= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
taw 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)
My optimal number of gallons of ice cream to eat over the next five years is ten gallons.
In the next five years, I will most likely eat more than ten gallons of ice cream. Why?
Got an answer? Now, map it to the present problem.
Also, one thing to note that can mess up the "male sexual partners must equal female sexual partners" is the occurence of rare extreme female outliers. That is, a small number of women with far more sexual partners than average (usually but not necessarily prostitutes) who are unlikely to be found by these survey takers.
We can make up explanations like prostitutes and whatnot, but we have pretty good evidence that it's simply women lying.
I've lost it, but I once ran across a paper that surveyed prostitutes and concluded they explained the entire difference. Most anomalies in social science that people are willing to admit exist in the data are explained many times over by lone papers. Sometimes even by whole bodies of literature that fail to acknowledge the other school of thought.
(ETA: here is a paper along these lines. here is a popular account. This paper is really not about under-sampling prostitutes, but about how prostitutes massively underreport.)
We also have pretty solid evidence for the existence of prostitutes and researchers' failure to find them.
We also have pretty solid evidence for the existence of pick up artists. The linked SOI paper blatantly threw away top 1% of men with highest scores without any explanation.