= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
HughRistik comments on Sociosexual Orientation Inventory, or failing to perform basic sanity checks - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (41)
Yeah, there could be some lying going on (though there doesn't have to be a "spectacular" amount; see Psychohistorian's response).
However, just because people tend to lie about a certain behavior, it doesn't make it useless to try to measure it. Rather than just giving up, psychologists often employ measures that will detect deceptiveness or social desirability bias such as the Marlowe-Crowne scale.
True. But at least in this case, people who underreport on this scale probably have less of what it's actually trying to measure than people with the same behavior who report accurately. Since the SOI is about orientation, then how forthcoming and proud you are of the behavior it measures could be seen as part of that orientation.
For one amount of lying changes drastically depending on tiny details of how the test is administered. If you know about widespread lying is, and want to include it, you need to standardize testing conditions.
Those are good points. They definitely could produce better measures.