Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Monday, April 28, 2008

N.Y. Daily News: Sources: Roger Clemens had 10-year fling with country star Mindy McCready

Hell…Guys do it all the time.

Roger Clemens carried on a decade-long affair with country star Mindy McCready, a romance that began when McCready was a 15-year-old aspiring singer performing in a karaoke bar and Clemens was a 28-year-old Red Sox ace and married father of two, several sources have told the Daily News.

The revelations could torpedo claims of an unsullied character that are central to the defamation suit Clemens filed Jan. 6 against his former personal trainer Brian McNamee. Vivid details of the affair could surface in several media projects that McCready is involved with - including a documentary that begins filming today in Nashville, a new album and a reality show.

...Contacted by the Daily News Sunday through his lawyer Rusty Hardin, Clemens confirmed a long-term relationship but denied that it was of a sexual nature.

“He flatly denies having had any kind of an inappropriate relationship with her,” Hardin said. “He’s considered her a close family friend. ... He has never had a sexual relationship with her.”

Repoz Posted: April 28, 2008 at 05:21 AM | 492 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: music, special topics, steroids

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 4 of 5 pages  < 1 2 3 4 5 > 
   301. Eraser-X is emphatically dominating teh site!!! Posted: April 29, 2008 at 09:38 PM (#2762935)
Quick answers:
We focus more on male cheating because we live in a historically patriarchal society where men's sexuality is celebrated and women's is vilified. Where we get awesome poll results that make no sense like, "Men have more sexual partners than women" :)

People cheat because they are weak and/or insecure and don't value sexuality appropriately.

They also set themselves up for failure with unrealistically high standards and poor communication within their relationships.

Ultimately, cheating is an awful thing, and I never did both because I didn't want to hurt the person I was with and because I didn't want to ever be the kind of person who would.

A good strategy for not cheating with someone in a relationship--when I was single, I would just have them call their boyfriend and break up. Or I wouldn't do anything.
   302. Answer Guy Posted: April 29, 2008 at 09:40 PM (#2762937)
We focus more on male cheating because we live in a historically patriarchal society where men's sexuality is celebrated and women's is vilified.


Also, this site is generally a sausage party.
   303. Eraser-X is emphatically dominating teh site!!! Posted: April 29, 2008 at 09:42 PM (#2762939)
Breakfast, Italian, Polish, or Duck?
   304. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 29, 2008 at 09:47 PM (#2762943)
What if you bed them when you thought they were single, develop a relationship with them, then find out they have a family.

Are you just as evil if you don't call it off then? or do you get some type of moral squatters rights, if you fall in love without the bad mens rea.
Only if your adulterous relationship was actual, exclusive, hostile, continuous, and open and notorious.
   305. rLr Is King Of The Romans And Above Grammar Posted: April 29, 2008 at 09:49 PM (#2762945)
Only if your adulterous relationship was actual, exclusive, hostile, continuous, and open and notorious.

That's only if you're doing it right.
   306. Gonfalon B. Posted: April 29, 2008 at 10:26 PM (#2762970)
Tomato, tomahto. It then depends on how one defines what constitutes an "intimate relationship".

Coincidentally, I don't consider any relationship intimate until tomatoes or tomato byproducts are involved.
   307. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: April 29, 2008 at 11:21 PM (#2763023)
What if you bed them when you thought they were single, develop a relationship with them, then find out they have a family.

Are you just as evil if you don't call it off then? or do you get some type of moral squatters rights, if you fall in love without the bad mens rea.


Something to confess, my son?

Once you find out they have a family, then you realize you too have been betrayed. I know how I would react in that instance. I'd leave, in love or not. The issue of trust would be a sticking point I don't think I'd want to risk.
   308. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: April 29, 2008 at 11:22 PM (#2763027)
Also, this site is generally a sausage party.

And a dick measuring festival. You're in your glory, aren't you?
   309. Harold can be a fun sponge Posted: April 29, 2008 at 11:30 PM (#2763058)
Among married couples, there IS an incentive for one partner to have a substantially higher income than the other, which of course reinforces the traditional roles of the husband as bread-winner and the wife as house-minder.

I don't see how that follows. I can see reading the evidence to say that, given two people with disparate incomes, they're better off married (and filing jointly). But you're saying something different.
   310. Exploring Leftist Conservatism since 2008 (ark..) Posted: April 29, 2008 at 11:47 PM (#2763082)
but maybe some of yall might could help me understand why males - especially rich males - don't think there is anything wrong with them having sex with people other then their wife.

i've heard all the - it isn't "natural for males to be monogamous" and of course i know it isn't "natural for females to be monogamous" neither, but sin is all about doing stuff that is "natural" and some things that are "natural" are not sin.

so why do rich men believe it is their right to commit adultery? any ideas?


Any ideas, chick? Sure. You're confused. That all rich men believe x, y, or z, is a position absurd on its face.

edit: imagine the brouhaha if I said something like, "why do all ______ women think x?
   311. Eraser-X is emphatically dominating teh site!!! Posted: April 30, 2008 at 12:20 AM (#2763178)
??? Don't ever look at the magazine covers in the check-out line, huh, X?


You misunderstand. I mean sexual action, not objectification. I thought that my example: Men being "found" by (crappy) scientific studies to have more partners than women, made that abundantly clear. Sorry.

Although to answer your question: No, not really.
   312. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 30, 2008 at 01:34 AM (#2763495)
Only if your adulterous relationship was actual, exclusive, hostile, continuous, and open and notorious.


Adverse possession!
   313. villageidiom Posted: April 30, 2008 at 02:33 AM (#2763709)
bbc -

Your male friends who tried to explain why guys cheat were IMO really just trying to rationalize it after the fact. If the best answer you can get is "it's what guys do" it's bull - whoever says it is hoping that's a good enough answer. Yeah, guys want sex, sure; but making a promise and keeping it is not "what guys do". Saying one's promises don't count because "she shoulda known I didn't mean it" is shifting blame on a failed marriage to the one who did the least to wreck it. I think a number of your friends meant their vows at the time, but don't want to admit that they screwed it up.

I think people* cheat because they find themselves (through their own fault or not) in tempting situations, and do not summon the will power to resist, partly influenced by thinking they won't get caught. Whether you're talking about cheating on a test, cheating on taxes, or cheating on your spouse, it's all pretty much the same. People start out with good (or no) intentions, then

FWIW, opportunities have presented themselves to me (without any effort on my part), and I've had no trouble turning them away each time. Having kids has nothing to do with it; I keep my promises. The fact that I love mrsidiom makes it easier, but even if it were difficult I'd still keep my word.

*I'm talking about most people. I'm sure there are some who actively seek to cheat, figuring the end justifies the means, or whatever. Offhand I don't think I personally know anyone who fits that description... but I've seen them portrayed on TV, so it must be true.
   314. Eraser-X is emphatically dominating teh site!!! Posted: April 30, 2008 at 02:39 AM (#2763724)
Nice post, VI. You bring up an interesting point--why is our media so full of nasty characters? I do believe that affects people's values in this area...
   315. Exploring Leftist Conservatism since 2008 (ark..) Posted: April 30, 2008 at 04:33 AM (#2763854)
We focus more on male cheating because we live in a historically patriarchal society where men's sexuality is celebrated and women's is vilified.


Speak for yourself, my friend. I celebrate women's sexuality at least five times a day. Every man to his own mecca, if you will.


The sheer stupidity of your reply makes me wonder how you ever made it into the military.


There's something oxymoronic about this I can't quite put my finger on...


"Is it just me, or is there a lot of dick-measuring going on in this thread?"

One time, during a snowstorm, I was forced to use mine to club an enraged bear to death.


They save me for the Tyranosaurii.
   316. NTNgod Posted: April 30, 2008 at 04:47 AM (#2763858)
Whoops... already posted. Need to hit refresh more often.
   317. Spahn Insane Posted: April 30, 2008 at 04:49 AM (#2763860)
Adverse possession!

Beat me to it. What I get for sitting at a coldass Cubs game for 4 hours.

I'm sure there's a great "adverse possession" quip to be made vis a vis R Clemens and his mistress, but I'm definitely too tired to make it.
   318. Spahn Insane Posted: April 30, 2008 at 04:51 AM (#2763862)
All we need to know is the length of time necessary to constitute adverse possession in the jurisdiction in which Ms. McCready was adversely possessed. (Insert your own Linda Blair joke.) Is 10 years enough in some states? Been way too long since I studied that crap.
   319. base ball chick Posted: April 30, 2008 at 05:10 AM (#2763872)
goodness gracious - i go watch a ball game and look what happens (and by the way, levski isn't never gonna shut up about max scherzer so be prepared

anyhow, i never get in dick measuring contests because i'm guaranteed to lose

anyhow to catch up

Backlasher Posted: April 29, 2008 at 05:01 PM (#2762902)

Lassus--I guess it depends on the circumstances. Generally, I think it's the same. I think if you know someone isn't single, you shouldn't attempt to bed them, and it's bad if you do.


What if you bed them when you thought they were single, develop a relationship with them, then find out they have a family.


- then it is best to say good bye because he made of fool out of you AND her AND their kidz. and you know you dealing with a shtthead so time to cut your losses

Are you just as evil if you don't call it off then?

- evil, no. foolish, yes.

or do you get some type of moral squatters rights, if you fall in love without the bad mens rea.

- i don't know what a rea is, but falling in love with bad men - well, then you stuck with a bad man


. Answer Guy Posted: April 29, 2008 at 05:40 PM (#2762937)

Also, this site is generally a sausage party.



mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm sausage

villageidiom,

i appreciate your answer. thank you. i asked my grandaddy, not long before he died, why he never cheated on my grandmother (they hated each other, to put it mildly) and he looked at me and said - because it wasn't honorable. and actually, before i came here to this site and listened to all kinds of men talking about their relationships and wifes/gf, i really thought that men, regardless of $$$ almost never didn't cheat. i was REAL surprised.

Eraser-X is dominating this site! Posted: April 29, 2008 at 10:39 PM (#2763724)

Nice post, VI. You bring up an interesting point--why is our media so full of nasty characters? I do believe that affects people's values in this area...


- it IS a good question. you watch tv, you think white men are fat really STUPID slobs run by their skinny unbelieveably bytch wife and their unbelieveably RUDE kids. if the white men aren't fat and stupid, they dogs. i guess it is more "exciting" tv. bleccccch.

arkitekton Posted: April 30, 2008 at 12:33 AM (#2763854)

We focus more on male cheating because we live in a historically patriarchal society where men's sexuality is celebrated and women's is vilified.


Speak for yourself, my friend. I celebrate women's sexuality at least five times a day.


oh myyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy

so husband is reading over my shoulder and i ask him if he thinks that womens sexuality should be celebrated and he all YEAH baby YEAH

so goodnight boys
   320. Lassus Posted: April 30, 2008 at 05:26 AM (#2763880)
If him and shoewizard could never shut up about why the hell Chris Young can't get his #### together and stop destroying my fantasy team, I'd appreciate it. He is totally killing me. I was hoping this new contract was because someone spotted improvement in his whifftastic ways. Not looking like it.
   321. IronChef Chris Wok Posted: April 30, 2008 at 05:48 AM (#2763888)

43 years old--just celebrated anniversary No. 20--still crazy in love with my wife.


It's because you didn't marry an Asian woman.

Let me get this straight Niepronte: you're saying that even though Clemens began his relationship with this Mindy chick when she was 15, he waited the 3 extra years to wait until she was 18 to have sex?

This is your defense, that "he waited 3 years for her to turn legal?"
   322. Exploring Leftist Conservatism since 2008 (ark..) Posted: April 30, 2008 at 05:57 AM (#2763893)
For religious people, it is much easier to consider something like adultery to be totally out of the question, because it's a sin.

Hah. Show me one study that suggests religious people are more faithful to their spouses than non-religious ones.


Since I objected to what I saw as chick's bigotry, I have to object to this as well. Please don't tell me that you really think religious people have stronger morals than nonreligious people. Didn't the Inquisition, the jihad of your choice, the Quaker who bombed Cambodia, the latest parish scandal, teach you anything?

What disgusts me the most about infidelity is that it turns the other person's life into farce. If they wouldn't stay if they knew, by not telling them you deprive them of the chance of an honest relationship. And since (in many cases) the other person would leave, if they knew, how is it better than a kind of kidnapping, or false imprisonment?
   323. Gambling Rent Czar Posted: April 30, 2008 at 06:12 AM (#2763899)
so help me god, if 'Barely Legal' Magazine does a spread with this Ox of a woman, i am canceling my subscription.

and the best way to avoid massive threads about your infidelity is simply, don't get married.
then you can bang who ever you want.
Married chicks too.
   324. CFiJ Posted: April 30, 2008 at 06:13 AM (#2763901)
There's no answer to "why people cheat". It's not a rational decision. It's a series of gradual slides down a slippery slope, none of which by themselves seem terribly important at the time, culminating in moment of truth. At that moment, either the brain is working, or it's not. When it's not, the person's brain is clouded by the chemical reaction of intense physical or emotional attraction, and they give in to the temptation. Everything that follows is just rationalization and/or analysis after the fact. For others, the moment of truth brings a moment of clarity, and the temptation is avoided.

And this is why when you ask a cheater, "Why did you cheat?", the answer is never satisfactory. It's always painfully obvious that the answer is a rationalization. Attack the rationalization with reason all you like, tear it down and show it to be false, there still won't be a satisfactory answer.

Surely we've all heard of the mice that will consistently choose a lever that will stimulate their pleasure center over even one connected to their food, to the point that they nearly starve? It's essentially like that. Cheating happens because the impending cheater feels a rush of pleasure when they're around the object of their affections. That rush of pleasure kills rational thought. It's why otherwise decent people cheat. It's why mankind has cheated through the centuries and will continue to cheat into the future. Really the question shouldn't be "Why do people cheat?", but rather "Why didn't this particular person cheat?"
   325. vortex of dissipation Posted: April 30, 2008 at 06:15 AM (#2763902)
I'm amused that a singer who hasn't had a song crack the Country Top 40 in a decade, and doesn't currently have a record contract is described as a "star".
   326. Gambling Rent Czar Posted: April 30, 2008 at 07:06 AM (#2763921)
Its all supply and demand anyways

Everyday of a womans life she is offered "Dick"
from about age 15 on, it is pretty persistent if she is another pretty face.

She goes to the grocery store, some guy offers her some dick
She goes to the car wash, some guy offers her some dick
She goes out to eat lunch, and the waiter offers her some dick
If she works out, she gets offered lots of dick.
If she works a job, she gets offered dick multiple times a day, usually by the same guys.

But if a guy is in the grocery store and some chic offers him ##### .... "Its his lucky day".

its all supply and demand.

women cheat because they give into the pressure, and, "this one has great ab's"

men cheat because the girl is willing.
   327. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 30, 2008 at 10:56 AM (#2763938)
Let me get this straight Niepronte: you're saying that even though Clemens began his relationship with this Mindy chick when she was 15, he waited the 3 extra years to wait until she was 18 to have sex?

This is your defense, that "he waited 3 years for her to turn legal?"
I think that 'he waited until she turned legal' is a pretty damn good defense to a charge that he didn't wait until she turned legal.

And how the hell can you misspell my name that badly when it's listed right above every single post I make? Nieporent. It's really not that hard.
   328. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: April 30, 2008 at 11:14 AM (#2763939)
And how the hell can you misspell my name that badly when it's listed right above every single post I make?

He might be afraid that if he types it correctly 3 times, he'll conjure something awful.

It's clear your focus is on the legal here. What about the moral? From the Durocher thread, I think I know where you stand on this situation, but, for the record, what's your feeling here?
   329. IronChef Chris Wok Posted: April 30, 2008 at 11:26 AM (#2763942)

And how the hell can you misspell my name that badly when it's listed right above every single post I make? Nieporent. It's really not that hard.


I thought the misspelling was cooler, because I turned your last name into something Hispanic-sounding.

Btw, my last name is Chiu, and people used to constantly misspell THAT, so yaddi yaddi yadda.

I think that 'he waited until she turned legal' is a pretty damn good defense to a charge that he didn't wait until she turned legal.

Here's the thing, wouldn't somebody who was willing to have a secret affair with a 15 year old be willing to violate a few age-of-consent rules as well? Just sayin', doens't look great for Roger.
   330. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: April 30, 2008 at 12:26 PM (#2763963)
"Btw, my last name is Chiu..."

Gesundheit!
   331. Spahn Insane Posted: April 30, 2008 at 12:41 PM (#2763970)
so help me god, if 'Barely Legal' Magazine does a spread with this Ox of a woman, i am canceling my subscription.

Well, she's no longer "barely legal," so I think you're OK.
   332. Answer Guy Posted: April 30, 2008 at 12:42 PM (#2763971)
I think that 'he waited until she turned legal' is a pretty damn good defense to a charge that he didn't wait until she turned legal.


If you think that's credible, sure. I find it stretches the outer limits of plausibility, just because I don't see many 28-year old straight men forming platonic relationships with 15-year old girls. Maybe that's enough to keep him out of jail, or even keep the prosecutors' office at bay, but it's not enough to make me roll my eyes a bit. It's also a bit creepy.
   333. Spahn Insane Posted: April 30, 2008 at 12:43 PM (#2763972)
I think that 'he waited until she turned legal' is a pretty damn good defense to a charge that he didn't wait until she turned legal.

I don't think anyone disputes that it's a "good defense," assuming it's true (but that, of course, is circular reasoning). What's being questioned is the credibility of that defense in this instance.
   334. JC in DC Posted: April 30, 2008 at 12:48 PM (#2763975)
Since I objected to what I saw as chick's bigotry, I have to object to this as well. Please don't tell me that you really think religious people have stronger morals than nonreligious people. Didn't the Inquisition, the jihad of your choice, the Quaker who bombed Cambodia, the latest parish scandal, teach you anything?


Arkitekton, my conservative friend, please tell me you're not this daft. First, studies (that Kevin, eminent scientist and military hero, dismisses) do show that religious people are less likely to cheat on their spouses. You assume this means religious people are more "moral" and then point to apparent contradictions of this (your) assumption. Aside from the odd choices you make as evidence of immoral religiosity, the assumption is false. Just b/c religious people are less likely to cheat on spouses doesn't make them more (or less) moral. It means only that they're less likely to cheat, for whatever reason. For instance, some non-religious people may not even think morality requires fidelity, right? Or, non-religious people may not make fidelity as significant a value as religious people do (say, for instance, understanding fidelity of that kind to be witness to the fidelity of God). Anyway, your assumption was false.
   335. Answer Guy Posted: April 30, 2008 at 01:10 PM (#2763995)
Just b/c religious people are less likely to cheat on spouses doesn't make them more (or less) moral. It means only that they're less likely to cheat, for whatever reason. For instance, some non-religious people may not even think morality requires fidelity, right? Or, non-religious people may not make fidelity as significant a value as religious people do (say, for instance, understanding fidelity of that kind to be witness to the fidelity of God).


Surely you must think fidelity is at the very least either a component or a sign of morality rather than a mere symbol? Not that this is necessarily about how either you or I think. I'm not sure what good the word morality is if it does not somehow encompass keeping one's pledges.
   336. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: April 30, 2008 at 01:11 PM (#2763996)
"First, studies (that Kevin, eminent scientist and military hero, dismisses) do show that religious people are less likely to cheat on their spouses."

As was noted earlier in the thread, they show that religious people are less likely to admit to cheating on their spouses. That's not necessarily the same thing.
   337. Spahn Insane Posted: April 30, 2008 at 01:20 PM (#2764006)
Query: Between the person who admits to cheating on a spouse and the one who does so but doesn't admit it, who is the more moral? Discuss.
   338. JC in DC Posted: April 30, 2008 at 01:28 PM (#2764016)
As was noted earlier in the thread, they show that religious people are less likely to admit to cheating on their spouses. That's not necessarily the same thing.


No, that's not what they showed. It showed that religious people report not cheating more often than non-religious people. Your way of phrasing suggests they cheat and then don't report. As scotto pointed out, this is the nature of social scientific evidence: self-reporting. True, there is the possibility of false self-reporting, but as he pointed out further, self-reporting in these types of studies is generally accurate. Aside from that, that's the only evidence we can have of these things, and if someone asks "Who cheats more?" we can either talk out of our asses or look to the social science.

Surely you must think fidelity is at the very least either a component or a sign of morality rather than a mere symbol? Not that this is necessarily about how either you or I think. I'm not sure what good the word morality is if it does not somehow encompass keeping one's pledges.


Sure, I do AG, and I consider it an objective quality of morality. But many people do not and when they do not (for whatever reason) they may also regard their pledges as nullifiable based on their sentiment. That's my point above.

Query: Between the person who admits cheating on a spouse and the one who does so but doesn't admit it, who is the more moral? Discuss.


Your query can't be answered w/o more information. Further, if this is to suggest, following Kevin's "analysis" that religious people don't admit cheating, you cannot, by Kevin's logic, have evidence of that.
   339. Spahn Insane Posted: April 30, 2008 at 01:50 PM (#2764030)
Further, if this is to suggest, following Kevin's "analysis" that religious people don't admit cheating, you cannot, by Kevin's logic, have evidence of that.

Well, that's beside the point; the query assumes we know who's cheated or not, and who's admitted it. (And yes, I realize what I'm responding to is more a dig on kevin than anything else.)

And I'd say "all other things being equal" re. the "more information" bit, but I suppose the "morality" varies depending on a million factors (i.e., the fragility of one's spouse, the effect on other family members, if any, and so forth).
   340. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 30, 2008 at 01:53 PM (#2764035)
I don't think anyone disputes that it's a "good defense," assuming it's true (but that, of course, is circular reasoning). What's being questioned is the credibility of that defense in this instance.
Who's questioning it? Nobody (except the Lord High Inquisitioner Kevin) accused Clemens of having sex with a 15 year old. The Daily News reported that they met when she was 15 and reported that they had some sort of affair lasting 10 years. From that, Kevin leapt to the conclusion that they had sex when she was 15. The article never made that accusation.

The next day, the News followed up by reporting that (1) she admitted that the facts in the first article were true, and (2) reporting that they did not have sex when they met, and that their relationship did not "become intimate" until sometime after she was 18.

In other words, there has been no allegation -- not even an anonymous one -- that he had sex with a 15 year old.
   341. Spahn Insane Posted: April 30, 2008 at 01:57 PM (#2764040)
Who's questioning it? Nobody (except the Lord High Inquisitioner Kevin) accused Clemens of having sex with a 15 year old.

Nobody else (that I recall) has directly accused him of it, but others (see, e.g., Answer Guy in the post right before the one you responded to) have indeed questioned the credibility of the assertion that a 28-year-old guy struck up a platonic relationship with a 15-year-old girl without having it turn sexual for three years.
   342. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: April 30, 2008 at 01:59 PM (#2764043)
"Your way of phrasing suggests they cheat and then don't report. As scotto pointed out, this is the nature of social scientific evidence: self-reporting. True, there is the possibility of false self-reporting, but as he pointed out further, self-reporting in these types of studies is generally accurate. Aside from that, that's the only evidence we can have of these things, and if someone asks "Who cheats more?" we can either talk out of our asses or look to the social science."

To not suggest it as a possibility would be extremely disingenuous. Self-reporting falls down all the time when shame gets involved. Look at the consistent gap between the polled voter preferences for African-American politicians and the actual voting results, for example.

Personally, I think we'd be better off admitting that we don't know and can't know to any degree of certainty, rather than pretending that we know and acting on what is, in all likelihood, flawed data.
   343. JC in DC Posted: April 30, 2008 at 02:01 PM (#2764045)
To not suggest it as a possibility would be extremely disingenuous. Self-reporting falls down all the time when shame gets involved. Look at the consistent gap between the polled voter preferences for African-American politicians and the actual voting results, for example.

Personally, I think we'd be better off admitting that we don't know and can't know to any degree of certainty, rather than pretending that we know and acting on what is, in all likelihood, flawed data.


It's not flawed data.
   344. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: April 30, 2008 at 02:04 PM (#2764048)
"It's not flawed data."

You have no way of knowing whether it's flawed or not. Which makes it flawed.
   345. scotto Posted: April 30, 2008 at 02:05 PM (#2764051)
As scotto pointed out, this is the nature of social scientific evidence: self-reporting. True, there is the possibility of false self-reporting, but as he pointed out further, self-reporting in these types of studies is generally accurate. Aside from that, that's the only evidence we can have of these things, and if someone asks "Who cheats more?" we can either talk out of our asses or look to the social science.

Just to add to this point, if a researcher worries about social acceptability as a source of bias, they work around it. Modules regarding sexual behavior may not be asked in a face to face interview. The sample person is handed a paper questionnaire or answers via computer with no interviewer mediation, eliminating that as a concern. If the questions are to be asked in person, the demographic characteristics of the interviewer are chosen carefully.

In any event, there's been a ton of methodological research done to reduce all sources of bias. Is it completely eliminated? No, because that's the nature of survey research and/or polling. Bias creeps in but the extent of the bias can be estimated and you can generate reliable estimates assuming you haven't completely screwed things up with a poor design or execution.

Now, if your operating assumption is that religious people are more likely to lie about sexual matters for whatever reason than non-religious people then there's really nothing to discuss. But I think to deny the validity of data found in the GSS or APS or NIS or any number of other surveys is to take a flat earth approach to understanding human behavior. I guess my main point is that there's no point to throwing out the baby with the bathwater. No research is perfect.

Peoples' mileage vary, of course.
   346. Spahn Insane Posted: April 30, 2008 at 02:06 PM (#2764053)
Well, I suppose it's "flawed data" insofar as there's an inherent risk of false self-reporting, but as you point out, there's not really a good way around that, so the same criticism could be made of much social scientific research. And by that standard, no data is without "flaws;" that's just stating the obvious.
   347. scotto Posted: April 30, 2008 at 02:12 PM (#2764054)
Personally, I think we'd be better off admitting that we don't know and can't know to any degree of certainty, rather than pretending that we know and acting on what is, in all likelihood, flawed data.

As I said, estimates are as precise as they can be given the fact that you're dealing with a sample, and bias and error can creep in from various sources. That's why so much attention is paid to reducing bias by various means and then focusing on variance estimation.

But what we're talking about here is whether the range of those who engage in the practice of their religion have significant difference in infidelity compared with those who don't measured with, most likely, a 95% confidence interval. The answer, found fairly consistently, is yes, that in the population this is likely a real difference.

Edited to add the italicized text for clarity.
   348. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: April 30, 2008 at 03:00 PM (#2764065)
DMN, how would you feel about your 15 year old daughter hanging around with a 28 year old married man?

And after you learned that they had sex after she turned 18, would you suspect they had sex before she turned 18, as well?
   349. DCA Posted: April 30, 2008 at 03:22 PM (#2764087)
If you think that's credible, sure. I find it stretches the outer limits of plausibility, just because I don't see many 28-year old straight men forming platonic relationships with 15-year old girls.

I don't think it's that uncommon, or creepy. Where I do see things like this happening are when there's an shared activity in common, that both the 15-year-old and 28-year-old can participant as equals. The 13 year age difference is about right for "cool uncle" quasi-mentor relationship, there's something they can do together and enjoy other than [forget] -- and yes, most 28 year old guys aren't trolling for jailbait. Give us some credit (I'm 28). These days my main physical activity is rock climbing; among those folks, I see friendships among teenagers and 20/30 somethings all the day. Playing music is another. These cross-age activities are places where we get past the ridiculous mostly-American notion that you can only relate to and be understood by people your same age. That's a bunch of crap, actual communities are bigger than that.

Now, when the 15-year old and the 28-year old meet in a bar ... I agree that's a little creepy.
   350. Charles S. will not yield to this monkey court Posted: April 30, 2008 at 03:22 PM (#2764088)
- charles
then you go to him/her and say you want to go to marriage counseling because you are unhappy. or you both work out a business arrangement - you both have separate life but you don't bring it home

- and yes i DO understand that theres a LOT of men out there who do NOT want to lose their kids which is what happens to most men when they split - which is why my husband made me swear on the Bible before we got married that i wouldn't never do that to him.

- and yes i have talked to more than a few men who told me they stayed married to a woman they didn't want to be near until the kids grown because they did not want to lose their kids.


BBC--

I agree your solution is better than cheating, but you did not ask why cheating is the best solution. You asked why men cheat, and I was trying to provide some speculative insight. Cheating is usually (one might even say always) the wrong solution. Even so, trying to understand why people do it seems more productive to me than just calling it wrong and turning away.
   351. Answer Guy Posted: April 30, 2008 at 04:25 PM (#2764132)
The 13 year age difference is about right for "cool uncle" quasi-mentor relationship, there's something they can do together and enjoy other than [forget] -- and yes, most 28 year old guys aren't trolling for jailbait. Give us some credit (I'm 28).


Perhaps most guys that age aren't trolling for jailbait, but there are enough of them that I think we're rightly suspicious of the ones who seek out girls of that particular age, particularly if they meet in a bar, and doubly, doubly if they do end up shagging later.
   352. Guapo Posted: April 30, 2008 at 04:39 PM (#2764147)
McCready's dad is now saying that nothing sexual happened between Roger and Mindy until 1998, at which point she was 22 years old.
   353. SoSH U at work Posted: April 30, 2008 at 04:41 PM (#2764155)
McCready's dad is now saying that nothing sexual happened between Roger and Mindy until 1998, at which point she was 22 years old.


And he's got the video to prove it.
   354. scotto Posted: April 30, 2008 at 04:44 PM (#2764160)
A sample is always going to have uncertainty to it, kevin, even if you're looking to determine, say, quality of widget on a production line.

But you're clearly in a fundamentalist camp on this issue, and don't seem to fully grasp that it's neither black nor white and that perfection, while desirable, is unattainable.
   355. Guapo Posted: April 30, 2008 at 04:46 PM (#2764166)
Now there's an objective source.

Sorry, didn't mean to stand in the way of baseless speculation. Carry on!
   356. The Bones McCoy of THT Posted: April 30, 2008 at 04:49 PM (#2764174)
And that activity would be what exactly...?

Wait, let me guess. Humping?


My dog claimed my leg was asking for it.

My vet claimed his nads were asking for it.

We lived happily ever after.

Best Regards

John
   357. scotto Posted: April 30, 2008 at 04:57 PM (#2764182)
How exactly do you do that, Scotto? I can't possibly imagine a reliable way of doing that which doesn't violate the constitutional rights of privacy.

You're demonstrating a misunderstanding of what bias in a survey is. Per Groves, "(b)ias is the type of error that affects the statistic in all implementations of a survey design; in that sense it is a constant error (e.g. all possible surveys using the same design might overestimate the mean years of education per person in the population.) A variable error, measured by the variance of a statistic, arises because achieved values differ over the units (e.g. sampled persons, interviewers used, questions asked) that are the sources of the error. The concept of variable errors inherently requires the possibility of repeating the survey, with changes of units in the replications (e.g. different sample persons, different interviewers)."

W
   358. scotto Posted: April 30, 2008 at 04:59 PM (#2764187)
Bull. If you're trying to count 10 oranges, you can accurately count 10 oranges. The error rate on that is so small as to be insignificant. If you think you made a mistake, you can just go back and count them again. Or you can have 3 different people count them 3 time each and use the mean.

With this statement, you have demonstrated such a fundamental misunderstanding of the topic being discussed simultaneously coupled with a lack of willingness to try to grasp what you so clearly don't understand that I'm concluding that I'm wasting my time. It's like arguing with a 9/11 conspiracy theorist or an ideologue.
   359. scotto Posted: April 30, 2008 at 05:02 PM (#2764189)
What you're talking about is subjective data, where the deliverer of the data has a vested interest in being less than honest, in having a vested interest in delivering an underestimate of infidelity. You cannot conduct a worthwhile study using data that is that flawed.

But one last thing regarding "vested interests". The researcher in question and the data collector are independent of each other, have no association, and the data collector has no reason to sway the data one way or another. Your statement supports my conclusion that you don't know what you're talking about.
   360. DCA Posted: April 30, 2008 at 05:07 PM (#2764198)
You cannot conduct a worthwhile study using data that is that flawed.

Wrong. Data have problems. Some more than others. The more problematic the data, the less reliable the conclusions -- or the weaker the conclusions that can be drawn at the same reliability (actually, I shouldn't be using reliability here, since it's a term of art with a precise definition, but you get the point). However, many studies have been done to benchmark the reliability (here used correctly) and accuracy of self-reported data against more objective measurements. All of the problems you cite -- and many others -- have been looked at in detail by methodological researchers. Social science data analysis explicitly includes sources of bias and measurement error in the modelling process. Well, for people who do good work anyway -- I can't comment on any particular studies but the rate of bad methodological practices in social science is pretty high.

But the important point is this: just because the data has problems doesn't mean it's worthless. There's plenty of gray area between perfect and worthless -- some might call this area "useful."
   361. JC in DC Posted: April 30, 2008 at 05:13 PM (#2764205)
Kevin: As I said yesterday, the more you speak on the subject, the dumber (less credible) you sound. scotto nailed it on the head.
   362. DCA Posted: April 30, 2008 at 05:13 PM (#2764206)
The interviewers were professional statisticians who were well aware of the methodolical biases but weren't able to sort out the true picture and eliminate Haitians as a high-risk group until an assay (an objective source of data) was available.

Well, maybe that's the problem. Professional statisticians are not trained interviewers.

And how was it discovered that a subgroup of the Haitian population was lying to the interviewers? Most likely, by doing social science research.
   363. scotto Posted: April 30, 2008 at 05:21 PM (#2764218)
Again, I will remind you of the history of AIDS epidemiology. Male Haitian homosexuals or heterosexual male prostitutes catering to homosexual clients were out-and-out lying to their interviewers about their sexual practices. The interviewers were professional statisticians who were well aware of the methodolical biases but weren't able to sort out the true picture and eliminate Haitians as a high-risk group until an assay (an objective source of data) was available.

I rather doubt professional statisticians did the interviews on an epidemiological study. In any event, doing face to face interviews is probably the wrong way to collect sensitive data of this sort. That's when you use a paper questionnaire or computer to collect the data, so that the respondent has no incentive not to report accurately, which I've mentioned before and which you've ignored because it contradicts the fundamentalist position that you hold.

DCA, good posts at 402 and 406.
   364. DCA Posted: April 30, 2008 at 05:21 PM (#2764220)
Data that has problems is different from data that is flawed. Flawed data is unreliable data. You cannot use flawed data, data that contains excessive misinformation, and make any useful conclusions from it. That's it. You can't.

Again, wrong. Social science is not hard science as you understand it. If you're thinking like a hard scientist you're not understanding the data. You can't use the methodology in one to do the other. The appropriate comparison for social science stats are ecology and atmospheric science, where there's more noise than signal in the data and bias and uncertainty in measurement.

Again, most importantly, there's lots of space between perfect and worthless. All good social science data lies in this space. Some social science data *is* worthless. That you can't tell the difference doesn't mean that the rest of us can't.
   365. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 30, 2008 at 05:22 PM (#2764222)
DMN, how would you feel about your 15 year old daughter hanging around with a 28 year old married man?
I don't have a 15 year old daughter, but if I did, I suspect I wouldn't want her ever having contact with any individual of the opposite sex over the age of about 12. Maybe 10, just to be safe. I think this attitude of mine would probably not change when she reached 18, but might cease at the point where I was dead of old age.

I don't really see the relevance of the attitude of a father towards his daughter's possible sexuality, which isn't normally the type of situation in which we expect dispassionate, balanced thinking.
   366. JC in DC Posted: April 30, 2008 at 05:23 PM (#2764226)
Let it go, Kevin. No one's trying to convince you of anything.
   367. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 30, 2008 at 05:24 PM (#2764228)
With this statement, you have demonstrated such a fundamental misunderstanding of the topic being discussed simultaneously coupled with a lack of willingness to try to grasp what you so clearly don't understand that I'm concluding that I'm wasting my time. It's like arguing with a 9/11 conspiracy theorist or an ideologue.
But he's a scientist! Just ask him!

Remember, this is the same guy that didn't understand why you need to do tests on separate samples before one can conclude that a drug test is positive.
   368. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: April 30, 2008 at 05:27 PM (#2764235)
I don't really see the relevance of the attitude of a father towards his daughter's possible sexuality, which isn't normally the type of situation in which we expect dispassionate, balanced thinking.

Maybe it isn't relevant. I was only asking to hear what I presume to be another human's pov would be.

I have a soon-to-be 10 year old in the house. Regarding her sexuality, I half kiddingly wish for her to be a lesbian. (She doesn't know this, and won't, until she's an adult and we can all laugh about it together.)
   369. JC in DC Posted: April 30, 2008 at 05:34 PM (#2764248)
Kevin:

As a "hard" scientist who often veers into drawing conclusions about human beings on less than "hard" evidence, what would you conclude about the following person:

(1) Makes repeated false claims about his military service;
(2) Makes claims suggesting he has read a book he has not; and
(3) Makes definitive claims about fields he exhibits no competence in whatsoever.

Would you join me in drawing the conclusion that his opinions are unreliable?
   370. JC in DC Posted: April 30, 2008 at 05:43 PM (#2764259)
The "study" that's horseshit is the General Social Surveys, which as scotto pointed out, is widely used and esteemed. The analysis is done by a cracker-jack young lead social scientist. In your favor you've got your pattern of lies, exaggerations, and incompetence. I have no doubt you'll continue to think you won the argument. The clincher being back when you placed scare quotes around "sciences".

Kevin: Since you've got no qualms about demeaning others' jobs and products, you tempt me to do the same about yours with a line a nuclear engineer once used when talking to me about chemists. I'll refrain, however.
   371. scotto Posted: April 30, 2008 at 05:54 PM (#2764282)
If you can't take legitimate criticism, then you have no business doing science.

The key phrase is legitimate, which implies an understanding of what's being discussed, which is not the case here from your end.
   372. villageidiom Posted: April 30, 2008 at 06:00 PM (#2764295)
Data that has problems is different from data that is flawed. Flawed data is unreliable data. You cannot use flawed data, data that contains excessive misinformation, and make any useful conclusions from it. That's it. You can't.


kevin, you know I'll defend you if I think people are being unreasonably dismissive. I can't do it in this case. Brian McNamee's testimony has excessive misinformation; and DMN's (and RDiP's, and others') point for several months is that on that basis we can't make any useful conclusions from it. Yet you have had no trouble doing so. This flies in the face of your claims on flawed data above.

That you might eventually be proven correct does not excuse the fact that you are willing to use flawed data with certainty when it suits you. I'm sure in your day job you have a higher standard than you've displayed here.
   373. Chris Dial Posted: April 30, 2008 at 06:01 PM (#2764296)
DMN, how would you feel about your 15 year old daughter hanging around with a 28 year old married man?
I don't have a 15 year old daughter, but if I did, I suspect I wouldn't want her ever having contact with any individual of the opposite sex over the age of about 12. Maybe 10, just to be safe. I think this attitude of mine would probably not change when she reached 18, but might cease at the point where I was dead of old age.

I don't really see the relevance of the attitude of a father towards his daughter's possible sexuality, which isn't normally the type of situation in which we expect dispassionate, balanced thinking.


Ha! My wife brought up the Clemens-McCready thing last night, using the exact same wquote "how would *I* feel" And I replied precisely as DMN did - it won't stop at 18 or 30, but when I am dead.
   374. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 30, 2008 at 06:09 PM (#2764313)
Esteemed by whom? By people who approve of it's conclusions? Or by people who are truly interested in objective information?
The GSS does not have "conclusions." It is not a study; it's a survey. It's a giant data set, collected regularly (annually or biannually) for the last 35 years. Because of that, it's the gold standard of social science data.

It's incredibly valuable both because it has been conducted over such a long time (allowing social scientists to study trends) and because the data is made freely available to everyone, allowing anybody to use the data set.
   375. JC in DC Posted: April 30, 2008 at 06:11 PM (#2764317)
Which makes your elitist claims about persons of religious faith being somehow more virtuous than persons of secular orientation horseshit too.


I missed this. "Elitist?" I don't think so. Further, you may note that I specifically denied that this study means religious people are more virtuous. Add #5 to my list above: (5) Makes false assertions about what people claim that evince either (a) a willingness to distort other people's views or (b) serious deficiencies in reading comprehension.
   376. Chris Dial Posted: April 30, 2008 at 06:13 PM (#2764320)
No; "clinging to religion" is the opposite of elitest.
   377. scotto Posted: April 30, 2008 at 06:22 PM (#2764340)
The GSS does not have "conclusions." It is not a study; it's a survey. It's a giant data set, collected regularly (annually or biannually) for the last 35 years. Because of that, it's the gold standard of social science data.

Thank you for re-stating a point that I made earlier, and it is the second most used dataset for social science research after some US Census surveys for a very good reason.

This is what I meant about kevin not understanding what he's talking about, conflating data collection and survey design with the study, and so on and so forth.
   378. DCA Posted: April 30, 2008 at 06:33 PM (#2764370)
Kevin,

I have the article if you want me to send you a copy. Here's what the article has to say about the issue you mention, in the discussion.

Moreover, research of this kind necessarily relies on self-reports of infidelity,
and some skepticism about the reliability of such data may be warranted.
However, despite some allegations to the contrary, studies have
turned up little clear association between religiosity (especially the kinds of
religious variables considered in this study) and the tendency to give biased,
socially desirable responses. At least one recent, thorough study of this issue
among young adults argues strongly against such a view (Regnerus & Smith,
2005). Nevertheless, it would be helpful for future studies to rule out obvious
sources of response bias in work on marital infidelity among adults.

The cited source is Regnerus, M. D., & Smith, C. S. (2005). Selection effects in studies of religious influence. Review of Religious Research, 47, 23-50. I have access to this as well but haven't looked at it at all.
   379. DCA Posted: April 30, 2008 at 06:50 PM (#2764405)
I'm not demeaning jobs and professions.

Yes, you are. You are demeaning everyone who works in social science research, by classifying the type of data they use (and hence everything they do) as worthless. I said earlier that social science is not hard science -- as you understand the term "science," social science is not science. I used "hard science" to represent that distinction, but if that didn't get the message across: social science is not science. It's a fundamentally different type of inquiry and the methods are different, though they overlap quite a lot with the more messy scientific fields. "I'm a scientist" doesn't signify expertise in this area.
   380. scotto Posted: April 30, 2008 at 06:54 PM (#2764413)
Thanks for the cite, DCA.
   381. Spahn Insane Posted: April 30, 2008 at 07:21 PM (#2764453)
I have a soon-to-be 10 year old in the house. Regarding her sexuality, I half kiddingly wish for her to be a lesbian. (She doesn't know this, and won't, until she's an adult and we can all laugh about it together.)

Unless she lurks on BTF.

Then again, having her lurk on BTF may well be the most effective means of scaring her away from men.
   382. Answer Guy Posted: April 30, 2008 at 07:25 PM (#2764458)
Then again, having her lurk on BTF may well be the most effective means of scaring her away from men.


No kidding. :)

Although there are only two gay guys I know of on here. The other one doesn't scare me at all, except when he talks about 1986.
   383. marko Posted: April 30, 2008 at 07:30 PM (#2764461)
At least Clemens has Karl Malone on his side.
   384. Spahn Insane Posted: April 30, 2008 at 07:33 PM (#2764465)
Although there are only two gay guys I know of on here. The other one doesn't scare me at all, except when he talks about 1986.

Yeah, I don't think the two gay guys (that I, too, know of) here are the ones Bivens would worry about his daughter hooking up with, whether or not sexual orientation's included in the equation.
   385. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: April 30, 2008 at 07:33 PM (#2764466)
Since my example with the black politicians vanished without a ripple, here's another good example of the way that people will lie about things that make them ashamed: The significant gap in results for studies on the average length of the erect male penis, between studies that rely on self-reported data and studies that actually involve an impartial arbiter putting a ruler beside the organ.

I'm glad that social scientists try to correct for error, but without knowing things that they have no way of knowing, they can't get a truly accurate estimate of the magnitude of potential sources of error, either. If they actually knew, they wouldn't need to run the studies in the first place.

It's not just the cheatin' couples. In general, I don't believe in most sociological research, because I think that the approximations and assumptions that are inherent to the process make it useless for anything more than entertainment value. Such is life.
   386. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 30, 2008 at 07:41 PM (#2764474)
Vlad, the so-called "Bradley effect" is out-of-date anyway, and again, it represents a workaroundable methodological problem. (Note that the issue here is the difference in fidelity, not absolute levels of fidelity, so unless religious people are more likely to lie about it, the fact that people will lie about fidelity is irrelevant.)

There are problems with sociological research, to be sure. The major one is that it's very difficult to control for everything -- indeed, it's very difficult to figure out what needs to be controlled for in any given case. And most studies that don't use the GSS or Census are working with data sets too small to allow for the extensive controlling which is necessary.

But that doesn't mean that all social science research is a waste of time. You can, if clever, work around many problems and find ways to corroborate your results. (Hell, you can get a New York Times reporter to collaborate with you on a bestselling book if you're clever enough about it.)
   387. DCA Posted: April 30, 2008 at 07:56 PM (#2764490)
No I'm not. I'm criticizing some of their methodologies as unscientific.

Of course they're unscientific. That's not a criticism. It would be like criticizing a woman for being unmale. Or a square for being unround. We already knew that, so what's the point?
   388. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: April 30, 2008 at 07:59 PM (#2764492)
"so unless religious people are more likely to lie about it"

Which is exactly my point. We don't have any way of knowing whether they are or not.

I have no problem with sociologists doing what they do, and I'm sure they do the best they can with what they've got. I just think that it's foolish to treat a lot of this stuff as being significantly stronger than a wild-ass guess.
   389. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: April 30, 2008 at 08:16 PM (#2764512)
I should know better than to get involved here, but I just wanted to remind everyone what started this conversation. kevin wrote:

Hah. Show me one study that suggests religious people are more faithful to their spouses than non-religious ones.

JC in DC cited such a study, at which point kevin summarily dismissed it because it was a social science study. Which is ridiculous, because even if you think the data used in the study is "flawed," at the very least this is a study that "suggests" religious people are more faithful to their spouses.

My question for kevin is, when you asked to be shown "a study that suggests religious people are more faithful to their spouses than non-religious ones," what kind of study were you expecting to see? What would you consider a satisfactory study? If nothing would satisfy you, why ask the question in the first place?
   390. scotto Posted: April 30, 2008 at 08:22 PM (#2764518)
Of course they're unscientific. That's not a criticism. It would be like criticizing a woman for being unmale. Or a square for being unround. We already knew that, so what's the point?

They may not be scientific in the strictest sense of the word, but opinion research does reflect what people think, and how different groups think differently about things. The vast majority of the surveys that are done, mostly funded by the government, are about non-controversial, non-sensitive topics. Are you going to lie about whether your kid has been vaccinated? I don't think so.

In addition, these same techniques are used by huge corporations to inform their business decisions, marketing strategies, and so forth, not to mention how campaigns use them to figure out how to win. If it were an epic failure, you'd figure they'd be doing something different.
   391. villageidiom Posted: April 30, 2008 at 08:23 PM (#2764520)
Vi, this might be true if McNamee's testimony was the only information out there.
So, flawed data is useful if it agrees with prior subjective observation (the "one good eyeball" test), but useless on its own?

That's not even wrong.
   392. Mom makes botox doctors furious Posted: April 30, 2008 at 08:27 PM (#2764526)
"I have a soon-to-be 10 year old in the house. Regarding her sexuality, I half kiddingly wish for her to be a lesbian."

been there, done that ; ) , and mine i 4 and a half. i suspect you already understand her position on the matter, if you dare.

my boy, on the other, what a robust, able fella! you should see him kick a football (i mean soccer ball, of course)

jeez. roger, i hope you get whatever it is you deserve. you made your own bed (regardless of the occupants).
   393. base ball chick Posted: April 30, 2008 at 08:32 PM (#2764528)
David Nieporent Posted: April 30, 2008 at 01:22 PM (#2764222)

DMN, how would you feel about your 15 year old daughter hanging around with a 28 year old married man?
I don't have a 15 year old daughter, but if I did, I suspect I wouldn't want her ever having contact with any individual of the opposite sex over the age of about 12. Maybe 10, just to be safe. I think this attitude of mine would probably not change when she reached 18, but might cease at the point where I was dead of old age.


- grinning

EXACTLY what my daddy said. i mean thought. most all daddys get daddyitis over their Little Grrrls and dial he gonna be the worst EVAH bout LED

my brother he starting to seriously repeat my daddy's line about how God give men daughters to get even with them for what they did/tried to do to every other man's daughter...
   394. Answer Guy Posted: April 30, 2008 at 08:34 PM (#2764530)
Funny. It's said that Dad wants his daughter to be a lesbian. But if his son is gay, he wonders where and how he screwed up. I say this only half in jest.

I told Answer Dad "If having a lousy father is what turns a boy gay, then the ghettos in Baltimore would gayer than P-Town." It doesn't seem to register.
   395. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: April 30, 2008 at 08:41 PM (#2764536)
"Are you going to lie about whether your kid has been vaccinated? I don't think so."

Some people probably do. My dad hates survey-takers, and lies to them about everything.
   396. JC in DC Posted: April 30, 2008 at 08:49 PM (#2764550)
Social science is science. This is why I earlier brought up philosophy of science and scientific methodology. THere's no reason - except prior ideological commitment which in Kevin's case is clear - to reserve science for the particular kind of science practiced by hard scientists. Kevin spouts off as though that kind of science is simply absent bias, but as I'm sure many here know, that's not true. The existence of biases doesn't negate science, it's a part of science even while scientists of all kinds - hard and soft - do their best to limit bias and make biases known and accounted for.

I had a nice exchange w/the author of the study Kevin so cavalierly and ignorantly dismissed. She mentioned the article DCA mentioned and pointed to a book as well ("The Social Organization of Sexuality") which treats survey methodology pertaining to sex.

Dave rightly points to the genesis of this particular occasion of the nudity of Kevin's ignorance. What we've learned is that Kevin wasn't asking for a study, but simply implying that social science is bunk through and through.

Which is like a nuclear engineer saying of chemistry that it's just morons playing with beakers, that chemistry is the science failed scientists get into: dismissive and insulting.
   397. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: April 30, 2008 at 09:00 PM (#2764559)
It may be dismissive and insulting, but in this case it's not wrong. Until we can actually drill holes in people's heads and pull out thoughts and look at them, there simply isn't any way to know whether people are telling the truth or not. Doing your best to limit and account for biases is good, but it just isn't the same thing as delivering demonstrably accurate results.

Social science, as currently practiced, requires too many leaps of faith to meet the same standards as hard science, and therefore should deservingly be treated as less reliable. Full stop.
   398. JC in DC Posted: April 30, 2008 at 09:06 PM (#2764566)
Doing your best to limit and account for biases is good, but it just isn't the same thing as delivering demonstrably accurate results.


Actually, it is pretty much the same thing.
   399. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: April 30, 2008 at 09:16 PM (#2764570)
"Actually, it is pretty much the same thing."

No, it's not. If the Pirates signed me tomorrow, I could do my best to deliver quality left-handed relief pitching, but the mere fact that I did so wouldn't make me a quality left-handed reliever. I could make a good-faith effort to dig myself out of Attica with a spoon, but that wouldn't make me a master escapologist. Etc.

If you don't have the tools, you don't get the results, and right now the tools that the social sciences would need to deliver demonstrably accurate results just don't exist. Once we get brainwave scanners and throw away the rules about informed consent for experimental subjects, maybe it'll be different.
   400. Mom makes botox doctors furious Posted: April 30, 2008 at 09:18 PM (#2764573)
"Funny. It's said that Dad wants his daughter to be a lesbian. But if his son is gay, he wonders where and how he screwed up. I say this only half in jest."

Regarding sexual orientation, my two cents is that I want my kids to be happy. The sooner they figure that out, the better.
Page 4 of 5 pages  < 1 2 3 4 5 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
BarrysLazyBoy
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

Newsblog5 for Friday: Leo Mazzone, pitching coach to the HOFers
(1 - 10:59am, Jul 25)
Last: Chris Needham

NewsblogOTP - July 2014: Republicans Lose To Democrats For Sixth Straight Year In Congressional Baseball Game
(3058 - 10:58am, Jul 25)
Last: Ray (RDP)

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 7-25-2014
(5 - 10:57am, Jul 25)
Last: Batman

NewsblogNoble: Tom Seaver expects Derek Jeter to become first unanimous Hall of Fame inductee
(67 - 10:55am, Jul 25)
Last: Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora

NewsblogSurprising Sports Stars – Guided by Voices’ Robert Pollard
(12 - 10:53am, Jul 25)
Last: Batman

NewsblogLa Russa: Asterisk for tainted stars
(12 - 10:52am, Jul 25)
Last: puck

NewsblogThe Inventor of the High Five
(18 - 10:47am, Jul 25)
Last: Ray (RDP)

NewsblogTwitter / Ken_Rosenthal: Mariners announce acquisition of Kendrys Morales for RHP Stephen Pryor.
(17 - 10:45am, Jul 25)
Last: DL from MN

NewsblogCSN: Enough is enough — time to move on from Ryan Howard
(88 - 10:38am, Jul 25)
Last: Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread July, 2014
(386 - 10:34am, Jul 25)
Last: Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14!

NewsblogGoldman: Eliminating the shift a bandage for a phantom wound
(37 - 10:16am, Jul 25)
Last: Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread- July 2014
(918 - 9:46am, Jul 25)
Last: AROM

NewsblogBucs Dugout: Manel: Pirates getting creative with defensive shifts
(9 - 9:00am, Jul 25)
Last: bobm

NewsblogYadier Molina serves his brother crackers on a plate — home plate
(46 - 8:47am, Jul 25)
Last: zonk

NewsblogFivethirtyeight: Billion-Dollar Billy Beane
(22 - 8:23am, Jul 25)
Last: snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster)

Page rendered in 0.7939 seconds
52 querie(s) executed