<ins>MSM</ins><del>Newspapers</del> :doing_it_wrong:



  • Yup. Another thread about sex.

    Regarding a study about sex.

    And how it got re-interpreted as being about not-sex.


    A study on incidence, and attitude towards, same-sex experiences summarises with:

    The number of U.S. adults who had at least one same-sex partner since age 18 doubled between the early 1990s and early 2010s (from 3.6 to 8.7 % for women and from 4.5 to 8.2 % for men). Bisexual behavior increased from 3.1 to 7.7 %, accounting for much of the rise, with little consistent change in those having sex exclusively with same-sex partners. The increase in same-sex partners was larger for women than for men, consistent with erotic plasticity theory.

    So. People are having more sex with members of the same-sex. (Again, transsexuals, other-kin and those that identify as an attack helicopter were sadly omitted.)

    The study itself wasn't about heterosexual experiences or those abstaining, but mentioned them in passing, to the point where they didn't even warrant a mention in the abstract, or their own keywords. Or the title of the study:

    Changes in American Adults’ Reported Same-Sex Sexual Experiences and Attitudes, 1973–2014


    Somehow this gets translated into (and where I picked up on it):

    The research, conducted in the US, found that the percentage of young adults aged between 20 and 24 who reported having no sexual partner after the age of 18 increased from 6% among those born in the 1960s, to 15% of young adults born in the 1990s.

    :wtf:


    :wtf::wtf:

    :wtf::wtf::wtf:


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    Standard behaviour for science reporting. One press release or story focuses on a single element, everyone else uses that as their source


  • Dupa

    It looks that they're talking about stuff that simply isn't in the abstract, if you ask me. Maybe they presented such data in and conclusions in the paper itself?



  • @all_users said in Newspapers :doing_it_wrong::

    the percentage of young adults aged between 20 and 24 who reported having no sexual partner after the age of 18 increased from 6% among those born in the 1960s, to 15% of young adults born in the 1990s.

    Where did they get people between 20 and 24 born in the 1960s? I don't think there's enough time travelers to make it a representative group.



  • Also standard for 'science' 'reporting' (and yes, the use of quotes around each word is deliberate) is that they appear to have completely misrepresented the implications of the one thing that does get mentioned, with each repetition getting further and further from the original in a twisted game of Telephone. I couldn't even begin to guess what the real content or context of the paper was from the 'reporting', but my guess is that the real take away on this paper is less that kids aren't having sex as much, or that more kids are experimenting with homosexual sex, so much as that they are being more honest about both. I can't say for certain without, you know, actually reading the studies, so that's pure speculation. Just like those 'news' articles.



  • @kt_ said in Newspapers :doing_it_wrong::

    It looks that they're talking about stuff that simply isn't in the abstract, if you ask me.

    They're reporting on the adjunctive data and reporting/presenting it as a major finding - nay the whole purpose - of the research.

    If it really was that much of an unexpected find, or had a major bearing on the study and its results, it would have made it into the abstract.



  • Fuck you plant math article!


    Hey Ben L, your retard parser did a great job with the OP of that thread. I bet all [url] links have been completely demolished. Awesome. Good thing you QAed it so thoroughly.



  • @blakeyrat said in Newspapers :doing_it_wrong::

    Fuck you plant math article!


    Hey Ben L, your retard parser did a great job with the OP of that thread. I bet all [url] links have been completely demolished. Awesome. Good thing you QAed it so thoroughly.

    -_-



  • @all_users I'm sorry my post bored you. Which is I assume what you're trying to communicate with your content-less post. (Wasn't the "likes" voting supposed to get rid of those?)



  • @blakeyrat I'm just wondering why you posted some random shit without context, in the topic I started about newspapers misrepresenting studies, complaining about Ben's import which has nothing to do with newspapers, studies, or any misrepresentation between the two.

    I know topics tend to get derailed most of the time, but there's usually at least some link or chain between posts.

    We aren't even 15 posts into the topic FFS.



  • @all_users said in Newspapers :doing_it_wrong::

    I'm just wondering why you posted some random shit without context, in the topic I started about newspapers misrepresenting studies, complaining about Ben's import which has nothing to do with newspapers, studies, or any misrepresentation between the two.

    Now that you've used this revolutionary new invention called "words" to communicate, I know what you were objecting to. Wow. Amazing.

    Anyway I was linking to a past thread about horrible press coverage of a scientific discovery. If you don't care, fine, but it is relevant, at least in my eyes.

    So I'll reply to you in the language you choose to reply to me:

    -_-



  • @blakeyrat said in Newspapers :doing_it_wrong::

    So I'll reply to you in the language you choose to reply to me:

    You did even less than that with your first post - you didn't even use any, expecting (which I believe is something you continually complain other people do to you) people to read your mind.

    @blakeyrat said in Newspapers :doing_it_wrong::

    Anyway I was linking to a past thread about horrible press coverage of a scientific discovery.

    So why didn't you include that salient information to begin with instead of posting a context-free post, and using the rest of it to complain about something else?



  • @all_users I don't even know who the fuck you are. Some idiot makes a joke "all_users" account in response to a NodeBB bug and now I'm supposed to take this shit seriously? Whatever.



  • @blakeyrat said in Newspapers :doing_it_wrong::

    @all_users I don't even know who the fuck you are. Some idiot makes a joke "all_users" account in response to a NodeBB bug and now I'm supposed to take this shit seriously? Whatever.

    "I can't counter against your well thought out argument, so instead I'll misdirect and use ad-hominem instead."

    Classy.



  • @all_users Yup. Did it work?



  • @all_users said in Newspapers :doing_it_wrong::

    sex

    "GENDER", YOU RACIST!


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @Lorne-Kates

    lets talk about gender, baby
    lets talk about you and me
    lets talk about all the good things
    and the bad things that may be
    lets talk about gender
    lets talk about gender
    lets talk about gender
    lets talk about gender



  • threads_derailed_by_blakeyrat++;



  • My mind saw this thread as "Newspapers doing it" and I was disappointed to read it correctly after that.



  • @blakeyrat said in Newspapers :doing_it_wrong::

    Hey Ben L, your retard parser

    I don't recall writing one of those.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @Magus said in Newspapers :doing_it_wrong::

    My mind saw this thread as "Newspapers doing it"

    :giggity:

    Oh wait, not this time.



  • @Lorne-Kates I wonder if we have to start using "genderist" instead of "sexist"?



  • @Maciejasjmj said in Newspapers :doing_it_wrong::

    Where did they get people between 20 and 24 born in the 1960s? I don't think there's enough time travelers to make it a representative group.

    Why, did all the people born in the 1960s die already or something?


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @boomzilla you might say the 24 year old versions of them died



  • @Jaloopa I was already pretty much dead inside before I turned 24.

    I take that back: I was dead inside before I was 14.


  • Dupa

    @all_users said in Newspapers :doing_it_wrong::

    @blakeyrat said in Newspapers :doing_it_wrong::

    So I'll reply to you in the language you choose to reply to me:

    You did even less than that with your first post - you didn't even use any, expecting (which I believe is something you continually complain other people do to you) people to read your mind.

    @blakeyrat said in Newspapers :doing_it_wrong::

    Anyway I was linking to a past thread about horrible press coverage of a scientific discovery.

    So why didn't you include that salient information to begin with instead of posting a context-free post, and using the rest of it to complain about something else?

    Well, I don't understand what your problem. It was actually quite easy to understand, I got it in like 1 try!

    But I bet I'm just :doing_it_wrong:, it's TDWTF after all. Wait a sec, I'll try again...


    :|


    Was it good? Wait, that's the new TDWTF way, let's do it in the classic TDWTF style!


    @blakeyrat you moron posting things and not saying things I want you to say derailing my thread by posting relevant information!


    Huh, I think I did good. Did I?

    I know, a bit emotionless, I think I didn't commit fully, but heck! it was fake, so taking that fact into account I think it was quite good. I wasn't going for @Rhywden after all, I was just going for the generic WTDWTF experience.


  • area_can

    @blakeyrat what are you talking about?



  • @bb36e said in Newspapers :doing_it_wrong::

    @blakeyrat what are you talking about?

    :belt_onion:


  • Impossible Mission Players - A

    @boomzilla said in Newspapers :doing_it_wrong::

    @bb36e said in Newspapers :doing_it_wrong::

    @blakeyrat what are you talking about?

    :belt_onion:

    :giggity:

    Oh wait, ew....


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.