NoIDidn't Posted August 7, 2009 Posted August 7, 2009 NID, you must have misread my post. I was not "debunking" the blog post. I was demystifying it - stripping away the "authority" some people assigned to it by virtue of its author claiming to have a PhD. It's just a blog post. It has no more authority that that. That was my point in its entirety. Nowhere did I engage with its contents - I don't feel they're worthy of my time. But somehow you feel you have the "authority" to take away the blogger's authority? That's what I am saying, you don't have that authority. Its funny that you think you do.
SidLyon Posted August 7, 2009 Posted August 7, 2009 But somehow you feel you have the "authority" to take away the blogger's authority? That's what I am saying, you don't have that authority. Its funny that you think you do. Ha ha - well I think any of us have the "authority" to question the "authority" of some random blogger. What gives you the "authority" to say we don't?
LakesideDream Posted August 7, 2009 Posted August 7, 2009 I agree. Like I said, both are responsible for their choices, and you almost never see a WS not take responsibility. The OP on the other hand, it's infuriating to hear so many of them shrug off their responsibility by claiming that they didn't take any vows. As a former "OP" who wouldn't hesitated to reprise that situation, I know what my responsibility was. I took it seriously. I believed I could make someone happy, and be happy myself. I kept my "vows". I vowed never to hurt my AP. I kept that vow without regard to what it's cost me. As I have said before, I never allowed myself to "feel" for her BS, I know what it would have cost him. Being selfish isn't becoming. Being lonely, is life threatening. There are no simple relationships, and very few happy endings. Pretty much hashed all this out for a year and a half here on LS....
NoIDidn't Posted August 7, 2009 Posted August 7, 2009 Ha ha - well I think any of us have the "authority" to question the "authority" of some random blogger. What gives you the "authority" to say we don't? LOL. Exactly, none of us has that authority. LOL. We either agree or disagree, because even that blogger has no authority over our thoughts. :laugh:
Author OWoman Posted August 10, 2009 Author Posted August 10, 2009 Right - so I seem to have uncovered the original research that has led to all these claims about OWs and OMs. It makes for interesting reading - again, small samples, usually 20 year old undergraduate students, though one convenience sample (again, tiny, and "self selected", ie not representative) of 30 - 65 year olds... but most interesting were some of the other methodological matters: 1) the participants were asked to CHARACTERISE THEMSELVES (using a Lickert Scale) in tersm of several criteria, including the "agreeableness" and "conscientiousness" criteria cited elsewhere. Thus, it was people who CLAIMED that they were "agreeable" and "conscientious" who were less likely to have claimed to have attempted (successfully or otherwise) mate poaching, and those who CLAIMED that they were "not agreeable" or "not conscientious" who were more likely to have claimed to have attempted (successfully or otherwise) mate poaching. 2) the "Mate Poaching" attempts themselves were claims. So, someone who is invested in being seen as "agreeable" and "conscientious" is less likely to admit / claim to have attempted (successfully or otherwise) mate poaching. Not rocket science. Likewise, someone who is less concerned with the reputationsl status of "agreeableness" or "conscientiousness" is less likely to be hung up with admitting to have attempted (successfully or otherwise) mate poaching. 3) Those who admitted to / claimed SUCCESSFUL mate poaching attempts scored higher on the "attractiveness" scale. Again, this scale was self-reported - these people CONSIDERED themselves more attractive; it wasn't like there as a panel voting out the ugly dogs! Unsurprisingly, someone who pulls chicks or dudes who're already "taken" is going to consider themselves a prize; or likewise, someone who considers themselves hot is going to claim to have pulled successfully. No surprises there, either. 4) Those for whom "exclusivity" rated highly were less likely to report / claim mate poaching attempts. Well, now, who'd have guessed? If you're the model of fidelity you're hardly going to own up to hitting on other people's partners, are you? It would be interesting to see - and compare - the results of a larger, statistically significant, sample, using a methodology that overcame (or even addressed significantly) the limitations of this one, introducing some means of "objectivity" rather than just the claims of the individual participants. But, as the researchers themselves admit, there is just no other resarch on this subject, and - given the moral indignation with which so many people greet the subject - unlikely to be much chance of an unflawed study in the near future. Pity!
silktricks Posted August 10, 2009 Posted August 10, 2009 It would be interesting to see - and compare - the results of a larger, statistically significant, sample, using a methodology that overcame (or even addressed significantly) the limitations of this one, introducing some means of "objectivity" rather than just the claims of the individual participants. But, as the researchers themselves admit, there is just no other resarch on this subject, and - given the moral indignation with which so many people greet the subject - unlikely to be much chance of an unflawed study in the near future. Pity! Dang - just how could that be accomplished? I know... have the MP rate the OP.. :lmao: (sarcasm, folks, sarcasm)
Recommended Posts