Super mi się z Tobą gada.
"Właśnie dowiedziałem się, że jestem tępy! Miło słyszeć mile rzeczy."
Dajesz po temu powody.
"Najpierw podważasz raport Kinseya, a teraz tylko jesteś w stanie przedstawić
zarzuty temu raportowi przedstawiane, nawet bez podania argumentów je
potwierdzające."
Chocby tu:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_Reports
"The core criticisms of the work revolve around sample selection and sample
bias. In 1948, the same year as the original publication, a committee of the
American Statistical Association, including notable statisticians such as John
Tukey condemned the sampling procedure. Tukey was perhaps the most vocal critic,
saying "A random selection of three people would have been better than a group
of 300 chosen by Mr. Kinsey" [1]. Criticism principally revolved around the
perceived over-representation of some groups in the sample: 25% were, or had
been, prison inmates, and 5% were male prostitutes. A related criticism, by some
of the leading psychologists of the day, notably Abraham Maslow was that he did
not consider the bias created by the data representing only those who were
willing to participate.
In a response to these criticisms, Paul Gebhard, Kinsey's successor as director
of the Kinsey Institute for Sex Research, spent years "cleaning" the Kinsey data
of its purported contaminants, removing, for example, all material derived from
prison populations in the basic sample. In 1979, Gebhard (with Alan B. Johnson)
published The Kinsey Data: Marginal Tabulations of the 1938-1963 Interviews
Conducted by the Institute for Sex Research. Their conclusion, to Gebhard's
surprise he claimed, was that none of Kinsey's original estimates were
significantly affected by this bias.
Professor Martin Duberman writes:
Instead of Kinsey's 37 percent, Gebhard and Johnson came up with 36.4
percent; the 10 percent figure (with prison inmates excluded) came to 9.9
percent for white, college-educated males and 12.7 percent for those with less
education. And as for the call for a "random sample," a team of independent
statisticians studying Kinsey's procedures had concluded as far back as 1953
that the unique problems inherent in sex research precluded the possibility of
obtaining a true random sample, and that Kinsey's interviewing technique had
been "extraordinarily skillful." They characterized Kinsey's work overall as "a
monumental endeavor." [2] "
25% probki Kinseya to wiezniowie, a 5% to meskie prostytutki. To ma byc
reprezentatywna probka? 1/4 meskiej populacji to wiezniowie (w jakim kraju, bo
nawet w USA nie), a 1 na 20 to zigolo?
Jaja sobie robicie, wielmozni panstwo.
Jak trudno uzyskac obiektywizm w takim kontekscie, niech swiadczy to, ze autorzy
strony najpierw podaja uczciwie krytyke innych naukowcow, a potem cytuja slowna
obrone, ze "uzyskanie prawdziwie losowej probki w tej dziedzinie jest
niemozliwe", ani zajaknawszy sie, ze nie usprawiedliwia to wybrania przez
Kinseya prawie najgorszej probki z mozliwych, zamiast starania sie o mozliwie
najlepsza.
Trudno znalezc?
Trzeba tylko chciec.
Nb to jest wlasnie przeciez czesc metody naukowej, krytyka i obrona, a nie jak
chce cwiercinteligencja, zatrzymania sie na pierwszym etapie hipotezy i
nastepnie wziecia na wiare. Trudno chocby do lewackiej Wikipedii zajrzec?
<ciach bzdury>
