HughRistik comments on Sociosexual Orientation Inventory, or failing to perform basic sanity checks - Less Wrong

3 Post author: taw 16 September 2009 10:00AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (41)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Psychohistorian 16 September 2009 09:14:02PM *  7 points [-]

would have to be explained by items 4 to 7, which have relatively low weights!

Item 4 is the killer. It is actually heavily weighted in the paper you link, though not in all versions of the SOI. You can score a 50 without ever having had sex or ever expecting to have sex, and up to 32 of those points can come from a response to 4. 4 is obviously not zero sum and need not average out.

There is very good reason to believe that men fantasize about sex more often than women (who buys most pornography?), and there is also reason to believe men are more likely to fantasize about persons other than their current partner. It's also possible that "once per day" is actually relatively infrequent given how often men think about sex. Put these together and it can explain a lot of the variance. The paper does not show breakdown by answers, at least not that I saw.

It's also worth noting they had some significant response-rate issues (RR < .5 for some demographics). If women who like casual sex, are promiscuous, or are prostitutes are less likely to respond than all other groups, that could explain the variance.

Also, there are other versions of the ROI that don't need to average out, as they lump large numbers together (i.e. "More than 8").

Comment author: HughRistik 16 September 2009 09:46:53PM 1 point [-]

Psychohistorian nails it. Items 4-7 could plausibly account for the wide gender differences. And even if they didn't completely, then we still have the response rate issue, and differences in optimism in 2.