= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
randallsquared 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)
Differences in question one are not only implausible, they're impossible.
If such extreme female outliers really existed, at least some surveys would show number of partners for women being massively higher than for men, just by including one such person by chance. There's no statistical way around it, unless you postulate 1 in 100,000 female outliers with millions of distinct male partners each, what's quite ridiculous.
And we have pretty good evidence that women lie anyway.
...
I just showed how it isn't impossible. Further, while you apparently assume that I meant only that women could have more partners on average than men, I didn't imply that the actual survey would skew either way (on average), only that we have an example of where it would skew female.
I think it might actually be the case, in at least some societies, that fewer men than women have sex at all, on average, due to men who can have sex at all having sex with several or many women each. That's an example of how it could easily skew male on question one, and I don't really get how you believe that it's impossible to have a higher population of one sex than the other that doesn't have sex at all. It seems likely that there would be at least some difference.