ToukaOone posted... Like 20+ correlations got tested and presumably no data was discarded, shouldn't it be expected that two or three results don't make much "sense"? (Choir, for example, considering that 13% of the people in the study were music majors and if a lopsided ratio of homosexual:heterosexual males were in there...)
What's the false positive/negative rate for the Kinsey scale, if you don't mind me asking?
I was able to use pretty much every survey that I received since the majority of the surveys' questions were isolated from one another. For instance, if I had more people tell me how masculine or feminine "playing basketball" was then "wearing pink clothing," I can still individual correlate those behaviors with sexual orientation. They don't rely on one another.
Yes, I had way more music majors than anything else, since (ironically), they were by far the most willing to complete the survey when I approached them. It's really the only stand-out demographic number in the study, and this is something to consider when looking at "singing in choir."
What do you mean by the false positive/negative rate for the Kinsey scale? I'm not familiar with all stat lingo. Is that how many people completed the question?
-- Women come and go, but Metal Gear is forever. Perfect Odds A Cappella ~ http://i43.tinypic.com/34pdhc7.jpg
Off the top of my head, about 56-57% were female and about 43-44% were male. Two people put "other" -- the options were male, female, transgendered, intersexed, and other.
-- Women come and go, but Metal Gear is forever. Perfect Odds A Cappella ~ http://i43.tinypic.com/34pdhc7.jpg
Not only is the study poorly skewed and inaccurate in the representation of sexual orientation in Modern Civilization, but it's a slap in the face to any man whose ever seen a girl with hairy arms and known she puts out because she's high on testosterone.
Slap to any man who ever dated female athletes solely because the elevated masculinity means sexy time.
--
Realo won gold at the Sex Olympics with a BROKEN FRIGGIN NECK.-Voltch
What do you mean by the false positive/negative rate for the Kinsey scale? I'm not familiar with all stat lingo. Is that how many people completed the question?
No uhhh.
Let's say that we find a bunch of people who we don't know are hetero/homosexual, and we find that consistently homosexuals score high on the Kinsey scale and heterosexuals score low.
How many heterosexuals score high (false positive) and how many homosexuals score low (false negative) ...?
The way to think about this is that there are TRUE positives (Testing for homosexuality -> Are homosexual), TRUE negatives (Testing for not homosexual -> not homosexual) and false versions of the above (test homosexual -> not homosexual, test for not homosexual -> not not homosexual aka homosexual). We need to know how well it correlates as well as how well it doesn't correlate to know how good a test that is.
I was able to use pretty much every survey that I received since the majority of the surveys' questions were isolated from one another. For instance, if I had more people tell me how masculine or feminine "playing basketball" was then "wearing pink clothing," I can still individual correlate those behaviors with sexual orientation. They don't rely on one another.
But wouldn't we exactly expect to find one or two non correlated results, since the condition is that there's a one in twenty chance of meeting the p value and still being the null hypothesis? Or am I misunderstanding?
--
You're messing with me! You're messing with me, aren't you!? You're making fun of me, aren't you!? Aren't you!? You definitely are! I'll murder you!
Not only is the study poorly skewed and inaccurate in the representation of sexual orientation in Modern Civilization, but it's a slap in the face to any man whose ever seen a girl with hairy arms and known she puts out because she's high on testosterone.
Slap to any man who ever dated female athletes solely because the elevated masculinity means sexy time.
It's only a slap if you actually care about these small, casual, nonscientific studies. Oh wait I forgot who I was talking to. You practically worship these kinds of studies.
-- _foolmo_ 'and out of the blue and completely unprovoked came foolmo and his insult' - Anagram
Not only is the study poorly skewed and inaccurate in the representation of sexual orientation in Modern Civilization, but it's a slap in the face to any man whose ever seen a girl with hairy arms and known she puts out because she's high on testosterone.
Slap to any man who ever dated female athletes solely because the elevated masculinity means sexy time.
There are a few skews, of course. But, the representation of sexual orientation is pretty much exactly what sexual orientation is.
I could have worded the question: What is your sexual orientation? 0 = Strictly heterosexual 1 = Mostly heterosexual etc.
But, according to literature on the subject, and, quite frankly, just common sense, the words "hetero" and "homo" are often stigmatized. They operate as labels that many people try to avoid. Somebody who has same-sex sexual feelings might never report any "homosexuality" due to the nature of the word in our society.
But "sexual orientation," at least as far as I am arguing it, refers to the direction and object of sexual desire. It's about desire, not about what you do or how you define. Sexual identity is about how you identify yourself. This was about sexual orientation. How do you orient yourself? Desiring of the opposite sex always? Or most of the time?
These results simply indicate that sexual orientation as a ternary (straight, gay, bi) is not an adequate means of measuring or investigating all of the different kinds of sexual orientations out there. In other words, it gives credence to queer theory, and the belief that every individual engages in his or her own unique sexual orientation.
-- Women come and go, but Metal Gear is forever. Perfect Odds A Cappella ~ http://i43.tinypic.com/34pdhc7.jpg
ToukaOone posted... What do you mean by the false positive/negative rate for the Kinsey scale? I'm not familiar with all stat lingo. Is that how many people completed the question?
No uhhh.
Let's say that we find a bunch of people who we don't know are hetero/homosexual, and we find that consistently homosexuals score high on the Kinsey scale and heterosexuals score low.
How many heterosexuals score high (false positive) and how many homosexuals score low (false negative) ...?
The way to think about this is that there are TRUE positives (Testing for homosexuality -> Are homosexual), TRUE negatives (Testing for not homosexual -> not homosexual) and false versions of the above (test homosexual -> not homosexual, test for not homosexual -> not not homosexual aka homosexual). We need to know how well it correlates as well as how well it doesn't correlate to know how good a test that is.
I was able to use pretty much every survey that I received since the majority of the surveys' questions were isolated from one another. For instance, if I had more people tell me how masculine or feminine "playing basketball" was then "wearing pink clothing," I can still individual correlate those behaviors with sexual orientation. They don't rely on one another.
But wouldn't we exactly expect to find one or two non correlated results, since the condition is that there's a one in twenty chance of meeting the p value and still being the null hypothesis? Or am I misunderstanding?
Okay, well, we'd have to get into the accuracy of self-reporting sexual orientation, then. It's pretty hard to quantify that. But, in general, I would say that due to the privacy of the survey and the nature of the question ("What sex do you sexually desire?"), I have to just rely on what they are telling me.
But, I would also say that you can't actually test for homosexuality in a way other than analyzing sexual desire. Like I've said in the past, you can't look at behavior. I can engage in oral sex with a man for many reasons that don't affect my sexual orientation of being "straight." As an example, I could work in gay-for-pay, where men who perform in gay scenes receive almost ten times as much money as men who perform in straight scenes.
There really isn't a more effective way of looking at sexual orientation than asking people who they desire. If we try to say that there is a more effective way--by looking at behavior or past experiences--than we're literally saying that behavior is indicative of orientation. Which is pretty much what this paper argued against.
As for your final point, I could have judged statistically significance at a 99% confidence interval (p < .01), or even 99.9% confidence (p < .001). In fact, most of these significance values were less than .01, if I recall correctly. With the exception of maybe 1 or 2. But it's not a 1 in 20 chance of meeting the p-value verbatim, I don't believe. It's still based on standard deviations. I can say with 95% confidence these figures are correct (if this was a perfect random sample, which it wasn't, of course). That's what that figure means.
Also, the null hypothesis was that there was no correlation.
-- Women come and go, but Metal Gear is forever. Perfect Odds A Cappella ~ http://i43.tinypic.com/34pdhc7.jpg
I should mention, I'm by no means a stat wizard, so yeah.
Also, I'll go ahead and post the average value of "gender" for these behaviors. Or, rather, how masculine or feminine people thought each behavior was.
-- Women come and go, but Metal Gear is forever. Perfect Odds A Cappella ~ http://i43.tinypic.com/34pdhc7.jpg
There really isn't a more effective way of looking at sexual orientation than asking people who they desire.
Really? I thought we knew more about physiological effects of sexual excitement than that, do you know why people aren't looking into that?
--
You're messing with me! You're messing with me, aren't you!? You're making fun of me, aren't you!? Aren't you!? You definitely are! I'll murder you!
We could look at brain wave patterns and such when we put a man or a woman in front of them, sure. We could show them different sexual scenes, different naked people, all sorts of stuff. Analyze when the parts of the brain that control for sexual stimulation start firing.
The problem with this, though, is that this is all contextual. I might not be attracted to that woman and be straight. I might not be sexually stimulated by visual stimulation at all. So, play me a man or a woman moaning and test my audibly. Except, now, I can't necessarily tell if it's a man or a woman moaning, and maybe I need other forms of stimulation.
By stimulating parts of the brain, we make educated leaps disregarding context. It has the same fundamental "false positive/negative" as, say, a lie detector machine would. And certainly a similar one to simply asking people about what they desire.
Also, most people would think that about 90% of the population only sexually desires the opposite sex. Certainly a lot more incidents popped up than that here.
-- Women come and go, but Metal Gear is forever. Perfect Odds A Cappella ~ http://i43.tinypic.com/34pdhc7.jpg
Here are the results of analyzing "perception of behavior." I asked individuals to identify how masculine or feminine they perceived each behavior. A "1" meant "very masculine." A "3" meant "neutral." A "5" meant "very feminine." A "2" and a "4" meant "slightly more masculine" and "slightly more feminine," respectively.
The closer to 5, the more feminine. The closer to 1, the more masculine.
Average Gender "Value" for Behaviors--Bolded are the behaviors related to sexual orientation Playing football -- 1.61 Playing hockey -- 1.75 Penetrating during sex -- 1.94 Paying for dates -- 2.07 Wearing baggy clothing -- 2.17 Playing video games -- 2.18 Drinking whiskey -- 2.19 Playing basketball -- 2.27 Drinking beer -- 2.43 Watching action films -- 2.50 Listening to rock music -- 2.66 Eating steak -- 2.69 Inflicting pain for sexual pleasure -- 2.73 Receiving oral sex -- 2.74 Singing in a band -- 2.76 Working out -- 2.78 Wearing blue clothing -- 2.87 Dancing hip-hop -- 2.89 Drinking tequila -- 2.93 Speaking slowly -- 2.94 Managing finances -- 2.95 Playing tennis -- 3.11 Using online dating websites -- 3.13 Receiving pain for sexual pleasure -- 3.15 Performing oral sex -- 3.22 Cooking food -- 3.26 Singing in choir -- 3.29 Speaking quickly -- 3.30 Talking with your hands -- 3.31 Styling your hair -- 3.34 Listening to pop music -- 3.35 Eating salad -- 3.47 Playing softball -- 3.57 Cleaning the house -- 3.61 Writing love letters -- 3.63 Wearing tight clothing -- 3.71 Watching romantic films -- 3.96 Wearing pink clothing -- 4.12 Being penetrated during sex -- 4.13 Dancing ballet -- 4.21 Wearing makeup -- 4.67
-- Women come and go, but Metal Gear is forever. Perfect Odds A Cappella ~ http://i43.tinypic.com/34pdhc7.jpg
But just because there are false positives and negatives doesn't mean that there aren't tests with less false positives and negatives.
Furthermore, you think the Kinsey test is a reliable test, and I presume not just that, it's the most reliable test, how do you know it's most accurate test?
Also, perhaps you are misunderstanding me, I'm asking do you know how reliable our knowledge of sexual arousal is, and how well or poorly does it compare to our knowledge of accurate survey results. Are you claiming that you've read papers explicitly saying that any metric we use for sexual arousal based off of brain patterns is just as "good" or worse than polygraphs or is that an example based off of what you think we know about arousal?
--
You're messing with me! You're messing with me, aren't you!? You're making fun of me, aren't you!? Aren't you!? You definitely are! I'll murder you!
ToukaOone posted... But just because there are false positives and negatives doesn't mean that there aren't tests with less false positives and negatives.
Furthermore, you think the Kinsey test is a reliable test, and I presume not just that, it's the most reliable test, how do you know it's most accurate test?
Also, perhaps you are misunderstanding me, I'm asking do you know how reliable our knowledge of sexual arousal is, and how well or poorly does it compare to our knowledge of accurate survey results. Are you claiming that you've read papers explicitly saying that any metric we use for sexual arousal based off of brain patterns is just as "good" or worse than polygraphs or is that an example based off of what you think we know about arousal?
I think the Kinsey scale is decent to a degree, but I modified it to avoid the labels and ternary of heterosexual / bisexual / homosexual. This change was based on some literature research and my own experiences with sexuality education (I'm studying to be a sex therapist). I don't know if it's the most accurate test. It's just one foot in the door of looking at sexual orientation wearing different glasses.
And I'd say I don't know how reliable our knowledge of sexual arousal is, but it's by no means complete. We're still having debates on nature and nurture in science, I can tell you that much. The example is based on what I think, coming from somebody who puts a lot of stock in context.
To answer your ultimate point, though, no: there is no way I can no if this is the best way to measure sexual orientation as a matter of sexual desire. But it's, in my opinion, the most effective way--simply because I tend to think that sociologically speaking, having an individual privately report his or her sexual feelings is the best way to know what his or her sexual feelings are.
Much like I wouldn't use other metrics to test whether or not you liked Super Mario and how much you like it, I would just ask you how much you liked it on a Likert scale. To not trust what you report on Super Mario would effectively invalidate you. Like saying "I know a better way to figure out what you think than asking you what you think." And, ultimately, I structured everything in this study around creating the safest and least invasive environment possible, even down to splitting these into two separate surveys so that I didn't ask any one individual to perceive a behavior and report how often he or she did it.
-- Women come and go, but Metal Gear is forever. Perfect Odds A Cappella ~ http://i43.tinypic.com/34pdhc7.jpg
GuessMyUserName posted... ballet is gayer than being penetrated
gmun likes this
Best of all, wearing makeup was the single most feminine behavior of the whole lot, yet it was not related to sexual orientation for either men or women.
-- Women come and go, but Metal Gear is forever. Perfect Odds A Cappella ~ http://i43.tinypic.com/34pdhc7.jpg
The way I'm understanding it, wouldn't "wearing makeup" not show up very high for gays if there aren't a lot of gays wearing makeup, regardless of how many straight guys are doing it? I mean, the vast majority of gay guys don't wear makeup. Just because that's a behavior associated with homosexuality doesn't mean it's actually prevalent.
For wearing makeup, we have to look at either relationship. As gayness goes up, frequency goes up? Or as gayness goes up, frequency goes down? If neither relationship exists at a statistically significant level, the two things are not related.
The average rate (frequency) of wearing makeup for men was 0.07, while the average rate (frequency) of wearing makeup for women was 2.48. This is based on a scale where:
0 = Never 1 = Rarely 2 = Sometimes 3 = Often
So yes, very few men wore makeup at all. But the difference in frequency between straight men and gay men (when viewed through the Likert scale 0-6) was not statistically significant. Therefore, the behavior and sexual orientation, at least in the context of this study, were unrelated.
-- Women come and go, but Metal Gear is forever. Perfect Odds A Cappella ~ http://i43.tinypic.com/34pdhc7.jpg
So does that mean, if there were no straight guys and like two gay guys who wore makeup, that the correlation would be weak?
While the sample size there would be extremely small and not really worth anything, in your example, the correlation between sexuality and wearing makeup would be very strong.
Here, you can't look at it as full numbers. 2 gay guys means nothing. You basically compare the percentage of gay men who wear makeup against the percentage of straight men who do. If that difference is statistically different (compare means), than there's a statistically significant correlation.
And, of course, my study also included "degrees" of gayness.
-- Women come and go, but Metal Gear is forever. Perfect Odds A Cappella ~ http://i43.tinypic.com/34pdhc7.jpg
Yeah, obviously I would like it to have been bigger. But, realistically, you only need about 40 people in a sample for reliable results, provided the sample is truly representative of the population.
Also, the professors were urging me to stick to no more than 200 respondents, so I'm glad I got it as large as I did.
-- Women come and go, but Metal Gear is forever. Perfect Odds A Cappella ~ http://i43.tinypic.com/34pdhc7.jpg