Hunted houses might be outrageous, but not as outrageous as:

THE INFLUENCE GAME: Bishops shape health care bill
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091111/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_overhaul_catholic_lobby

It was Stupak who told Pelosi last Friday that if she wanted a deal on the health bill, she'd be well advised to invite the bishops' staff, who were already in his office, to her table. "I said, 'Well, they're here, and they're one of the key groups you want to have on your side, so why don't we just bring them in and work this out," Stupak said.

Pelosi did, and the result was a final measure that — much to the outrage of abortion rights supporters — bars a new government-run insurance plan from covering abortions, except in cases or rape, incest or the life of the mother being in danger, and prohibits any health plan that receives federal subsidies in a new insurance marketplace from offering abortion coverage. If women wanted to purchase abortion coverage through such plans, they'd have to buy it separately, as a so-called rider on their insurance policies.
 

"At what point do we confess a causal link between that stuff and this stuff?"

Nail on the head, sir. Although the culpability must be shared with 1st person shooter videogames and that lovely game where one gets to drive around killing prostitutes and shoot at cops....
 

Oh please. Violent video games do not make people violent. There's no evidence of that matter how many Jack Thompsons would wish otherwise. That particular argument has as much credibility as the idea that rock and roll is corrupting our youth. Sociopaths sometimes play video games. They might also listen to Avenged Sevenfold, but I wouldn't try to claim causality between that and their desire to mutilate kittens.
 

I knew there would be an exchange like this. That's why I was careful to phrase my question the way I did.

I did not say: "Do you think THIS causes THAT?" I asked: "At what point do we confess that this causes that?"

If you can't spot the difference in meaning, read the last paragraph again.

What I'm getting at is this: Regardless of what your feelings right now might be, is there ANY conceivable study, any conceivable piece of research that WOULD transform your beliefs?

I think that this problem is a bit like the question of whether ESP exists. If you are personally inclined to say "Yes, it does," then the evidence presented by Rhine all those years ago will suffice. If you are personally inclined to say "No, don't be ridiculous -- of course ESP doesn't exist," then not only will you say that Rhine's methodology was flawed, you will say the same thing about every other experiment that has been done or will be done, if the results of those experiments run contrary to your preconceptions.

That said...

I don't know whether societal acceptance of tortureporn, and its easy acquisition by minors, leads to kids callously burning other kids. I don't know whether tortureporn triggers outrages like Columbine. I honestly do not know.

But...

I DO think that any research which offers conclusions contrary to the stance you have right now (whoever you might be and whatever your stance might be) will be rejected.

So again I ask: At what point do we confess that our preconceptions are wrong? If you think there is no causality between tortureporn and real life brutality, at what point will you admit: "I've seen fresh data, and science has proven me wrong"? On the other hand, if you think that there IS causality, at what point will you say "Science has proven me wrong"?

In today's culture, is there any point at all to the search for "evidence"? Maybe Steve Colbert is right: The only thing that matters to most people nowadays is gut instinct.

I'll bet that most readers will completely misunderstand the question that I'm asking here. I'm NOT asking for your opinion about either tortureporn or ESP or anything else of that nature. I'm posing an epistemological question: What are your standards of evidence? Isn't it true that those standards change depending on whether they conflict with your biases?
 

All of the research I have ever read to date is that there is no causal relationship between non-violent porn and violence against women. There seems to be very little out there on violent porn and violence against women. But there is some research on how violent sexual predators are formed. Aside from any genetics that may be at play, there is some research on how attachments are made or not made in childhood in that makes a person a violent predator. I also have read some interesting research that violent predators use violent porn images for three reasons: 1 to stimulate themselves; 2 to lower the destroy resistance in their victims; and 3 as a teaching tool for their victims.

There was also one British study that said there was a short term effect on young children of violent images. But I did not have time to read it in depth.

The effect on young children with any porn as always been my chief concern.

As to your question of would any research change my opinion, I think yes.
 

That may be true for your Roberta. But increasingly, it is not true for the average American citizen. Most people would rather slit their own throats than admit that they might be wrong.

I mean, have you ever tried to convince an Alex Jones fan that the Illuminati is a myth?

I'm ignoring the material in your earlier paragraphs because it is of little interest to me at the moment. Right now, I'm more intrigued by the issue of epistemology.
 

Added note: Maybe the Alex Jones thing was a tired example. I pick on him a lot.

So let's ask the same question in a different way: Do you think any evidence -- even a million-buck study conducted by the finest universities -- could convince the feminist author quoted in this post that she is wrong when she says that everyone hates women?

This problem has been gnawing at me all day. Seems to me that if we can't answer the question of "what constitutes sufficient evidence?" -- if we can't cobble together an answer to Pilate's query -- then all of our other queries are moot.
 

For some reason I zeroed in on the ESP experiment Dr. Peter Venkman was doing in Ghostbusters.
As to the other question, if I understand it, psychiatry is still a soft science. When you drop a cannonball (no pun intended) off the leaning tower of Piza it hits the ground every time. The science of the mind hasn't reached that certainty yet. As long as there is room for doubt?
 

Another reading comprehension post... he said as he awaits his copy of Call of Duty.btw I remember when comic books incited kids to violence and before that Karloff's Frankenstein caused people to kill children.
 

"This problem has been gnawing at me all day.

Gee. A whole day. Wow.

Sorry, couldn't resist. I'm thinking this way: we know a lot about viruses and immunization, right? Yet, why does the same polio vaccine, administered to poor starving people in an undeveloped environment, and to healthier people in a developed environment, produce disease in the former and immunity in the latter?
 

Gary, let's just say that I have periods in my life where that question seems to be THE question, and all others seem irrelevant.

Then the phase ends, and I start thinking about other things.

But I keep coming back...
 

There is an indirect effect of this stuff on women -- it communicates that violence against women is part of men's entertainment. As a woman I find the existence of this kind of thing horrifying and it effects my sense of safety in the world, the sense that I am regarded by men as a person and my belief that as a person I may pursue the same goals in life as men do. It intimidates in much the same way as bodies hanging from trees intimidate African American people. The hatred embodied in these images hurts all women and I believe that is its goal. Limiting your questions to does this cause violence against women is disingenuous because it ignores that the violence has already been committed by the images.
 

Joesph - One never really knows what one wil do when presented with new evidence or research that contradicts existing beliefs or evidence. I just try to be and strive to be research/reality based.

I had a pyschology professor who always said people make up their minds to do or believe what they want and then make up their excuses after the fact.

I don't try to convince people who belive the in the Illuminati or who believe everyone hates women or any other irrational belief becasue I won't waste my time in such futile pursuits. I might entertain a very brief discussion of five minutes or so to explore how their minds work, but I know I will never convince them so why waste my time?

And you are probably correct in your last paragraph - all of our queries may be moot. But it is fun to engage in them in any event. At least those enquiries are fun for me to engage in.
 

Bob - what incited Cain to murder? What incited people before the invention of the printing press to do bastardly deeds? What incited people to abuse women before the advent of photography? Were there porno cave painters? I could go on and on through every age, era, and century.
 

Thanks, Roberta. You make sense. And sorry if I came on too strong; I did not intend to.
 

So let's ask the same question in a different way: Do you think any evidence -- even a million-buck study conducted by the finest universities -- could convince the feminist author quoted in this post that she is wrong when she says that everyone hates women?

This problem has been gnawing at me all day. Seems to me that if we can't answer the question of "what constitutes sufficient evidence?" -- if we can't cobble together an answer to Pilate's query -- then all of our other queries are moot.

Now that one I can answer.

The reason you cant find your tipping point on this question, the point at which the respondent would go "Yea, ok, this is altering my previously held conviction".. is that you are asking the wrong question, or at least of the wrong audience.

The right question cant be asked in polite society, not in the context of a public discussion. Most people will simply refuse to participate.

The salient question to your point is this: Can you, i.e. feminist author, please identify your own personal investment in the conclusion you have now; then articulate it, at least to yourself, and then separate that away from the arguement at hand such that we can discuss and evaluate the data in question?

And, further, do you Feminist Author have reason to believe that I have done the same, and that this arguement is not just a fun game of gotcha or oneupmanship I am playing with this freighted issue?

Not a discussion you can reasonably have with strangers. Requires trust, like all diplomacy does.

You have to ask all parties to come to grips with some profound personal issue, fairly quickly, and then isolate it and work around it.. all while being accused (correctly, as it happens) of intellectual dishonesty.

Yea good luck with that. There is a reason that arguements involving religion or politics so speedily become a waste of everyone's time and breath.


However until the discussion really *is* a discussion, and not a thinly veiled referendum on whatever investment the participants have in an outcome, all you do is spin your wheels.
 

Joe,

The problem with your post is that Violet does not say that everyone hates women. Nor does she present the idea that those goings on are now standard, as a statement that she is making. She is simply relaying what she understands to be the case - and she's shocked.

There is a tremendous amount of violence against women in this world. Violence against women by men is considered first rate entertainment in a lot of films. we take it for granted.

There's nothing wrong with a feminist objecting to sexualized violence against women. of course, we should object to it. Men are stronger than women. Not many women can stop a guy who decides to murder her once they're in the same room.

Jeez, Joe. I have to introduce you to some real feminists. Violet is an incredibly sensible person and you're turning her into a hysteric. Not good.
 

Hallowe'en "Haunted houses" are by definition to be filled with things which cause shock, revulsion, fear, and horror. This is how we react to that which is unacceptable. So this part of the post


and I asked him, rhetorically, why there weren’t more mutilated penises in the mix. He replied that no one would come, and he was right.


is actually an admission that while violence against women - as it causes what is noted above - is not acceptable, violence against men - as it does not cause these reactions - IS acceptable...and therefore not only completely defeats the author's conclusion, it reverses it by showing that women are revered in a way men are not. Sexist? Yes. Indicative of hatred against women? Quite the opposite.


Sergei Rostov
 

Addendum:


Why specifically no mutilated penises? Ninety percent of men in the US have their penises mutilated at birth via circumcision, and not only does hardly anyone care, those who *don't* have their penises mutilated are subjected to ridicule by both men AND women. So the mutilation of penises is not only acceptable, it's encouraged, even to the point of 'social coercion.' It doesn't shock or scare (hardly) anyone, so why would you put it in a haunted house?

Again, yes, this IS sexist. But proof of hatred of *women*?!?* No. Just the opposite.


Sergei Rostov
 

I don't go along with your reasoning this time, SR.

I think the reason why female victims in horror scenarios are "scarier" than male victims can be compared to another phenomenon, which many have noted. In porn -- sexy porn, not torture porn -- the camera lingers on the woman's face during climax, not on the man's. Seeing the man is kind of embarrassing -- perhaps for viewers of both sexes.

I think both sexes simply empathize more with females. The female reaction carries more impact.

Which scared people more -- seeing Janet Leigh knifed in "Psycho" or seeing Robert Shaw get chomped in "Jaws"?

The latter scene was far more grisly. It had shock value in 1975, and perhaps today. But I'm not sure it truly frightened anyone. In fact, the scariest scene in that film is probably the one at the beginning -- and it is not grisly at all.

I wonder why that is?

I mean, why DIDN'T the sight of Robert Shaw being killed frighten people the way they were frightened by Hitchcock's shower scene? The shower scene is still disturbing, even though by modern standards, it is rather tame.

And I think both sexes reacted to those scenes in the same way!

I'm going to have to ponder this one further...
 

Maybe the more relevant question is this: when does entertainment become brainwashing? People are inundated with brainwashing from the moment they're born and start communicating with others. They end up with a host of ideas and assumptions that have no basis in reality and don't register as irrational for a long time, if ever. Depending on their age, mental development/state, and relationship with the teller, even the most unreal messages can become part of the listener's reality.

There's probably a level of manipulation which correlates with those same factors that entertainment has to cross before it can similarly affect the one experiencing it.
 

Yes, I would change my mind. how ever i like the research to be credible, large sample size etc.


Purenoiz
 

Problems with research are rarely the size of the sample.

With a large enough sample, trivial differences, noise become significant. You don't want too large a sample. You want adequate control to eliminate alternative explanations, a design that makes sense, and analysis beyond knee-jerk null hypothesis testing.

If you are serious about understanding what makes research valid, read a book on the subject. It has very little to do with sample size.
 

Anon, even though I wish you were not anonymous, I appreciate your comment.

In my pre-blog days, I once had a run-in with a CSICOP guy on the subject of Elizabeth Loftus and "false memory syndrome." Now, I did not have a dog in that fight -- my interest was rather dispassionate. Far as I was concerned, maybe Loftus was right, and maybe she was wrong.

I told this guy that I had read about a study conducted at a Canadian university which said (in short) that Loftus was all wet.

In response, Mr. CSICOP told me that I was being unscientific. Harrumph harrumph. Sneer sneer. Those CSICOP guys are great harrumphers, you know.

He said that the sample size of the Canadian study was obviously too small. "If you took a class in statistics...if you had the superior knowledge that I possess..."

So I called up the prof who had conducted the study. She was very approachable, very friendly, and very professional. She didn't seem to have an ax to grind.

She told me that the study was based on the feedback of some 227 volunteers. (That's the number I recall. I may be off a bit -- this all took place more than a decade ago.) She further told me that this was one of the biggest studies ever conducted by any researcher at her university.

(McGill? I think it might have been McGill...)

So I wrote back to the CSICOP guy, and told him what she had told me. You can guess his reply:

"227 is obviously a woefully inadequate number. You obviously know nothing about statistics. Obviously you are not as brilliant as I am. Harrumph, harrumph, sneer sneer..."

So I went to CSUN's library and started pulling scholarly journals off the shelves. At random. Medical journals, psychological journals. We're talking the TOP peer-reviewed journals.

I looked at all sorts of studies. Dozens and dozens. On all sorts of topics. And I focused on one factor: How many subjects were tested in each of these studies? What was the sample size?

Usually the number was about 30-40. (The number of students in a professor's class, I'm guessing.) Sometimes it was in the 80-90 range. Sometimes the number was as low as 15-19.

There were a few studies that used more than 200 volunteers. Not many, though.

I wrote back to the CSICOP guy, and told them that we had a problem here. A much bigger problem than the one Loftus was addressing. Because if he was right, then the issue went way beyond that one researcher in Canada. We had a problem with ALL OF SCIENCE.

If 227 was an inadequate number for research, then every peer-reviewed journal was guilty of publishing crap. Not just occasional crap. Nearly ALL of it was crap.

The response? You guessed it:

"227 is woefully inadequate. Obviously, you know nothing about statistics. Harrumph, harrumph, sneer sneer..."

All of which brings us back to our question about epistemology, dunnit?

We all like to THINK that we are rational-minded blokes and bloke-esses. We all SAY that we will change our views based on new evidence.

But do we?
 

I've changed my mind about many things during the course of my life. I've also continued, at times, to believe things that no one else around me believed, simply because I could not be convinced otherwise.
I've always taken Plato's Cave allegory as good advice, and try to see things as best I can, knowing all the while that I may not be seeing them at all. I generally try to adhere to the scientific method, and believe that deduction is better than induction. I have also come to recognize that chaos throws up many patterns, and that one has to be very careful of the power of one's own pattern recognition.
Ultimately, you have to be very interested in trying to understand "what is," and if you get to that, you become far less interested in the value of your own opinion, and, therefore, more open to changing it.
 

When I said large sample size, what number popped into your head? I was thinking 300-1000.
Samples of 10 plus seem like a good starting ground to begin more research. I hope to take some statistics classes soon. I also like relevant data to be in the study, gender age locations globally etc. I read a lot, and would prefer some basic tools in my toolbox for understanding.

All I am saying is if you interview 10 guys, how accurately does that reflect socialisation and sensitivity vs doing cell culture analysis on lipid mediated anti-inflammatory pro resolution hormones? Culture and biology? Weeeee.

And Joseph, maybe that 'scientist' is actually a lot more aware of how shoddy many studies are. Like the studies that compare overweight to skinny folks, but never account for the smokers. Makes underweight look dangerous, until you eliminate smokers, then overweights die sooner. Smokers of both categories yadda yadda
Purenoiz.
 

You didn't come on too strong at all, Joseph. Until you reworded your question I really did not know what you were asking. I think your question is excellent, fascinating, and led to a great discussion.
 

Am I the only person to notice that the original author cited was not a first-hand witness to what was in the haunted house?