Promiscuous relationships - good idea?

OldGoat

Deleted User wrote: »

I have seen little - in the literature or my own life experience - that suggests this is a fact at all. It would appear to me that the desire for sex is essentially equally between the sexes - but that desire is mediated in different ways between the sexes socially - biologically - psychologically - and merely in terms of personal safety.

So I can see why many might have the illusion that because males are essentially more willing to indulge their impulses towards sex that they therefore "want it more" - but as powerful as the illusion is I think it remains an illusion.

Inserting article in Psychology Today from a few years back saying how little is actually written and how few papers there are based on sex drive of each gender. However, after a studies research the conclusion seems to be that men have a much higher sex drive than women.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cultural-animal/201012/the-reality-the-male-sex-drive

OldGoat

OldGoat wrote: »

However, after a studies research the conclusion seems to be that men have a much higher sex drive than women.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cultural-animal/201012/the-reality-the-male-sex-drive

Apologies for the length I know this post will get to. I have a weird habit not shared by many on internet forums of actually reading citations and links when provided - where many would merely note a link was given and pass over it.

The subtitle of the article is awful - incorporating a value judgement of that sort into the title of a scientific review does little but heighten my suspicion radar. As does an article in a psychology magazine purporting to be commenting on the biological sex drive. Two different fields. A third warning is this author appears to be writing an article about the authors own paper. So confirmation bias radar is going off like a mad thing too.

However I will suspend those three areas of suspicion somethat and read the article rationally. One should always identify ones biases before one proceeds so as to minimise their effect The biggest issue for citing blog opinion piece articles like this - instead of actual studies - is the authors of them rarely cite their sources. And this link is no different. There is not a single citation of one shred of the data set the author claims to be drawing upon. Not a link - a footnote - or a citation.

The first paragraph does go somewhat to confirming what I wrote above however. That there are numerous pressures which mediate what we do with our sexual impulses that likely leave people with the illusion one sex "wants" it more than the other. And the article suggests the same that "cultural and social factors on sexual behaviour" have an influence that "consistently turned out to be stronger on women than on men.". Exactly what I said above - that these pressures mediate how the sexes engage with and indulge their drives more than indicate a difference in the strength of those drives.

In the second paragraph the author acknowledges that the totality of current literature on the subject goes against his view - while the third and fourth paragraph says literally nothing on the subject at all either way, it is about the researchers.

Paragraph 5 and 6 however are a problem for me. The author is using as a measure of the truth of the claim almost the very thing being questioned. That is to say they are measuring based on how often the subjects have sex etc.

I trust you can see why this is a problem but at the risk of being insulting to you - which I do not intend - I will explain it anyway. In my post above I suggested that perhaps, as most literature suggests, the sex drives are equal but due to a number of other mediating factors we merely see women ENGAGE with those drives less than men.

So if - as the author of your link does - you USE as a measure of drive the relative engagements with that drive between the sexes - you are not going to get a result that confirms that one sex has more of a sex drive than the other. Because nothing you have done has normalised or mediated for the very variable I have identified as being the issue in the first place - but has in fact used that variable as the measure by which to judge the question. An Awful methodology.

I see other issues with their measurement methodology too. The article declares for example that men "Think about sex" more than women. This is not actually a useful measure for whether one has more of a sex drive than the other however. It could also just as easily be - for example - that those thinking resources are for other reasons occupied with other issues and so free CPU time to dedicate to the "sex" thread in memory is curtailed. Or put another way - the author has not shown any methodology by which they normalised for other factors which affect how much brain time the subjects can dedicate to the subject.

They say also in the article "Men initiate sex often and refuse it rarely. Women initiate it much more rarely and refuse it much more often than men" but this feeds again into what my previous post already said - and what I said in the opening of this one. And the "More than three-quarters of the men said yes. Not a single woman did." line is no different either - as there are multiple reasons other than mere sex drive for a result like that - as with the you tube videos linked to on this thread on that very claim.

So no I am not seeing anything to convincing in that link at all - and I am seeing some glaring methodological flaws. The only fact worthy of any note or consideration I see in the whole article is the relative masturbatory habits of the two sexes. This indeed indicates _something_ but I would be loathe to jump to readily at what.

The Corinthian

zeffabelli wrote: »

Not really. All it shows is men "performing" they want sex more than women and the other one women"performing" that they don't.

It's no reflection on authentic internal realities.

For a we know they were paid $50 to answer.

Editing too is an amazing story teller.

Thing is that such results are not limited to YouTube videos. Even in the link that One Eyed Jack refused to read earlier, there are various academic references. Are all these edited too? Or to be dismissed as pseudo-science? When is skepticism reasonable and when does it become simply an exercise in denial?

And even if they were this would not prove the alternative, that neither gender has any comparative advantage.

What we've seen here is something which, as long as one does not go overboard and gives it more importance than it has in reality, has been observed, documented and studied. Some people appear not to like it, possibly because they go overboard and give it more importance than it has in reality, and reject it based upon nothing more than personal opinion (which is they don't like it) and anecdotal evidence that is never given 'for privacy reasons'.

OldGoat

Deleted User wrote: »

Apologies for the length I know this post will get to. I have a weird habit not shared by many on internet forums of actually reading citations and links when provided - where many would merely note a link was given and pass over it.
<Snip>

Yep I agree with you in that it's only an article rather that a full blow research paper and that it's printed in a digest magazine. It's got as much to do with real psychology as New Scientist has to do with real science. However if we go to the lengths of posting real studies here we will simply bore the tits off everyone else in the place. A digest article at least has the appeal of being understandable by most and of being mostly jargon free.
However to say that sex drive is only biological and not related to the field of psychology is fundamentally inaccurate.

Again, yes I agree with you that the measurement are not brilliant but they are measuring a psychological trait rather that a physical one. You can't put a meter on the bed when trying to see who think about sex more often, you can only base your results on what your population studies tell you.

You also have to agree that (flawed as they may be ) the trend of the results in ALL the measurements used indicates a higher sex drive for men.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

The Corinthian wrote: »

Well, I suppose you could read it that way alright. So fair enough.

Oh my goodness you're adorable sometimes. It's ok to say 'sorry, didn't see that post, I was wrong', really not a big deal

OldGoat

OldGoat wrote: »

However to say that sex drive is only biological and not related to the field of psychology is fundamentally inaccurate.

Then I share in the joy you will no doubt feel when you note that I never made such a comment.

I merely said that I am hyper meticulous in evaluating someone from one field erring into the other - and I will probably read a paper (or in this case a self appraising blog opinion piece) a little slower and more carefully as a result.

OldGoat wrote: »

Again, yes I agree with you that the measurement are not brilliant

I think this is an understatement however. I realise of course the issue with evaluating data in areas where the vast majority of that data is from self-reporting sources. But one has to simply be _more_ stringent with controls and normalisation of the data before using it.

Their methodology in this article is less than "not brilliant". It is horrific. To use as a measuring stick the very factor that is being called into question is simply awful.

The first post of mine to which you replied was identifying the issue that a multitude of factors will affect how often each sex will engage with or indulge their sexual drive. So you will by necessity see a variance in sexual activity between the sexes. Yet the author of that article is not only not accounting for this in his evaluations of the data - but is _using it as the measuring stick by which to evaluate the data_. And that is methodologically a woeful horror story. I would love to know - with minimum effort on my part - what his actual background is in being trained on how to perform a meta analysis of data because it is clearly massively different to my own.

OldGoat wrote: »

You also have to agree that (flawed as they may be ) the trend of the results in ALL the measurements used indicates a higher sex drive for men.

Impossible to agree with this for the reasons I have already laid out. But there are other issues that prevent me from doing so. For example the author mentions a variety of test measurements. Number of times having sex. Number of times thinking about sex. Number of times masturbating. Lengths of times between masturbation and much more.

But we can not evaluate _ANY_ of this. The author does not tell us anything we can use. By what methodology were his source materials sourced on each? Evaluated? What quantity of each did he find? Were they given equal weighting or differential weightings and if the latter what methodology was used to order their import? What meta analysis methodologies were used to merge the sources?

There is simply nothing there _at all_ in the article that is useable to anyone even remotely trained in statistical analysis or scientific evaluation techniques. ALL I am seeing in the link is a blog opinion piece of an author giving his own opinion of his own paper - starting an ending with a subtitle and book title that suggests some kind of gender war bias mentality permeating his writing -though in what direction I can not tell without reading said book.

Debtocracy

Deleted User wrote: »

The biggest issue for citing blog opinion piece articles like this - instead of actual studies

The citation for the study is:

Baumeister, R. F., Catanese, K. R., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Is there a gender difference in strength of sex drive? Theoretical views, conceptual distinctions, and a review of relevant evidence. Personality and social psychology review, 5(3), 242-273.

Is had been cited 568 times on scholar, with a total of about 150 references. Baumeister is an eminent academic psychologist, he did not get this respect by publishing methodologically flawed research.

I wouldn’t stay awake too long at night pondering this question. In every practical sense men have a higher sex drive. There may be some very specific contexts where the female sex drive approaches men (e.g., committed, emotionally intense relationship) but for all intents and purposes, I don’t expect women to stop being the limiting factor to sexual activity.

OldGoat

Deleted User wrote: »

Then I share in the joy you will no doubt feel when you note that I never made such a comment.

As does an article in a psychology magazine purporting to be commenting on the biological sex drive. Two different fields.

Apologies if I misinterpreted the above. It appears that you are calling sex drive a biological function and that psychology has no place in commenting on it.

The Corinthian

Cohen Young Trigger wrote: »

Oh my goodness you're adorable sometimes. It's ok to say 'sorry, didn't see that post, I was wrong', really not a big deal

OK. I'm sorry. Do you want a cuddle?

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

The Corinthian wrote: »

OK. I'm sorry. Do you want a cuddle?

No, I'm swatting off sex starved male models with a paddle over here, god.

justchecked

Article and author aside, PT is a pop-culture magazine with a female target audience. Its a coffee table 5 min read, in there with the daily mail and the metro.


The primary popular magazine whose title contains the word psychology, “Psychology Today, has a readership of more than 3 million people. Initiated in 1967, its early issues featured scientifically grounded and entertaining articles by eminent research psychologists, including Stanley Milgram, Philip Zimbardo, Nathan Azrin, Hans Eysenck, and David Lykken. Yet beginning in the 1970s and extending into the 1980s, Psychology Today shifted in content and style to appeal to a more general audience, featuring articles on such pop psychology topics as love, relationships, work, and happiness, most of them written by NON-EXPERTS from a largely NON-SCIENTIFIC perspective (Benjamin & Bryant, 1997). Despite a brief and ill-fated attempt by the APA to rehabilitate the magazine in 1983, Psychology Today’s LACK OF SCIENTIFIC RIGOR PERSISTS TODAY.” --Scott O. Lilienfeld. American Psychologist, Volume 67, No.2, “Public Skepticism of Psychology: Why Many People Perceive the Study of Human Behavior as Unscientific”, pg. 119.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Thread%3AUser_talk%3ANebuchadnezzar/Psychology_Today/reply_(3)

Their covers. Now what agenda might I possibly find in here.

https://www.google.ie/search?q=psychology+today&biw=1366&bih=659&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAmoVChMIzYHhkKfJxwIVC5EsCh1fBABk

OldGoat

justchecked wrote: »

Article and author aside,

Errr the link to the article was kinda the point. The merits of the publication are not germane to the points raised in the article.

OldGoat

OldGoat wrote: »

Apologies if I misinterpreted the above. It appears that you are calling sex drive a biological function and that psychology has no place in commenting on it.

No not at all. I meant only what I clarified myself as having meant in the previous post - that I simply up my sensitivity if I perceive a cross over of fields. I would never suggest anything of the sort that a person from one field has no place in commenting on another. Quite the opposite in fact as I strongly and often espouse the position that words and claims should be evaluated entirely separate from the person who is uttering them. But despite having that ideal - my sensitivity does get upped a little on occasion by some factor or other.

Debtocracy wrote: »

he did not get this respect by publishing methodologically flawed research.

No doubt. But one does also not assume that the capability of producing sound research means that any one single example from the person can not itself be flawed. Look at Lynn Marguils for example. Highly respected for some of the papers and research she did - but some of her claims and work in other areas was worse than awful.

So I tend - as I just said to the user above - to evaluate what I read entirely independent of who is writing it - or what credentials or "respect" they might have garnered. A practice I sorely wish was more common.

And as I have said twice - using the very thing as your measuring stick that your study should be accounting for or normalising for is a pretty poor standard.

zeffabelli

The Corinthian wrote: »

Thing is that such results are not limited to YouTube videos. Even in the link that One Eyed Jack refused to read earlier, there are various academic references. Are all these edited too? Or to be dismissed as pseudo-science? When is skepticism reasonable and when does it become simply an exercise in denial?

And even if they were this would not prove the alternative, that neither gender has any comparative advantage.

What we've seen here is something which, as long as one does not go overboard and gives it more importance than it has in reality, has been observed, documented and studied. Some people appear not to like it, possibly because they go overboard and give it more importance than it has in reality, and reject it based upon nothing more than personal opinion (which is they don't like it) and anecdotal evidence that is never given 'for privacy reasons'.

The scientific method is rooted in observing nature isn't it?

Then Newton came along and tightened it all up wear measuring became the be all end all. He mathenatiszed the method.

I can't see how they can ever study their own species with any objectivity or how it's an appropriate response to evaluating human nature.

Once you observe humans, the shift is from science into theatre .... The observer/audience will change their behaviour.

So yeah I would be circumspect about academic articles also. For everyone you find, you'll find another one to contradict it.

Take sleep deprivation studies. The participants are young for a start, usually college students needing money and they KNOw when it will be all over. Sleep deprive someone when they have no idea when and if it will end and you have a very different response.

Human heart is a mystery....we are more than the sum of our parts.

OldGoat

Like I said, it was an interesting article with a viewpoint that was different from yours. Take it or leave it as you will.

One eyed Jack

OldGoat wrote: »

Yep I agree with you in that it's only an article rather that a full blow research paper and that it's printed in a digest magazine. It's got as much to do with real psychology as New Scientist has to do with real science. However if we go to the lengths of posting real studies here we will simply bore the tits off everyone else in the place. A digest article at least has the appeal of being understandable by most and of being mostly jargon free.

However to say that sex drive is only biological and not related to the field of psychology is fundamentally inaccurate.

You also have to agree that (flawed as they may be ) the trend of the results in ALL the measurements used indicates a higher sex drive for men.

Well, it's not a full paper, but the Professor expanded further on his ideas in a talk he gave to the American Psychological Association three years earlier than that article was written (2010), in 2007. The media transcript of his presentation is here -

Is There Anything Good About Men?

It's jargon free too, and made for quite an interesting read that suggests that it's not simply that men have a higher sex drive than women, but that there are several different motivational factors for both genders, and he examines some of those factors and how they influence both genders differently.

Given his background, I'd lend far more weight to the Professor's opinion than some of the opinions being expressed here -

Roy F. Baumeister (born May 16, 1953) is a Francis Eppes Professor of Psychology at Florida State University in Tallahassee, Florida. He is a social psychologist who is known for his work on the self, social rejection, belongingness, sexuality, self-control, self-esteem, self-defeating behaviors, motivation, aggression, consciousness, and free will. He has authored 500 publications and has written, co-written, or edited almost 30 books. He earned his A.B. summa cum laude ("with highest honor") from Princeton University and his M.A. from Duke University. He returned to Princeton University with his mentor Edward E. Jones and earned his Ph.D. from the university's Department of Psychology in 1978. He then taught at Case Western Reserve University for over two decades before transferring to Florida State.[1] He is a fellow of both the Society for Personality and Social Psychology and the Association for Psychological Science. Baumeister was named an ISI highly cited researcher in 2003. He is a member of Zurich.Minds

Source: Roy F. Baumeister, Wikipedia entry.

And as I said it is often better to evaluate what a person is claiming rather than evaluating their background. Especially when they make the kind of glaring methodological fail that appears to be suggested in the article - though I will not know how much so until I read the actual paper itself but his description of his own methodology in that article is not promising.

The Corinthian

zeffabelli wrote: »

The scientific method is rooted in observing nature isn't it?

There's a bit more to it than that, but yes.

Then Newton came along and tightened it all up wear measuring became the be all end all. He mathenatiszed the method.

I can't see how they can ever study their own species with any objectivity or how it's an appropriate response to evaluating human nature.

Enter the scientific study of probability. The problem with pure maths is that it does not lend itself well to the real World; there are too many variables, not all are known or even knowable and how everything interacts has not been fully discovered or described. Basically, Newton gave us a mathematical model of the universe that was as incomplete in practice as it was beautiful in theory.

The social sciences, such as psychology, economics, and the like, would be impossible to study without probability. It allows us to see things in terms of what is 'likely' or 'average', rather than black and white - as one analogy of goes; an economy is like a mule. An economic stimulus is like slapping it in the rump so that it will move forward. Thing is it probably will move forward, but there's also a chance it's kick you instead.

Nonetheless, it's still usable. Probability gets results even if it offends our need for absolutes - the computers we're using to post here, for example, would not be possible without probability.

Problem on this thread, however, is that some have either generalized for or taken umbrage against with what's been claimed because they don't seem to grasp probability.

Human heart is a mystery....we are more than the sum of our parts.

I've always loved a good cliche. Then again, if it wasn't good, it probably wouldn't have become a cliche.

justchecked

OldGoat wrote: »

Errr the link to the article was kinda the point. The merits of the publication are not germane to the points raised in the article.

No need to get defensive.
I went to the effort to say 'article and author aside'.

There's nothing wrong with sourcing an article that appeared in a pop psych glossy mag with a niche readership/gender bias.
Nothing at all...

zeffabelli

zeffabelli wrote: »

Once you observe humans, the shift is from science into theatre .... The observer/audience will change their behaviour.

So yeah I would be circumspect about academic articles also. For everyone you find, you'll find another one to contradict it.

That is indeed why I wish even the very basics of how to read and evaluate and understand articles and studies was taught early and well in our education curriculum - rather than simply a necessary part of more specialised subjects at higher levels.

Quite often even the Science Journalists in our more successful news papers have no background at all in Science Reading or Interpretation. Hence the litany of terrible articles evaluating - with heaps of hype - the results of the latest paper released in some forum. My favourites are always the articles where you are told "Doing X will increase by 100% your chances of Y!!!!!" and if you put down the news paper and go read the actual study you will find that yes, there is a 100% increase. From a result of 0.0000001% to 0.0000002%. Then you go back to the news paper article and merely despair for the world we live in.

You are entirely right that on any subject you will find articles entirely contradicting each other. So it behoves one to learn how to read deeper into the contradictory articles and see which ones might have flawed methodologies or claims or data. Otherwise - quite often - you might as well simply toss a coin for all the good reading articles will bring.

The observer effect you mention - and the issues with self reporting in data - and much more are what drew me to study these things. And I was drawn to things like epidemiology. I love the creativity and imagination required to come up with ways to account for and even counter act these effects. Some of them are very basic and common sense when you learn them. Some are quite ingenious.

smash

Cohen Young Trigger wrote: »

No, I'm swatting off sex starved male models with a paddle over here, god.

This is you, admit it.

zeffabelli

The Corinthian wrote: »

There's a bit more to it than that, but yes.

Enter the scientific study of probability. The problem with pure maths is that it does not lend itself well to the real World; there are too many variables, not all are known or even knowable and how everything interacts has not been fully discovered or described. Basically, Newton gave us a mathematical model of the universe that was as incomplete in practice as it was beautiful in theory.

The social sciences, such as psychology, economics, and the like, would be impossible to study without probability. It allows us to see things in terms of what is 'likely' or 'average', rather than black and white - as one analogy of goes; an economy is like a mule. An economic stimulus is like slapping it in the rump so that it will move forward. Thing is it probably will move forward, but there's also a chance it's kick you instead.

Nonetheless, it's still usable. Probability gets results even if it offends our need for absolutes - the computers we're using to post here, for example, would not be possible without probability.

Problem on this thread, however, is that some have either generalized for or taken umbrage against with what's been claimed because they don't seem to grasp probability.

I've always loved a good cliche. Then again, if it wasn't good, it probably wouldn't have become a cliche.

Interesting because in the U.S. Statistics is a requirement in an undergraduate psychology degree but it's neither a requirement in undergrad or MA in Ireland.

Yeah I like cliches.... Like stereotypes have a lot of truth in them.

OldGoat

justchecked wrote: »

No need to get defensive.
I went to the effort to say 'article and author aside'.

There's nothing wrong with sourcing an article that appeared in a pop psych glossy mag with a niche readership/gender bias.
Nothing at all...

Ouch, ya got me there. I've been undermining the whole thread by quoting a source that disputes someone elses viewpoint.

justchecked

OldGoat wrote: »

Ouch, ya got me there. I've been undermining the whole thread by quoting a source that disputes someone elses viewpoint.

"Article and author aside".

Do you have an issue with me pointing out PT is a coffee table glossy.

On a completely separate note its interesting to see one eyed jack giving such weight to Baumeister, a proponent of evolutionary psychology...or as jack likes to call it 'nonsense'.

One eyed Jack

justchecked wrote: »

"Article and author aside".

Do you have an issue with me pointing out PT is a coffee table glossy.

On a completely separate note its interesting to see one eyed jack giving such weight to Baumeister, a proponent of evolutionary psychology...or as jack likes to call it 'nonsense'.

Hold up there. This is exactly what I said -

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Given his background, I'd lend far more weight to the Professor's opinion than some of the opinions being expressed here -

That is simply a comment on his credibility, and to be fair to him, the guy has the chops to be able to offer a qualified opinion on human behaviour moreso than some, or indeed many people posting here. I said nothing about his credibility with reference to evolutionary psychology, which I still dismiss as a crock, an exercise in backwards rationalisation.

The reasons why I hold this opinion go far beyond the scope of this thread, but if you like you could read up on some of the criticisms of evolutionary psychology here, and why it is such a controversial field of study within the social sciences -

Criticism of evolutionary psychology

It's hardly the first time you've encountered the idea that a person may agree with one idea a person puts forward, but may disagree with another idea they put forward?

For example, if someone came out with this kind of nonsense -

Carson's views on evolution and creationism have also been controversial. In a 2006 debate with Richard Dawkins, Francis Collins, and Daniel Dennett, Carson stated: "I don't believe in evolution...I simply don't have enough faith to believe that something as complex as our ability to rationalize, think, and plan, and have a moral sense of what's right and wrong, just appeared." In 2012, nearly 500 professors, students, and alumni of Emory University wrote a letter expressing concern about his views in advance of his commencement speech (there was no request to rescind the invitation). They cited a quote in an interview with the Adventist Review: "By believing we are the product of random acts, we eliminate morality and the basis of ethical behavior." Carson clarified that "Those of us who believe in God and derive our sense of right and wrong and ethics from God's word really have no difficulty whatsoever defining where our ethics come from. People who believe in survival of the fittest might have more difficulty deriving where their ethics come from. A lot of evolutionists are very ethical people."

You wouldn't expect the same guy to be doing this -

Carson was a professor of neurosurgery, oncology, plastic surgery, and pediatrics, and he was the director of pediatric neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital. At 33, he became the youngest major division director in the hospital's history as director of pediatric neurosurgery. He was also a co-director of the Johns Hopkins Craniofacial Center.

Carson specialized in traumatic brain injuries, brain and spinal cord tumors, achondroplasia, neurological and congenital disorders, craniosynostosis, epilepsy, and trigeminal neuralgia.

Carson believes his hand–eye coordination and three-dimensional reasoning made him a gifted surgeon. After medical school, he became a neurosurgery resident at Johns Hopkins Hospital. He began his career as a neurosurgeon, but also developed an interest in pediatrics.

In 1987, Carson successfully separated conjoined twins, the Binder twins, who had been joined at the back of the head (craniopagus twins). The 70-member surgical team, led by Carson, worked for 22 hours. Both twins survived.

Carson figured in the revival of the hemispherectomy, a drastic surgical procedure in which part or all of one hemisphere of the brain is removed to control severe pediatric epilepsy. He refined the procedure in the 1980s, encouraged by John M. Freeman, and performed it many times.

Carson has served on the boards of the Kellogg Company, Costco, and the Academy of Achievement. He is an emeritus fellow of the Yale Corporation.

In March 2013, Carson announced he would retire as a surgeon, stating "I'd much rather quit when I'm at the top of my game". His retirement became official on July 1, 2013.

Source: Ben Carson, Wikipedia entry.


He's got the chops to offer an opinion on brain surgery, but his opinions on other issues are, well, "funky" is putting it mildly! :pac:

The Corinthian

zeffabelli wrote: »

Interesting because in the U.S. Statistics is a requirement in an undergraduate psychology degree but it's neither a requirement in undergrad or MA in Ireland.

I thought it was. Certainly statistics was a required freshman subject if one chose to do a pure economics BA, in UCD, in my day - but, you're right, even then not if you were doing it with another subject.

OldGoat

justchecked wrote: »

"Article and author aside".

Do you have an issue with me pointing out PT is a coffee table glossy.

Seriously lad, what are you trying to get at here. "Article and author aside" the magazine, it reputation or it's glossy'ness have nothing to do with the topic at hand. You seem hellbent on some kind of point scoring, when the fact of the matter is that I don't give a flying **** about the reputation of the magazine. As I said before it has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Do you agree that the article was an interesting counterpoint to another users opinion? Was it on topic? What has has the quality of the magazine got to do with that?
Actually, don't bother replying, I'm off home for the evening and probably won't bother coming back to the thread as I've lost interest.

entropi

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

If you make a pact with your partner that she can have one night stands with as many men (or women) as she likes and you can do the same with as many women as you like but you will stay together would this actually make a relationship better in your view?

Or is it total no, no?

Depends on the nature of the relationship, and how confident and happy both partners are with a having a relationship of this kind. In many cases, it could work quite well, considering you could have other sexual partners outside of the core relationship (including your partner), whilst having the emotional aspect shared only with your original and main partner.

Having it as simple as a sex outside your own relationship set up couldn't describe it that easy though, as one partner may be willing to allow it be more open to one partner, whilst remaining monogamous themselves.

To answer the question? I don't see a problem with it, if there are defined boundaries.

justchecked

OldGoat wrote: »

Seriously lad, what are you trying to get at here. "Article and author aside" the magazine, it reputation or it's glossy'ness have nothing to do with the topic at hand. You seem hellbent on some kind of point scoring, when the fact of the matter is that I don't give a flying **** about the reputation of the magazine. As I said before it has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Do you agree that the article was an interesting counterpoint to another users opinion? Was it on topic? What has has the quality of the magazine got to do with that?
Actually, don't bother replying, I'm off home for the evening and probably won't bother coming back to the thread as I've lost interest.

Well I felt that psych today was being put forward as some kind of peer reviewed journal and thought it should be made known that its really not.
Part of the discussion, general casual chat forum, so why not.
It certainly wasn't meant as any kind of ...derision. Calm down

NachoBusiness

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I can't remember five minutes ago Nacho tbh, let alone what you're referring to there. I could rack my brains, but I'm genuinely not that invested that I would want to go to the bother of doing so.

Oh well, we wouldn't want you racking your brains now, Jackie me lad:

It was the thread about the two girls who when at a baseball game read a woman's text, felt she must be cheating on her boyfriend sat next to her and so informed him. You must have posted 50 times or so in the thread and so you'll have to forgive me for thinking you'd remember it. In any case, what you said on that thread (which was brought to mind when you made a quite similar comment on this thread) was the following:

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I reckon those WWYD videos and the "reactions" and the whole lot are scripted anyway. Certainly they're edited and presented in a "you won't believe what happened next" kind of way that's so predictable on these hidden camera shows.

Quite similar I'll think you'll agree

I've had people drag up shít I posted over three years ago in order to point score, and that always says more about them than it does about me IMO, as my opinions change over time based upon my personal experiences.

It was four weeks ago and was almost a carbon copy of what you said here. Chill.

Of course I can deal with anything which contradicts my personal opinions, I can understand where other people are coming from and why they may hold the opinions they do, and I've seen people change their opinions over time too based upon their experiences. It's not rocket science to suggest that people will often times put more weight in their personal experiences and present evidence which confirms their personal experiences, and if those personal experiences aren't shared by other people, naturally they're going to be skeptical and dismissive and consider the other person's evidence not worth entertaining.

Would you for example entertain a God botherer on the street telling you that you were going to hell for example? Why would you waste your time? Some people do, they go out of their way to prove to said God botherer that hell doesn't exist and all the rest of it. Other people have no such inclinations and will dismiss the God botherer out of hand.

No idea what your point is here.

Not at all, I base any opinion I've ever expressed here upon my personal experience, although sometimes obviously for privacy reasons I'm not going to elaborate on that. I mean, I can understand then why it sounds absurd without context. I mean, I teach a class of elderly women basic IT skills, and the things they come out with would make the average person gag, seriously, because I would never have thought elderly women would be at those sort of antics, but as absurd as it sounds, they do exist -

Oh, I'm under no illusion of the elderly being innocent. From yesterday.