applejack @applejack@gameliberty.club

@PinochetsCommieCopter That doesn't make any sense

@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

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

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

@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

@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

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

@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

@p @Terry @Dave @fluffy

@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.

@tengumatingpress @Terry @fluffy It's illegal in most of the west so it would be as well studied as non-drawn CP

Loli is legal in the US but only relatively recently

Idk if Japs have studied it at all but that would be interesting

@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?

@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

@tengumatingpress @Terry @fluffy Getting a boner isn't diagnostic criteria, but the DSM5 does mention that porn is a good indicator

If you're aroused by children, it's probably because you're aroused by children

To have pedophilic disorder you need to have recurring problems from it, but it also has a diagnoses for pedophilic sexual orientation when there aren't problems from it

@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

@p @Terry @Dave @fluffy Beep boop

@Terry Who are you talking about?