While I generally agree with you, the following makes my statistician's sense tingle:
"In fact, of 200 readers I surveyed on my Instagram page, 60% agreed that graphic sex scenes in literature are gratuitous.
This means that the majority of readers do not like graphic sex."
The majority of *your* readers don't like graphic sex. But that's not a random sample--those are people who follow you and like your take on things! You obviously are a fan of the Great Books, fans of the Great Books lean conservative (aesthetically if not politically), so people following you are going to share those values and not like graphic sex.
From her online presence she seems very conservative so the fact that only 60% of her Instagram followers agree with her actually counts against her point in my view.
Statistically yes, though I'd argue with the literary world being so left wing these days a more conservative perspective might actually represent something new.
Yes I think it’s great she has a blog is building a following, more different voices are better etc., I just mean to say that 40% of her highly self-selected audience didn’t vote the way she believes, so I’d be surprised if a majority feels the way she does.
Biased stats (left wing or otherwise) cannot be refuted by other biased stats. There is just such poor research on sex the related social psychology all around. This is a decent opinion piece, but the statistical claims undermine the ‘new’ pov. Because it leaves a reader wondering if either side even know that this is sloppy statistics>research>claims. Are we (either side because I probs disagree) settling for bad stats because we’re desperate? uncomfortable? on accident? reacting based off an unproven thesis? Correlation=Causation is more emotional than intellectual, so what triggered the panic?
This piece didnt have to fall into the Proven Hypothesis category. A nice Here’s A Hot Take could have been a refreshing perspective. But it set itself up as Stats and Irrefutable Truth and now feels like a strawman tug-a-war in the comments section.
*sigh* that psych stats class I hated? Best thing liberal arts made me wake up at 8am for.
Yeah, you’re right. I personally think they stick sex scenes lots of places they don’t go these days, but it’s a prat of human life that’s important to many people and if literature is about human life, well, it probably should talk about that.
Stats is useful, I agree. AT the very least knowing when people are messing with median versus average…
While I generally agree with you, the following makes my statistician's sense tingle:
"In fact, of 200 readers I surveyed on my Instagram page, 60% agreed that graphic sex scenes in literature are gratuitous.
This means that the majority of readers do not like graphic sex."
The majority of *your* readers don't like graphic sex. But that's not a random sample--those are people who follow you and like your take on things! You obviously are a fan of the Great Books, fans of the Great Books lean conservative (aesthetically if not politically), so people following you are going to share those values and not like graphic sex.
From her online presence she seems very conservative so the fact that only 60% of her Instagram followers agree with her actually counts against her point in my view.
Statistically yes, though I'd argue with the literary world being so left wing these days a more conservative perspective might actually represent something new.
Yes I think it’s great she has a blog is building a following, more different voices are better etc., I just mean to say that 40% of her highly self-selected audience didn’t vote the way she believes, so I’d be surprised if a majority feels the way she does.
Yes ^
Biased stats (left wing or otherwise) cannot be refuted by other biased stats. There is just such poor research on sex the related social psychology all around. This is a decent opinion piece, but the statistical claims undermine the ‘new’ pov. Because it leaves a reader wondering if either side even know that this is sloppy statistics>research>claims. Are we (either side because I probs disagree) settling for bad stats because we’re desperate? uncomfortable? on accident? reacting based off an unproven thesis? Correlation=Causation is more emotional than intellectual, so what triggered the panic?
This piece didnt have to fall into the Proven Hypothesis category. A nice Here’s A Hot Take could have been a refreshing perspective. But it set itself up as Stats and Irrefutable Truth and now feels like a strawman tug-a-war in the comments section.
*sigh* that psych stats class I hated? Best thing liberal arts made me wake up at 8am for.
Yeah, you’re right. I personally think they stick sex scenes lots of places they don’t go these days, but it’s a prat of human life that’s important to many people and if literature is about human life, well, it probably should talk about that.
Stats is useful, I agree. AT the very least knowing when people are messing with median versus average…
exactly. There's so much evidence pretty much everywhere to contradict this.