Whether it is you reversing the position, or someone else, I still do
not think it is helpful. In this particular case, we already know that
not everyone is devastated by the experience. We also already know that
some are. We already know, therefore, that it is not a unidirectional
effect. What I would like to know is the degree of skewedness and
kurtosis of the distribution.
I may have misunderstood your intent in making it, but I don't think I
misunderstood the statement. Stating propositions as opposites might be
great for setting up debates or arguments, but it clouds the issue when
looking for the truth. It seems to me that we would be better off to
start with a position somewhere between the extremes.
I am glad to know that you would have taken the original position had
the original position been the opposite. Did I get that straight? ;-)
And, I guess you are correct about my response. I confess, I do tend to
get a tad emotional when I hear self-serving "advocates" perpetuate lies
and distortions in order to get publicity for their cause and cash in
their coffers. A defect that I am sure I will someday be able to
overcome.
Sorry if it appeared that I was accusing you of accusing APA of
anything. That was unintended. I would only accuse "... Dr Laura, the
congressmen, and others, as well as groups like Family Research Council
and other advocacy groups ...." of such odious conduct.
"Linda M. Woolf" wrote:
>
> "John W. Nichols, M.A." wrote:
>
> > Phrasing the argument in that way is not very helpful, in my opinion.
> >
>
> John's post was in response to the interchange below (previous posts).
>
> John clearly has misunderstood the statement as presented in context. The
> reason I phrased it that way is as follows: When examining an issue for
> which we do not know definitive answers, I believe it is important to look
> at "both tails of the distribution" To assume only one direction indicates
> a bias before the data has been collected and fully examined. This
> assumption of fact before the data is collected appears to me to be
> non-scientific.
>
> I would have responded with a statement similar to Stephen's if someone had
> presented only my statement.
>
> Please do not put words into my mouth and assume that I am accusing APA or
> some other organization of making statements which they have not made.
>
> Your response to me appears to have more to do with your emotional response
> to this issue as reflected in the wording of your entire post.
>
> Warm regards,
>
> linda
>
> Stephen Black wrote:
> >
> > > This is in contrast to declaring by fiat
> > > that abuse is always harmful, and that even to raise the question is
> > > unthinkable.
> >
> > Or the opposite - that child sexual abuse has no relationship to later
> > psychological outcomes or that it is acceptable behavior.
> >
> --
> linda m. woolf, ph.d.
> associate professor - psychology
> webster university
>
> main webpage: http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/
> Holocaust and genocide studies pages:
> http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/holocaust.html
> womens' pages: http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/women.html
> gerontology pages: http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/gero.html
>
> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
----------==========>>>>>>>>>> τΏτ <<<<<<<<<<==========----------
John W. Nichols, M.A.
Assistant Professor of Psychology & Computer Science
Tulsa Community College
909 S. Boston Ave., Tulsa, OK 74119
(918) 595-7134
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Home: http://www.tulsa.oklahoma.net/~jnichols/home.html
MegaPsych: http://www.tulsa.oklahoma.net/~jnichols/megapsych.html
