Reddit mad at his brother

submitted by Tarrock from (media.communities.win)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]jet199 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (9 children)

That paper is dodgy.

It makes a few untested assumptions.

They assume men have zero control when they get erections. If you compare teen boys to men clearly they develop some control.

What they might be seeing is that openly homophobic men have less control over their responses in general.

It could be that a lot of the guys classed as non homophobic are just lying, very good at hiding their true feeling and because of that also have better control of their sexual response.

The disgust response is less easy to hide and most straight men have it to gay sex. https://www.psypost.org/2017/06/straight-mens-physiological-stress-response-seeing-two-men-kissing-seeing-maggots-49217

[–]ActuallyNot 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

That paper is dodgy.

It's got over 800 600 citations. Why don't you find some of those papers that also claim that it's dodgy?

You just saying without any academic support makes me suspect that you're probably wrong.

What they might be seeing is that openly homophobic men have less control over their responses in general.

Like getting an erection when watching naked men?

You don't need control to not do that if you're het. It's not arousing.

It could be that a lot of the guys classed as non homophobic are just lying, very good at hiding their true feeling and because of that also have better control of their sexual response.

Long bow. I've never heard that control over getting erect is related to lying. Do you have any support for that claim?

The disgust response is less easy to hide and most straight men have it to gay sex.

Most "straight" men in Utah. FFS. That's your idea of a representative sample of people with a healthy sexual psychology?

The reality is that most people are comfortable viewing public displays of affection of any type:

We also found that participants were generally comfortable with viewing all PDA scenarios, but participants were most comfortable viewing heterosexual PDA and least comfortable viewing transgender PDA. Finally, we found that multiple measures of homophobic attitudes predicted reactions to PDA featuring sexual minorities.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

It's got over 800 citations.

With respect, so do many Wikipedia entries which are not exactly the picture of accuracy.

[–]ActuallyNot 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

The paper has over 600 citations in the scholarly literature. (800 is incorrect. I was going from memory, and made a mistake)

The number of citations that a paper gets is often used as a proxy for the papers impact. It means that academics have read it and used or tried to reproduce the results. Usually some of those citations will be refutations, and you do get cases where an author will cite their own papers a lot.

And while 600 citations is a hell of a lot, (the top science journal in the world averages a little over 40 citations per paper published), and it does speak for the profile of the paper, I mention the citations not especially to say that the findings are accepted, but to say that if the paper should be refuted you should be able to find some refutations.

Wikipedia citations aren't peer reviewed by world experts in the field.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

I appreciate this may be a statistical likelihood and agree that peer reviewed studies are of course no comparison to a wiki article, but my point is that a citation is merely a reference point to other material that may be related or used as a source of information.

It might be that you discuss a mountain and cite the source that the mountain exists, and another source that the mountain is 1236ft high. These citations do not add weight to a study looking to see the correlation between high altitudes and likelihood of there being a dragon living on it.

Ultimately the validity of the content, testing groups, parameters and potential impact of the outcome matters, not simply citations.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Right. So you said the paper is dodgy.

It's got 690-odd citations. Why don't you find some of those papers that also claim that it's dodgy?

You just saying without any academic support makes me suspect that you're probably wrong.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

I'm simply saying that a citation count is not an adequate guage to impress. 690 liberal lunatics could cite it for all I know. Academic support might also be funded or sponsored support. How can we know?

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I'm simly saying, if the paper is dodgy, show me a refutation.

Hell, show me half a dozen.

Academic support might also be funded or sponsored support.

Authors publish their institution. And they're supposed to declare any conflicts of interest.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Oh no, I'm not saying there is anything wrong with the paper in particular. Just that citation is in my opinion a poor guage for being reputable.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That's true. But it's also then best we have of we're not in the field.

But we should also understand the things that inflate citations.