From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU
Newsgroups: ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Perceptions about everyday life- (was Mother Flame Wars)
Date: 11 Oct 92 22:08:26 GMT
Organization: Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: orchid.ucsc.edu

In article <1992Oct11.180621.22980@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>
>"All studies are biased ..."?
>
How could it be any other way- show me, demostrate to me, that there
are studies in existence that have no 'human psychological' bias
element.  If you believe this not to be true... well I don't know
what to tell you.

>How do you KNOW this? Have you been a participant and/or observer in
>ALL studies?
>
>No? Oh, "[you] have been evolved [sic] in studies" -- that is, you
>speak based on a [very small] subset of all studies.
>
Actually I have not been 'evolved' in studies. 

Yes I stated that I have limited experience- and having read a large
about of literature on how studies are conducted and how one attempts
to eliminate bias- but you can't get rid of all of it.  Even your
reading it has a bias which is slanted towards your view of the
world.

>So how do we know that you aren't biased and wrong, and that all
>studies ARE correct?
>

Studies come out of our existence- they do not exist as entities 
within themselves.  We create them and we interpret them.  If you
want to argue about their 'existence' as entities- go ahead.
Everything we state has a bias towards what we know and have accepted
as being valid and true- unless we remain vigilant  and aware of
our own viewpoints and what they may mean to others.

>
>    >We must be careful about what we are trying to extract
>    >informationally from some given studies results. I have
>    >respect for the Kinsey reports but in no way have can I
>    >conclude that it applies to the everyday existence of people.
>
>As Kinsey was studying the overall sexualality of people, it certainly
>does apply to the everday existence of people. What you write is
>nonsense.

So what I write is nonsense, but what you write is not?  Hmmm
Sounds like a good case for bias right here.

Well again you have to prove that to me- show me that all of the
findings in a 'study' e.g. the one above applies to everyday
existence of all people.

>
>    >So as far as the questions: Well, do, or do not, male
>    >homosexuals on the average, have close to TWO orders of
>    >magnitude more sex partners than hetersexuals? Do you NOT
>    >accept that many many people find this disgusting?
>    >
>    >They are not answerable in any concrete way, if you are
>    >attempting to apply a studys particular results to the entire
>    >population of homosexual individuals.
>
>Why not?

If they are, then give the solid and unshakeable truth of the
findings of a study. That is, show me, in relationship to the above
questions, solid irrefutable evidence and facts.  I am afraid that
you can not.

>
>    >And this is what really becomes our problem, the application
>    >of study results that only reflect a 'very' small subset or
>    >group chosen in a way that will obviously introduce bias
>    >results.
>
>Sex you. I.e., what is the BASIS for your statement, other than a desire
>to live with your preconceptions?
>

The BASIS for my statement is that I am 'human' and have biases
built in via my education and the shaping of my viewpoints by
others- just like you, you are the product (as I am) of this 
society.  It is now in your power to begin thinking and evaluating
for yourself as to what is true and what is not.

What is 'Sex you'?  Anyway, I would beg to differ on the point that
I have the desire to live with my preconceptions.  Everyone to some
degree does live with preconceptions, but that is not the thrust
of my postings.  You are living with preconceptions if you accept
the results of studies, as 'givens' 'facts'.

>
>Good and bad can range from arbitrary personal value judgements
>to valid medical judgements. You seem to not be able to understand
>that a scientific report, say, on butter comsumption and the
>incidence of various heart diseases is very valid -- but NOT when
>interpreted through three paragrapghs in the local paper.
>
Yes that is right- we must apply the findings in a careful manner.
We cannot just run out and start eating oat barn like a horse and
thinking that we will never have heart related problems.

>    >I have known many married men who 1) were gay, 2) were
>    >bisexual, 3) were curious about male to male sexual contacts,
>    >even if this only results in talk about it. There is much
>    >more in the way of male to male sexual contact then one may
>    >know about. How would one know? Since many would want to keep
>    >it a secret.
>
>And I haven't. So whose viewpoint is more valid, and why?

I suppose 'mine', since you do not have the experience, and I will
state that I made the above statement with complete honesty.  If
your statement is true "that you haven't" then you do not have
a viewpoint that I have.  In fact, you lack information about it,
from a personal perspective.

I believe that you live in Santa Rosa, or Petaluma... I use to 
work and live in that area for several years.  I can tell you
with complete confidence that the various situations as I spoke
of above, did happen in Santa Rosa, Petaluma, and other towns
in the Sonoma Valley- not to mention SSU.
>
>
>-- 
>phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
>

One thing is for sure- most people do not understand or see their
own surrounding environment except in the terms of their own viewpoints
and knowledge (including biases).