1 / 12

Results of Poor Design

Explore the consequences of inaccurate assessments of homosexuality prevalence based on Kinsey's research, including overestimations of HIV infections and the origins of erroneous data. Reflect on volunteer bias, disproportionate sampling, misleading definitions, and the potential for intentional fraud. Consider the social and policy implications of flawed scientific studies.

warddoris
Download Presentation

Results of Poor Design

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Results of Poor Design Inaccurate assessment of the prevalence of homosexuality based on human sexuality research by Kinsey, et al.

  2. Complete Details inKinsey, Sex, and Fraudby Reisman and Eichel

  3. In 1988, health officials in New York reduced the estimated number of male homosexuals in New York City from 500,000 to 100,000. The larger number consistently led to large overestimates of the number of HIV-infected males in the city.

  4. Where did the erroneous number of 500,000 come from? It was based on erroneous estimates of the frequency of homosexuality from the original 1948 Kinsey report on male sexual behavior.

  5. Kinsey’s estimates for white males: 10% are homosexual for 3 or more years between ages 16 and 55 4% are exclusively homosexual throughout life (post adolescence) Better estimates 2% and less than 1%.

  6. How did the Kinsey research arrive at estimates that were 5 times too high? - Volunteer bias - Disproportionate sampling from some groups (strata) with high rates - Inappropriate analytical methods - Misleading definitions - Possibly, intentional fraud due to personal bias.

  7. Volunteer Bias • Certain personality types are more likely to volunteer than others • People with strong opinions are more likely to take surveys than those who are indifferent • Those who “agree” with the views of a survey’s designer are more likely to take part than are those who “disagree”

  8. Disproportionate Sampling • Kinsey seems to have sought out the unconventional • 20% to 25% of the sample had “prison experience” and 44% of these had homosexual contacts while in prison • may have sought out “sex offenders” • 5% or more of his sample may have been male prostitutes

  9. Disproportionate Sampling • Goal : not to estimate frequency of unconventional behavior, but to document the existence of unconventional behavior • Sometimes asked “interesting” people if they knew of others that the team should interview

  10. Is Fraud a Serious Possibility? • Problems with Kinsey’s methods were reported to him by eminent statisticians through peer review processes • Kinsey persisted in reporting biased rates of homosexuality based on seriously flawed methods

  11. Social Consequences • So what? Why would inaccurate data be a problem? • Did overestimates of the AIDS epidemic do any real damage? • Some sex education programs in schools actively promoted the false 10% number (e.g., Project 10 - L.A. Unified School District)

  12. A Basic Question • Should people seek truth, or should they seek results that please them? • Should public policy be based on solid science? • If not, who gets to decide?

More Related