The study seems to be pretty interesting, but i really would like to talk to the scientist about their data acquisition. Reading through the first chapters (thanks amazon) I saw they used only the inputs on one metasearchengine and some data AOL gives out.
So in my understanding searches over the f*ing world largest engine (google) aren't covered. So one could argue that these data are not representative, and therefore scientifically bullshit as it is not in line to the Philosophy of science!
Also you can not monitor what happens if the user actually found it interests and bookmark it. As for these the user ended it search and never gave new input in the database in a specific topic making the measurements rater fishy for me.
YearningmiceEquus 2 points on 2015-02-06 12:21:27
Yes, I didn't get a chance to follow-up on the research but if they didn't use google's info along with other info it is fishy. Nevertheless we see that research is being done and that some interesting trends might be in the data.
To be honest though, I've never seen a piece of zoophile research done in such a way as to have any statistical validity. Like the latest "fantasy" one out of Montreal whose data collection methods were questionable to say the least, or the many convicted offender studies which self-select for the worse behaviour.
SweatySmellyHorseUngulata and Carnivora 1 point on 2015-02-06 23:46:49
Was the "fantasy" one, the survey 5-8 years ago that asked in its last question something like "and here is a fun question"? It used a Microsoft Word document to record your responses.
YearningmiceEquus 1 point on 2015-02-07 17:46:00
No, it was a supposedly legit science experiment done out of one of psychology dept. at one of the universities in Montreal about 6-8 months ago.
SweatySmellyHorseUngulata and Carnivora 1 point on 2015-02-06 12:30:07
So true. The Professors I had in college, would totally knock off a full letter grade if this was cited.
SweatySmellyHorseUngulata and Carnivora 1 point on 2015-02-06 12:26:00
Lol, I'm too afraid to select "horses for courses" on the poll. Jokes aside I have jacked off to images of all the species mentioned.
/r/zoophilia archive
More interesting press
The study seems to be pretty interesting, but i really would like to talk to the scientist about their data acquisition. Reading through the first chapters (thanks amazon) I saw they used only the inputs on one metasearchengine and some data AOL gives out.
So in my understanding searches over the f*ing world largest engine (google) aren't covered. So one could argue that these data are not representative, and therefore scientifically bullshit as it is not in line to the Philosophy of science!
Also you can not monitor what happens if the user actually found it interests and bookmark it. As for these the user ended it search and never gave new input in the database in a specific topic making the measurements rater fishy for me.
Yes, I didn't get a chance to follow-up on the research but if they didn't use google's info along with other info it is fishy. Nevertheless we see that research is being done and that some interesting trends might be in the data.
To be honest though, I've never seen a piece of zoophile research done in such a way as to have any statistical validity. Like the latest "fantasy" one out of Montreal whose data collection methods were questionable to say the least, or the many convicted offender studies which self-select for the worse behaviour.
Was the "fantasy" one, the survey 5-8 years ago that asked in its last question something like "and here is a fun question"? It used a Microsoft Word document to record your responses.
No, it was a supposedly legit science experiment done out of one of psychology dept. at one of the universities in Montreal about 6-8 months ago.
So true. The Professors I had in college, would totally knock off a full letter grade if this was cited.
Lol, I'm too afraid to select "horses for courses" on the poll. Jokes aside I have jacked off to images of all the species mentioned.