the book is that because a statistically significant percentage of women do not regularly acheive orgasm via intercourse, it is impossible to pleasure a woman with intercourse. Similarly, since he has some statistics that show that cunnilingus induces orgasm most regularly in women, it is the best way to pleasure any particular woman. He went on to claim that no woman has ever had an orgasm that was not related in some way to clitoral stimulation.

What a load of utter bollocks. In many of life's activities, but especially with sex, the essence of doing it right is in the particular. If you want to learn how to please your lover, then learning what most lovers enjoy is a wonderful starting place. But trying to claim that everyone enjoys a particular activity is just plain stupid, and trying to substitue statistical claims about a population for actually sitting down and talking with your lover about what she enjoys is a shitty way to have sex.

It's not just this book (though it is a particularly egregious example). Discussions of science and medicine also piss me the hell off. The claim that in the general population, a particular drug or treatment is ineffective is a wholly different claim than that in no individual is it effective.

Basically, learn that although hundreds of people can tell you things about thousands with a good degree of regularity, they're a piss-poor way to tell you about individuals. Learn when to rely on statistical arguments, and when to look at what's in front of you.

[tagos]

Put it back by chapter 4.



Learn the gorram difference between a library and a bookshop. ;)

Shiny.

[Lord Ashtar]

...it is impossible to pleasure a woman with intercourse.
Really? Wow, I had no idea. I should tell my girlfriend that she's really not having orgasms when we're having intercourse.

[Trunk]

Fortunately, it's a fact that men who use made up science fiction terms in regular conversation will never face the decision about whether to go ahead with cunnilingus or intercourse.

[Homebrew]

Really? Wow, I had no idea. I should tell my girlfriend that she's really not having orgasms when we're having intercourse.
Maybe she's faking for your benefit.

[Lord Ashtar]

Maybe she's faking for your benefit.
Heh heh, nope.

[woodstockbirdybird]

Heh heh, nope.

Yeah, there's an atypical male response.

[Merijeek]

Yeah, there's an atypical male response.

Look, a real man KNOWS.

High five! Yeah!

-Joe

[jsgoddess]

Heh heh, nope.

I am not making any statement about your relationship in particular when I say that this made me laugh. Out loud.

[Homebrew]

According to the 2000 Orgasm Survey, 72 percent of women have faked at least once in their current or most recent relationship (http://www.slate.com/id/2097396/)

[Giraffe]

According to the 2000 Orgasm Survey, 72 percent of women have faked at least once in their current or most recent relationship (http://www.slate.com/id/2097396/)And therefore, we can safely conclude that Lord Ashtar's girlfriend is faking, thus proving the OP's point. :D

[Podkayne]

This Guardian article on how to make youself smarter in seven days (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,1723801,00.html) contained this little gem, which made me want to put my fist through my computer monitor:

However, one man [in a trial run of 15 volunteers] who had gone out on a stag night the evening before the second test found his score 20 per cent down - proving that alcohol damages mental function.

[lissener]

Dude, this don't just happen in the sex books you furtively read in the corners of bookstores, getting all the way through the first four chapters before you were finished with it.

It's one of the favorite feints of local shoddy debators, too. That and its complement: using a statistical anomaly to "disprove" a generality.

[Homebrew]

And therefore, we can safely conclude that Lord Ashtar's girlfriend is faking, thus proving the OP's point. :D
Precisely. It may also mean he shouldn't be so sure of himself.

[Excalibre]

He went on to claim that no woman has ever had an orgasm that was not related in some way to clitoral stimulation.
Given that many women who've been subjected to clitoridectomy have orgasms during sex, the author's not just misusing statistics - he's out and out lying about simple factual matters.

[RTFirefly]

Given that many women who've been subjected to clitoridectomy have orgasms during sex, the author's not just misusing statistics - he's out and out lying about simple factual matters.Or all those women could have been faking it. :D

[Doctor Jackson]

Why on earth would a woman fake a clitoridectomy?

And where would they hide it?

[rayh]

Why on earth would a woman fake a clitoridectomy?

And where would they hide it?

Where they always hide it when a man tries to find it.

[LadySybil]

Oh, yay. So I'm an apparent anomaly and freak of nature and now have to be put in a tank for extensive study, right? :rolleyes:

Can I slap the author of this book with The Guide to Getting It On? Repeatedly?

To keep from offending people with personal experience, I have put the following inside a spoiler box.

Seriously, not all women can climax solely from clitoral stimulation, although that can be a major part. Some women, like me, also reach climax from intercourse, and I personally find it more fun anyway. I don't fake it. I'm not in this to stoke someone's ego, I'm in it to have fun, and acting of that sort has no place with me.


OK, that aside, generalizations of this sort are a very bad idea when one apparently wants to be considered an expert in any topic. It trivializes his or her idea because the assumptions made will show one to be, rather than an expert, an absolute mook. I admit, I have been guilty of these logical fallacies when, yes, I'm trying to be smart. Perhaps if these wannabe experts wished to appear smarter, then they'll learn not to make these kinds of statiscal assumptions.

[Excalibre]

OK, that aside, generalizations of this sort are a very bad idea when one apparently wants to be considered an expert in any topic. It trivializes his or her idea because the assumptions made will show one to be, rather than an expert, an absolute mook. I admit, I have been guilty of these logical fallacies when, yes, I'm trying to be smart. Perhaps if these wannabe experts wished to appear smarter, then they'll learn not to make these kinds of statiscal assumptions.
Now, now, sweetie. Don't you worry your pretty little head about this - you'll get wrinkles! Us big tough men will do all the boring thinking and tell you how your vulva works so you won't have to trouble yourself by figuring it out on your own.

Well, that's how I read it when male "sex experts" start making grand claims about exactly how the girly region works.

[Roland Orzabal]

Can I slap the author of this book with The Guide to Getting It On? Repeatedly?See, now there's an idea for a sequel: The Guide to Getting It On, Repeatedly. Run with it.

But anyway, robert, I must agree with your driving point. It does seem that, upon reading a study that shows that [X] is true for more than 50% of a given subset, certain folks are bound and determined to believe that [X] is now proven to be a quality of that subset. It's crap, but if you figure out how to convince people to develop the necessary awareness to stop doing it, please let me know: people drawing (jumping to) specific conclusions with no basis other than preformed generalities is a problem that hardly confines itself to statistics. Find out how to stop that sort of thinking, and you've just dropped an A-bomb on the one of the very roots of prejudice against individuals for any preconceived reason whatsoever. Racism, sexism, homophobia, what-have-you. Not the same concept? Different reasoning behind the judgements? Bullshit (or should I say horseshit?).

Just as bad, if not worse, are the repercussions of the almost instinctive reaction to the realization of the above. It has, in the past, led many to the conclusion that generalization, rather than application thereof to individual cases, is the cause of this effect, at which point they call upon humanity to do the impossible: cease making general observations altogether. And thus, Political Correctness was born.

Nuh-uh...sorry, folks, but it ain't gonna happen. The human mind is notorious for seeking out, finding, categorizing and manipulating patterns in all aspects of everyday life. Among these aspects are social interactions, as well as classifications of other people by innumerable different criteria. As we live, as we meet others, as we interact with them day-to-day, as we observe still others by chance if for only a moment, we do -- regardless of whether we want to, regardless of whether we consciously try to avoid it -- make observations about them, classify them in our minds, and create our own designations based upon certain individual qualities. If we then notice -- and we will -- that a predominance of individuals with quality [X] seem, in our experience, to share quality [Y], we will quite naturally begin to hypothesize that [X] -> [Y]. This, in and of itself, does nothing. Generalization is not the problem. The negative effects occur when we notice an individual instance of [X], immediately apply [Y] in our minds, and treat the individual accordingly without bothering to test our hypothesis in this case. That's what we need to eliminate.

The trouble you're noticing with statistics is a subset of this same issue; the only difference is, instead of forming the generalization through our own experiences (however limited they may be), we're having them thrust upon us by oustide sources and, through a couple of odd workings of the mind based on calling the thing a "study" and attaching a number to it, lent some air of credibility in the process.

You're right when you note that this is potentially a particularly dangerous scenario, because the "fact" being presented need not be one we'd ever have conceived for ourselves. Indeed, the more "out of left field" it is in relation to the topics we've considered, the GREATER the likelihood that we might chance to accept it at face value, if for no other reason than "hey, what the fuck do I know better about that?".

Granted, not everyone succumbs to this way of thinking. There are those that maintain a conscious vigilance against applying these conclusions in this manner. There's an unusual preponderance of them on this board, from what I can tell. I hope, one day, to be able to isolate the mental process that allows these people to maintain this level of situational awareness in day-to-day life, and to be able to teach its application to others. The world would be a better place for it.

Hey, just one more societal psychology problem to add to the heap. But thanks for bringing it up and letting me rant a little...always nice to air out the old philosophies occasionally. :)

[LadySybil]

Fortunately, it's a fact that men who use made up science fiction terms in regular conversation will never face the decision about whether to go ahead with cunnilingus or intercourse.

Aww. Hate to break it to ya, Trunk, but the OP? He's been my boyfriend for about three and a half years. And let me tell you, if he can't decide between cunnilingus and intercourse, it's because he does them both so well he's not sure which one would please me more.

Recall the wisdom from Revenge of the Nerds: "Well...all jocks think about is sports. All nerds think about is...sex."

And I'm a Firefly fan too, gorram it!

[saoirse]

Aww. Hate to break it to ya, Trunk, but the OP? He's been my boyfriend for about three and a half years. And let me tell you, if he can't decide between cunnilingus and intercourse, it's because he does them both so well he's not sure which one would please me more.

Sure, sure. I don't suppose you have a cite, then?

[robertliguori]

Sure, sure. I don't suppose you have a cite, then?


Well, LadySybil? Am I allowed to break out the links to the photographic evidence?

[Merijeek]

Well, LadySybil? Am I allowed to break out the links to the photographic evidence?

Wait, is this a vote?

-Joe

[GargoyleWB]

...The Thinking Man's Guide to Pleasuring a Woman...

<Men on Film>

"Hated it!"

</Men on Film>

[Bryan Ekers]

Look, a real man KNOWS.

A REAL MAN doesn't care!





Count it.

[Asylum]

How does that saying go? Ah, yes:

I can promise any woman who has sex with me one orgasm. Mine.

[Malacandra]

Oh, yay. So I'm an apparent anomaly and freak of nature and now have to be put in a tank for extensive study, right? :rolleyes:


Yes, I think the issue of whether you can orgasm from vaginal intercourse is a subject of legitimate scientific interest. And justifies an extensive video library into the bargain. How would you like your tank furnished? :p

[August West]

Is this thread just so that LadySybil and robertliguori can tell us that they like to have sex?

[Trunk]

Is this thread just so that LadySybil and robertliguori can tell us that they like to have sex?
Clearly, LadySybill is robertliguori's sock puppet.

Clearly.

[robertliguori]

Is this thread just so that LadySybil and robertliguori can tell us that they like to have sex?

*shrugs* Hell, I was talking about a book in specific and a habit of thought in general. Trunk was the one who brought up the topic of my sex life. Where are the snarky questions asking if he entered this thread just to snipe about the (incorrect) facts of my sex life?

[Merijeek]

A REAL MAN doesn't care!


Curse you! A far better line than me!

-Joe, plotting revenge

[Merijeek]

Clearly, LadySybill is robertliguori's sock puppet.

Clearly.

Eeeeeeeew!

You know how rarely people wash socks they use for that?

Eeeeeeeew!

-Joe, puke, vomit, hurl