On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 07:31:51 -0800, Jim Clark wrote:
Hi
My last brief comment:
Well, okay.
1. No matter how odd an area of research might sound, one must be cautious
in
drawing simplistic conclusions about its theoretical or empirical utility.
Agreed. Then again, when researchers use socially constructed categories
such as race as biologically entities, well, someone has to call
shenanigans.
Otherwise, we are likely to hear more politicians making fun of science
grants.
Penis size, for example, is of importance to researchers and practitioners
concerned with sexual health, one recent article by Grov et al (2010) being
titled: "The association between penis size and sexual health among men who
have sex with men." And why wouldn't an association between sexual
orientation
and penis size, if validated, contribute to our understanding of sexual
orientation (e.g., role of androgens)?
If one uses "penis size" in a PubMed/Medline search, one is likely to get
a large number of hits on a variety of topics ranging from the role size
plays
in the sexual satisfaction of some women (e.g., see:
Costa, Rui Miguel. Miller, Geoffrey F. Brody, Stuart.
Source: Journal of Sexual Medicine. 9(12):3079-88, 2012 Dec.
Title: Women Who Prefer Longer Penises Are More Likely to Have
Vaginal Orgasms (but Not Clitoral Orgasms): Implications for an
Evolutionary Theory of Vaginal Orgasm.)
to issues of men's desire for penis enlargement (see:
Nugteren, Helena M. Balkema, G T. Pascal, A L. Schultz, W C M
Weijmar. Nijman, J M. van Driel, M F.
Source: Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy. 36(2):118-23, 2010 Mar.
Title: Penile enlargement: from medication to surgery.)
to issues concerning reliability of self measurement of one's penis
(NOTE: not good reliability; see
Harding, Richard. Golombok, Susan E.
Source: Archives of Sexual Behavior. 31(4):351-7, 2002 Aug.
Title: Test-retest reliability of the measurement of penile dimensions in a
sample of gay men.
Comments: Comment in: Arch Sex Behav. 2003 Apr;32(2):91-2; PMID: 12710823 )
to comparisons about how one "measures up" relative to others (see:
Lee, Peter A. Reiter, Edward O.
Source: Adolescent Medicine State of the Art Reviews. 13(1):171-80, viii,
2002 Feb.
Title: Genital size: a common adolescent male concern. [Review] [32 refs]
Abstract:
Long before adolescence, males hear insinuations about
adequacy of penis size. This concern may heighten during
teen years and persist to varying degrees into adulthood.
Men tend to underestimate their own penis size. This chapter
provides objective information about anatomy and growth
of the penis, including data about normal sizes. Published
data indicate that, although full growth may be reached at
different ages during adolescence, size is similar for most
adult males. Hopefully, this information will provide the basis
for teenaged males to develop a healthy perspective and to
avoid intimidation by unfounded claims about sexual
enhancement or size enlargement techniques. [References: 32]
Note the key words in the abstract above; "although full growth
may be reached at different ages during adolescence, size is
similar for most adult males." In the medical literature there does
not appear to be significant differences among races on penis size,
so one wonders what Rushton is about. Indeed, the Canadian
Medical Association in an exhibition on ethical issues had the
following to say about Rushton:
|"Prejudice is the more nefarious
|extreme of bias - it is more insidious
|and dangerous," adds Meslin. "I
|am deeply suspicious of researchers
|who pass off their research as value
|free and then use the tools of their
|research to discriminate against individuals."
|
|"We need to ask just how far have
|we come and how different is it today,"
|says Nicola Lisus, a researcher
|for the exhibit. "One hundred years
|ago, we were measuring criminality
|by the kind of nose a person had, and
|predisposition to prostitution by
|whether a woman's toes were elongated.
|This led to the notion of an inferior
|class, then to eugenics and then
|to Nazi torture. And now, once again,
|a lot of time and resources are being
|spent on looking at the biological
|causes of social deviance. We have
|Rushton looking at penis size and
|cranial size and making statements on
|social acceptability and IQs. We have
|come full circle. What seems so true
|and important today will seem totally
|ridiculous in a few years."
|
|The exhibit may not be using the
|work of J. Philippe Rushton, the
|University of Western Ontario psy-
|chology professor who claims he has
|found scientific evidence that Orientals
|are intellectually superior to
|Caucasians, who are in turn superior
|to blacks. Rushton's work created an
|ethical issue for the people creating
|this exhibition on ethics. Should it be
|put on display, since opening up a
|debate on his methodology could be
|seen as offering it validity?
Kezwer, G. Kramer, D.
Sensitive and controversial ethical issues subject of groundbreaking
Toronto exhibit.
CMAJ Canadian Medical Association Journal. 155(10):1483-6, 1996 Nov 15.
http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&CSC=Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&D=med4&AN=8943940
There are a variety of research topics in Medline which penis size
is a factor but apparently the researchers who specialize it such things
(e.g., urologists) don't study "racial differences", indeed, studies report
not finding systematic differences on the basis of race. Nor how it is
related to sociobehavioral pheonomena -- one has to remember that
PubMed/Medline includes the psychiatric research literature and related
areas. Are biomedical researchers willfully ignoring racial differences
or is it just possible that Rushton is barking up the wrong tree and
just seeing what he wants to see?
2. Drawing an analogy between espousing ideas distasteful to many and the
actions of mass murderers, no matter how loosely intended, is again a risky
activity given the marked differences in how the two should be treated by
society and by academics. Irrespective of whether you think of it in terms
of
free speech or academic freedom, the success of academia does hinge on an
openness to ideas as long as they are supported by some rational and
scientific
process (note that does not mean the ideas are correct ... if it did, then
science would be all too easy). In the case of Rushton, for example, the
Premier of the Province of Ontario called for his firing, a committee of
his
peers at Western gave him an unsatisfactory evaluation (later over-turned
on
appeal), and there were other negative consequences, one important one
perhaps
being a stifling of the actual research that could resolve issues, whatever
the
outcome. Although the Premier is fully legitimate in espousing his views
(which, it should be noted, are only neutered by protective mechanisms
built
into academia and society), I find the potential or actual negative
consequences unwarranted and unpalatable in the treatment of Rushton, just
as I
do in other cases (e.g., Elizabeth Loftus) where people disagreed with the
ideas being espoused. And there are sufficient examples in the history of
science of ideas that were ridiculed turning out to be correct (Wegener and
continental drift, anyone?) for us to be cautious, again keeping in mind
that
being ridiculed does not make an idea correct or incorrect and there
certainly
are cases where ideas can be discredited giving the overwhelming evidence
against them (e.g., young-earth creationism).
A few points:
(1) There is no comparison between Rushton and Loftus -- their research
is not even in the same universe.
(2) Rushton's work is like Bem's parapsychological research, mostly of
interest
to like-minded researchers who are willing to accept his assumptions, even
if
(a) it is a minority position and (b) unlikely to be true. Psychologists
are free to
believe whatever they want but some of these beliefs, in parapsychology or
eugenics,
have to be identified for what they are. There are good reasons for
expecting
Rushton's ideas not turning out to be correct -- this is not like espousing
that
H. Pylori is the basis for stomach ulcers.
(3) It is possible that there is some real merit somewhere in Rushton's
work,
though probably not in his eugenics work. Perhaps that will be remembered.
Afterall, how many people remember that Sir Ronald Fisher was a eugenicist?
On that happy note, all the best for the holidays and the new year!
Yeah, what he said.
-Mike Palij
New York University
[email protected]
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected].
To unsubscribe click here:
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=22465
or send a blank email to
leave-22465-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
