submitted 2017-04-25 23:45:57 by YearningmiceZoophile
YearningmiceZoophile 1 point on 2017-04-25 23:46:33
Because we often talk about studies I thought this would be a good read for those interested.
AmoreBestiaPro-zoophile, non-zoophile. 1 point on 2017-04-26 00:36:40
Basically saying that studies with good design can be false, but studies that are verified and replicated are more reliable, and most of the studies that are popularized are the ones with interesting results rather than nulls.
Skgrsgpf 1 point on 2017-04-26 03:40:42
The article is a good reminder that when anti-zoos say:
"studies show that zoos are a higher risk to society than non-zoos because studies say they are more likely to be violent to people [based on studies of prison populations]"
It is nonsense and misinformation. The idea that zoos are more "violent" than non-zoos is incorrect, and the idea that they are a "threat to society" is incorrect. What is disturbing is that these "studies", which anti-zoos cite so often (and which are written by anti-zoos themselves), are blindly accepted by legislators who never question their dubious validity.
These "studies" are just an attempt to re-enforce people's negative prejudices about zoos and sex with animals. They are also subject to confirmation bias. An example of it being described in the article:
We are pattern-seeking creatures, and correlations are patterns that cry out for explanation. But sometimes our political views infect our prior beliefs, and these beliefs lead us to look for patterns until we find them. Given enough tests and time, we will find them.
The "infection" idea can be applied to anti-zoos, whose anti-zoo attitude "infects" their work.
Also, this quote should be read:
...we do think the phrase “studies show…” should be met with cautious skepticism, especially when the study supports the politically-motivated preconceptions of the person who’s talking.
AmoreBestiaPro-zoophile, non-zoophile. 2 points on 2017-04-26 05:14:05
The authors were describing the habits of people citing studies in the article, not those of the people performing studies in those quotes.
Also, people researching zoo communities have a bias to contend with inside the community: Self selection bias. Fact of the matter is, they can't reliably get a truly random sample. No sexologist can, really. :\
YearningmiceZoophile 1 point on 2017-04-26 15:23:33
Which has been a problem since and a critisism of the research since Kinsey. The UdeM researcher and I have talked a little about how she will analyze the data and this seems like the biggest problem she will encounter.
Skgrsgpf 1 point on 2017-04-26 22:34:56
Fact of the matter is, they can't reliably get a truly random sample.
For this reason, legislators should be skeptical of these "studies", and not blindly accept them as they do now.
AmoreBestiaPro-zoophile, non-zoophile. 1 point on 2017-04-26 22:53:07
And when there's one study that validates your stance, what then? When they practice skepticism then, I suspect you'll change your tune, create a call for acceptance using it as 'irrefutable evidence' or something. I'm all for legalizing it with stipulations, but please don't prove me right in that regard.
The article specifically stated that studies that are consistently reproduced are more reliable, so by merit of this article, their lack of skepticism is also well chosen, regardless of whether it's accurate.
They_are_behind_usWarCanine Throwaway. Thoughts of horror grows and twists itself. 1 point on 2017-04-27 08:13:07
studies that are consistently reproduced are more reliable.
Looks like we have some spam bots to make.
AmoreBestiaPro-zoophile, non-zoophile. 1 point on 2017-04-27 08:21:37
In the future, the world will be filled with shiny androids in labcoats studying canned meat product.
TokenHorseGuy 1 point on 2017-04-27 23:10:42
What scientific studies on the topic ARE out there, by the way? I keep hearing such-and-such study shows X, but very rarely do those seem to come with citations, and I'd rather not spend a long weekend at the local university trying to answer that question myself.
YearningmiceZoophile 1 point on 2017-04-28 00:18:40
I'd recommend going through the wiki bibliography . There are links in the source for many of the studies and Sci-hub.cc can find PDFs for anything with a DOI. A quick google of most titles under the bestiality section should turn up abstracts at least.
If I have a chance I'll DM you a more detailed answer.... but this week has been stupid busy.
/r/zoophilia archive
Because we often talk about studies I thought this would be a good read for those interested.
Basically saying that studies with good design can be false, but studies that are verified and replicated are more reliable, and most of the studies that are popularized are the ones with interesting results rather than nulls.
The article is a good reminder that when anti-zoos say:
It is nonsense and misinformation. The idea that zoos are more "violent" than non-zoos is incorrect, and the idea that they are a "threat to society" is incorrect. What is disturbing is that these "studies", which anti-zoos cite so often (and which are written by anti-zoos themselves), are blindly accepted by legislators who never question their dubious validity.
These "studies" are just an attempt to re-enforce people's negative prejudices about zoos and sex with animals. They are also subject to confirmation bias. An example of it being described in the article:
The "infection" idea can be applied to anti-zoos, whose anti-zoo attitude "infects" their work.
Also, this quote should be read:
The authors were describing the habits of people citing studies in the article, not those of the people performing studies in those quotes.
Also, people researching zoo communities have a bias to contend with inside the community: Self selection bias. Fact of the matter is, they can't reliably get a truly random sample. No sexologist can, really. :\
Which has been a problem since and a critisism of the research since Kinsey. The UdeM researcher and I have talked a little about how she will analyze the data and this seems like the biggest problem she will encounter.
For this reason, legislators should be skeptical of these "studies", and not blindly accept them as they do now.
And when there's one study that validates your stance, what then? When they practice skepticism then, I suspect you'll change your tune, create a call for acceptance using it as 'irrefutable evidence' or something. I'm all for legalizing it with stipulations, but please don't prove me right in that regard.
The article specifically stated that studies that are consistently reproduced are more reliable, so by merit of this article, their lack of skepticism is also well chosen, regardless of whether it's accurate.
Looks like we have some spam bots to make.
In the future, the world will be filled with shiny androids in labcoats studying canned meat product.
What scientific studies on the topic ARE out there, by the way? I keep hearing such-and-such study shows X, but very rarely do those seem to come with citations, and I'd rather not spend a long weekend at the local university trying to answer that question myself.
I'd recommend going through the wiki bibliography . There are links in the source for many of the studies and Sci-hub.cc can find PDFs for anything with a DOI. A quick google of most titles under the bestiality section should turn up abstracts at least.
If I have a chance I'll DM you a more detailed answer.... but this week has been stupid busy.