- Home
- Find a Therapist
- Topic Streams
- Get Help
Mental Health
Addiction
ADHD
Anxiety
Asperger's
Autism
Bipolar Disorder
Depression
Eating Disorders
Insomnia
OCDPersonality
Passive Aggression
Personality
ShynessPersonal Growth
Happiness
Goal Setting
Positive PsychologyRelationships
Low Sexual Desire
Relationships
SexEmotion Management
Anger
Procrastination
StressFamily Life
Adolescents
Child Development
Elder Care
Parenting
SiblingsRecently Diagnosed?
Diagnosis Dictionary
- Magazine
- Tests
- Psych Basics
- Experts
Somebody, perhaps Mark Twain, said "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics." Read a brief primer on how scientists can fool you with their data, statistics, and sexual images. The focus is on a recent blog pointing out that supposedly, the size of a woman's breasts tell us the likelihood that a man will stop to pick them up. I will walk you through some blatant misinterpretations. Read More
"Healthy skepticism
"Healthy skepticism contributes to a healthy life."
I assume you have the statistics to back this up? (Kidding.)
Your points could have been made without the personal insults.
Hi Dr. Kashdan,
Many thanks for taking the time to comment on my post in question. I wonder if it would not have been more courteous and collegial to make your points without resorting to numerous personal insults. The manner in which men and women respond to sexual signals (be it height, social status, breasts, buttocks, penis size, income, etc.) is an inherent part of our human psychology. After all, we are a sexually reproducing species, and sexual selection is one of the fundamental drivers of human sexual dimorphisms. Hence, I am unsure that discussing breasts in this particular mating context is inappropriate for Psychology Today. You might note that the papers in question were published in reputable scientific journals. Hence, it is certainly reasonable to discuss such topics at Psychology Today.
Incidentally, I wrote a highly popular post about penis size. Will you be accusing me next of being obsessed with penises or does such a personal attack only get triggered if I publish multiple posts about penises? If so, please let me know what the triggering number of posts is, as I might try to avoid meeting such a number as a means of avoiding your public wrath. ;)
I did not misinterpret or confuse any of the statistics. I reported them exactly as they appeared in the published peer-reviewed paper. You are indeed correct that statistics can be presented in a multitude of ways, and as such I do not contest the fact that the percentage of variance explained is a valuable metric. However, this does not take away from the fact that the results as reported by the researcher in question are valid.
By the way, the post in question is about to hit 250,000 total views. Hence, it seems to have garnered quite a bit attention notwithstanding your holier than thou attitude.
I look forward to future unprovoked belligerent comments from you.
GS
P.S. If you'd like, I can first send you my proposed post topics to make sure that they clear your censor. After all, I would not want to write about topics that you disprove of since you are the arbiter of all that is scientifically valid and relevant.
getting the platform for science
You are absolutely right that my response was unprovoked and overly provocative. Thus, all of your comments toward me are justified. It was wrong for me to talk about your intentions and not just the content. My apologies for that.
If being against the sexual objectification of women means that you feel I have a "holier than thou attitude," I can live with that. This view changed over time. If you caught me when I was 18 or 23 years old, I would have thought your post was really cool.
Sex sells and a quarter of a million hits is impressive. If you start using pictures of attractive women without their shirts on you are liable to get even more hits. The number of hits is why I felt it necessary to write a response. Now you have a large number of people who think that breast size is quite important in getting a man's attention. A quick glance at the effect size shows that this is not the case at all. Perhaps media outlets are talking about this but have their facts wrong. Perhaps young girls and women read it and feel a little bit more insecurity about their bodies; and the data for this particular study don't provide any evidence that they should. Science is all about self-corrections, right?
Perhaps we differ on our approach to sharing science with the world. I am interested in sticky ideas but believe it can done without objectifying women. Apparently, you have a huge following. Fantastic. Here's hoping you use your platform well in the future.
No personal attacks intended. My focus is on the ideas and their dissemination.
cheers,
Todd
Thank you for your reply.
Hi Again Dr. Kashdan,
I thank you for your softer reply. It allows for a polite and reasoned debate. Since the post was about the link between breast size and female hitchhikers, it seems logical that I would use an image that captures this exact link, namely a well-endowed woman sitting in the passenger seat of a car.
Incidentally, I found out via some of my readers' comments that the woman in the teaser image is a porno star. I was unaware of her identity!
If you'll forgive me for stating this, I think that "here's hoping you use your platform well in the future" might be a tad patronizing. It implies that I have not done so thus far. If you peruse through my posts, you'll note that I tackle an extraordinarily varied set of topics. Some of my topics deal with deep existential matters (e.g., my numerous posts on religion) whereas others appeal to a mass audience precisely because they deal with "lighter" issues that nonetheless are captivating (e.g., women's breast size or men's penis size). Unless you've been appointed as the arbiter of what constitutes appropriate topics for other bloggers to discuss, it might be humble of you to take the position that other people's forums are theirs to shape.
Men and women use endless mating attributes to augment their value on the mating market. Few individuals are unaware that women's breasts constitute a powerful visual sexual signal (not unlike how men's height or tight buttocks are desired physical traits from a woman's perspective). Hence, I am unmoved by your cry regarding the "objectification of women's bodies." This might win you points in politically correct circles but out in the real-world no one is "offended" by the fact that men and women are sexual beings that are accordingly attracted to particular morphological features.
All that said, I am happy that we've had a chance to e-chat on the matter. I wish you a good evening.
GS
"I found out via some of my readers' comments that the woman in the teaser image is a porno star."
Funny, there's not a single comment on that blog post.
The place from which you likely appropriated the photograph, however (I searched Google for your ALT text, "sexy_hitchhiker"), does identify her in relation to a porn site.
You undoubtedly would have also learned about her identity when you asked for permission to post a copyrighted photograph on your PsychologyToday.com blog, since posting someone else's artwork would be illegal.
So, which is it? Are you lying or are you breaking copyright law?
Neither options is valid, my hostile Mr. Doyle.
Good Evening Mr. Doyle,
I just checked and you are indeed correct that the reader comments for that post are not currently appearing. However, I can see them from my inbox (and they were sent to my email address). I will ask my PT editor (Andi Bartz) to look into the technical bug. I am assuming that once the problem is fixed, you'll be kind enough to apologize in public. Somehow, I doubt that this will happen but perhaps you'll prove me wrong.
Regarding the copyright of teaser images: When I first became a PT blogger, I had consulted with my original editor at PT regarding this exact matter (in an email sent on December 3, 2008). His response suggested that this was a non-issue (whereas I am not a copyright lawyer, I suspect that the argument is that the use of images for a blog fall under the fair use clause).
Most PT bloggers use images without even providing the web address of where they obtained the photo. You'll note that in each of my 104 posts thus far, I provide the link in question. Hence, if anything, I have been more thorough than is otherwise expected. I trust that you've raised this matter with the hundreds of other bloggers that are currently using teaser images. If so, let me know whether all of the thousands of photos that are currently available on the PT blog have all been "copyright cleared."
Incidentally, I clicked on the web address where I had originally obtained the photo. You are correct that it no longer works but I suspect that this is because these addresses change quite frequently. When I put up the post, this was the operative address of the image in question.
It is unclear to me why you would take such a hostile position. Ultimately, all bloggers get paid next-to-nothing to participate in a process that is meant to hopefully be educational, enlightening, and enriching. Comments such as yours hurt the integrity of the process but then again it is so easy to hurl personal and unfounded attacks via the Internet.
Frankly, I did not need to waste 30 minutes of my life to respond to your hallucinatory venom. However, being a purist, I thought that your comments required a response.
I wish you a good evening Mr. Doyle.
GS
Kind sir
My commentary was neither personal nor an attack, my good sir, but merely a comparison between your claims and my own observation.
I most sincerely look forward to seeing the comments.
Regarding the image, unfortunately, you've employed two fallacies to justify your actions: an appeal to common practice and an appeal to authority.
Indeed, many other bloggers at PT (and beyond) are guilty of copyright infringement. And I have no doubt that evidence would prove that your original editor "suggested that this was a non-issue." Neither the common practice of infringing copyright nor the mistaken guidance of your editor makes the unlicensed reproduction of copyrighted works any less illegal.
I am impressed that you have diligently cited the sources of your images, albeit in this case an unconfirmed source, and am certain you would respect any take-down requests of the infringed upon artist. Please consider this a friendly request to respect the rights of visual artists in future posts. I recommend websites such as Stock.Xchng (http://sxc.hu) and MorgueFiles (http://morguefiles.com) for royalty-free images that use Creative Commons licenses.
Thank you for spending 30 minutes of your valuable time to address my comment. Your response is most sincerely appreciated.
Best of luck in your future endeavors,
Ron
Please accept my apology.
I see your comments have reappeared and that your readers did indeed identify the woman in the photograph. They also identified the source of the photograph as a website that was hijacked by porn hackers, but that's irrelevant to my comment.
Have a wonderful day,
Ron
I thank you for your gracious act.
Dear Mr. Doyle,
I am touched by your kind gesture of contriteness. It is much appreciated. I too wish you a good and productive evening.
Warm Regards,
GS
sheesh
Wouldn't it be refreshing if some of the bloggers who rely on boob blogs to get hits would, in the interests of the transparency that therapists pitch as a path to mental health, just respond when critiqued, "Sod off. I want a lot of hits and I know how to get them. Besides, I like like the gender status quo, especially when it comes to pics of captivating breasts."
Alas, sometimes these days I wonder if the deeper teachings of Feminism ever actually occurred. You know, like women and men understanding real intimacy and equality come from a difficult soul-searching through our conditioning; or the deep dangers to girls who are taught they are objects; or the damage to boys who are not encouraged to see beneath ephemeral physical appearances.
Thanks, Todd, for this post. And, if I may, Saad's rebuttals remind me of the weary exchanges that passed for intellectual discourse during my years in graduate Psych. I should have learned then that too much of academic conversation isn't about building knowledge, it is, as it were, about the size of one's equipment.
The personal insults continue...
Dear Ms. Sojourner,
Your hostility and personal insults are quite telling. Only in the imaginary world that you inhabit is it the case that men's attraction to women's breasts a manifestation of the desire to maintain the "gender status quo." Is women's attraction to tall men also a manifestation of the "gender status quo"?
As far as building knowledge is concerned, perhaps you could post your CV so that readers can get a good sense of your contributions to the building of knowledge.
Keep the venom flowing. For some, it is the elixir of life.
I wish you a good day notwithstanding your personal insults directed at me.
GS
La dee la.
We aren't forced to read Saad's blog. If we choose to read it, we can resist the temptation/inclination to objectify the woman in the picture, to blindly run with his interpretation of the stats, or to feel insecure about our breast size. We are completely free to take what we want from the statistics and his commentary.
Similarly, we can choose to consider the somewhat emotionally-charged tone and opinions of the author of this post, or we can examine his interpretation of the statistics and form our own conclusions or musings.
It all seems pretty simple.
Thank you for your reasoned reply.
The problem with the positions taken by Dr. Kashdan and Ms. Sojourner is that they both assume that they each are the final arbiters of which information is deemed appropriate, interesting, "non-sexist", etc. In the free marketplace of ideas, people can decide which information to acquire and which to ignore. Their hostile reactions reminds me of the endless groups that seek to ban countless forms of expression on the grounds that they do not live up to their standards of morality, good taste, scientific interest, etc.
Mary Sojourner does not like the fact that most men are attracted to women's breasts. Hence, she lashes out violently against anyone who discusses the matter. Being a more "luminary" individual, she can go beyond the "tired sexist stereotypes" and judge people solely on the basis of their "inner beauty." I am assuming that in her next post, she will explain to us why it is the case that in every culture that has ever been studied or documented there appears to be a premium on female beauty. I can already guess her answer: it is the worldwide patriarchal conspiracy that has existed since time immemorial that has promulgated this focus on physical attributes. Keep the delusional thinking alive!
Have a good day sir/madam.
GS
how about the data?
Dr. Saad,
you keep returning to this retread phrase- final arbiter.
the gist of my post was that you failed to interpret the data properly. Your entire post focuses on the importance of breast size in influencing male behavior but your data left more than 99% of 100% the variance unaccounted for. To top it off, not a single alternative hypothesis was considered.
Of course, beauty and genitalia matter. But this has been said much more eloquently by prior evolutionary psychologists for decades.
so the big question is, what are you adding to the dialogue? and as a scientist, your interpretation of the data is off. There is nothing controversial about this statement of mine and it has nothing to do with me being a so-called arbiter of ideas. No rhetoric is necessary on your part.
cheers,
Todd
My goal for the post was not to provide a critique of the study in question.
Good Morning Dr. Kashdan,
My post was meant to describe the key gist of the study in question and not to provide a critique of all of its data analytic and epistemological merits. If this were the benchmark that we used at Psychology Today then every post would be nothing but a technical critique of a given study. Did the authors have the necessary statistical power to conduct this test? Have they considered alternate hypotheses? Have they controlled for all possible confounds? Does the scale have the necessary discriminant validity? Does the non-linear approximation converge? Would a non-parametric test have been the better approach given the data in question? There are an endless number of technical (and certainly valid) issues that can be raised regarding most studies. However, given that this is a published peer-reviewed paper (hence the editor, associate editor, and the reviewers must have also missed your point) and in light of the fact that my goal here was to simply share the "fun fact" regarding this naturalistic experiment then I chose to focus on that which I thought the readers would find interesting.
I am unsure that I need a lecture on statistical testing from you. I can assure you that I have the mathematical sophistication to "understand" the point that you raised regarding the percentage of variance explained (a valid one).
Here is a challenge: Try to write a reply without a single patronizing, arrogant, and condescending jibe (e.g., "But this has been said much more eloquently by prior evolutionary psychologists for decades."). In the words of Barack Obama, capture this "teachable moment." ;)
GS
P.S. Did you receive many hits as a function of having linked to my hugely popular post?
drawing conclusions
I appreciate the detailed response but you are going beyond my point. Your conclusions about the study do not match the findings. Thus, your hundreds of thousands of readers are being given the wrong message. Thats it.
Not much else to say.
cheers,
Todd
Thanks for your thoughts.
Have a good day.
GS
photo question and a note about civility
Gad Saad follows PT's photo policy very carefully and always has.
Also: When critiquing a fellow blogger's post, it might be a good rule of thumb to assume good intentions rather than bad ones on the part of your colleagues. That will go a long way toward keeping these discussions constructive.
Thank you Carlin.
I am deeply indebted for your having weighed in on the matter. It is my hope that bloggers and readers alike will heed your advice regarding the need to be respectful and civil.
Have a good evening.
GS
Post new comment