Ha! Ha! Man dumb, woman smart!
But wait. Martie Haselton, author of one them studies, woman. Woman smart?
Kristina Durante another author. Another woman. Woman smart?
Aha! Norman Li another author. Norman man! Men dumb! Ha ha, stupid study by dumb man!
(Protip, even sven. However much you may want to believe you’re right, this sort of sexist humor, in which you assume those you disagree with must be men who have never talked with women, is exceptionally stupid and offensive.)
They tested that as was pointed out to you. They also collected data that did not support their hypothesis.
Don’t bring up Freudian (not sure if he ever proposed an Elektra complex or if it was a contemporary) theories if you don’t know them or believe them then. Don’t you think that just muddies the waters and prevents discussion?
If we assume that men are raping out of a desire for power then we might misunderstand why men rape as well. Personally, I think understanding motivations makes for reasonable realistic preventative measures. It also improves investigation of the crime. I think the power hypothesis did the latter but now it gets in the way of research because people refuse to examine the sexual motivation. At the very least it re-opened the topic for screaming and misunderstanding each other so that new work can be accomplished.
I think your last sentence contains a bunch of variables that don’t matter at all for understanding rape in modern America.
I don’t care honestly, I was just trying to find where you talked about EP and you pretty much never did. I do like the “EP enthusiasts” angle. That saves you from discussing the field and addressing whether you can honestly say that it is pseudoscience. Which you can’t.
You meant offense. Don’t worry about it, I screwed up.
Kind of like when you talk about long discredited ideas in psychology, fail to show any understanding of how gene frequencies might change in a sexually selected trait, and then come up with the typical layman-style theories that never quite address all the data. I am glad there are scientists who do these things well so that I may read their work and learn from it. Also, thank-you for providing such contrast.
I missed the median for whatever reason but I stand corrected. So what that means is that 50% of the sample was first victimized between the ages of 11 and 18. Got it. I guess the term “child rape” doesn’t really have the connotation you meant for it. Disproportionately fertile.
Anyway, it’s a trivial observation. It doesn’t take away from EP as a science or rape as topic that can be discussed in its context.
Here’s a link to the protective association of MAOA gene promoter polymorphisms with consequences of child abuse. It’s not the first (Caspi et al.)but man is this finding ever replicated. Here’s the abstract: MAOA and the “Cycle of Violence:” Childhood Abuse and Neglect, MAOA Genotype, and Risk for Violent and Antisocial Behavior
That didn’t even bother me in the context of how she doesn’t understand the difference between periods and ovulation. Just a few days. I thought she was a guy for a minute.
How does EP help us understand these motivations?
Believe it or not, there are people who have spent a lot of time interviewing rapists and examining their backgrounds, looking for patterns that might account for their behaviors. By studying these criminals, many psychologists have concluded that an obsessive need for control and issues with relating normally to women are important drivers behind rape.
What makes EP so superior that we should distrust what these psychologists have concluded in favor of their answers?
Why do you think that? Do you think scientists have stopped studying rape?
As I recall, the people who conducted the original research started with a hypothesis in mind, and the rapists they interviewed were pretty easily able to suss out what the hypothesis was, and they did everything they could to cooperate with the researchers because that’s what criminals often do: they want to work the system. The original research has been pretty heavily criticized. It’s been years since I read articles about it, though, so I’m not particularly interested in digging up cites for these claims unless you dig up cites for yours (and by cites, I don’t mean fourth-hand claims, I mean strong original research).
Last time I checked 11 years olds are children. Any person less than 13 years old is a child.
For someone who is so certain that child rape is a meaningless counterpoint in this debate, I’m surprised you’re trying so hard to spin the stats in a way that supports your view. While you scoff at the notion that 11 to 18 years olds are considered children in this study, you know what chills me? That girls 11 years old and younger (including toddlers and babies, mind you) are raped as equally often as all those fertile, pubescent teens.
Like any other aspect of psychology or sociology it attempts to understand the variables and mechanisms involved in a pattern of behavior. I don’t know what it has produced functionally. At minimum the information provided by EPesque studies of rape either counter or further develop the dominant theory of the 70s.
Ok, and Malamuth’s Confluence Model of Sexual Aggression has been highly influential on me. It’s not an EP point-of-view at all and its based on the same kind of data you describe here. P.13 “The Interaction of the Two Paths” gets at how I understand the modeling they do.
What makes you think I need to replace one with the other. I assume all scientific data, regardless of the field, are observations made by objective people. Therefore all of it is worthwhile until I am convinced it’s not.
This article is awesome and doesn’t even deal with EP or biopsych type stuff. Just interviews and statistical classification: Typology of Batterers.
I think that scientists like Randy Thornhill can tell you what happens when you go against the grain. I think because of cautionary tales like Randy Thornhill’s, researchers are less likely to address sexual motivation in rape.
I think the power hypothesis originally addressed a serious problem of perception in criminal justice but when honest researchers like Thornhill/Palmer get clusterfucked for discussing the Natural History of Rape, it indicates a problem.
If you think EP is superior to others methods of inquiry, why not take some time to show us why you believe this? That’s going to mean digging for cites to support your position.
Surely if conventional rape theorists have been debunked or discredited, it shouldn’t take that much effort to find some solid evidence of that.
I’ve noticed your pattern of either ignoring or typing “trivial” when you don’t care about or don’t understand the relevance of information. I’m just not like that, and since this old woman/child rape is continuing to not die as a poor criticism of the sexual motivation component to rape, I feel it necessary to point out how it is such a poor criticism. Others in this thread feel the same way apparently.
In a proportionately rare class of rape victim, maybe 40% (no variability so I don’t know for sure) are actually people that are capable of reproducing. You posted this to counter the fertile angle on what somebody else said. Sorry if your percentage isn’t as big as you originally intended.
As to the rest, this isn’t “my political feelings” time. This is taking a commonly used criticism and showing just how bad it is. Could you please post the original article so that I may see all the relevant statistics? Or maybe a standard deviation?
What kind of “variables” and “mechanisms”, and how do these give us insight into motivation?
There’s politics and there’s truth. Just because a new theory comes out that contradicts prevailing theory and its met with controversy, it doesn’t mean the prevailing theory is wrong. It just means it’s a politically touchy subject. You need science to show that its wrong, and I’m not convinced that the science that EP brings is all that competitive.
Everything you have said about the EP of sexual aggression (I’m tired of using rape because its an inexact legal term) is pretty much a word for word regurgitation of the political debate that arose when the book came out. You’re not convinced because you do nothing but continue to politicize the argument. I gave you two links a post back that does a better job to explain specific types of criminals than either EP or rape is about power theories. But of the two, EP is far closer to describing most of these categories.
So you admit that EP is science, and now you want to do a shift and argue its utility. Fine go argue that.
I’ve been posting articles to the biology of various behaviors that either directly or indirectly supports the basis of EP. I might get around to posting articles about sexually aggressive dolphins, chimpanzees, elephant seals, ducks, insects, deer, horses, lions, mice, and all the other species for which undeniable sexually aggressive behavior has been observed.
According to the stats I’ve provided, 25% of all women who have raped, were raped when they were less than the age of 11. Are you really going to persist in calling this a “rare class of rape”? Seriously, 25%? Most girls at this age and below are incapable of getting pregnant and carrying a healthy infant to term. In other words, they are not ideal candidates for carrying out any kind of reproductive strategy.
Let me ask you this: do you think children 11 year-olds or less make up 25% of the total population? If so, you’d be wrong; they make up less than 18%. So how in the hell do you suppose female children comprise 25% of all rape victims if it’s women of childbearing age who are preferentially selected for rape?
I don’t admit it’s a science, actually. But that’s neither here nor there. If it’s science, it doesn’t appear to be rigorous. And I’ve been pretty consistent in my stance that it’s usefulness is limited, mostly because its not rigorous.
Over simplifying and over complicating can both be detrimental to a healthy mind.
It’s not science because it’s not useful, it’s not useful because it’s not rigorous, it’s not rigorous because it’s not useful, circle, circle, circle.
Post a link to anything that supports any of your statements. It must be so easy to demonstrate, you must know what you are looking for because you’ve circled around it forever. Post a link that demonstrates “lack of scientific rigor” in EP research to a degree more than any other social science.
Here’s a short abstract on sexual coercion and male reproductive success in chimpanzees. Being a promiscuous female seems costly! Male coercion and the costs of promiscuous mating for female chimpanzees
Rigor is not something you can say about subject areas.
It’s like saying quantum mechanics sucks because all of the papers I’ve seen contained typos.
I want to answer the question, but the answer should be obvious if you’ve been paying attention to anything said in this thread.
Clearly that is not the case; you’ve just been skimming posts trying to find things to support your agenda.
Take a shot at it please. Enlighten me.
I could have swore I just said whether EP is science is neither here nor there.
You can say based on study designs and how testable a hypothesis is.
A scientifically rigorous hypothesis: Blue-eyed men will show a preference to blue-eyed women.
A hypothesis that lacks rigor: Blue-eyed men will prefer blue-eyed women as mates because the color of their offspring’s eyes provides a crude paternity test.
If EP scientists employ a lot of the latter, then it’s fair to say that the field, as a discipline, lacks rigor. Doesn’t mean that is pseudoscience. Just means they publish stuff that you can’t take to the bank. It’s not very useful in other words.
I should probably cop to an error in my paraphrasing of the article; it appears to have misled people who didn’t read the original. The comma in my paraphrase was insufficient to separate the clauses. What it should have said about their hypothesis was something like, “Because the color of the offspring’s eyes would provide a crude paternity test, the hypothesis is that blue-eyed men would prefer blue-eyed women as mates.”
Here’s what the article actually said on the subject:
The “if” part of the sentence is generally true and as a tendency undisputed. The “then” part of the sentence is what was being tested.
The study doesn’t establish a clear causal link between the two, it’s true; it’s simple correlation. As I’ve said all along, it provides interesting preliminary results.
A similar if-then statement might read: “In sum, if people generally like to eat foods with a higher fat content during the winter, then the full-fat yogurt ought to sell better than the non-fat yogurt in December.” While the first and second parts of the sentences might both be true, they may not be causally related.