Girls Talking in High Pitched Voices--Molestation Link?

Let’s not forget that Loveline is a radio show (do they still do the TV version too?), and therefore they try to take callers that they think will hold listeners’ interest. I would not be surprised to learn that callers with an unusual or “shocking” story are more likely to be selected over more mundane callers.

Drew always said that himself. Sometimes guests would ask him if they should assume that baby voiced girls had all been molested and Drew would say (half facetiously), “no, just the ones who call this show.” he frequently tried to make the point that women who called Loveline were already self-selected to be trainwrecks.

You dodged the questions Diogenes.

How many people called?
How many were culled?
What percentage of those calling had been abused?

Seriously, this is like John Edward asking his with read hair guests whether they’ve lost someone who’s death has left unresolved issues. Of course he would bat >95% because JE freaks were self-selected and then culled to include almost exclusively people who have lost someone. That doesn’t mean that having red hair is indicative of having dead relatives. It doesn’t mean that JE is doing better than random chance. It’s indicative that the people selected for the show have lost someone who’s death they have yet to accept.

If thousands of people called in daily and the calls were culled to only include people with “interesting” problems, as usually happens with such shows, then you are missing one essential data point because it leads to point two.

If 95% of people calling in had been abused as children then someone getting >95% of hits and absolutely no false postives is hardly surprising. Once again, a crucial data point before you can declare that his performance was above chance if you don’t know what percentge of those calling had been abused.

According to several studies >25% of women are sexually abused as young children.
As someone said earlier, the shows callers are a self selected sample of women with sexual dysfunction or major psychological issues, so it’s not unreasonable to assume >75% had been abused.
If the audience has been culled to only include people with “interesting” problems then the odds of people exhibiting certain problems having been abused rapidly approaches unity. Anyone ringing his show with problem A is almost certain to have been abused.

So I ask again:

How can you know what percentage of callers were culled, and for what reason.
How can you know what percentage of those calling had been abused?

If you don’t have that data then you have absolutely no way of justifying your claim that he did better than chance.

And you listened to what proportion of shows? And documented the show’s results how? If you don’t have good evidence here then this is no different from people who believe in John Edward. Or do you believe that you are immune to confirmaton bias? Or that since this doesn’t deal with the paranormal it isn’t a factor?

The fact that you don’t ever remeber a false positive suggests very strongly confirmation bias.

Can you please show us the mathematics that enabled you to determine that the chance result was les than 100%?

Start from a baseline assumption that 98% of his callers were abused as children and them demonstrate that random chance was less than 100%.

How is this any different to the many people who will swear that they saw some psychic or medium do their things dozens of times withoiut a miss?

Honestly, as one of our more active garbage debunkers, and with a name like DtC, I expect a lot better then this form you in GQ. After stating as a statistical fact that his succes rate was above probability all you seem to be able to produce are arguments that could be applied word for word to the John Edward show.

Not really accpetable in GQ, IMHO.

Just seconding both these points.

Yet knowing this you are stillprepared to argue that random chance couldn’t produce a success rate above 95%? How can that be? What percentage of women who are train wrecks have been sexually molested as young girls? How do you know that it isn’t 99.9999%? And if you don’t know that then how can you claim that any success rate is above random chance?

Ifg by “dodge” you m,ean “answered directly,” then I agree with you.

You didn’t ask this before but it’s an irreelevant question.

No idea. Also irrelevant.

Dude, all I was doing was desribing anecdotally what happened on the show. 100% of the calls that I heard whre the caller had a little girl affect and Drew asked if she had been molested, the girl said yes. I’m sorry you have such a huge problem with that but I’m not interested in arguing about it. If you really want to argue that 100% would fall into the bell curve for random distribution then go ahead. This point is nowhere near as important to me as it obviously is to you.

I am prepared to argue that. I’ve got about 400 episodes of Loveline on my iPod right now that I listen to on long car rides (the Adam Carolla ones, not the awful Stryker ones). Really, it would absolutely amaze you to hear Drew pick up on the stuff he picks up on, even knowing already that the fact they’re calling into the show means they’ve got SERIOUS problems.

Abusive relationships and cutting were easy signs, and coupled with the child voice, it was a pretty sure bet she’d been abused at an early age. It didn’t take a genius to figure that out. But it happens several times that a child-speaker will call in about problems she has with a cheating boyfriend, or problems with a bully at school, or whatever. Drew will get a hunch about these girls and more often than not, when asked about their molestation they’d answer with “Yes I was molested, but that has nothing to do with this problem!”

I’m not saying Drew is a super-genius-borderline-psychic, but I think after 15 years of talking to crazies on the phone and getting to the heart of their problems, he’s developed a pretty good sense about these things. Yeah, it makes it easier for him when the crazies call him, and they immediately tell him about the problems, and they’ve been pre-screened. Of course, and no one here is denying it.

And it’s also no secret power. It’s years of experience coupled with his own abusive past coupled with his years of practicing medicine.

Because, like I noted above, not all the cases Dr. Drew worked his hunch on were train wrecks. Most were, sure. But some of the problems these young-talkers called in about were your average, run-of-the-mill relationship problems, but through the speech affect and other subtle clues, he came to the “molestation” conclusion. They were nearly always right.

Yes, I’ve heard him ask if the girl was molested and be answered with a “no”. But it’s rare.

Let’s not forget how good Drew is at picking out the fakes who call in. That comes with experience, so I don’t see why this should not either.

I hate to think what it means when every single girl (and some boys) raises her voice about three octaves upon meeting my puppy.

People who call the show can be assumed to listen to it once in a while; there could therefore be a self-selection process at work, where abused women know their problems will be handled appropriately — or, if they aren’t abused, they know the right answers so they can lie about it.

I don’t doubt that if you listen to the show, this guy is right much of the time. I’m not prepared to say it’s anywhere close to a scientific study.

In other news, porcine aviation observed and icicles are forming on the infernal gates.

Where do you get old Loveline episodes? I used to listen to it and I was just looking for one specific one when I came across this:

http://www.lovelinearchive.com/index.html

Is that where you went? They’re apparently down right now.

Yep, I downloaded a ton from him before they went down. I sent him some cash when he asked for donations to keep the site alive, and he sent me a ton more. So now I’ve got a small collection and am waiting for the site to come back up to complete it. His is amazingly thorough.

ETA: What are you looking for? Do you know the date? I could send it to ya if I have it. Feel free to email me.

FYI: I have no episodes that have guests, only exclusively Adam and Drew episodes from about 1999-2004.

Where do you get old Loveline episodes? I used to listen to it and I was just looking for one specific one when I came across this:

http://www.lovelinearchive.com/index.html

Is that where you went? They’re apparently down right now.

One of the foundations of Statistical inference is a completely random sample, Loveline callers are not random in the slightest so any indications of disproportionate sums is irrelevant.

No, you completely failed to address three vital quetsions.

Post # 19 “I’m really wondering how you could possibly calculate this without knowing exactly howman people called”

Dude the number of calls is the freakin’ sample space. You can not calculte whether a result is better than random chance if you have absolutely no idea what your sample space is.

You made the claim, now I’m calling cite!

WTF? How can you not understand that if 90% of callers are culled because there problems are to banal that is not irrlevant in calculating baseline probability…

Bollocks. You stated as fact that this person was achieving better than random chance would allow. Since this is GQ I’m asking you to provide a reference for that claim.

You certainly wouldn’t let such a claim slide if someone were to claim that John Edward did much better than random chance would allow.

Once again, this is excatly the same line heard from supporters of psychics, faith healers and astrologers.

I don’t have a problem with anything beynd you posting some nonsense youmade up as afctual answer in GQ. Now that we’ve determined that it was just some nonsense you made up people are free to make up their own minds about it.

If you don’t have any evidence to back up your claims then you shouldn’t post them in GQ. I’m not interested in arguing either. I just want your to provide your references for claims that you presented as fact in GQ.

You of all posters can not pretend to be unaware of this standard for GQ answers. If you present it as fact then you can expect to be called to support it. You’ve done that yourself dozens of times to people who have made exactly the same claims concerning their faith in psychics etc.

Do you believe you should be exempt for claims made concerning your faith in radio shrinks?

Once again, eactly the same arguments that the gullible use to support their faith in psychics and faith healers.

Once again, the point is of little importance to me. Presenting ignorant made up answers as fact in GQ is of some importance givben the natur eof these boards. I’ve asked for references for your claims. At this point you really need to put up.

:smiley:

My earlier point concerning Dr. Drew only asking questions that he already knew the answer to was based on the idea that there is a chance that the call screener, when he hears the caller’s “little girl” presentation, asks the caller if she was in fact molested, since that is something that comes up on the show a lot. Do you think that the call screener is just going to ignore the fact that the caller sounds like a little girl? The call screener then gives the info to the talk show hosts, and then the hosts comment on it.

Why do people assume that these calls have to be total suprises, with the talk show hosts knowing nothing of the caller? I can not attest to how Loveline worked, but I have called a few sports talk shows. When you call, a call screener asks you to lay out your argument. They sometimes ask you questions, they sometimes bring up earlier calls or statements that the host made, and they sometimes tell you to not bring up this element of your argument, but really focus on this element of the argument, because one host will agree and the other will not, or they don’t have enough time or whatever. Anyway, by the time I get on the air, the hosts pretty much know what I am going to say.

Is that necessarily true? A lot of posters have been saying that, but it seemed to be that people were calling LoveLine for problems with sex/dating, as well as other issues. I was a little young for, um, love back when I was listening to the show, but I could see myself calling in (as long as no one I knew was aware) when I did become sexually active, and I did deal with some of the issues that callers talked about, but I don’t think that I was all that messed up (definitely not molested, too).

The very choice of caller participation means this sample isn’t random no matter how normal many of them are. The results of this study will be have to be so skewed and with such a wide margin of error to represent the population you may as well just guess and be done with it.

So what kind of rep does Dr. Drew have outside of Loveline? As a practicing doctor, that is.