^No, I'm not.

^^ There is an immediate and obvious way to correct for their problems with getting a diverse sample. Not doing that is either unforgiveably stupid or evidence of intent to deceive.

Oh no! We have a non-random sample of lesbian parents because we couldn't find very many! Ummm, okay, just get another control group that is non-random in precisely the same respects. That's easy, and it fixes the problem.

If you don't want to do that, then use the previously done study as your control group, but parse the participants of that study so it matches the experimental sample you could get. This solution involves almost no labor or cost, and is almost as good.

They didn't do either of those very obvious things.

Instead, they went with it anyway and added a pathetic footnote that won't put the brakes on any headlines touting conclusions.

Additionally, so far as I can find, they haven't published their own raw data so that responsible researchers could do such comparisons (also known as 'the right way') themselves.

[Edited on May 12, 2012 at 9:50 PM. Reason : a]

5/12/2012 9:47:09 PM

So just erase the "better than their peers" part in your head.

For the purposes of this issue, it shows that the same-sex parents can raise a healthy, happy child.

This should really be an intuitive concept too. The only thing it takes to raise a child is the proper attention, and there isn't anything biological that prevents a human being from giving a child the attention it needs.

5/12/2012 10:35:47 PM

My problem is with the stupidity or dishonesty of the researchers, and the same for the journal itself and whatever stupid or dishonest peers reviewed it.

This is not even 101-level stuff. That implies it at least takes a college brain to see a problem.

I'm just sick and tired of crap like this being published in every single journal, and journalists taking any white-lab-coat's word as gospel. There are plenty of other problems with the study as bad as the ones I've listed.

5/12/2012 11:24:25 PM

sad but true

5/12/2012 11:29:55 PM

^ Except in this case, and most others, the scientists themselves are the ones who play fast and loose with terms, false assumptions, rigged or hidden data, etc. in the first place. Then the rest of the cycle makes that even worse.

5/12/2012 11:33:40 PM

Their conclusion and statement that lesbian mothers who have artificial insemination are great mothers, better than average is accurate. Most of the differences relative to the sample would have no effect or increase the difference between the lesbians and average. Most telling is that the lesbians had a lower ses which is what most often correlates with most of the parameters they looked at.

Of course the confounding variable could be the artificial insemination, not the lesbianness.

Either way, we know thy lesbians can make good mothers. There's nothing about having 2 "mothers" that makes for a bad family.

5/13/2012 12:46:42 AM

Here is where the other problems with the study come in, to add to an already long list. This doesn't cover all of them, either.

Self-reported data is total crap in most instances, and is especially unreliable when the participants know what is being studied, and have every conceivable (ba dum ch) desire to make the result look favorably upon them.

How can we talk about how well kids turn out with absolutely no objective measure of, well, anything that people would normally consider? I'm talking arrests, grades, drug/alcohol/tobacco use by minors, extra-curricular involvement, etc.

These things can be measured and verified. Any one of them may not give a whole picture, but put all of them together and it's WAY better than what the mother reports about their social lives, and their answers to interview questions.

If you are the child of a person whose entire lifestyle is being judged for its value, and you love your parents, what are you going to say? If you are the person whose lifestyles are being judged, what are you going to say?

With such sensitive topics, these things just aren't reliable or significant. At best, the Achenbach and the interviews should have been the footnotes to the more important things that could be measured objectively, and have tangible, direct social consequence..

Questionnaires, interviews and a standardized social function test? These are all interesting. But they are not what anybody needs here.

^ In most cases, race correlates with those real teenage issues far more than SES. The HUGE difference in racial composition is an even bigger deal than the SES.

In short, they measured the wrong thing, on the wrong people, in a way that biased their results, didn't release their raw data (to my knowledge), and then summarized even the results they released inaccurately.

[Edited on May 13, 2012 at 1:26 AM. Reason : g]

5/13/2012 1:16:48 AM

Quote :

"In short In TULIPlovr's opinion, they measured the wrong thing, on the wrong people, in a way that biased their results, didn't release their raw data (to my knowledge), and then summarized even the results they released inaccurately."

5/13/2012 1:51:38 AM

Calling it my opinion is not a rebuttal.

5/13/2012 1:56:31 AM

It was interviews and surveys of the parents and kids. You would be able to see a group self reporting bias in the statistics (which is an easy thing to account for) and individual biases would average out.

The other things you want to measure wouldnt really translate across time or geography, and there wouldn't be any long term studies with that information readily available.

It does look like they normalized their reference data too.

The only thing they didn't really do was to compare hetero artificial insemination to the lesbians, but this still wouldn't really invalidate the conclusion.

5/13/2012 1:56:49 AM

Quote :

"You would be able to see a group self reporting bias in the statistics (which is an easy thing to account for) and individual biases would average out."

How would the individual biases average out?

One group has a universal incentive. The other does not.

5/13/2012 2:02:47 AM

Quote :

"Calling it my opinion is not a rebuttal."

You act as if no one is aware of the shortcomings of self-assessments and self-reporting, including those at the American Academy of Pediatrics.

You ask for objective evidence for "how well kids turn out".

Calling it your opinion is polite.

5/13/2012 2:10:20 AM

They are either unaware, or they have an agenda that justifies asinine studies.

Mothers' opinions and interviews with the children are worth exactly zero, except as a curiosity.

I don't even disagree with their conclusion. But I hate bad science. And this isn't even science. Science isolates variables, or at least attempts to do so.

Propaganda follows unequal groups with different incentives and asks their opinion about themselves, ignores objective data that is easily available, and then encourages stupid headlines.

[Edited on May 13, 2012 at 2:15 AM. Reason : a]

5/13/2012 2:14:40 AM

So...it's propaganda because they didn't conduct the study the way you would conduct the study.

5/13/2012 2:18:31 AM

Again, calling it my opinion is not a rebuttal.

5/13/2012 2:18:45 AM

You should email them with your specific concerns if you're that upset about it. If you are reasonable and specific, authors are receptive to comments in my experience.

5/13/2012 2:20:08 AM

haha, not a bad idea. But if I email everyone who puts out a study this bad, I'd never get anything done. This is not an aberration.

[Edited on May 13, 2012 at 2:22 AM. Reason : a]

5/13/2012 2:21:49 AM

5/13/2012 2:23:02 AM

ITT we learn TULIPlovr is vastly superior to all of humanity.

5/13/2012 2:24:32 AM

Calling me arrogant is not a rebuttal.

5/13/2012 2:25:25 AM

You're right--it's a fact.

5/13/2012 2:31:41 AM

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-05-12/lesbian-couple-legal-hurdles-quads/54929746/1

5/13/2012 2:33:53 AM

good for him-

i know this egotist is only planning his graceful exit at this point. now he can point at bigots in the USA and say theyre the only reason for his departure.

i was already certain he was going to lose, but now hes alienated such a large part of his base (blacks), he doesnt stand a snowballs chance.

all we need now is healthcares imminent flop and hes toast.

good riddance-

[Edited on May 14, 2012 at 8:48 AM. Reason : -]

5/14/2012 8:43:36 AM

You are still planning to honor your promise that you will never post again should Obama win, right?

Just want to make sure...

5/14/2012 10:36:27 AM

Does "gays would make worse parents" even pass the sniff test? Why do you need a study to prove that this isn't the case? It's common fucking sense. Almost without exception, homosexuals must actively choose to become parents. I'd be truly shocked if that really wasn't the biggest factor in determing parental success.

5/14/2012 10:40:35 AM

Quote :

"You are still planning to honor your promise that you will never post again should Obama win, right? Just want to make sure..."

in the soapbox, yes.

you should probably start cozying up to me though.

5/14/2012 11:36:06 AM

^this guy
what a hack.

5/14/2012 11:57:35 AM

...nobody says that anymore.

this isnt an 80s sitcom nor is it victorian england.

unless youre a senior citizen i cannot take you seriously with the vocabulary presented.

5/14/2012 12:01:28 PM

that's cool, i can't take hacks seriously, regardless of their "team".

[Edited on May 14, 2012 at 12:03 PM. Reason : ]

5/14/2012 12:02:55 PM

why in any world should I cozy up to you? I'm not the one on here stating things as fact that are yet to occur

And even though if you wanted to take this offer I would consider it "cheating" since you refused the first time, I'll go ahead and make it again.

Are there any circumstances for which, if they occurred, it would make this deal null and void? For example, if all black pastors decided to support gay marriage or something like that? Just want to cover all bases...

5/14/2012 12:32:28 PM

why would i want to cheat? i was confident in his november loss BEFORE this latest gay marriage backlash.

im even more confident now, and will be doubly so when obamacare is nullified.

and assuming im completely wrong about any of this, why would i want to continue to participate in a forum that gloats over reelecting him?

i mean, congratulations? hes really been terrific!

5/14/2012 1:02:06 PM

hacks typically think that anybody who doesn't hate a politician as much as them automatically LOVES that politician. it's an easy way to identify hacks.

5/14/2012 1:07:34 PM

dumbasses are easily identifiable as voters who stick with a proven losing formula.

5/14/2012 1:14:15 PM

so did you vote for Kerry then?

5/14/2012 1:26:55 PM

^^not sure what you're saying, unless you're somehow making an assumption of how I vote. which is another tell-tale sign of a hack.

5/14/2012 1:29:49 PM

none of my posts since this:

Quote :

"...nobody says that anymore. this isnt an 80s sitcom nor is it victorian england. unless youre a senior citizen i cannot take you seriously with the vocabulary presented."

have been directed at anyone in particular, so interpret them as you will.

^^you consider romney analogous to kerry?

5/14/2012 1:37:38 PM

no I was responding to you saying dumbass voters stick with a losing strategy

5/14/2012 1:41:36 PM

GWB's first term was not even remotely comparable to the pile of shit we're in right now.

5/14/2012 2:33:11 PM

so it was a winning strategy then?

5/14/2012 2:50:29 PM

hindsight makes you feel smart doesnt it?

5/14/2012 2:51:19 PM

^^^sounds like something a total hack would say

[Edited on May 14, 2012 at 2:52 PM. Reason : ]

5/14/2012 2:51:44 PM

at this point we're going around in circles, so ill just say, "i completely respect you as a fellow human being and am happy youre also participating in this beautiful thing called life."

5/14/2012 2:57:38 PM

hey I'm just asking questions

5/14/2012 2:58:14 PM

5/14/2012 4:32:43 PM

if some states have civil unions, why do gay people care about being "married"?

marriage is usually an institution established by a church, rendering acceptance of the establishment of two people (usually a man and a woman) joining their lives in the presence of friends and God

if a gay person really feels the need to be married in a church (let's say, Christian), maybe they should check out some of the things that the doctrine of the church teaches (let's say, out of the bible)

personally, the government shouldn't have any say in who can be "married"

5/14/2012 11:32:06 PM

if some states have colored water fountains, why do black people care about drinking from "white water fountains"?

water fountains are usually an institution established by a private institution, rendering acceptance of the drinking of two people (usually both white) quenching their thirsts in the presence of friends and God

if a black person really feels the need to drink water at a private establishment (let's say, Woolworths), maybe they should check out some of the things that the segregation policy of the private establishment teaches (let's say, out of their asses)

personally, the government shouldn't have any say in who can drink the "white water"

5/15/2012 12:50:40 AM

^^Unfortunately our states and many others have a long and storied tradition of using "marriage" to denote the legal and financial union of two individuals; sometimes the term "civil marriage" is used when the legal rather than any religious aspect is discussed.

5/15/2012 12:53:24 AM

Quote :

"dumbasses are easily identifiable as voters who stick with a proven losing formula."

Could you define "losing formula"?

5/15/2012 9:02:39 AM

Quote :

"if some states have civil unions, why do gay people care about being "married"?"

because sometimes civil unions don't grant people the same same privleges that marriages do.

5/15/2012 11:14:20 AM

^^^^who the fuck compares water to religion?

[Edited on May 15, 2012 at 11:20 AM. Reason : ^]

5/15/2012 11:20:09 AM