Signal boost: SurveyFail redux
Feb. 14th, 2011 12:59 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
tzikehHey, remember SurveyFail, that perfect storm of arrogance and stupidity from a couple of pseudo-researchers who were going to use sexually explicit fanfic to prove that -- um. In their own words, "We're deeply interested in broad-based behavioral data that involves romantic or erotic cognition and evinces a clear distinction between men and women. Fan fiction matches this criteria perfectly."
In fandom's own words: FAIL. SO, SO MUCH FAIL.
Well, the book is still being published, although the title has been changed from "Rule 34: What Netporn Teaches Us about the Brain" to A Billion Wicked Thoughts: What the World's Largest Experiment Reveals about Human Desire. It will be released this May, but it already has an Amazon page for preorders, of course.
And the page has had some tags added to it. A few examples: "mansplaining," "pseudoscience," "biased heterosexist and wrong," "who needs peer review?"
I think we could bump those tag numbers lots higher, don't you? Go on, you know you wanna.
(Post copied pretty much entirely from
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
the_shoshanna. Please take the post, whole or in part, and post it to your lj or dw if you're of a mind to. Or you can just link people here, or to shoshanna, with an explanation if you like.)ETA: Check out the "people who viewed this book also viewed" section, then click those books! Oh, and then go to this one. We need to add that to the display. :D
EATA: Someone posted a discussion thread at the book's main Amazon page that's chock-full of links to blogs, journals, and other websites of reputable scientists, all refuting (if not outright rolling their eyes at) the methodology and "science" in this book.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-02-14 07:30 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-02-14 07:34 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-02-14 07:49 pm (UTC)I added the tag "Boston University review board removed BU's imprimatur."
no subject
Date: 2011-02-14 07:52 pm (UTC)*g*
(Personally, I'm fond of "the authors can't get dates".)
no subject
Date: 2011-02-14 07:55 pm (UTC)Can we post reviews of books on Amazon before they come out? Because they would be just as accurate (if not moreso) than the book itself.
no subject
Date: 2011-02-14 07:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-02-14 08:02 pm (UTC)Revolutionary and shocking? Hm... here are some examples of this "revolutionary and shocking" vision:
•The male sexual brain resembles a reckless hunter, while the female sexual brain resembles a cautious detective agency.
NO! YOU DON'T SAY!
•Men and women have hardwired sexual cues analogous to our hardwired tastes-there are sexual versions of sweet, sour, salty, savory, and bitter. But men and women are wired with different sets of cues.
GET OUT OF TOWN!
•Men form their sexual interests during adolescence and rarely change. Women's sexual interests are plastic and change frequently.
#1 - SAY IT AIN'T SO!
#2 - I THINK YOU MEANT "ELASTIC," NOT "PLASTIC!"
no subject
Date: 2011-02-14 08:06 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-02-14 08:10 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-02-14 08:14 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-02-15 01:49 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-02-15 03:08 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-02-21 05:08 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-02-14 08:09 pm (UTC)But...
•Women enjoy writing and sharing erotic stories with other women. The fastest growing genre of erotic stories for women are stories about two heterosexual men having sex.
GET OFF MY FUCKING INTERNET, CHUMPS.
no subject
Date: 2011-02-14 08:11 pm (UTC)But I beg you to go to the page, and then go here, so we can add that book to the "also viewed" section full of books on bullshit. ;)
no subject
Date: 2011-02-21 06:47 pm (UTC)This explains so much. Women are plasticsexual.
no subject
Date: 2011-02-21 06:54 pm (UTC)Barbie: Giant tits included. Womb sold separately (property of Mattel).
no subject
Date: 2011-02-14 08:16 pm (UTC)Oh, that is brilliant. *copypastes*
no subject
Date: 2011-02-14 08:20 pm (UTC)fantasies of cis het men(1)
science fiction fantasy(1)
taking credit for the internet(1)
your sample population hates you now(5)
no subject
Date: 2011-02-14 11:29 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-02-15 05:21 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-02-14 10:23 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-02-14 10:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-02-14 11:53 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-02-15 12:19 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-02-15 06:52 am (UTC)What is with these guys insisting that slash is about heterosexual men? I just...I don't get it.
no subject
Date: 2011-02-18 06:42 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-02-18 06:12 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-02-21 05:19 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-02-21 05:32 pm (UTC)I take issue with your phrasing here. It didn't *used* to be part of the definition of slash; it *was* the definition of slash. It has since evolved thanks to to the changing social understanding of, and moral/ethical/legal issues regarding, homosexuality. But the origins of slash were about heterosexuality, not queerness. So, let's not go waving away the entire history and all of the women (many of whom are right here, thank you) who created and built slash fiction close to 40 years ago so that you could have your swipe at them today.
no subject
Date: 2011-02-21 05:54 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-02-21 05:48 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-02-21 05:55 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-02-21 06:21 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-02-21 08:17 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-02-22 12:59 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-02-18 06:28 am (UTC)What pisses me off, even more than the surveyfail methodology, really, is how utterly sexist and, well, downright incorrect their findings are. I just ... I have no words for how angry this makes me.
no subject
Date: 2011-02-18 06:41 am (UTC)I hear you, believe me.
no subject
Date: 2011-02-21 07:14 pm (UTC)