it's not too uncommon to only put author and date. i don't like it but i see it all the time

@fluffy @Terry @p @Dave Here's the titles and more info on them, and here's a link to the MS
https://www.ipce.info/sites/ipce.info/files/biblio_attachments/every_fifth.pdf

@applejack @fluffy @Terry @Dave

You haven't read these papers, you are just using a script.
yes i did
Bullshit.
[pastes link to an opinion piece on European NAMBLA that cites the papers, still doesn't post the actual papers]

You wouldn't know a primary source if it put a shiv in you in the prison shower.

@applejack @fluffy @Terry @p @Dave
> number of men: Only one is over 100

This is a ridiculously small sample size.

@lanodan @Terry @p @Dave @fluffy It really isn't. First, there are 7 of these studies, with a combined sample of 387. But the actual validity of the result you get depends on the values you get. These aren't weak values, so the chances of them being completely wrong is low, but the authors calculate the p value anyway, in Firestone 2000 it's <0.05

@lanodan @Terry @p @Dave @fluffy Well, that's about the correlation they're studying there, not the non-offender specifically, but you get my point

@applejack @Terry @p @Dave @fluffy
> combined sample of 387

Lol, as if you could just add different statistics together like that, in programming this would be a fucking Type Error. Don't be JavaScript.

@lanodan @Terry @p @Dave @fluffy This is a valid thing people do. They take multiple studies and get a value by weighing them by their samples

I remember it here as an example from a really good paper
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4739500/pdf/emss-66004.pdf
As an example, a review of the world’s literature on intelligence, which included 10,000
pairs of twins, showed that identical twins are significantly more similar than fraternal twins,
with twin correlations of about 0.85 and 0.60, respectively, with corroborating results from
family and adoption studies, implying significant genetic influence (Bouchard & McGue,
1981, as modified by Loehlin, 1989)

@lanodan @Terry @p @Dave @fluffy When they actually do it they account for any differences, exclude based on criteria, correct for X, Y, and Z, etc, etc, but the point still stands that if a series of studies get numbers significantly higher than people generally think (1-2%), it's very very unlikely it's random chance

@lanodan @Terry @p @Dave @fluffy Like, 50 sounds like a small number, but think about it in context

You roll random numbers, there is a 1/100 chance for it to be true, what are the chances you get true 25x if you roll 50x? Pretty low

Okay, now what are the chances you get similar numbers again 7x?

@lanodan @Terry @p @Dave @fluffy *25% not 25x
*6x more times, can't believe I did a OBOE

@applejack @lanodan @Terry @Dave @fluffy

> This is a valid thing people do. They take multiple studies and get a value by weighing them by their samples

Literally nobody. Unless the methodology is the same, you can't do that.

> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4739500/pdf/emss-66004.pdf

This is just a meta-analysis. They are not adding random numbers together.

@p @Terry @lanodan @Dave @fluffy Hint: they're not quoting a single study with 10,000 people, it's 111 of them

>Unless the methodology is the same
It's not, if you looked at it you'd see them talk about correcting for that
https://www.gwern.net/docs/iq/1981-bouchard.pdf

This is really the lengths we have to go to, bickering about how you can cite a study, what studies you're allowed to post, what sources it's allowed to be from, you need one single study instead of a bunch, all decided by you

You're really disingenuous and boring

@applejack @Terry @lanodan @Dave @fluffy

> It's not, if you looked at it you'd see them talk about correcting for that

A random meta-analysis of some genetic study has nothing to do with this. Methodological variables are much easier to control for, but "Here's a photo, did you get a boner?" and "We played them an audio tape with a cuff hooked up to their dicks" are so radically different that it is actually impossible to control for the variables in the methodology. Not just that, but the essay you're citing that cites the studies is not a meta-analysis to begin with: it's an essay written by a pro-pederasty activist. What you are suggesting is stupid.

> https://www.gwern.net/docs/iq/1981-bouchard.pdf

This is a meta-analysis of IQ. This has nothing to do with whether you can just add numbers from other studies (where you have not even attempted the impossible task of correcting for methodological differences)

> bickering about how you can cite a study

That's you wanting to bicker about that. I said you haven't read these studies. (You haven't.) I said that you would be able to come up with at least the titles of the papers that you're citing if you had read them. (You linked to an essay that cited them. You haven't read them, you just cite them.)

> what studies you're allowed to post

You have posted only one of the studies you cited. I said if you're going to cite them, you should have at least read them. An essay is not a study.

> what sources it's allowed to be from

I did not bring this up, but I did say an essay written by a pro-pederasty activist is not a study. I said this because an essay written by a pro-pederasty activist is not a study.

> all decided by you

You are making shit up about pedophilia and also making shit up about the conversation.

> You're really disingenuous and boring

This is in the debate script, right after "Try to get them to call you names and then tell them they're triggered." It says you should be incredulous that I didn't accept your "evidence" (an essay written by a pro-pederasty activist is not a study), and then declare that you are unwilling to engage in such a long conversation and bail. So this means you're giving up and bailing, right?

@applejack @lanodan @Terry @Dave @fluffy

> First, there are 7 of these studies, with a combined sample of 387.

That is such horseshit. The methodologies aren't comparable, so you can't just combine the sample size. Meta-analyses are a completely different class of study and this isn't even a meta-analysis, it's just "herp derp i added the numbers".

@p @Terry @lanodan @Dave @fluffy I already covered this

@applejack @Terry @lanodan @Dave @fluffy You did not. You blew smoke.

@lanodan @applejack @Dave @Terry @fluffy They're actually omitting a lot of data in those charts. The reason the sample sizes were small is that this chart was made by taking this studies that had 200 rapists and 40 guys that got $50 to be the control group. So this chart, they take the control group information and present it on its own, it's an intentionally deceptive chart.

@p @Terry @lanodan @Dave @fluffy They included a control group and the control group had a high arousal, it's stating 100% what it's stating

@p @Terry @lanodan @Dave @fluffy And it applies even in other studies, you just obsess over that one
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0005789405800395
Self-reported and physiological sexual arousal to adult and pedophilic stimuli were examined among 80 men drawn from a community sample of volunteers. Over ¼ of the current subjects self-reported pedophilic interest or exhibited penile arousal to pedophilic stimuli that equalled or exceeded arousal to adult stimuli

@applejack @Terry @lanodan @Dave @fluffy

> And it applies even in other studies, you just obsess over that one

I can't have been obsessing over that one, because I picked another one and downloaded it and read it over right before I wrote that reply. (I picked "Fedora" because it sounded like it wasn't real: 60 guys in the control group, plus 227 rapists.) So far, almost all of these studies are basically that. You'd probably know that if you had read them.

> blah blah hall95.pdf

I've read that one. That's the one the fake chart cites. The chart looked like bullshit and turns out to be bullshit. I wrote about this nearly a year ago.

Speaking of your "noooooooo these are representative samples", Hall wrote "Samples of normal men have been small and unrepresentative in previous studies."

> Over ¼ of the current subjects self-reported pedophilic interest or exhibited penile arousal to pedophilic stimuli

Congrats, you can read an abstract. Three of those 16 guys turned out to just be child sex offenders, and they weren't discarded from the study. That brings the number down to 13/77. The study was designed to measure whether they could inhibit responses by effort. "The most arousing slide for 72 [of 80] subjects was one of the adult female slides." and "The hypothesis that sexual arousal to pedophilic stimuli is a function of general sexual arousability factors was supported [...]". Not just that, but "it is also possible that self-reporting sexual arousal created a performance demand that may partially account for the self-report/physiological discrepancy." In other words, they had a cuff hooked up to their dick and they were asked a bunch of questions about what gave them boners. As many of them popped wood for the contrast slides as for the nude images.

@fluffy @applejack @Terry @Dave

> it's not too uncommon to only put author and date

If you are citing inline and you have a bibliography, yes. He couldn't even name the papers, though, because these are opaque instructions in a retarded debate script: "If they say this, say this name and this year and this percentage."

@p @Terry @Dave @fluffy I already did. They're listed in a MS so for short form I have a string to copy-paste. I didn't actually have the MS saved somehow but found it now
https://www.ipce.info/sites/ipce.info/files/biblio_attachments/every_fifth.pdf

Can't wait for you to say next that metastudies are cheating or something

@applejack @Terry @Dave @fluffy

> I already did.

You have pasted a link to a paper on a pedophilia activist website. You have not posted anything resembling the papers, because you don't have them and haven't read them, because you don't care what they say, because you are a bot.

@p @Terry @Dave @fluffy Beep boop

@applejack @Terry @Dave @fluffy I've read your script, you're out of material.

It's actually the opposite. I might say casually, "Pistolero in his 2022 paper wrote about xyz". That's essentially always enough. Spoken language is not too different a situation from what's going on in these fediverse posts, and probably a better analogue than a formal paper.

anyway, he posted the titles later on. i'll add it to my reading list, and we'll learn how true it is. it's a pretty outlandish claim but my image of ordinary people has been shocked so many times at this point that if someone told me most people worship satan i wouldn't discard it offhand.

@fluffy @Terry @applejack @Dave

> I might say casually, "Pistolero in his 2022 paper wrote about xyz".

If that happens, you could be expected to have read it. If someone asks you for the title, you should be able to say what the name of the paper was or provide a copy. The guy is a bot, he has not read any of this.

> i'll add it to my reading list, and we'll learn how true it is.

Let me know if you want the actual papers. He has posted a PDF of an essay from IPCE. He has not seen the primary source. He is reading a debate script.

@p @Terry @Dave @fluffy If you do nothing but nag about how other people cite shit you're not making a point, you're coping

@applejack @Terry @Dave @fluffy

> If you do nothing but nag about how other people cite shit

I said you have cited things that you have not read, because you are a bot. I don't care you type the citation, but I have asked if you have actually read any of it; you said yes and demonstrated the opposite...again.

> you're coping

This is in the script, you bot.

>you could be expected to have read it.

it still shocks me that people will drop articles, books, papers, without having even read and understood them

there are guys who will talk about topics ad nauseum and all they know about it is they watched a show

it feels like blackface but about scholars

@fluffy @Terry @applejack @Dave

> it feels like blackface but about scholars

Nailed it.

@p @Terry @applejack @Dave @fluffy papers please

@fluffy @Terry @p @Dave I have read them. P makes up shit like it being only done on convinced rapists that I then show isn't true by actually quoting them. They're saying what they're saying

@applejack @fluffy @Terry @Dave

> I have read them.

Bullshit.

> P makes up shit like it being only done on convinced rapists

One of the studies, yes.

> that I then show isn't true by actually quoting them.

You quoted a pederast's opinion piece; you have not yet actually demonstrated that you have even seen the papers.

@p @Terry @Dave @fluffy Okay, if I do, will you shut up or will you keep nagging that I didn't do it soon enough?

@applejack @Terry @Dave @fluffy

> Okay, if I do, will you shut up

If you explain where you got the "27.7%" and what that figure actually means. (Hint: it is not a 27.7% rate of pedophilia, you idiot.)

@p @Terry @Dave @fluffy Firestone et al. (2000): Differentiation of Homicidal Child Molesters, Nonhomicidal Child Molesters, and Nonoffenders by Phallometry
https://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/appi.ajp.157.11.1847?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori:rid:crossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub%20%200pubmed#t1

Two phallometric indexes were used: the pedophile index and the pedophile assault index. The pedophile index was computed by dividing the subject’s highest response to an aural description of sex with a “consenting” child by his highest response to description of sex with a consenting adult.

[Table 1]
Pedophile index Non offenders >= 1.0 %
27.7

Method
Participants
The comparison group was recruited through an advertisement and paid a $50 honorarium. The men in the comparison group had no criminal record or serious psychiatric or medical history, and all reported that they had never committed a sexual offense.

@applejack @Terry @Dave @fluffy That's funny, that's the same chart I pasted at you last time you showed your face.

There were two questions: where did that number come from and what does it mean? You pasted some shit from the paper (it took you a while to find it, I guess). Please explain what that number means.

@p @Terry @Dave @fluffy

@applejack @Terry @Dave @fluffy

Like I said:

> If you explain where you got the "27.7%" and what that figure actually means. (Hint: it is not a 27.7% rate of pedophilia, you idiot.)

You haven't, because you can't, because you don't know what the number means. The scores were way higher for pedophiles, the paper concludes that this is a reasonable predictor for child molestation. Do you know what the p value means? Χ²? Anything about statistics? What's that score measuring anyway?

So the "smug anime face" bit is right in your debate script, which—again—I have read. This is what to do when you're out of your depth. YHL. HAND.

@fluffy @p @Terry @applejack @Dave >Hmm, I need to impress this overworked and underpaid grad student who is skimming this bullshit assignment I turned in for a grade, I know, I'll cite Foucault.

@dew_the_dew @fluffy @Terry @applejack @Dave

> I know, I'll cite Foucault.

But that's reductionist.

@p @Terry @Dave @fluffy I have looked at them, I went over one of them with you and it was exactly what it's saying

You tried to "own" me by saying that the study also said that pedos were more likely to be child molesters than non-pedos, by posting a similar number I post about the majority of child molesters not being pedos

i'm going back to reading my actuary book, this stuff is too dramatic for me

@fluffy @applejack @Terry @Dave Good call. Waste of time to argue with a bot.

@applejack @Terry @Dave @fluffy

> I have looked at them

Lie. I asked you for the titles, you refused to give them. You didn't even know what journal they were published in. I had to dig them up myself. They show the exact opposite of what you claim they show.

> by posting a similar number I post

I was using *your* numbers, dipshit.

> the majority of child molesters not being pedos

The majority of pedos are child molesters. You are using statistics deceptively because you were told by a debate script to say this if they say this, you don't actually understand the math, you're just trying to sprinkle it like magic because you're a goddamn bot:

> Conversations became one man with one microphone attached to a thousand megaphones, and replying was like talking back to the national news broadcast, because you could reply to a shill, but the man giving the shill her script was not listening, because he was running a hundred similar shills, and his shill would just stick to her script, the script he had assigned to her no matter what you replied to her script.
> Her replies to your reply would be unresponsive, because they came from a script written by a man who had never thought about or foreseen your reply.
> Conversations came to resemble the conversations you have with a non player character in a video game, a scripted robotic simulation of actual conversation, or the conversations on a help line with an unhelpful third world help line worker to whom English is a second language, and who is reading from a script, a script written by a man whose native tongue is English, but his script is designed to deal with certain common problems that do not in the slightest resemble the problem you have with the product, because the man writing her script did not foresee your problem.

@p @Terry @Dave @fluffy Nag, nag, you need to post a study AND memorise the title, ANd journal, AND date, AND the author's shoe size, otherwise you're not *legitimate*, unlike me, who posts no studies and makes shit up instead then tries to distract from it when you show I was just making shit up

@applejack @Terry @Dave @fluffy Bullshit. I have read these papers, all of them show the opposite of what you are saying, if they are even relevant to begin with. Nobody thinks you need to memorize anything, but you have yet to demonstrate that you have even a passing familiarity with the actual information that you are using because if you cite something, you expect everyone else will go "Ah, (Author, Year), it must be real!" You are relying on people being dumber than you and very few are.

@p @Terry @applejack @Dave @fluffy

Author year does a good job fooling me

@lunarised @Dave @Terry @applejack @fluffy Yeah, people cite things all the time to sound academic because they know nobody will look up the actual material and read it. In this guy's case, we're two steps removed: he hasn't read it, either.

@p @Terry @applejack @Dave @fluffy Im gonna go 3 steps removed and cite non existent sources about concepts I random on Wikipedia


Il get a news article written on my findings in less than a weem

@lunarised @Dave @Terry @applejack @fluffy

weren't there a few scientific journal trolls that made up some bs research and had their papers published (and in once case I think even peer reviewed)?

@thatguyoverthere @Terry @p @applejack @Dave @fluffy

There's been a few

The bogdanoffs did that with some crackhead theory's on spacial relativity iirc

You may be thinking of Sokal[1] or the more recent Sokal Squared[2].

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grievance_studies_affair

@thatguyoverthere @lunarised @applejack @Dave @fluffy @Terry Oh, yeah, tons. Mostly sociology.