No, the issue here is that some people are biased against anything that goes against their beliefs. If I had posted a similar poll that said "42% of men will lie to their girlfriend about their job", nobody would have reacted this way. I'm not playing dumb, and frankly I don't appreciate all these attempts to get me to shut up by calling me names. It's rude, useless and only pollutes the conversation.Please don't play dumb. It's not a winning strategy.
I don't know that the comparison you make holds water. 42% of men will lie to their girlfriend about their job...in what way?
"Yes honey I am totally being considered for that promotion"?
"No honey I love my coworkers"? "No I am not embezzling money from the company"?
All of those are lies and the outcome of the lie is hugely variable. No one would react like this to that statement because yes people lie no not all lies are earth shattering. People are arguing against you because you are sharing faulty sources. When your sources are up to snuff, we can chat.
It's just an example. If we were talking about men lying to their girlfriends, everyone would just agree that it happens, and move on; but since it's about women, people feel the need to attack me. You all hide behind the idea that the source I provided is somehow unsatisfactory, which in the context of this discussion is ridiculous. I've even provided a different source and it's been ignored. Women lie about their use of contraceptive methods in order to get pregnant, not all of them and not even the majority of them but a significant percentage; those women will not be happy about the commercialisation of the "male pill". That's all. I'm surprised that this is considered so controversial here that people are trying so hard to deny it.
I don't think that's true. I think if you said all girlfriends lie to their boyfriends people would agree with that as well because it's not necessariy gendered; people lie. I've looked at both of your sources. The Scotsmans' poll we have determined and you have conceded is non-scientific. The Psychology Today is better but again only surveys 400 women at 2 community colleges. The report there is that ~33% say they they have risked pregnancy without "discussing pregnancy with their partners"; that could mean anything (we just started dating and it would be weird to bring it up, etc) and it doesn't necessarily mean deceit although it could. Even then, that's only 133 women reporting. Not exactly conclusive. I think you are inferring that people are attacking you on the basis of gender. All the responses I've seen have been courteous. The issue is only "controversial" because, again, you fail to provide reputable sources. If you can produce more sources like the Psychology Today one, you might have a leg to stand on. I think you are overblowing the rate of women who want to get pregnant in secret or against the will of their partner. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but I think that you need a little more data to constitute "a significant percentage".
I've conceded that the Scotsmans' poll is unscientific, but I've also explained that that doesn't really matter in this case. Actually the article is pretty clear about what it means. It means that those women neglected to use the pill while in a relationship with men whom they considered husband material, and the men were unaware of this fact. At least some of those women probably got pregnant as a result of this tactic; some of those men have been tricked into becoming fathers. Oh, please. The very first response was a petty attack that tried to discredit my argument by associating it with a supposedly misogynist subreddit. At least two people have called me a troll. That's not what I would call courteous. It's pathetically obvious that this animosity is politically motivated. I've provided two. I'm the only one in this thread who's provided any source for his claims, and they're both valid.The report there is that ~33% say they they have risked pregnancy without "discussing pregnancy with their partners"; that could mean anything
I think you are inferring that people are attacking you on the basis of gender. All the responses I've seen have been courteous.
The issue is only "controversial" because, again, you fail to provide reputable sources.
Why doesn't it matter in this case? You did say that but didn't really provide explanation. True you are the only one who has provided sources but you are the only one making claims. Once again, reputable to is the key word in my sentence. You provided 1 source that you yourself are discrediting. Your other source is pop-science. Outside of your thread, people are commenting on the fact that this is a neat scientific development and, contrary to your main point, speculation that women will happily share the burden. I think most other threads on the subject in other parts of the internet would reveal the same thing. Re: allegations of trolling, the nice ^ thing about hubski is that shitposting isn't going to get people very far. Posts calling you a troll are outnumbered by posts on the scientific.
^Which is not to say I don't love me some good shitposting. I just have other venues for it.
See Everyone else is claiming that women will welcome this pill with open arms. What sources have they cited for this? None. It's just their opinion and maybe that of their girlfriends. Reputable is relative. I wouldn't trust a girls magazine with accurately explaining quantum mechanics, but I think they're qualified enough to ask their readers some simple questions (are you a lying whore? y/n). I'm not sure what you mean with "pop-science", but the person who conducted the study is a professional. I'm starting to get tired of this thread. I wish people would have the balls to just insult me, without expecting me to take them seriously. I can appreciate honesty and the occasional flame war, but having to defend yourself from an endless barrage of pseudo-arguments is just tiring. You're wrong! I'm right! End of discussion! Everyone who disagrees can kiss my shiny metal ass.you are the only one making claims
Once again, reputable to is the key word in my sentence. You provided 1 source that you yourself are discrediting. Your other source is pop-science.
If you're looking for insults, you're in the wrong place, bud. Also why are our arguments pseudo and yours aren't? As noted before, this isn't reddit. We are going to critically analyze what you post without resorting to shit posts. Sorry that you are tired of it. Sorry that you don't think people are being honest with you -- I think plenty of people are being plenty honest with you about how your posts are perceived while also presenting their arguments. And to respond to your previous points: decoy questions are relevant to a survey because they help to filter out bogus answers and create more reputable research; response rate also gives you a realistic view of your data... a good response rate for a survey is approximately 10% and when you're already operating on a small pool of people, 10% is tiny, so reporting that you surveyed X number but received Y responses is critical to understanding the validity of your research; the questions are biased because you only get one side of the story (cheaters vs the cheated on).
ETA: I just reread everyone else's responses again and they are all personal. I would be happy to use this. They actually don't make any sweeping generalizations.
He's using the time-honored "deny that the other person is a competent human being argument", well tested and proved to be of good use. He falls back onto it when all else fails.
Sorry, I don't have infinite time and energy to argue with the intellectual equivalent of a dog. I explain my positions and I try to reply as patiently as I can, but even my patience has its limits. When people are being dumb and I'm getting bored, you can't expect me to keep spoonfeeding you ad nauseam. I suppose from now on, when someone makes some kind of pseudo-argument in response to one of my posts, I'll just call him an idiot and save myself time.
Actually, I've already been insulted in this thread, so I'd say this is the right place! Because yours don't make sense. How does asking a person "what planet are you on?" create more reputable research? 5000 or 500 are both small numbers from a statistical point of view, and I expect that if the difference was even bigger than that, the magazine wouldn't have reported the results in the first place. Yeah, but they got the side of the person who cheated. Are you saying that people are biased against themselves? This is what I mean when I say pseudo-arguments. Stuff that's meant to sound intelligent but is actually nonsense.Also why are our arguments pseudo and yours aren't?
And to respond to your previous points: decoy questions are relevant to a survey because they help to filter out bogus answers and create more reputable research
response rate also gives you a realistic view of your data... a good response rate for a survey is approximately 10% and when you're already operating on a small pool of people, 10% is tiny, so reporting that you surveyed X number but received Y responses is critical to understanding the validity of your research
the questions are biased because you only get one side of the story (cheaters vs the cheated on).
but why don't they make sense? you haven't alluded to it at all. as you said before, that is just an example. i'm referring to the use of decoy questions period. you said decoy questions are irrelevant; i said why they are not. sorry i don't understand what you mean when you talk about the numbers and publishing. 400 is also a small number but apparently that's enough for you to conclude that "a large majority of women" try to become pregnant without their partners knowledge. what i meant was that if you sent out 5000 surveys, and 500 people responded, you would say we surveyed 500 people; i think the average reader then reads that as 500 people responded in this way and thus is an accurate representation of a population. reporting the response rate (surveyed 5000 only 500 responded) then demonstrates the gap created by non respondents which indicates how reputable the information is. to go back to your example, one-third of 400 women surveyed said that they risked pregnancy. however, if more people responded (and since there is no report rate, we don't know how many people didn't respond) we would have totally different statistics. one-third of 400 is approx. 130, while 1/3 of 5000 is approx. 1666. another thing we've completely neglected is the demographics of the group interviewed. 400 community college students. i think your results would vary wildly if you took a more generalized survey. again i don't understand what you mean by biased against themselves. a good survey would present both questions (have you cheated and have you been cheated on). this comes back to the decoy questions. if i want to survey cheaters, i will also ask them whether they have been cheated on so they are more likely to answer honestly.
what exactly is nonsense? i think i have been very clear and tried to explain where you pointed out that you were confused.