JW, as is his wont, has taken up the torch of yet another popular issue.
In his blog post he used a very flawed 'study' to make some points about the absolute superiority of lesbiam moms over the rest of the possible pairings.
The main point of the study was that, in their study cohort, no adolescent children (out of a group of 74) had responded and named their parents as abusers.
You can read the thread and find the responses that mentioned the inadequacy - and probably complete wrongness - of the way the data was collected.
JW made a couple of responses to defends his claims, one of which was that a psychologist friend had said that the children probably were afraid of their bio-dads.
I replied that this was bullshit and extraneous to the study, that there was no evidence at all that the children even knew who their bio-dads were and that I doubted the convenient existence of the psychologist who would say, having read the study, that.
JW feigned being insulted, that his integrity had been impugned and deleted my responses, leaving the impression that I had made some terrible insulting comments (the operative words that offended JW were 'bullshit' and 'mythical'.)
SBA also called into doubt my credentials for making these comments and when I posted my creentials, he deleted them also.
Finally, I rewrote the comments, leaving out any hint of how I felt about JW's comments. JW was still insulted and deleted even this.
So I post my deleted responses here for you to read.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Since JW deleted my last two posts because he felt that I had impugned his integrity, I shall repost without making any implications. Since I didn't copy these, they are not exact but to the point.
My comments were, in response to SBA, that I wasn't saying that anyone had lied, but that getting this kind of information out of children who might be afraid that anything negative would have repercussions in their own life would have to be done gently. An online questionnaire (questions unknown) would, imo, be the least likely way to get good information.
There wasn't even a control group to see how children from hetero couples would respond.
to JW, who said his psychologist friend had said something about being more afraid of fathers I wrote (approximately) that his remark was not applicable to justify the response. There is no reason to bring in the idea of the children being more frightened of their bio dads since they were offspring of a sperm bank and there was not even an inkling that these children knew their bio-dads. The only way to judge the worth of the study was to deal with the information as given - and it was unreliable and certainly not the kind of thing that would justify the sweeping generalizations made both in the paper and in JW's blog.
In response to SBA's query about my credentials I wrote the following (and sent it in a PM
I have two earned doctorates, the first from U of Pennsylvania, the second from IUPUI. My thesis was on the rheology of small amounts of tissue cements. I have about 110 papers published in peer reviewed journals, about half as the principal author and the rest as the statistical adviser to the group.
I have written and had two books published (the last by the American Medical Association) and several book chapters. I taught biomedical statistics and research design for about 8 years to residents in various healthcare disciplines while, at the same time, running a laboratory doing work in materials science. I was then the head of the data analysis division (3 or 4 PhD statisticians and numerous data techs) of a medical foundation that supported all HIV research in the military. Then I was the VP in charge of the section of a statistical consulting company that provided analytical support in medical services to a group in the Department of Health and Human Services.
At various times, I was a reviewer for different medical and research journals; my personal area interest was the use of non-parametric statistics in clinical research.
I do know that peer reviewed means different things. In some narrow fields of endeavor, if a paper is written by a 'name' in the field, the peer reviewers are loathe to bring up any questions for fear of making an enemy of a prominent researcher.
I have no idea what went on in the review of this paper but the obvious weaknesses in the data acquisition mean that any results are questionable and the conclusions unjustified."
This last is a pretty exact quote and yet, although not inflammatory, was deleted - perhaps because it lent some credence to my opinion on the report.
======================================
I have no need to impugn JWs integrity his behavior when confronted with information he doesn't like has done that.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Alan Milner
Claudia Moscovici
Stacey Youdin
john guzlowski
ume
Donegal Descendant
Salon.com
Comments
I also forgot to make the text bold.
Bolding means important.
I'm unable to chime in on the specifics of this issue, since I no longer read his posts, but I should think, given your credentials -- particularly where statistics are concerned -- that you know of what you speak.
My opinions are based on my personal observations and a few factoids I've come across are used as variables to support new theories.
Statistics done prove anything. That's not their purpose.
You have a set of data and you test it.
What the statistical test does is tell you how probable is it this result would occur by chance alone.
So everything rests on how good the data are.
If the data are collected poorly and don't reflect reality then no matter what the test is, the statistical information means nothing.
Depending on one's own experience might work if your experience is vast and really reflects the reality, but if it doesn't you will be wrong.
As is this study referred to.
The comment I deleted was the one in which Trav stated that the psychologist I referenced in my piece was invented, that I made her up, whole cloth.
It is not any writer's onligation to host anyone's comment what that comment includes an accusation that the writer has lied to his/her readers.
Aside from that, I don't much care what Trav (or anyone) agrees with or disagrees with.
Dude, the LAST time I questioned your "credentials" (about a year ago, as I recall) you stated that you had a long & distinguished career as a photojournalist and newspaper editor. NOW, all of a sudden, up pops not one but two doctorates and ANOTHER long, illustrious career in medical research/academia.
So either you are a.) 150 years old (and therefore had two unrelated complete careers) or you are b.) Full of crap!
(My money is on b.), BTW).
That said, I think you have a point about the statistical and methodological flaws of the study.
You have mistaken me for someone else and I defy you to find anything I ever wrote claiming anything else but my true work history.
I have never been a newspaper editor, I have edited professional papers for my entire professional life and I have been a photographer for about 30 years, partly for money but mostly for fun.
You are wrong, and not for the first time.
Dear JW,
Usually you just stretch the truth to fit your current cause; in this case, you are a liar.
I have no issue with any kinds of happy loving couples raising children, same gender or not; and I number them amongst my friends.
What does bother me is shoddy research passed off as good because the concept is in fashion and people, either out of lack of knowledge or scruples, quoting this bad research and the over-reaching conclusions to make a case because it brings them readers.
Rated ♥
Still, I certainly don't wish you ill, despite our apparent differences on how to present -- and defend -- our positions. And for the record, I think Amy is, by all accounts, a swell mom.
I have no long string of degrees with which to support my questioning of the conclusions drawn by those researchers, merely a BA (Canadian) with a philosophy major.
Those who want to make an issue of 'the traveler's' credentials should remember that ANYONE may, in good faith, question any claims that are made by anyone else WITHOUT having to show credentials. In ALL cases it is accepted practice in all scientific fields that he who makes a claim must offer supporting evidence and he who makes an extraordinary claim must offer extraordinary evidence to support such claims.
All claims are open to question. ALL - no exceptions. That's how science works. Since Jonathan (actually the researchers he is quoting) has made an extraordinary claim, they/he are on the hook to offer satisfying proof of their claim. It is not EVER the responsibility of the questioner to prove the claims wrong. It is never the responsibility of the questioner to "show credentials" unless it is agreed that the matter of who is, or is not, an accepted 'authority' in the field is to be arbiter of the rightness or wrongness of a claim.
I love that Amy strongly enjoys such claims. As a lesbian parent it must give her a certain amount of satisfaction to see some of the old canards about her and her peers laid to rest. Yet she should exercise some caution because if she uses such "research" to too loudly proclaim her detractors wrong, and then it proves inaccurate, she could do her cause much harm. Any future claims that she might want to make could be viewed as "another one of Amy's errors" by those who become aware that she is quoting erroneous findings and/or interpretations of those findings on this occasion. Once she truly has a firm foundation, however, she should indeed shout it to the skies!! I sure would, if I were her!!
.
Thank you for the post.
Fusun, although it takes someone with some awareness of the issues in research to be 'see' the problems, the explanations of the weaknesses as pointed out are, I think, quite clear. It is unfortunate that JW and SBA are so wrapped up in their beliefs that they cannot even deal with opposition rationally.
Lew
This incident is an unfortunate example of what is common behavior on OS. If the writer says something that doesn't go along with the received wisdom, there isn't an attempt to discuss the subject, is becomes open season on the writer.
What I wrote was easily understandable, even without any background in research and the result was that I was attacked, directly by SBA who has no hesitation in calling names and making slurs,, and indirectly by JW who deleted a couple of posts and then accused me of impugning his integrity.
The actual subject is ignored, the issue is to attack and beat the messenger.
Not a good reference for OS.
I find that Jon most often preaches to the choir that I sing in, and I usually agree with his conclusions without the need for corroborative evidence. In this case, it seems a no-brainer that two loving parents, no matter what their sexual orientation, are just that - loving parents. And what better could any child hope to have?
As to the fussing and comment deleting, that's disappointing.
Jonathan, if you're going to make certain assertions in a post, then you should be willing to defend those assertions, and it's not enough to say "talk to someone else," or "I disagree."
Concerning the study itself -- other than the problems of sample selection and poor methodology, it is interesting that the authors of the study are both lesbian activists.
In addition, the study was funded in part by gay and lesbian advocacy organizations. These include The Arcus Foundation, that "works to advance LGBT equality," the Horizons Foundation, which "fuels the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) movement," the Gill Foundation, self-described as "advocates for LGBT equality," The Lesbian Health Fund of the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association, the Roy Scrivner Fund, which supports "research focused on lesbian, gay, and bisexual family psychology and lesbian, gay, and bisexual family therapy," and the Williams Institute, which "advances sexual orientation and gender identity law."
Of course the authorship and source of funding are not mentioned in the original post.
Yes, there is definitely a party line on OS, and heaven help the person who doesn't adhere to it. The party line also determines which posts are featured on the cover. Gay- and lesbian-themed posts are often featured, as are the many "how I lost my religion" posts.
Not surprisingly, most of the bullying I see here on OS is done by those who hide behind pen names.
I understand that reasoning; most of what they say and the way the behave would be held against them in any civil society.
(Before someone accuses me of doing the same, let me point out that I have the same username on all the sites I frequent, I often refer people to my eponymous web site and the top reference in my links list is to that same site and and my name and email address is freely available there.)
That gay couples raise kids well is a no-brainer.
The issue here seems to be about tolerance toward different points of view. I agree JW has every right to delete comments, even 'ban' certain commenters from his posts, but it's the kind of behaviour that won't win new readers. I'm sure he knows that, & cares less.
Personally I find the practice kind of stultifying, & with such bloggers who write the occasional contentious post, there's no need to go even go there anymore ~ there'll be no debate, & it will be boring. Akin to sinful, in my opinion.
NYTimes offers this : A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence and SHOUTING.
OS has something similar in its TOS, largely ignored, but it offers us each a delete function.
I think this makes it a far more interesting forum.
Frustrating at times, sure, but at least we know we're alive.
Thanks to those who sent me PMs to express their support.
Lew
first, her comment was abusive towards another person
second, she used the comments section to deal with issues that were not the point of this post and
third, she demands response to her questions from someone, the type of response she typically ignores herself
I won't tolerate any of these kinds of behaviors.
Lew
I totally agree.
Typically I won't delete unpleasant comments because they usually remain as reminders of the unpleasantness of their makers.
However, I sort of follow the NY Times rules and I won't allow people who respond to my posts with comments to be abused by others. Sort of a hospitality thing - in my blog it is my duty to keep them safe.
Lew
That will be her challenge.
jOnniE woLFy waNTs OS"ers to beLEIVe he is wIsE aNd deSERviNg of hiS ASSociaTion wiTH doesthismakesense.com buTT hE is nEItheR
iF the oNE vaRIabLE wiTHin tHE gROup U liSTed wiTH thE hiGHesT coRRelATIon wiTH non=aBUse waS weALth aNd noT lesBoiSm whAT sCreAMinG U woULd haVE herD frOM hIS pro=comMEntERs aBouT viOLatIONs in sCienTiFic meTHOd and sAmPLe deSIGn
bUTT oNCe JoNNiE wOLfy proCLAMes soMEthInG iN hiS bLOG as inSIGhTfuLL oR suPportING hiS perSOnaL beleAFs thEN foRGeTT aBoUT iT if U R a coMMeNTeR wiTH leGIT coNCerNs or criTICiSms
iSn"T it reVEiLIng fOuR hIm to aLLow pro=cOMmenTers noTEs to reMaNE evEn whEn thEY inSuLT otHeRs
bRAVO fOuR thIs pOSt
I’ve disagreed with JW strongly on several occasions…and he has never deleted anything I’ve said.
I’ve read your remarks, Traveler…and see no reason for them being deleted. You are a reasonable and intelligent poster…and the questions you had are reasonable. I hope this does not happen again…and I hope you are able to repair the rift between you and Jonathan.
Frank, I understand your stance; mine is slightly different. Many persons here are immune to the subtleties of civil discourse and use any opportunity to cast crap. My responsibility in my own blog post is to not let them sully up the environment or savage others.
Making themselves look stupid here is redundant and destructive. We don't let a dog pee on our carpets just to let him exercise his biological imperative.
If a post is abusive, either to me or another person I will delete it.
If a post attempts to hijack the thread into another topic, also, gone.
If, through some amazing stroke of chance, in an even-a-blind-dog-finds-a-squirrel-sometimes kind of thing, this person might say something meaningful, I will repost the important part.
Although, that occasionally means I will have to delete a post that I may agree with, well, that is the way it works. I did that and told the person why and suggested they repost within the constraints.
I am not in the business of providing a playground for those whose only ability is to throw crap. OS has plenty of tolerance and space for them.
Lew
Back for part of a day on OS before my previous work-related exile continues.
I've been following this argument, both here and on Traveler's blog. I have a few things to say about it:
No one here that I've noticed (and if I've missed someone on this, I'll apologize right here) has stated that it is impossible for lesbians to be better parents than others in at least some respects. That is not anyone's point.
No one here is stating that studies showing that the children of LGBT parents are somehow worse off have any validity. From anything I've read, they don't. No one is saying that LGBT marriages have a higher probability of producing gay children, for whatever such a conclusion would be worth either way. To my knowledge, the available data reach the opposite conclusion: orientation of the children is not dependent on orientation of the parents.
So, we can start with the point that those who question this study here are, generally speaking, not making a point about the quality of lesbian parenting. Maybe I have to repeat that: Those who question this study here are, generally speaking, NOT making a point about the quality of lesbian parenting.
Those who are questioning this study are questioning its ability to show anything useful reliably. They are not saying that the conclusions reached by the study are wrong; they are saying that the study does a lousy job of proving those conclusions and so we cannot rely on this particular study to support those conclusions adequately.
This is not a question of a hidden agenda. This is a question of judging the validity, reliability, and credibility of this piece of research. Let me again repeat this point: This line of questioning IS NOT in any way, shape, or form an attack on lesbian parenting.
The point is: How do you construct a study reliably? Or, to put the shoe on the other foot, what makes the results of a study, or the conclusions drawn from the data by researchers, suspect?
Longitudinal is a good idea. That they did right. So, what can screw them up?
Sample size. The fewer people in the study, the less reliable the results.
Questioning technique. How are the respondents being questioned? Are there factors that might interfere with their ability or motivation to give honest answers? Do we know that no one is looking over their shoulders while they answer? Is there anyone they might be inclined to protect? Do they trust their privacy? Do they trust their anonymity?
Controlling for variables. In this case, for example, we're trying to draw conclusions about lesbian parents. However, from what I read in earlier comments, the parent sample here is better educated than the population at large. Is there a difference in child abuse statistics between parents of differing education levels? If so, particularly if increased education is correlated with less abuse, how do we figure out if the major contributor to low violence levels is education or orientation? Or a third factor? If the sample size is large enough, we control for each variable and see where the correlation remains strongest.
Control groups. We can't legitimately compare this population to other populations unless we examine those other populations under the same circumstances. What happened when they looked at the children of male gay couples? Of heterosexual couples? If you're looking for differences based on a particular variable, in this case lesbian parenthood, you also have to examine the variables you're comparing to. You could say: There are other studies looking at these groups. However, if you do that, you can also say: The differences in results we're seeing between groups might be attributable, at least in part, to methodology: differences in questioning techniques, differences in variables other than the main one we're looking at, differences in reliability of result due to sample size. If you want to compare results of more than one population, the more similarly you examine these populations, the more reliable your conclusions will be.
These are valid questions. These are not questions designed to attack the body of research showing the quality of lesbian parenthood; they're actually the opposite: The more reliable the research, the more potent it is as a rhetorical weapon. Some in here seem to think that the point is to deprive them of rhetorical weapons because we disagree with them; actually, the point is the exact opposite: We don't want them going into battle with an unreliable weapon that might cost them their reputations as reliable sources.
Even though I'm a male heterosexual parent, and even though I have recently lost a child with a severe disability for whom I was the primary caregiver, and even though I (and others) have a pretty high opinion of my parenting, I would not have a problem learning that, statistically, lesbians are more likely to be good parents than heterosexual fathers are. Frankly, I'd rather see that than the reverse, because the reverse would lend credence to bigotry of which I do not approve.
That being said, based on what was reported about the study here, I'm afraid I have my doubts as to whether this study is reliable enough to base arguments on. I have told you exactly why. I would rather be wrong, but I'm not taking faulty weaponry into combat because it ultimately hurts the cause.
That Jonathan would know a psychologist who would make that irrelevant a comment about biological fathers is entirely plausible. There are a lot of psychologists in this world, not all of them are sensible all the time, and we have no idea how abbreviated a description of this study was presented to said psychologist leading to what may very well have been an extremely off the cuff remark not intended for publication, even anonymous publication as in this case.
That's a far cry from said psychologist's existence being fictitious.
Making a point about the validity of what Jonathan writes is one thing. Making a point about the veracity of what he writes is quite another.
When you question a man's veracity, you make it personal.
We react in different ways. I'm inclined to leave such accusations on my threads because I want the ability to demonstrate in the future that any given individual is the sort of person who makes such accusations. Jonathan, on the other hand, insists on a civil thread in much the same way as he insisted on a civil classroom.
You may have misconstrued the reason for Jonathan's reaction. If I'm right about this, your credentials are beside the point to him.
I haven't misconstrued JWs reason for acting upset.
In the course of a discussion where his bad scholarship is being revealed, magically, a hitherto unmentioned 'expert witness' appears to bolster his failing argument.
From the circumstances, I believe that 'expert witness' is either fictional or uninformed and I stand by my own right to say the truth as I see it. His blog, he can do what he wants but my only concern is that I say what I think to be true whatever the circumstances.
Isn't it interesting that his desire for civility only applies when he acts insulted, takes offense at a comment and uses that excuse to delete even neutral comments, but he tolerates the presence of any manner of insult as long as the comments insult other people and not him.
My opinion of JM is that he is a pandering, hypocritical, little toad and not worth any more attention.
I do have a problem with your answer here, though your priorities are up to you. My own rule for my own conduct is that my standards for myself are not dependent on who I'm dealing with; in other words, the bad behavior of someone I'm talking to doesn't give me the right to behave in ways I don't approve of.
There's a big difference between whether Jonathan's "expert witness" is uninformed or fictitious. If uninformed, Jonathan's either got a stupid friend or we're not getting a complete story here. If fictitious, Jonathan would be a liar. With my not knowing, he gets the benefit of the doubt, because there's no way in Hell I'm accusing someone of being a liar with that kind of ambiguity left on the table. If I had doubts as to the existence of said expert, I'd make some remark about the dubiousness of such a conclusion on the part of an expert, perhaps that I couldn't imagine he/she would have a lot of expertise coming to a conclusion like that. Granted, Jonathan might get insulted on behalf of his friend, but in that case one of two things would be true: 1. the friend really isn't much of an expert, and 2. he was responsible for giving his friend a really incomplete picture. It might have played out in a similar fashion if you'd said that, but he'd have stuck himself with less of a leg to stand on if it had.
I can understand anyone reaching the conclusion that when someone calls you a liar, the conversation is over, because what's the point of answering if nothing you say will be believed anyway? I don't go for severe accusations that are less than well founded or that kind of personal attack. I'll leave such attacks on my blog for reasons I've already said. Yes, I have an online friend who uses such inflammatory language often - both you and I have been the target of it over time - but I've had more discussions with him about why I think that's a bad idea than I care to recount at the moment.
You, however, are more reasonable than said unnamed friend. How I'll finish is by saying that if it were me, it wouldn't matter what I thought of my target; my primary concern would be my own culpability at the trigger. But I understand full well that you aren't me and that you reach your own conclusions.
I'll leave it at that.
Perhaps your way is more productive and is satisfying to you
My way is my way.