Let's all take Blindboy seriously now...

nozzferrahhtoo;107639052]It was a general statement not localized solely to you. Not EVERY response to your posts is someone rebutting you. Quite often people reply to posts to make a further point. Stop seeing every reply as an affront.

Apologies. It's very hard to keep with this word salad. Your comments were in reply to a comment I just made so pardon me for thinking you were referring to me.

One person making blanket criticisms is hardly new. We have it here on boards even where one user who got uppity that he could not find any evidence that it is "ideal" that a child have a father and a mother........... dismissed all the studies AGAINST his position with a one liner.

Basically he said (paraphrase but close to original) that homosexual parenting is a liberal lifestyle, academics are liberals, so of course academia is going to publishing findings supporting liberal lifestyles.

The most egregious, but comical and transparently desperate, dodge I have seen in all my years on boards it was. Don't like the findings? Lambast the entire academic enterprise. Funny stuff.

Well, that person does have a point. When the American Psychological Association was full of Conservative Psychologists they classified homosexuality as a disease. You can't underestimate how much bias plays a role in these kinds of studies. Also, as I said, there is surely a fear of a backlash from the LGBT lobby, who are very influential at the moment.

Brian? wrote: »

Or maybe the evidence simply doesn't exist. Have you wondered about that?

As Wibbs points out, socio economic class is a more reliable predictor of outcome than the gender of parents.

I'm not saying it isn't. I'm just saying we should be wary of studies from associations in places like Canada. Do you think they would publish studies that showed that children were worse off?

s7ryf3925pivug

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

I'm not saying it isn't. I'm just saying we should be wary of studies from associations in places like Canada. Do you think they would publish studies that showed that children were worse off?

Yes of course. Peer-reviewed research is the most reliable source of info. Academics progress by publishing research. They don't refrain from publishing things because it didn't fit a narrative. They also review existing research and identify any questionable results or methods.

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

I'm not saying it isn't. I'm just saying we should be wary of studies from associations in places like Canada. Do you think they would publish studies that showed that children were worse off?

I have no doubt they would. That's how any decent academic should work. You're displaying some serious bias here to believe they wouldn t

[Deleted User]

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Ah when people can not find evidence for their positions a common move is to invent a conspiracy narrative that seeks to explain that the relevant findings have simply been buried.

Or simply that there hasn't been any funding or pressure allocated to researchers to actually do the studies.

Look at the area of domestic abuse. There are extremely few studies looking into the area of women assaulting males in the home, either physically or emotionally, except within the last decade or so. And even then, we have rather slim pickings. In fact, in many cases where studies into domestic abuse against women by men, studies will make a minor notation that they were surprised by the numbers of assaults against males since it didn't stack up with the traditional viewpoints, but then go on to pursue the assumptions their main report entails.

Researchers typically seek funding for projects and that funding is either going to come from the State or private organisations. There is obviously going to be pressure to present findings which match up with what the private organisation wants, otherwise, no future funding.

It's for that very reason that for decades Tobacco wasn't shown as being incredibly unhealthy. The funding into research encouraged a bias that took time for society to change, and to desire a different outcome.

Or we can look into the use of hypnosis as a form of aid to patients. In the US the practice of Hypnosis was actually illegal in many states, and the research into it's use reinforced the limited value and the dangers of using it. Then, later as NLP came on to the scene, we began to see more research which presented the value of hypnosis in a wide range of treatments. However, in many cases, the studies against hypnosis as a treatment were encouraged by pharmaceutical companies who preferred patients to seek medicine.

We can also point to studies into rape at university level often used by feminists which were poorly investigated, badly researched, and the assumptions made by the researchers to promote a definite bias. Research in the area of society and psychology is full of examples where an external influence determines what is researched and the assumptions drawn from them.

But to torpedo that narrative negative studies and reports and statistics HAVE been published. Just not many of them, and many of them have been peer reviewed and found very flawed. For example, as I said, by not at all normalizing for issues we EXPECT many children in such households to have (such as being involved in a divorce.

Oh, I agree. In each instance you will find an opposing study, although the numbers will be very skewed in one way or another.

I never consider researchers to be completely balanced. They are human. The methodologies of peer review and science however ARE balanced. Whcih is why we have them. To mitigate the influence of human bias and emotion.

Which fail... because there are biases within the organisations who fund the research, or within the communities who review the work. There are heaps of studies out there which have been accepted for decades, and then later are revealed as being based on flawed assumptions. This is why we have organisations who fund research for feminists, for racial focus groups, for transgenders, etc. and in spite of the filtering process, many of them get passed as being accurate.

nozzferrahhtoo

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

Apologies. It's very hard to keep with this word salad.

Which is an attribute of you, not me. Just for the record. The majority of people have, the majority of the time, no problem understanding me I have noticed over the decades.

I will endeavour to go easier on you.

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

Your comments were in reply to a comment I just made so pardon me for thinking you were referring to me.

Apology accepted. But in future I will work with you on that and explicitly use words that make it clear I am talking about you when I am. If I do not do that, you can assume I am not.

But to return the point, which you now know is a general one rather than a personal one...... it is a very common move we see when there is no evidence for a position, to start claiming or inferring that that evidence exists but is being suppressed or hidden somehow.

So my response to your comment was a general warning to all, not to fall into the trap of conspiracy theory on this one. Especially given the negative publications ARE there, so that makes concerns about them being hushed up wrong on two levels.

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

Well, that person does have a point. When the American Psychological Association was full of Conservative Psychologists they classified homosexuality as a disease.

That is one association though. The person I was talking about was making a blanket statement about academia as a whole. Which is ludicrous bordering on insane.

Especially given this imported US concept of conservative/liberal is represented in academia. Academia is NOT just liberals. And even if it was, that in no way means they are skewing results and reports to support their lifestyles.

SO no, the guy did not have a point. He had a paranoid skewed and nonsense view of the world. And, I fear, still does as the statement was never retracted.

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

You can't underestimate how much bias plays a role in these kinds of studies.

We don't. That is why we have peer review and ever improving methodologies. If anything we are OVER estimating it. And I think that is actually the right thing to do.

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

Also, as I said, there is surely a fear of a backlash from the LGBT lobby, who are very influential at the moment.

Then you will find me on the front line of that battle fighting by your side AGAINST The LGBT lobby if they do it. Because I am more interested in the truth and the methodologies of science than I am with giving people I like a free ride.

And if a well formed, methodologically sound study gets attacked by them purely because they do not like the results..... they will find me on the opposite side of the battle to them.

It has not happened though, and I do not expect it to, because I see no reason to expect evidence of the sort we are discussing to ever arise.

Brian? wrote: »

I have no doubt they would. That's how any decent academic should work. You're displaying some serious bias here to believe they wouldn t

Well, I think you're very naive. do you remember a few years ago when scientists in Norwich university were found to be concealing data that conflicted with their view on climate change. These things are bound to happen.

Only know the Rubberbandits from Horse Outside and tgecsong on TS 2 soundtrack, never seen him interviewed but the fact he's pissing of the rightwingers on here so much must mean hes successful in his mission, fair fuks to him!!

Technocentral wrote: »

Only know the Rubberbandits from Horse Outside and tgecsong on TS 2 soundtrack, never seen him interviewed but the fact he's pissing of the rightwingers on here so much must mean hes successful in his mission, fair fuks to him!!

Wow, fantastic argument. Really profound.

Only know the Rubberbandits from Horse Outside and the song on TS 2 soundtrack, never seen him interviewed but the fact he's pissing of the rightwingers on here so much must mean hes successful in his mission, fair fuks to him!!

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

Technocentral wrote: »

Only know the Rubberbandits from Horse Outside and tgecsong on TS 2 soundtrack, never seen him interviewed but the fact he's pissing of the rightwingers on here so much must mean hes successful in his mission, fair fuks to him!!

Wow, fantastic argument. Really profound.

Truth hurts eh Dick?

Technocentral wrote: »

Only know the Rubberbandits from Horse Outside and the song on TS 2 soundtrack, never seen him interviewed but the fact he's pissing of the rightwingers on here so much must mean hes successful in his mission, fair fuks to him!!

Truth hurts eh Dick?

yes, your eloquent, thoughtful argument has hit me hard.

I could never be as profound and eloquent as you Dick.

[Deleted User]

I saw on a few threads here recently a lot of complaints about the phrase 'toxic masculinity', and I don't want to get into the phrase since it's been done, but I always thought the under reporting and ignoring of males as victims of abuse and violence came from this sort of thinking, the proponents of which are of course (at least seems to be) other men. 'Real men don't get beaten up by girls' sort of thinking

nozzferrahhtoo

Deleted User wrote: »

Or simply that there hasn't been any funding or pressure allocated to researchers to actually do the studies.

Sounds the same thing to me? A statement like that would be just trying to explain a lack of evidence for a given position, by creating theories explaining away the lack of evidence.

Even if it was 100% true however, it still changes nothing. The evidence is not there. And until such time as it is, we should act on the evidence that IS There.

But I see no reason rationally to expect funded studies to find the evidence these people are looking for, because I see no arguments being offered to even expect it to be true in the first place that there is any reason a man and a women can give a more ideal upbringing to a child than a man and a man, or a woman and a woman.

But the studies ARE being done, that's the thing. The results just are not going the way some people want, so they imagine the studies THEY would like to see simply have not been done, or have been buried.

Deleted User wrote: »

Look at the area of domestic abuse. There are extremely few studies looking into the area of women assaulting males in the home, either physically or emotionally, except within the last decade or so.

True. Totally with you on that one. Great are of research. One of the reasons I think study on that is only being done in the last decade however is that I think the concept of emotional abuse in the first place is.... relatively speaking..... new in the public eye.

It was not that long ago that (and some people still do) people thought you could not even be raped by your husband or wife if you were married to them. That marriage implied 100% consent 100% of the time. So that we are only looking into the area of women emotionally abusing men now.... does not really surprise me.

Worse still, as I was only saying on the paedophilia thread yesterday.... one can only do research on certain people if those people make themselves known to us. And men have not been quick to come forward and admit to being abused in any way, emotional or physical, by women. It would be seen as a weakness. "Ah john cant even handle his woman" type stuff.

So it is a good first step that we are combating THAT mentality and men are coming froward more. Now we CAN study it more. Which is all good stuff.

Deleted User wrote: »

Which fail... because there are biases within the organisations who fund the research, or within the communities who review the work.

If you want to go with black and white "pass" or "fail" fair enough. I don't. I see that the methodologies of science have removed vast swaths of human bias from experiements and studies. Sam Parnia always springs to mind here who was very biased towards a positive results, but because honest methodologies were used they never got the results they WANTED To get.

Is the system perfect? Hell no. Do I consider that a fail? Also hell no. We are working on it all the time. But yes there are flaws in how research is funded and how publication is chosen. We know this.

Deleted User wrote: »

There are heaps of studies out there which have been accepted for decades, and then later are revealed as being based on flawed assumptions.

Which is great! That is why we improve the methodologies all the time. We also have many people who were found guilty or innocent of murder, but later that decision was changed. Why? Because methods improved and we parsed old conclusions through new methods. This is GOOD. Not bad.

So yes, I have no doubt studies accepted (and rejected) in the past will become rejected (and accepted) in the future as our criteria for parsing them change. I would not have it any other way.

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

Well, I think you're very naive. do you remember a few years ago when scientists in Norwich university were found to be concealing data that conflicted with their view on climate change. These things are bound to happen.

Right so. You've taken a position and have started digging in. It doesn't actually matter what I say anymore.

Brian? wrote: »

Right so. You've taken a position and have started digging in. It doesn't actually matter what I say anymore.

I'm simply saying that you shouldn't believe that all research is 100% honest and transparent just because it's been peer-reviewed.

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

I'm simply saying that you shouldn't believe that all research is 100% honest and transparent just because it's been peer-reviewed.

That is not what you're saying. You are saying you believe research into same sex parents is purposely not being published. At least stand over what you're actually saying.

Brian? wrote: »

That is not what you're saying. You are saying you believe research into same sex parents is purposely not being published. At least stand over what you're actually saying.

Actually, that isn't what I'm saying. I'm just being intellectually curious, which you should be too. I note you didn't address my point about the concealment of data re climate change

Dannyriver

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

So a young lad struggling in Southill Limerick needs to take a Gender Studies course or something?

You think thats what he meant?

briany

Where's Mr. Chrome these days? It seems like the Rubberbandits twitter is basically Blindboy talking from his own perspective. Would be better if they each had their own account and just use the RB one to announce gigs or whatever they're collaborating on.

Also, a reminder that one claiming to be from the Rubberbandits used to post here,

https://www.boards.ie/search/submit/?user=50082&sort=newest&date_to=&date_from=&query=%2A%3A%2A&page=1

Perhaps one of them still does under another name...

Dannyriver

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

Ah, more smug patronising comments. Do you really expect people to engage with you just talk down to them?

Just because someone uses logic and rationality to call you out on your emotional arguments doesn t mean they are talking down to you or being patronising.

Dannyriver

Keepaneye wrote: »

That's the thing. If confronted in the real world these people shrink down and cower away from a good debate because when confronted with actual scientific facts, they get flustered ala Cathy Newman.

There is nothing about mental health that he speaks about that isn t based in solid scientific evidence. Can you name which aspect of his opinions you think are not based on research?

[Deleted User]

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Sounds the same thing to me? A statement like that would be just trying to explain a lack of evidence for a given position, by creating theories explaining away the lack of evidence.

Even if it was 100% true however, it still changes nothing. The evidence is not there. And until such time as it is, we should act on the evidence that IS There.

Only if you believe that such studies are the only form of evidence... Which gives Psychology an even greater degree of credibility than is warranted.

You've said the word evidence, but what evidence is there really? Some research is done, data collected and analysed based on the circumstances agreed by the researcher, and assumptions drawn. They're still assumptions. They're still going to have a degree of bias. I don't see that as evidence until we establish it beyond a shadow of doubt, which most research does not try to achieve.

But I see no reason rationally to expect funded studies to find the evidence these people are looking for, because I see no arguments being offered to even expect it to be true in the first place that there is any reason a man and a women can give a more ideal upbringing to a child than a man and a man, or a woman and a woman.

Because religious, or traditional focus groups in the US are going to very interested in showing that the Male/Female group is better for parenting. Lesbian or gay focus groups are going to want to show that they are the better option, and if not the best, then more than acceptable.

The focus stops being about actual parenting, and becomes about the issue. Gender, Sexuality, etc.

But the studies ARE being done, that's the thing. The results just are not going the way some people want, so they imagine the studies THEY would like to see simply have not been done, or have been buried.

About a year ago, I started looking into the area of Domestic Abuse towards men. Some threads on Boards got me interested because the same studies were brought up time, and time again by both those talking about Male/Female violence. So, I've been digging at the different studies and reports both from the US and Europe.

And There are tons of studies into violence committed by men towards women. There are tons of studies into violence committed by men towards Children. There are some studies about violence committed by women towards men but they're in a distinct minority, and usually have some limitations attached to the assumptions made, and same again about studies about violence by women towards children.

There is a decided lack of studies about female led violence in our society. Oh, there are some but in comparison with the amount of studies about male led violence.... nope. Not even close.

True. Totally with you on that one. Great are of research. One of the reasons I think study on that is only being done in the last decade however is that I think the concept of emotional abuse in the first place is.... relatively speaking..... new in the public eye.

It was not that long ago that (and some people still do) people thought you could not even be raped by your husband or wife if you were married to them. That marriage implied 100% consent 100% of the time. So that we are only looking into the area of women emotionally abusing men now.... does not really surprise me.

Worse still, as I was only saying on the paedophilia thread yesterday.... one can only do research on certain people if those people make themselves known to us. And men have not been quick to come forward and admit to being abused in any way, emotional or physical, by women. It would be seen as a weakness. "Ah john cant even handle his woman" type stuff.

So it is a good first step that we are combating THAT mentality and men are coming froward more. Now we CAN study it more. Which is all good stuff.

Agreed, although I would question the lack of motivation in the past to actually do the research. We have plenty of research done about rape and yet women have spoken for a long time about the difficulties in obtaining volunteers to talk about the subject.

If you want to go with black and white "pass" or "fail" fair enough. I don't. I see that the methodologies of science have removed vast swaths of human bias from experiements and studies. Sam Parnia always springs to mind here who was very biased towards a positive results, but because honest methodologies were used they never got the results they WANTED To get.

Is the system perfect? Hell no. Do I consider that a fail? Also hell no. We are working on it all the time. But yes there are flaws in how research is funded and how publication is chosen. We know this.

Do we? How do we know? The studies and reports are being released, and used as "evidence" to support opinions on each particular subject. Not just opinions, but official stances, and initiatives.

I preferred it when Psychology was still a weird "science" and something we should be careful about believing in. Like Pop psychology used to be dodgy as hell, and now is actually becoming relatively accepted. Nowadays, it's almost immediately accepted because if you don't, they'll find some label to put you under.

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

Actually, that isn't what I'm saying. I'm just being intellectually curious, which you should be too. I note you didn't address my point about the concealment of data re climate change

Correction, it's not what you're saying. What are you are saying is that you suspect that any research on the subject would be buried. That's not being intellectually curious.

If you were intellectually curious why don't you go and find some evidence on the subject, instead you throw out some guff about climate change data as a distraction. The reason I'm not addressing that is because it's zero to do with the topic at hand.

Brian? wrote: »

Correction, it's not what you're saying. What are you are saying is that you suspect that any research on the subject would be buried. That's not being intellectually curious.

If you were intellectually curious why don't you go and find some evidence on the subject, instead you throw out some guff about climate change data as a distraction. The reason I'm not addressing that is because it's zero to do with the topic at hand.

Why are you trying to misrepresent me, Brian? I'm making the simple point that research results are bias interpretations, just as we all do. I gave the climate change example to show that.

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

If children of same sex parents had worse outcomes I wonder how willing the researchers would be to publish such findings. Can you imagine the backlash from the LGBT lobby? Are these researchers completely balanced, I wonder?

I'm misrepresenting nothing.