It seems like every couple days another study is released. At that point the journalism machine spins into overdrive and starts turning facts into speculation, correlation into causation.
A recent example is the an article in the New York Times that summarizes a study on female bisexuality. The facts of the study were that the women in the study were aroused by photos of naked women or sexual acts, but found photos of naked men about as appealing as landscapes. The author of the study maintains that this doesn’t mean much because of the unnatural environment the test was conducted in, and the multitude of things that cause you to find someone attractive. Despite this the journalist then speculates that all women are inherently bisexual, or at least significantly more so then men. This is a pretty big leap in my opinion.
by Katkreig
How did the photos of naked women compare to those of naked men? A naked woman with her legs spread is always going to convey a different message than a naked man with his legs spread. And why only photos? Attraction is based on more than just the image on my retina.
by Svedek
In addition to the concerns with how they solicited and judged arousal, there is also the cultural aspect to consider. I imagine that this study was probably done entirely in one city. The women there will have different ideas of what is acceptable in male pornography from other areas of the world.
In fact, it’s pretty likely that women in North America will generally feel uncomfortable with the idea of a naked man because of the stigma against that our culture. It’s a common stereotype in hetero-normative society (yes I used that term! 73 points!) that the male form is utilitarian, rough, and non-sexual. Whereas the female form is beautiful, elegant, and sexually-focused.
by Pulpolux !!!
Just because a select group of women were not as aroused by a certain photo of a naked man as they were by a certain photo of a naked woman does not instantly mean that all women are inherently bisexual.
It’s these sorts of extreme extrapolations that always bother me. Journalists don’t seem to grasp the difference between correlation and causation. Causation is much much harder to prove. Our brains like to assume that because two events occur simultaneously, or in sequence, that one causes the other. The reality is rarely that simple.
by Changhua Coast Conservation Action
If there was an increase in violent crime at the same time as an increase in the violence on television, most people would just assume that the TV caused the crime. But just because the two events occurred, does not mean that they are at all related. In fact, it could be argued that the rise in violent crime caused the rise in television violence as TV shows attempted to change their programs to reflect reality.
by davekellam
In order to prove causation, you have to show many cases where one event directly lead to another. The bisexuality study would have to show many things to prove that women are inherently bisexual. They would have to start by showing that women, when controlling for differences in age, location, cultural background, and ethnicity, find men equally sexually attractive as women. Not photos of men and women, but real men and women. Then they would have to show that men do not have the same inclinations, in order to prove that this is a female thing and not merely a human thing.
by City On Fire
Doing either of those things is extremely difficult. Therefore their existing study simply shows that a particular group of women from a particular portion of a society find photos of other women attractive without controlling for environment, culture, society, psychology, or even trends like fashion.
by /reshi
One poorly thought out study that shows a correlation in a small group does not mean anything about humanity in general. The only thing it shows is that journalists are bad at interpreting studies.
I read a similar study several years ago conducted on men in healthy marriages. I can’t exactly remember when and where it was conducted, but it involved showing pornography (gay, straight, and lesbian) to these men. Of the three forms, brain scans provided that there was generally a greater sexual stimulation toward the gay pornographic images. This could simply be a form of reaction formation, rather than bisexuality.
Of course, studies between sexuality in men and women are VERY different so this may not apply so much…just throwing it out there.
Generally, I just like to ignore reporters and go straight to the source. Reporters misinterpret, skip, and bend a LOT of information.
Todd Harper
UC Davis Student
Psychology with Emphasis in Gender, Sexuality, and Sexual Orientation
By: tvharper on June 26, 2008
at 8:21 pm
See the study you just talked about is a great example. Many would immediately take that as strong evidence of suppressed bisexuality in men.
In reality it could mean many things. For example, often the psychological and physiological responses to lust are similar to rage. There are lots of animals (humans included) that get mildly aroused when they are angry. So men showing arousal in reaction to gay pornography could be a signal that they find it threatening.
Of course it could mean a million other things as well.
And that’s my point, usually the academic world is firm about the fact that a single study rarely proves anything. You need a large diverse body of evidence to show a reliable trend. Journalists tend to oversimplify and draw conclusions that the academics do not intend.
So yeah, going straight to the source is almost always the best way to get the real information, with context.
By: laconicreply on June 27, 2008
at 8:20 am
Creative Commons upheld, so permission is of course granted to use my picture
By: Erik Kambestad Veland on July 1, 2008
at 1:47 am
That dood on the left in the last picture looks like a hippie
By: Matt on May 28, 2009
at 11:18 pm
well said. i can tell you think very logically and know how to separate the bullshit from the truth. unfortunately, many people don’t know how do that! keep up the good work!
By: muska on June 22, 2009
at 9:49 pm