Are you or are you not?
Oh gawd there’s so much silliness in this NY Times think piece on How Do We Count the Trans Children?
How many students needing inclusive restrooms are we talking about? the Times asks plaintively.
No one knows for sure. Researchers have not figured out how to obtain consistent, reliable answers from teenagers, much less younger children.
Ah now why might that be, do you think? Could it be because the concept is ridiculously fuzzy, and constantly expanding and shifting, bulging here and collapsing inward there? Could it be because people aren’t even talking about the same thing half the time? (Half?! What am I saying? How about 99% of the time?) Could it be because the whole idea is quite new but nevertheless fenced around with unbelievably harsh taboos and punishments and ostracisms?
The best estimate, Jan Hoffman says, is that it’s under 1% of the population.
There are no national surveys.
Pediatricians generally do not ask patients about their gender identity, and if they do, they do not usually report findings in national health registries.
Again – why would they? When “gender identity” is such a tendentious and hotly politicized concept, why would pediatricians ask patients about theirs? If you think “gender identity” is more akin to souls and auras than it is to the kidney or the lungs, you don’t see a whole lot of point in putting it on medical questionnaires.
In 2006, the Boston Youth Survey asked 1,032 public high school students, “Are you transgender?” The responses were 1.6 percent yes, 86.3 percent no, and 6.3 percent “don’t know.” An additional 5.7 percent skipped the question.
Some believe that these estimates are low, “because trans identity has become more salient and acceptance has increased,” said Jody L. Herman, a scholar of public policy at the U.C.L.A. School of Law’s Williams Institute. “But we don’t have any way of knowing that.”
You could put it that way, or you could put it another way. Yes in a sense trans identity has become more “salient” – in the sense that a lot of people won’t shut up about it. But in other senses it hasn’t become more salient so much as it’s become more trendy. How do experts tell the difference? What even are “experts” on this subject, and how do we know?
Interestingly, in surveys, a higher proportion of teenagers than adults tend to identify themselves as transgender.
Of course they fucking do. See above – it’s trendy. Also, teenagers are teenagers, and they don’t know everything yet, and they’ve been told a lot of horseshit about what it means to “identify oneself as transgender” – so naturally more of them are buying into the dogma than adults are. Of course it could be that they’ve seen a new truth or possibility that the more habituated adults can’t see because of the habituation…but it could also just be that they’re believing what they’re told about a new and evolving concept while the more habituated adults are more skeptical.
Children are even more of a black box, surprise surprise. (Of course they are – they’re children.)
Almost no research has been done on child gender identity. One challenge is that much of the information would have to come from parents. Dr. Conron, who has worked with parents of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youths, said, “Parents often do not know that a child’s gender identity is different from their assigned sex at birth until their child, or another person, often in adolescence, tells them so.”
That expresses it as if there’s a definite fact of the matter, that a child has a gender identity that is different from their assigned sex at birth, and that that fact is knowable, but perhaps not until adolescence. But what if there is no such definite fact of the matter, and we’re just talking about fuzzy variable elusive indefinite feelings as opposed to facts? What if that’s the case and it’s actually not all that helpful to reify “gender identity” as if it were something you can have the way you can have Tay-Sachs disease or sickle-cell anemia? What if it would actually be better to talk about this as a matter of feelings rather than a Thing? What if that would reduce all the anxiety there is around this subject?
Some developmental psychologists say that children as young as 2 or 3 can express a gender identity that is at odds with the one defined by their genitalia.
Bullshit. What that always boils down to, when people describe it, is children wanting to wear skirts or play with dolls, liking blue and hating pink, being noisy and physical or quiet and cuddly. In short, it boils down to the most fatuous stereotypes. Not fitting a small and stupid collection of stereotypes is not necessarily a matter of “identifying” as the other sex, for the simple reason that the stereotypes are stupid. A girl “as young as 2 or 3” who likes to wear shorts and get muddy is not expressing a gender identity that is at odds with the one defined by her genitalia, she is just being a kid, with the normal range of variations in taste and behavior and personality. There is no need to label that as a “gender identity.”
Younger children whose behavior and preferences may not be solidly masculine or feminine are increasingly called “gender-creative” or “gender-fluid” by educators, psychologists and parents.
There is no “solidly masculine or feminine” – there is only stereotyping. Where have all these people been for the last 50 years? We talked about this, I know we did!
Pour the Kool-Aid down the drain, and then run.
Wait, what? “The gender identity … defined by their genitalia”? I would say that’s completely incoherent, except I’m laughing too hard. christ, the pretzels these people fold themselves into.
I shudder to think what might have happened to me when I was five and wanted to be called Butch for about two weeks. I played with cars, never dolls, and always had short hair. My parents shrugged and moved on. I was a tomboy and nobody cared. And I turned out okay. Well, it might depend on how you define okay, but still.
I’m skeptical about a lot of this myself. And when it comes to kids, well, I think we can’t really trust them to know for sure. Let them dress as they please and play with the toys they want to play, but I think the rest can actually wait until they are adults capable of deciding for themselves.
I still hate dresses, though.
“What even are “experts” on this subject, and how do we know?”
The experts are trans people, and you know because they tell you so.
When I was a child they called me a tom boy. I have no idea what they would have called me if I had told them I intended to grow up to be a horse. Once I realized that was unpossible I settled for being a people.
Adults may have a certain awareness of the impermanence and elusiveness of one’s feelings and sense of identity.
I have no doubt that little toddler boys or girls sometimes say they want to be the other category.
But I think it comes from social environment. A little girl who sees her brothers having lots of fun wants to be a boy because boys have fun. A little boy watching his mother get ready for an event wants to be a girl because girls are sparkly. Or one wants to be the other so they won’t get scolded for doing specific things they like to do that a sexist society disapproves of. Children all say they want to be adults, because adults get to do things they don’t.
We don’t call children transadults. It’s not that a toddler wouldn’t say they wanted to be the other sex. It’s just that kids want to be everything, and are still learning how life works.
@ ^
Oh, piffle.
Forgive me if I give more weight to the findings of actual researchers than to the musings of blog commenters.
For the last couple of weeks my 4yo grandson has insisted he is Sonic the Hedgehog. Does this qualify him as Otherkin?
Just out of interest, I know what transmen and trans-women are, but what the Hell are transfats? I picture slim people insisting on being treated for obesity (NOT anorexics, before anybody pops a round into the chamber). And is a transcontinental a European who identifies as Indian? I think the punchline for transistor writes itself, especially in rural areas!
I’m past believing there’s any such thing as trans, any more than being trans-racial or trans-abled is a thing. Mental disorders, paraphilias, distress with one’s body (o hai lots of women feel that, thank you patriarchy) etc do not make one the opposite sex. Nothing can.
OT, I have no idea what that avatar on my comments is. It’s certainly not one I generated. :P
Acolyte of Sagan – I identify as a train. I am transSiberian!
Thought I was trans for a few months… turned out I was just in the depths of a massive depressive episode and critically low self-esteem.
It’s important to actually figure out if sex dysphoria is actually the culprit or not, and children really aren’t capable of figuring that out because let’s be honest, kids are stupid.
[I HATE when I do that]
–the hypothesis that children absorb sex-related biases and stereotypes at a young age, and those children who don’t particularly identify with the stereotypical markers associated with their sex may embrace those of the other. The question remains: is this trans-ness an expression of imutable, essential brain-gender, or is it an artifact of kids feeling impelled to choose between two rather cartoonish and limiting sides and glomming onto the best fit?
Oh dear. Never mind. Botched a long comment; not worth attempting to recreate it. Sorry.
There seems to be a consensus developing here that trans people are not the best authorities on what life is like for them. Do we really want to say that?
I would like to know what someone who has taken the decision to transition, as an adult, says about their early experience. Was it about wearing jeans or frocks, liking trucks or dolls, or was it something deeper?
@David Evans,
Just looking at these comments, I’d reckon that’s what they want to say. People claiming they’re trans are mentally ill or whatnot, and the whole concept is just made up, along with gender identity, because it’s just fickle feelings anyway.
I used to think that the growing trans-is-BS sentiment on this blog was a reaction to perceiving women’s issues getting hijacked by trans women, a kind of oppression olympics. But by now it looks like classic punching down and anti-PC ridicule, except this time it’s against a target that certain feminists feel is justified.
That’s an impressive study, Silentbob. A group of children carefully selected for consistently showing transgender behaviour in a “supportive” environment showed definite transgender behaviour when tested. Now, I’m not saying this is junk science (though psychologists seem to have a special ability to poorly thought out, conceptually confused and therefore generate junk studies) but it’s at best one step away, which is why, yes, I’m happy to give more weight to thoughtful commentators than “actual” researchers.
#7
The findings are not remarkable. People growing up socialised as [girls / boys] show signs that they were socialised as [girls / boys], cool. A male child can hang out with female children and vice versa, they can act in ways that conform or do not conform to the stereotyped expectations or not… This really only suggests what is being said on this blog though: there is no point trying to associate various stereotyped behaviours to sex; a child can act whichever way they want.
“There seems to be a consensus developing here that trans people are not the best authorities on what life is like for them.” That is an obvious straw man, David.
No one is talking about “what life is like” for people, so no one is telling other people “what life is like for them”.
People are analysing our concepts of gender and asking what there is in the world that those concepts can be said to map on to. Some people are making jokes about what they see as absurdities lurking in those concepts. To say that that constitutes “a consensus developing here that trans people are not the best authorities on what life is like for them” is so far beyond charitable that I can’t think of a word to describe it. I really don’t understand why you’d want to bother participating in a conversation if the only thing you have to offer is implausible and tendentious interpretations of said conversation.
I’m quite happy to say that I have a better understanding of what trans individuals lives are like than they do… when we’re talking about putatively trans three year olds. I would put actual money down on the assertion that, on average, my judgments about a three year olds emotional states are more accurate than that three year olds on any issue at all, much less gender identity.
More on point… there is an enormous difference between telling someone they aren’t feeling what they say they’re feeling, and telling them that they’re interpreting the meanings of their feelings incorrectly. See, eg, every teenager who has ever informed you that they’re SO TOTALLY IN LOVE and if they can’t be with their crush their life will be ruined forever. Rolling your eyes at the “ruined forever” stuff isn’t dismissing their feelings, it’s dismissing their interpretation of their feelings.
If someone tells me that they feel distress at the type of genitalia they were born with, I believe them. If they tell me some long story about the nature of gender and how they relate to it… that’s not just about them. I also have a gender. So do loads of people. They are interpreting feelings via a larger structure that isn’t only theirs, and on which their opinions are only one data point. And if they’re wrong, they’re wrong. That goes for the (multiple and contradictory) explanations of gender you’ll find in the trans community, it goes for the (multiple and contradictory) theories of gender you’ll find in feminism, and it goes for everything else too.
If it didn’t we’d just take a vote, and “I’m a man because I have a penis, that’s how gender works” would win in a landslide. If you think that position is wrong, then welcome to team “tells other people they understand their experiences better than they do.”
Some developmental psychologists say that children as young as 2 or 3 can express a gender identity that is at odds with the one defined by their genitalia.
I’m the youngest in a large family. When all my older siblings went off to school, I took to playing with my sister’s dolls. I would put one on each side of me while sitting on the couch watching the morning cartoons. They were just my companions, and I used to talk to them.
When I was a little older ( 7 or 8 ) I had a friend, Sally, ( among others) who was a tomboy. We used to climb trees together.
She grew up, got married and had 3 kids.
David Evans @ 15 –
No. That’s wrong. That’s not what I’m saying. Notice what I’m talking about in this post – not trans people but an article about people who are called trans but are called that on the basis of absurdities like not wanting to wear the conventionally gendered clothing of their physical sex. Also, much of it is about children – and children, in fact, are very often not the best authorities on what life is like for them, for a lot of reasons.
And why shouldn’t we be talking about what life is like for people who feel uncomfortable or unhappy or miserable in their conventional gender roles? That’s something that affects us too you know, so why should we be rebuked for talking about it? It’s been the core of feminism for decades, so why should we stop talking about it now? Do trans people suddenly own it now? I don’t think so. I don’t think they own it and I don’t think they get to declare a monopoly on it.
Funny. Where were the men—like the ones tut-tutting on this thread—who allege to be so sensitive to the perceived needs of minorities 30 years ago when I was coming out as a gay man? Oh, that’s right—they didn’t exist. It’s almost as if this sensitivity only expresses itself when the politics in question have the potential to further silence or disempower women from asserting their needs. One wonders if this current male “enlightenment” serves a different interest than the one put forward.
One of the things I’m talking about in this one is the fact that there is a range of feelings about one’s own gender role or expectations, but this article and mainstream media in general talk about it as if it were a simple binary, a yes or no – people are trans or they’re not. I think that claim is ludicrous, and also that it’s shoving a lot of kids into the trans category for the flimsiest of reasons. I think that’s bad for the kids shoved, and also bad for the rest of us who are left behind, because we are assumed to be wholly accepting of our own gender roles, which we’re not.
It’s not that I’m saying nobody really wants to live as the other sex (other than their birth sex). It’s very clear that some people really do want that, and I think they should be free to do that, and accepted as such, and free from hostile reactions by the rest of the world.
But none of that means I have to accept new definitions if I think they’re incoherent or reactionary or otherwise fatally flawed.
Ysanne @ 16 – no, you were right the first time.
Also…
Silentbob @ 7 –
Yaknow…this is in fact a blog. This thing right here that you’re commenting on. What you’re going to find here is in fact the musings of blog commenters. What else would it be? Peer-reviewed academic journal articles? For that you would have to leave this page and go to an academic journal. Blog posts and comments are what you get here, so if you come here to read them…you should probably already realize that.
If you have contempt for the musings of blog commenters…maybe you should keep it to yourself when commenting on a blog.
There are plenty of trans people who agree with what Ophelia et al are saying.
Kids should never, ever be assigned gender roles because of their sex. If all kids were allowed to play with whatever they wanted, to wear what they like; if all entertainment had proportional representation for sex and race, if no-one ever said “Boys don’t do that!” or “Girls can’t do that!”; then we’d be able to see the transsexual kids clearly. And the only way that is ever going to be the case is if people follow the suggestion of traditional feminism and work damned hard to dismantle gender as a societal construct. Because how can you possibly tell if a kid feels uncomfortable in their body when society works so hard to make all of them feel uncomfortable in their assigned roles?
@silentbob #7
The “findings” say:
And I think this begs the question by defining what it means to be a girl. As a girl growing up, I often preferred the company of (some) boys, since (in the 1960s and 70s) it was rare to find girls who were interested in math and science and computers and other nerdly things. In the 1980s and 1990s, my sons had friends of both genders (though generally more girls than boys),. They were into science and tech, but also interested in music and reading and writing and liked sparkly things, and they hung out with the other boys and girls who were into such things.
[On a related not, I was recently reading an article about the history of gender-segregated washrooms (https://www.buzzfeed.com/shannonkeating/gender-segregated-bathrooms-have-a-long-ugly-history). The article discussed the fact that actual “potty parity” often means that women’s facilities need to be larger than men’s – a fair point. But it was jarring to see the terminology used in part of the justification: “pregnant people need to urinate more frequently, and menstruating people need to use the restroom for an entirely different reason. Wait, what???? We are talking about women’s facilities. They would be used by pregnant women, and menstruating women. The pregnant or menstruating trans men are supposed to be using the men’s facilities. (Are the trans activists lobbying to have sanitary pad/tampon dispensers next to the condom machines in the men’s room?)]
And my usual explanatory addendum: I know there are people (not including me) who have a strong gender identity. For most of those people, that identity matches their physical characteristics. Those who have a mismatch find (or complete, or fix) themselves by transitioning to the other gender. I do respect that, and I am happy to welcome trans women into women’s washrooms.
Silentbob: Fuck you. You have a demonstrated track record of being deliberately uncharitable, snarky, eliding other people’s statements, then affecting wounded dignity when accused of it.
If this were my blog I’d have banned your sorry provocateur ass a long time ago. You’re a shit.
Repeating for emphasis:
Because how can you possibly tell if a kid feels uncomfortable in their body when society works so hard to make all of them feel uncomfortable in their assigned roles?
tiggerthewing nails it AS ALWAYS.
When I was 3-4 years old, I was completely and utterly (so my mother tells me) obsessed with Miss Piggy. I lived and breathed solely to worship her. Later on, at the ages of 5-6, my focus turned to Smurfette.
What would some nosy psychotherapist think of this behaviour today? Would I suddenly acquire the “trans” label for fetishizing female puppets and cartoon characters? I feel for kids who have this crap lumped on them by adults.
Quite. When I was a little kid I pretended to be all sorts of male adventure heroes from the teevee. I also pretended to be some female protagonists from books – Heidi, Mary Lennox from The Secret Garden, Jane from Mary Poppins. Was I trans one minute and cis the next? No. There’s such a thing as imagination…
@tiggerthewing #27
Exactly. Silentbob’s study showed that trans kids’ identification with the “other” gender runs deep and is not a whim (and in fairness I think that’s the only point he was trying to make with it, and that in response to Samantha’s comments.) But beyond that all it shows is that children have absorbed the same biases and stereotypes the rest of us have–implicitly–and feel impelled to identify with one or the other. They must pick a side because their world offers them only those two acceptable choices. The study just shows the power of the societal gender binary.
@ Patrick #20 — I applaud your comment so hard.
Adults are celebrating trans gendered children in the classroom and on television shows. They are teaching children that this is a way they can be special and heroic and celebrated too. Oddly enough the adults do not celebrate the trans able or the trans racial.
Re ‘Younger children whose behavior and preferences may not be solidly masculine or feminine are increasingly called “gender-creative” or “gender-fluid”….’
Seems a bit polysyllabic, considering. Seems to me it might just be less trouble to come up with labels for those who actually _are_ , apparently, ‘solidly masculine or feminine’. Heck, considering the scale we’re probably talking here, we could even print cards for them or something…
… yep. For all six or so, worldwide.
@ 26 Ophelia Benson
I didn’t mean commenters shouldn’t express their opinions on blogs. That would indeed be a bizarre thing for me to say. I meant if you’re going to tell me that global warming isn’t real, that it’s just weather, that sometimes it’s hot and sometimes it’s cold, and it’s not big deal, I’m going to place more weight on the consensus of climatologists than on your comment. That’s what I meant.
@ 29 Josh Spokes
I’m really sorry you feel that way. I don’t mean to wind you up, I don’t mean to wind anyone up. Clearly I have anyway.
I’ll go sit among the ashes in the basement under the withdrawing room and have a good long think about my behaviour.
… And anyway. I don’t “affect” wounded dignity. I identify as having wounded dignity.
Silentbob, I know that’s what you meant. But what you said was nevertheless an insult about “the musings of blog commenters.”
And comparing what I’ve said here with saying global warming isn’t real is just a new installment of irritating. There is nothing like the level of consensus on “gender identity” that there is on global warming. It’s not even clear yet what the fuck people mean by “gender identity” so I’m not sure how there could be a consensus on it. I don’t dispute there are some people who really truly do feel their sex doesn’t match their “gender” so the study you cited doesn’t confound me – but that’s very far from exhausting the subject.
In short I’m not doing anything as anti-intellectual and perverse as climate change denial here.
Heh. Nice joke though (which I hadn’t seen when I commented above).
Fuck it. I started to write a long explanation but it’s not worth it. If people want to misinterpret me, I haven’t got the energy to fight it right now. Make me the bad guy. I can’t possibly be drawing from any personal experiences, I must be making fun of people by pointing out toddlers are not a
You’re not the bad guy! We’re not the bad guys.
So, can anyone tell me: What is gender for?
Especially for children: Why does it matter whether a 5-year-old “identifies” as a girl or boy? What possible difference should it make to what they want to read or wear or do? In what way should 5-year-old girls and boys be treated differently?
@ 38 Ophelia Benson
Understood, no worries, I’ll knock it off.
Theo – I have no idea. Or wait, I do have one idea, when it comes to the kind of frenzied gender-enforcement that’s going on now, when you see whole school classes of children out for a field trip and every single girl is plastered in pink – it’s some kind of anxious indoctrination. But why parents feel the need to do that, I really don’t get.
@Silentbob #7
You’ve linked to an editorial reporting on a paper that has yet to be published. That means none of us are able to look at the methodology, the data sets, the statistical processing used and even whether the editorial conclusions drawn are appropriate to the study.
In other words, that piece of writing is of no more scientific value than the – what was it? – musings of blog commenters.
Things I’d want to know before referencing that paper in support of an argument:
What was the sample size? Wanting to recruit 100 more trans kids suggests a very small sample size. What was the social background of the non-trans kids? Some social backgrounds are far more rigid in their enforcement of gender roles than others. I suspect you’d get very different results using an IAL test in non-trans kids from a southern bible belt state than California. As it is the kids are referred to as being chosen from a database of families interested and willing to take part in psych research. By definition those families are neither “normal” (in a statistical sense, which is the only real meaning of “normal”) nor likely to be psuchologically naive which is what you, ideally, want for this kind of experiment.
How were the groups chosen? What was the background of the trans children? How many psychological tests had they already been though? How much counselling? Were they randomly selected or – much more likely – a “sample of convenience” from a local transgender clinic. There’s a bit of information in the editorial about that but I want to see the actual paper for more detail because so far I’m unimpressed.
The kids are described as pre-pubertal. Sorry, kids below the age of puberty can’t all be lumped together. They go through distinct developmental stages and research methods have to be adjusted to account for different thought modes and abilities. Did the study separate the kids in to age/development groups? Nothing in the editorial says so.
Dr Olson is a young researcher – she has only published three other papers, two of which are on gender studies. She has also accepted funding from the TransYouth project – not necessarily a problem, funding has to come from somewhere and if your interest is in gender, trans charities are a likely source of money – but it should be born in mind.
Last, and most importantly, even if this study is perfect in methodology and analysis and the conclusions are valid and as represented in this editorial piece, the real question is: are the results replicable? Are there other studies that support these results? If so, are they well performed? Does this fit into a body of replicable evidence?
One study means nothing. It only becomes science when it has been repeated by independent researchers and when its place within a body of research is understood – even if that place is being the first study to challenge an orthodoxy. Until we have enough good quality, class A research to do a proper meta analysis this paper, even if perfect, is merely potentially interesting but ultimately insignificant. That’s how science works.
Steamshovelmama, unless I am reatly mistaken, the sample size of that paper was …16. And as noted above by myself and another, the findings did not seem very remarkable if we set aside the study protocol.
@Holms #44
That 16 is the Boston Youth Survey referred to in the NYT article that Ophelia’s piece was about – and I completely agree with everything you and others have said about it. Though calling it “Boston Youth Survey” is interesting as the link is to a paper in the Journal of Youth and Adolescence about emotional distress in LGBT teens which doesn’t seem to be quite what the NYT article is describing.
Silent bob has linked to page on the Psychological Science website which describes an as yet unpublished paper – not even an abstract to go on!
I strongly suspect the sample size will be similar to the BYS one. It’s inevitable in many ways – trans is still a rare thing despite the current media focus on it. The fact Dr Olson is talking about trying to recruit more kids does suggest that sample size is one area she recognises that her work has problems in.
My #46 was referring to Silentbob’s link. However, I did make a mistake: the sample size is 32, not 16.
(I halved it under the mistaken impression that 32 was sampl + control)
Steamshovelmama @45
If you were speaking about Dr Kristina Olson, then you might have slightly overlooked her academic achievements. She’s indeed a young researcher, but not someone you would dismiss as lacking science endearment.
I’m not going to make any claims regarding her own approach to transgender issues, but I find your comment “aggressive” enough that I want to fix the mistake.
Science is indeed discussing the merits and strength of specific studies and results, not belittling people.
@L #49
I’m afraid I’m confused. How exactly have I belittled Dr Olson by listing her credentials as stated on her staff page? Have I suggested her research is invalid because she’s a fairly junior PhD? Why is factually quoting someone’s qualifications and pointing out she’s a pretty junior researcher “belittling”? Is it somehow an insult to point out that someone is at the beginning of their career and thus has not had the time to build a portfolio of work yet?
An aggressive comment? That? Really? I felt Silentbob was rude and the comment he made was pretty stupid so I certainly didn’t go out of my way to spare his feelings but the general emotional tone was irritated exasperation. I dislike science being used in that utterly inappropriate and unscientific way. It wasn’t aimed at you nor, as you seem to have strangely inferred, at Dr Olson.
Since then SIlentbob has acknowledged his comment did not come across as he intended so I don’t want to throw any more shade his way.
You have ignored the context of my comment which was a direct riposte to Silentbob (as quoted). Silentbob was claiming that two links were of more reliability than what was said on this blog. Checking out those links I found an editorial describing an unpublished study by Dr Olson and the aformentioned link to her staff page which listed her publications.
The bulk of my comment explained why I felt Silentbob was wrong about his link to the editorial and what we would need to know before we could assess the study on its own merits. His second link to Dr Olson’s staff page, combined with his comment about trusting real researchers, is the “argument from authority” fallacy. I quoted Dr Olson’s credentials for two reasons. Firstly, she might have a preexisting body of research which might throw some light on the current study – which we can’t directly assess. As it is, she doesn’t. A PhD with just three papers published is very low on the academic science totem pole. It doesn’t make her a bad researcher – indeed, she may be a brilliant one – but it does, in fact, make her relatively inexperienced (I assume that was what was autocorrected to endearment!) It doesn’t make her paper good or bad but it does mean she does not yet have a body of work that we can examine and review in order to find a context for her paper.
And secondly (keep track of your arguments, woman!) if the “argument from authority” is being used then a PhD with just three papers ain’t much of an “authority” on anything.
(And that is a critique of the use of the “argument from authority” being used, not a criticism of Dr Olson).
Steamshovelmama gave you way more quality attention than you’ve earned, “L.” “Aggressive” comment? Nonsense. You’ve got an undeclared interest, “L.” No reasonable person looks at what mama wrote and sees “aggressive”. How about declaring that interest?
Ok, seems like I messed the link tags, my faultive html.
I was linking to this page:
https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=4hwc6fwAAAAJ&hl=fr&oi=ao
as a reaction to this wording:
Maybe I mistepped in perceiving comment #49 as “aggressive” (yep, notice the initial quotation marks? It’s still here in the follow up for a reason) or somewhat “dismissive”.
Maybe this has to do with the fact that having found the sholar page before reading comment #49 impacted my understanding of it, a casual consequence of informational asymmetry. Indeed, maybe Steamshovelmama‘s comment was genuinely based on the thought that Dr Olson only published three other papers. Maybe I deceived myself into thinking that it was relevant to her argument and that’s why it became part of the comment first.
My mistake. Admittedly my reading of “merely potentially interesting but ultimately insignificant.” is the same vein. I understand that both Steamshovelmama and I differ in what we accept as science in both a deep and superficial way.
I did not address parts of the comment I mostly agree with (grossly the first half), obviously because we agree, and I did not address the parts I mostly disagree with (grossly the other half), but it’s more a matter of time available than anything else, and we could discuss at greater lengths what is counting as science or what isn’t, but it would also be derailing the thread because I have no meaningfull comment to contribute to this issue specifically (I thought I made that clear enough, if Josh thinks it’s what “interests” I “secretely” had in mind).
Ultimately neither authority is interesting for the debate here, _nor_ is the actual number of studies published in a discipline or specific subject completely. For example, there are more studies demonstrating the efficiency of homeopathy than “contradicting or no effect” ones, and it does not make homeopathy any truer because of sheer paper numbers.
(If we are going to have this discussion about science, then I have some reservations about the practical aspect of replication –not theoretical ones- and most papers rely on unreplicated results except maybe for medicine or some specific fields but not at all all research areas, and thus yes, one paper is enough to be science since the beginning, even if disproved later). I take on provisionality of science rather than consensus arriving much much later.
All I was saying was my disappointment at the “number of papers” by an individual academic being dragged into the discussion. If the intent wasn’t to qualify upon authority, then my mistake and I apologise.
But… dear! Josh, you’re harsh to think I received more attention than I deserved. Fortunately I’m not really seeking attention, but damn you spank hard. I’d prefer declaring the interests you want me to declare (I have absolutely no idea what it is you want me to declare though) so as not to get a second round. Did I behave well enough?
Replicability is a fundamental facet of empirical science. Including psychology – hence the furore recently about the inability to reproduce some core findings.
If you can’t repeat the study and get the same results, how do you know the result you got wasn’t random happenstance? The replication of results by independent researchers is how we build a body of secure knowledge.
If you aren’t doing that then you aren’t doing science.
Actually I’d be interested to see these peer reviewed scientific papers that support homoeopathy. What was their methodology? How were the results processed? And I’d like you to link to the papers that replicated those results because I don’t know of any. That’s the key. There are a lot of claims for homoeopathy but show me one single well-performed piece of research that supports its efficacy and then the subsequent studies that produce the same results. You can’t because they don’t exist. That’s the point of a body of evidence – not just a number of papers but a number of papers that support and build upon each other so we end up being able to do a meta analysis of the best ones and then actually draw some conclusions.
Every scientist knows about the desk drawer problem that tends to skew research towards the positive – one of the reasons that in the UK it has been suggested that all studies should be registered centrally and researchers legally required to publish their results regardless of what they are.
Replicability is the orphan of science. Most science is theoretically replicable yet unreplicated. Nobody replicates in fine, everybody aims to original studies, if only for publication aims.
If you repeat the study and get the results twice, how do you know the results you got weren’t random happenstance? We may find we also disagree on what reasonable doubt means… :)
Just kidding. But you know what this means. Even if I take in my frequentist moods, you would probably come up with bayesian strikes. Or the reverse, it doesn’t matter. You know how to judge the unreplicated results, and it has more than replicability bias inside. You quite frequently can’t have two scientists agree on the very same meaning of things, even when things are results of a specific study.
With regard to Homeopathy, you’re asking me a very tedious task. Sorry, but I’m lazzy. But let’s be clear, we won’t disagree completely here.
All good studies about homeopathy have been published in reputed medicine journals and have shown that at best Homeopathy makes a placebo (some have demonstrated that the best is not even that frequently fulfilled, or even that we should expect worse and nocebo).
Almost all studies showing (pseudo)positives have been published in Homeopathy. All have serious issues about protocoles, samples and statistics.
But this is still interesting. This journal is published by elsevier and has all what it should make to be a reputable journal: peer review like actual science journal, scientific publisher, and its authors can be thought of as “regular” scientists living in labs. From outside, it’s fairly difficult to tell lay people we’re into a fakasie. Unless we rise standards toward some elitist statistic stances that won’t be acceptable to many lay people. That’s just why I brought up the subject.
We probably both agree that this is a pseudo-journal and that its authors are possibly deluded (even if there are other options, I won’t jump into being uncharitable). But it seems still a difficult issue to me: you can’t dismiss it easily.
Well, maybe we’ll expand here or in other threads. You seem to really like meta-analyses. I agree with the drawer effect, I have a big drawer and it’s not even that there aren’t hidden gems in it, maybe I’ve a few good to out. Time. Precious.