Sexual Education and the electionFollow

This is, rather transparently, Gbaji's way of admitting that he can't find a study which agrees with his conclusions.

Seems unlikely. Are you really asserting that he's not going to find some "study" on "democratsareeeeeevil.com"

You're making assumptions that aren't supported by the data (that somehow AO increased from 2% to 25%, but contraceptive training also went up during the same time period).

Which would just be mindless guessing on your part, if I hadn't already quoted this:

Quote:
Sexuality education teachers are more likely to focus on abstinence and less likely to provide students with information on birth control, how to obtain contraceptive services, sexual orientation and abortion than they were 15 years ago

Hi. Neither of these speaks to the total percentage of children participating in sex education in the given time frame, which is the issue. You're wildly guessing that it remained the same. I'm not sure why.

Oh wait, I know. You're not that bright.

This is what gives this thread its laughs.

The data speaks for itself, Joph.

That just makes you an "expert" with an agenda.

You'd have done better to say you're a tech support guy with exerpts from a study conclusion.

Um... First off, I'm not sure how significantly the percentage of total public school kids getting sex ed changed between 1988 and 1999, but that still does not support your argument. So we're left with "when students were taught AO or nothing at all", their rates of pregnancy dropped. When taught contraceptive use in public school, their rates of pregnancy were higher.


Not exactly a winning argument there Smash. The fact is that as the total percentage of students receiving contraceptive training in their sex ed classes decreased, the total rate of teen pregnancy also decreased. That would seem to indicate that maybe just blanketly teaching teens about condoms really isn't the correct solution...?


Or at least maybe we shouldn't blindly assume that it is? Just a thought...

We are talking about a national issue, right? Isn't the entire point of sex education from a national level to reduce the national levels of teen pregnancy and STDs?

So yeah. I'm going to look at the important data. And "changing kids behaviors" isn't it. Especially when those don't tell us the final picture. What's most important is the rate of teen pregnancy, right? Everything else is smokescreen that can easily be manipulated to benefit one or another viewpoint.






Yes. And I'm a guy who troubleshoots computer problems for a living. Which one of us do you think has the critical thinking skills to actually look at a set of data figure out what's going on and then institute a "real" solution that works?


That would be me btw.


Look. I'm sure you're good at your job and all that. But there's a world of difference between applying solutions someone else came up with, and actually developing your own on the fly as the need arises. I don't want this to come off snooty, but I just have very little respect for most soft sciences, especially for the field of sociology. It's very much a "grouthink" field. You follow a set methodology for doing something, not because it makes sense, but often purely because the biggest names in the field say that's how you should do things. Results are often purely subjective, so it's up to the person examining the results to decide if they met the expectation or not. Thus, it's very rarely results driven, and more often consensus driven.


You literally do things the way you do because that's what most of the people in your field think you should do. If tomorrow, the majority decide to adopt "joe's" theory instead of "bob's", you'll do things in a new and completely different way and think nothing of it. I'm sorry, but to me, that's the most bizarre "science" ever invented. The only thing scarier then the field itself and its illogical conclusions is that it's used almost exclusively to drive social engineering via things like our public school system...

That's the difference between someone with critical thinking skills, and someone indoctrinated into the groupthink mentality.

I'm sure that's what you were told to believe.

/headpat

Yes. And I'm a guy who troubleshoots computer problems for a living.

Also, for the record, I'd assumed you were working at a much higher level than this at your age and career length.

Sorry to hear you're still troubleshooting computer problems. :(

This is actually the first time that I've ever seen gbaji get snarky and almost directly insult someone. He even cursed!

I don't exactly know what that means.

It's the same skillset really. Just greater experience and knowledge. You either have the ability to look at a set of data, compare it to a set of expectations, and derive a solution, or you can't. Most people can't.

Sure. Nexa can. She's also an expert in this field.


Most people can't. That's just a simple fact. You can send them to school for as long as you want, give them all the degrees that you want, and fill their heads with all the knowledge you can find, and they will still look at a problem and not be able to derive a solution unless someone's already got one for them to use.

Again, sure. There are people with educations that do bad science. Lots. The whole Intelligent Design movement, for example. Let me again state this isn't the case with Nexa.

Your general argument that a degree doesn't make someone smarter than you is fine. Your specific argument (if you're making one) that Nexa doesn't have a better understanding of this subject matter than you, or that she's less adept at analysis is just dead wrong.

Due respect, our differences aside, I do think you're a smart guy. Probably in the top 1% of raw intelligence, I do think you have issues with self delusion, but that's a subject for another time. You're very smart. Nexa's smarter, and it's not close at all.

Hence your hangup on "peer reviewed journals". Um... Who cares? Does what you did work? I don't care how many sociologists say it's the right thing to do. I want to see the data.

I think you're missing the point of peer reviewed journals. The point of peer review is to confirm that the data is valid, can be replicated, that the methodology was valid, etc. Without that, there's no way to demonstrate data wasn't fabricated or just a statistical anomaly.

What kind of world do we live in where we can't trust random blogs?