Professor David Fergusson
I’m a huge fan of the work of Professor Fergusson, who is profiled in the SST. I especially admire someone who produces research, and defends it, even when it goes against his own personal views. He calls for more “evidence-based policy”, and I couldn’t agree more.
Some of his recent research findings include:
* domestic violence isn’t an exclusively male problem and much of it takes the form of low-level brawling involving both partners
* abortion significantly boosts a young woman’s risk of mental health problems
* cannabis use is linked to use of harder drugs
* circumcision of all baby boys could halve the rate of sexually transmitted diseases
* gays and lesbians suffer higher than average levels of mental illness
* low-level lead exposure negatively affecting children’s IQ
* confirmed sexual abuse was prevalent but found that some perpetrators were female and some victims were male.
November 19th, 2006 at 5:25 pm
Family violence is predominantly a male problem fueled by alcohol. Many women simply want the police to remove a drunken partner until he sobers up. The Police should have greater power to adopt this middle course of action.
November 19th, 2006 at 5:59 pm
Oh Tim how wrong you are, I have also been trying to do some research into this area and have been finding some shocking figures, but this will be for a later time.
The problem is not as predominantly male as you may think it is there are more than a small number of cases where the female partner is the violent one, but of course the media and the lefties don’t want us to know that.
And thanks David for the link I read this in the SST this morning and wanted to make a post about it but couldn’t find it on the net…
November 19th, 2006 at 6:31 pm
Fergusson is interesting character in that he looks at issues with a different lens. I’ve not read his studies, so, I can’t say much about their validity one way or the other. But I can say you have to be very careful about relying too much on statistical correlations. There is a 100% correlation between drinking milk and death – but causality is a different matter. I think it is healthy to have an academic willing to look sacred cows in the eyes. But the scientific method does not mean that because one person finds it, it is necessarily true.
November 19th, 2006 at 6:52 pm
This is outrageous…
Has the good prof. forgotten where he is and what’s required?
November 19th, 2006 at 7:25 pm
I take little comfort in his findings on domestic violence, other than to say that it is of some consolation and rather refreshing to see a balanced academic –learned type isn’t putting the usual feminazi agenda knife into the male species. I do wonder who these “eccentric men’s rights groups are?” Could he be referring to some crusaders highly sensitive to what they perceive as injustice ? For the record, I once was the positive paternal influence, who revelled in the nurturing of two young healthy and happy daughters. Then boom WW3 July 2001 one-day dad, next day prisoner! False allegations of abuse and domestic violence have obliterated any access to my children and destroyed all bonds of love. Parental alienation syndrome is responsible for me celebrating my SIXTH Christmas crucified by SIX cruel permanent protection orders! Can anybody beat that? Silly head judge peter boshier is on record as emphasising that a false message is communicated if the family court operates on a different basis than other courts on the issue of contempt of court. Yet in my research I can’t find a women ever been referred from the “ caring family court “ to face charges of perjury in criminal jurisdiction. I wish the judges could hear the daily roar of pain and severe heartbreak that their corrupt piety causes a dad, who is denied his scared primal priority, his children. It’s easy to file a falsely accused father , a victim of injustice, in the nutter’s cupboard without giving him a chance to defend the allegations !!!
November 19th, 2006 at 7:31 pm
Like you David I have huge admiration for Prof Fergusson’s work. My younger brother is one of the study subjects so we get access to the research quite quickly if needed. I have done some work in the adolescent drug/alcohol field. His research on this subject is first rate and world renown. His studies are published in the best journals the world over. Cannabis apologists have for years denied any gateway effect (cannabis use leading to harder drug use). I once heard Fergusson describe in person how the causal link they unearthed was so profound that he instructed his researchers to go back to the raw data and eliminate all other risk factors that might have muddied the water so to speak leaving just the causal link due to the cannabis use and the results were still unequivocal.
His research has executed a few sacred cows as the SST article I believe eloquently details. Long may the Chch Clinical School continue this study and the relevant agencies continue to fund it. I know my brother both enjoys completing the research interviews and appreciates his part in what has become a world famous study group.
November 19th, 2006 at 7:54 pm
I think there’s a behaviour element here, but I also suspect the illegality of cannabis plays a big role in it’s link with any ‘gateway’ effect.
If alcohol were illegal and the only place to buy a beer was a speakeasy that also sold amphetamines and cocaine then I suspect we’d see a round of studies damning alcohol as a notorious ‘gateway’ drug.
Many of his other findings are also dubious in terms of causality v correlation. Are gays and lesbians inherently more likely to suffer from mental illness or does the social stigma of their sexual orientation lead cause mental illness? Are women who have abortions more likely to suffer from mental illness or are people with a predisposition for mental illness more likely to require abortions.
Ferguson is working with a group of 1000+ people in his longitudinal study – this is a statistically valid group to make generalisations about, but once he starts working with much smaller subgroups – like the number of people having abortions or the number of mentally ill lesbians – then his findings become a lot more speculative. It’s interesting that his study just keeps churning out these startling controversial headline-grabbing results when other, much larger studies carried out in the US and Europe simply don’t see any of these trends.
November 19th, 2006 at 8:33 pm
The Prof knows when to ask the important questions,nice timing David’s , as the recent Australian Safety Survey kills the vicious feminazi distortions !!!Facts – the ABS survey has just revealed that -
Men are more than twice as likely as women to be the victims of violence and are being physically or sexually assaulted or threatened at the rate of up to 2 incidents per second
Women are not the victims of family (domestic) violence as often as the quoted 1 in 4, nor even 1 in 8, nor even 1 in 10, but actually 1 in 100
Women are not being raped every 26 seconds, nor even every 90 seconds, as feminists frequently claim, but are in fact experiencing sexual assault – not necessarily rape – including both reported and all unreported incidents, at a rate of less than 1 per 5 minutes. This is a rate 91% less than that which feminists have previously claimed
The ratio of female to male family (domestic) violence victims in a home is not 99:1, nor 9:1, nor even 5:1, but is actually closer to 2:1
Attention – all hateful feminazi’s supporters . -your silence is deafening ???
November 19th, 2006 at 9:06 pm
Are gays and lesbians inherently more likely to suffer from mental illness or does the social stigma of their sexual orientation lead cause mental illness?
I do tire of constant suggestions that personal problems are the fault of society, ie me!
So I burgle houses – It’s societies fault for not allowing me to have dvd players and iPods. I rape women – It’s societies fault that I lack sexual fulfillment. I can get a job – It’s societies fault that I dropped out of school and no employer will take me on. I do meth – It’s societies fault that the world is so hopeless that I need to be numb. I crash my car – it’s the government’s fault for not ensuring my safety on the road. Where does it end?
Putting ‘blame’ for hardships at the feet of society is the best way to make sure people stay victims of adversity rather than giving them the tools to become victors over it.
And far from being “dubious”, I’d suggest that any research done by David Fergusson is likely to be 100 times more scientific that any of the posturing (including my own) offered on this thread.
November 19th, 2006 at 9:40 pm
Andrew, I think Danyl was referring to a social construct when he referred to ‘social stigma’. he wasn’t ‘blaming’ society. ‘Social stigma’ is a tangible, real, social phenonemon of the like that professor Ferguson has built his career on.
Danyl’s concerns are valid and no doubt the good prof has had to counter such claims. The science of it soon becomes irrelevant when he can use the ‘results’ of his studies to make bold political statements about domestic violence etc. get his name in the paper and secure his funding.
Danyl missed an extra confound which, given the subjects are now 30 years old could come into play, in which the subjects guess the intentions of the research being done on them and, wanting to be part of “revolutionary groundbreaking research”, provide the ‘right’ answers.
That’s all very cynical, but much of the objectivity of this study is lost when dealing with psychological issues, when the subjects know that they are part of a ‘famous’ study at the forefront of knowledge. The study would be best limited to subjects which are not open to psychological manipulation (conscious or unconscious) by the subjects, such as nutrition vs obesity, marriage vs separation.
How was the domestic violence measured? No doubt through anecdotal recall. Nothing scientific about that.
Potential mothers are in a double bind. If they don’t have an abortion and the consequent increased chance of mental illness, they have a baby and risk getting post-natal depression instead. !!??
November 19th, 2006 at 9:48 pm
Yes I agree with Andrew.
In today’s western secular world it is accepted that induced abortions are OK. When the Christian objects to this some people turn around and question or marginalise (read “social stigma”) the validity of the the Christians’ viewpoint.
It is not then valid that the Christian then turns around and claims that the marginalisation they put up with needs to be stopped so that something worse is prevented.
No, we who are Christians need to accept that is reality and move on without accepting the marginalisation. It’s being realistic about how life treats you and not looking to run into some protective bubble.
November 19th, 2006 at 9:48 pm
Kent – were the American National Congress of Mothers just “posturing” when they publicly bewailed the incompetency of parents and brought in the scientific experts ? Is there is connection between the rise in the child care industry and the rise in domestic violence or is it just part of the feminazi agenda ?
November 19th, 2006 at 11:52 pm
Sorry Kent, but I respectfully disagree. Hurrying to claim that stigmatization is the cause of (or could be blamed for) an individuals troubles is to condemn that individual to a life that they can not change.
You and I live in a veritable soup of influences, values, morals, laws, norms and injustices. We have almost nil control over these. But we have close to 100% control over is our response to the impact of these on our daily lives.
I’ve used this little, pithy life-equation for a few years now: E+R=O
Event (over which I have no/little control) plus my Response (over which I have complete control) = Outcome. E+R=O.
For example, when stuck in a traffic jam (‘E’) I can choose to explode into an angry rage (‘R1’) and arrive home agitated having sustained higher blood pressure and an (hopefully unrealized) increase in the risk of an accident (‘O1’). But by recognizing that I could have no influence on the traffic and choosing to remain calm (‘R2’) I arrive home no sooner, no later, more relaxed and less likely yell at my kids or kick the cat(‘O2’). Outcome1 is likely to have me blame the ARC or TransitNZ or that A**hole in the white van for my health and the fact that my kids won’t talk to me. By comparison Outcome2 is, well, great. I said this sounds pithy but I challenge anyone who feels that life is a bitch to work on this for a month or two and see if life improves.
Turing back the prof, you alluded to having a cynical view of the intent of this research. I guess that’s your prerogative. On the criteria you mentioned it would be possible to dismiss almost all research. Forgive me if I sound cynical here… but your dismissiveness of the findings tells me more about your beliefs that it does alert me to faulty research methods. For my part, when someone of renown commits their expertise to complex issues such as these then I am inclined to give some weight to their findings. And I stand by my assertion that the research undertaken by David Fergusson is more scientific that anything you or I say here.
November 20th, 2006 at 12:57 am
I think the study is fascinating, but I’m not sure pugnaciousness is a wholly desirable trait in an academic. I appreciate that the very straightforward presentation of his data helps avoids attack that it may be tainted with his own political perspectives, but it also makes some of it prime fodder for those looking to use it to their own ends. The problem as I see it (and I agree with Danyl and Kent in this regard) is that much of the data as released plays to society’s fixation with black and white moral lessons on some key touchstones of our time and I think that’s really unhelpful, socially and academically
It would seem that people just love to read: abortion/homosexualty = mental health problems – which is negative, therefore there must be some problem with abortion and homosexuality. The reality is that sort of data shouldn’t be very surprising. What would be really interesting out of the study (and I assume they have the capacity for this sort of adjacent correlation analysis) is how supportive (or critical) families, friends, work places and religious affiliates have been toward a person who had an abortion or was gay and what emotional impact the subject ascribes to that support or lack of support. Similarly, a socio-economic context along with information about education and family circumstances would be useful in trying to draw conclusions about cannabis as a gateway drug.
In the article, the only drill-down you can see in the data is that his study confirmed that “men commit the lion’s share of extreme and lethal abuse”. Which I would suggest demonstrates why men are the targets of so much of the efforts surrounding abuse prevention programs. Politically and socially it has always been expedient to focus on problems that manifest themselves writ large on the communal conscience. Which shouldn’t at all diminish the relevance of the findings of the more gender-equal abuse at lower levels, but does make me feel that the Professor’s position on the White Ribbon campaign is a bit odd.
I think there are several comments on this thread that illustrate how un-contextualised data on divisive social issues has a tendency to promote partisan sniping rather than positively progressing an issue. That said, I do hope the study continues to be funded, I think the data gathered has the potential to be really valuable.
November 20th, 2006 at 7:03 am
“* circumcision of all baby boys could halve the rate of sexually transmitted diseases”
…and cutting it off altogether would practically eliminate such diseases.
Nevermind, at least Prof. Ferguson gives us something to talk about.
aladin
November 20th, 2006 at 7:19 am
I presume Fergusson isn’t making the elementary correlation = causation errors that some journos and some commenters on this blog seem to be. He ought to issue the occasional warning about it, if he doesn’t want people to start assuming it’s his mistake.
November 20th, 2006 at 7:41 am
Andrew, the only problem with your little formula in the argument you have put forward is that you assume that something like ‘social stigma’ has a value of 0 in your equation, E + R = O.
If E has a value anything above 0 then it becomes a meaningful influence. The reality is that human beings (who err and do all sorts of other things) are not capable of countering the value of E 100%.
I was not necessarily supporting Danyl’s argument. All psychological research has to be scrutinized carefully.
Longitudinal studies such as this are used to determine effects of factors that work over time, such as education and upbringing vs career and income, or public health care in childhood vs adult outcome. The topics outlined in this study are not suited to longitudinal study because of the confound I described (subjects getting too savvy and knowing that they are part of a famous study) and are best investigated using a random sample of 1000 people. The latter would be an expensive option for the prof, who only has to lean over to his filing cabinet and pull out 1000 ready to go names.
I am not saying that the conclusions are invalid, simply that we have to be careful not to jump to them.
November 20th, 2006 at 7:48 am
Re female on male violence:
“the media and the lefties don’t want us to know that”
Er, I don’t think that’s true at all. I’ve read quite a bit about it. But it has a low profile because the victims are often too ashamed to seek help, or to talk about it.
Not every problem in the world is the fault of a particular political view.
November 20th, 2006 at 8:12 am
The other side to what stephen is referring to are the differences in the way that men and women deal with things.
Women tend to talk about problems with other people and if the problems involve domestic violence by their partner, then the information gets passed on.
Men on the other hand tend to deal with stuff internally (often to their detriment) and so the information (including violence by their partner) does not get passed on.
November 20th, 2006 at 8:25 am
Stephen – I got whacked in the face by my psychotic ex and fell through a glass door cutting myself .It upset my daughters. I went to the cops and they laughed at me and charged me with the assault -fact I kid not !!!! Anyway I presume Fergusson’s balanced comments regarding the Families Commission white ribbon day will go against the grain in femiland.On the day I will wear a purple ribbon for each of the many fathers, who have blown their fucking sad heads off after being confronted by the hateful gender bias government agencies that claim to act in the child’s best interests. May I suggest that the huge problems to society caused by domestic violence will never be addressed fairly when the feminazi’s, and feminized men who resemble well dressed eunuchs think parenting is a academic science? The shameful minority -agenda social policies are nothing more than one -eyed subjectivity and are seriously detrimental to justice and children . Ask the thousands of kiwi kids who have no dad tonight . Well done Labour !!!!
November 20th, 2006 at 8:35 am
Kent you say “Women tend to talk about problems with other people and if the problems involve domestic violence etc….etc”
Were you trying to say that a vengeful and vindictive women can pick up a phone now and claim she is a victim of domestic violence and the alleged male perpetrator is in a cell by lunch time? The truth has nothing to do with the current DV situation.
November 20th, 2006 at 9:07 am
Insofar as abortion goes, I’d tend to agree with the professor. I think it’s abortion leads to mental health problems, rather than the other way around.
Whether it is legal in society or not, deep down a woman *knows* that she has helped kill her child. That is enough to give anyone mental anguish and depression even if they try to bury it.
November 20th, 2006 at 9:10 am
Milt made an excellent point upthread about the correlation/causation problem. As far as I understand Fergusson’s research, most of the findings cited by DPF are correlations… at least in relation to the gay/lesbian mental illness point, I recall Fegusson himself hypothesising that social disapproval might play a role in the findings.
It doesn’t follow from what he found that gay people are all nuts, or that foreskins cause STDs. Much the same as the correlation between rich people and Aston Martin DB9s doesn’t mean that DB9s cause wealth!
November 20th, 2006 at 9:19 am
dad4justice I know your plight well from menz.org and if anyone asks me to buy or wear a white ribbon I will politly laugh in their face and state my preference to support causes that aim to prevent all forms of violence as violence is not exclusivly a male problem.
soldier on bruv
November 20th, 2006 at 9:24 am
Sound logic Mark – I hope you also refuse to support research into cancer or heart disease on the grounds that people also die from being struck by lightning.
November 20th, 2006 at 9:26 am
D4J, is hatred the best response to injustice?
Hatred is a poison that can never undo the injustice you’ve suffered. It will alienate you further from those you love and simply confirm the harsh assessments that the ill informed may hold against you.
Let the hatred go. Get help to sort yourself after which you’ll be an order of magnitude more effective trying to change the system that has been so unfair to you and to others.
BTW I won’t be buying a white ribbon for the same reason as Mark has just offered.
November 20th, 2006 at 9:43 am
ditto D4J, and menz followers, Bagnall and co are not doing your mission much justice going round to people’s homes frightening women and children. They are simply perpetuating the myth you are trying to dispell.
November 20th, 2006 at 9:49 am
“gays and lesbians suffer higher than average levels of mental illness”
wouldn’t have anything to to with marginalisation by good old fashioned “mainstream NZers” would it?
November 20th, 2006 at 9:55 am
My daughters have both recently indicated they hate their mum because she won’t let them see me . I bumped into the Judge S who has been handling my corrupt case since 2001 the other day at the races . I told him what my daughters had recently said to me . He went white and dropped his whisky .I will continue to protest outside his house !
November 20th, 2006 at 10:03 am
… marginalisation by good old fashioned “mainstream NZers” would it
That’s right, it’s someone else’s fault again. No personal responsibility needed. Anything that beguiles or plagues me can be attributed to the rampant narrow-mindedness that I manage to soar above.
November 20th, 2006 at 10:13 am
Andrew
I think I heard Rex Haig recently say he detested it when people bleated on about ” no personal responsibilty “. I got no hatred flowing in my veins ,just forgiveness and sadness , however I am glad Rex got justice after doing big time in the hole .You “soar above ” facts that prove the unbalanced system needs to be held accountable.
November 20th, 2006 at 10:20 am
“It’s nothing but a racket for the Jews.”
Livia Soprano on psycho-therapy
November 20th, 2006 at 10:56 am
Darryl
You attempt to undermine Fergusson’s findings by mumbling about smaller sub-sample sizes. These sorts of issues are considered at the time an article is peer reviewed which all his groups studies that are published in world renown journals clearly are. If his peers find no reason to apply a sample size qualification to his findings, why should anyone accept yours.
November 20th, 2006 at 11:04 am
… much of the objectivity of this study is lost when dealing with psychological issues, when the subjects know that they are part of a ‘famous’ study at the forefront of knowledge.
Firstly, you don’t know what you’re talking about. Secondly, that just isn’t true.
When these studies are conducted, a second group of participants the same age who have not been part of the study are also recruited (not every time, but on occasions) and comparisons are made. This is not reported because it is a check only. The results of this group are consistent with the main group. Your line is just a bog standard Research Methods 101 line you rote-learn for an exam. Real researchers are quite aware of this and try to control for it. These people aren’t amateurs!!
How was the domestic violence measured? No doubt through anecdotal recall. Nothing scientific about that.
Anecdotal recall is very different from asking everyone in a sample. Domerstic violence reports are obtained from multiple sources. Just read the research before you make stupid comments!!
I presume Fergusson isn’t making the elementary correlation = causation errors that some journos and some commenters on this blog seem to be
Of course not – thank you Psycho Milt.
By the way, I prefer to let the data speak for itself, rather than prejudices and hysteria.
November 20th, 2006 at 11:23 am
And I suppose it was a woman’s fault for being burnt at the steak for being a witch in medieval times as well – because that’s the kind of persecution many gays and lesbians face in our society. Can’t be good for one’s mental health you would think.
November 20th, 2006 at 11:34 am
Anyone got the figures on how many men are murdered by their female partners as against women murdered by their husbands/boyfriends?
Would be interesting to compare.
November 20th, 2006 at 11:44 am
I thought you would know that figure sonic – as you probably got a dead husband buried in your back yard .Phillip – Homosexuals are not allowed to give blood -there is nothing mental about that ?…no doubt you will disagree with common sense again.
November 20th, 2006 at 11:49 am
Do a google search on Fergusons name – you’ll find a great many of his peers have grave doubts about the validity of his conclusions – mostly on the basis of the small size of his samples.
That doesn’t mean the studies shouldn’t be published – they should, they’re fascinating. What it means is that we shouldn’t change our laws (as Professor Ferguson suggests we should) on the basis of – in the case of the abortion study – 74 subjects out of a population of 3 million.
In answer to sonics question, most studies find that both men and women act violently towards their partners on a more or less equal basis. The big difference is that men use much more force and are WAY more likely to injure or kill their partner than women are. An average of 11 women and 3 men are murdered by their partners each year
November 20th, 2006 at 12:04 pm
Type the words “parenting” and “advice” into your popular serach engine on the Internet ,and over 26 million references instantly appear.If you took only one minute to look up and read every one , your child would grow up and leave home before you even finish ! That’s probably why the average age of kiwi – women who give birth to a beautiful child is 28 years?
November 20th, 2006 at 12:05 pm
To Andrew B.
“Firstly, you don’t know what you’re talking about.”
Always a top notch way to start a rebuttal. Hope my MA psychology tutors don’t get wind of this.
Experimenter expectations are an important part of many psychological studies. Having been in this experiment for 30 years none of the subjects are ‘blind’ any more. My argument is simply that doing any psychological studies involving things that can’t be measured with some objectivity such as body weight, physical health, socio-economic factors, on this group of people, is highly risky.
All these experimental questions could be answered using a random sample and probably with a lot more robustness.
November 20th, 2006 at 12:15 pm
Kent – I think you rely upon survivalist ideas and motives to explain child behaviour , as all recent studies regarding the impact of the father do show that positive paternal influences have an effect upon child socio-emotional development.
November 20th, 2006 at 12:24 pm
74 subjects out of a population of 3 million
Danyl, you can’t twist the stats like that. It’s 74 participants out of approx 1000 in the sample. Now whether that equates to 220,000 out of 3,000,000 (i.e. 7.4%) is a different issue, because the people in this study are all the same age, and there are likely to be cohort effects. However, you can’t use the absolute value of a sample and compare that to the population.
As for sample size, yes that is a criticism. However, keep this in mind. Studies with small samples are under-powered and require larger effects than large samples. I have seen studies that have deliberately exploited this and found questionable results because they were over-powered and report very small effects because they have such huge samples. Yes they are more representative of the general population, but the effects are less important.
November 20th, 2006 at 12:26 pm
D4J:
“Homosexuals are not allowed to give blood -there is nothing mental about that ?…no doubt you will disagree with common sense again.”
I don’t know the exact technical reasons for this. Perhaps it’s because gay men are statistically much more likely to have HIV or Aids. IF that’s the case, I can’t disagree with this policy – for example, a het man is also not allowed to give blood if they have had sex with anyone from certain high risk countries, because they are statistically more likely to have HIV or aids.
They kind of prejudice I’m talking about is more along the lines of social exclusion and generally victimisation – I witnessed this happening at my high school in the early to mid 1990s, suffice to say it was quite horrific.
November 20th, 2006 at 12:34 pm
Thanks Danyl
November 20th, 2006 at 12:36 pm
“confirmed sexual abuse was prevalent but found that some perpetrators were female and some victims were male”.
But many overseas studies have found that child sexual abuse is not as common as some people think and certainly not as prevalent as Fergusson says it is. When you’ve got one study that is at odds with the vast majority of studies, who do you believe?
November 20th, 2006 at 12:49 pm
Phillip, am I understanding correctly that you agree with the fact that homosexuals cannot give blood because of the risk, as their blood may contain a deadly virus? Prejudice I know ALL about as a shafted DV father and I am sorry you got picked on at school, however I can’t get my head around why homosexuals would continue with a practise that I liken to me playing Russian roulette with a 9mm revolver?
November 20th, 2006 at 1:02 pm
Experimenter expectations are an important part of many psychological studies.
I will rephrase my original comment – It appears from your comments that you don’t know what you’re talking about. Stop regurgitating what you are told in tutorials and start thinking and reading.
Firstly, these aren’t experiments, they are observational studies. You cannot blind the participants because there is nothing to blind them to. Secondly, researchers have a LOT of techniques to control for expectation biases. With all due respect, the researchers don’t go into this with the skills of an MA psychology tutor. They have gone well beyond rote-learning and have REAL experience in this sort of research.
Yes, some people will try to second guess the research, but they won’t all second guess things the same way. All that does is include noise, thereby reducing the actual effect size. However, most people in these studies are pretty open and honest.
All these experimental questions could be answered using a random sample and probably with a lot more robustness.
you really betray your ignorance – They are not experimental questions and studies like David Fergusson’s and the Dunedin Study do use random samples. Honestly, what is your point? You don’t like their findings so you look for half-baked arguments to shoot things down?
Alison Towns was on NatRad this with similar arguments, and they just don’t stack up.
November 20th, 2006 at 1:08 pm
Some random liberal responses…
*domestic violence isn’t an exclusively male problem and much of it takes the form of low-level brawling involving both partners
- I doubt many liberals would disagree with this – I’d hope they wouldn’t, anyway. Seems common sense.
* abortion significantly boosts a young woman’s risk of mental health problems
- interesting to know whether this is the actual decision to have an abortion; or being in the position of having a possibly unwanted child in the first place. Would need to compare with women who thought about having an abortion, but didn’t. Does anyone know if Ferguson or someone else has done this comparison? (Bear in mind that post-partum depression is hardly uncommon – so _having a baby_ increases a woman’s risk of mental illness).
* cannabis use is linked to use of harder drugs
- I note that he didn’t say that there was a gateway/causal relationship. (funny how the original article talked about him ‘brushing up against powerful groups’ like the cannabis lobby – yeah, those potheads secretly run the country
* circumcision of all baby boys could halve the rate of sexually transmitted diseases
- interesting. Did not know this. Would like to see a higher sample though (1000 subjects = ~500 males, so surely not many male subjects had STDs?)
* gays and lesbians suffer higher than average levels of mental illness
- because they are gay, or because of prejudice against gays? I’m going to go with the latter – growing up with anti-gay jokes and the risk of anti-gay violence is going to be hard on many people.
* low-level lead exposure negatively affecting children’s IQ
- interesting.
* confirmed sexual abuse was prevalent but found that some perpetrators were female and some victims were male.
- again, I don’t think anyone would argue that there are some female sex offenders.
November 20th, 2006 at 1:22 pm
phillip john
“And I suppose it was a woman’s fault for being burnt at the steak…”
Absolutely. Working the bbq is a man’s work. As is mapless navigation. it’s hardwired into the chromosomes.
November 20th, 2006 at 1:38 pm
I’m really not sure that they do. Here’s a link to their most recent publications – I can’t find anything that supports your claim that they cross-check their results with random samples, although I’ll admit I haven’t read them all.
I note with some interest that the rate of reported abortions in Professor Fergusons study is different to that of the general population:
The observed rate of abortion by age 25 in the cohort (178 per 1000) was 81% of the rate expected based on population figures (220 per 1000). This difference was statistically significant (p
– Fergusson DM, Horwood LJ, Ridder EM. Abortion in young women and subsequent
mental health. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry, 2006; 47(1): 16-24.
This finding alone should be cause enough for doubts about the studies conclusions. If they don’t represent the general population at a very basic level like that then I suggest that they ARE just 74 people out of our entire population.
November 20th, 2006 at 2:16 pm
“Phillip, am I understanding correctly that you agree with the fact that homosexuals cannot give blood because of the risk, as their blood may contain a deadly virus?”
If they are much more likely contain the virus, then yes, it would be consistent with disallowing het men the opportunity to give blood if they had sex with somone from south Africa – it’s a statistical issue, not victimisation.
“Prejudice I know ALL about as a shafted DV father and I am sorry you got picked on at school”
Fortunately it wasn’t me but a gay friend who was victimised for their sexuality. Also, I was originally meaning that gay men and lesbians are more likely to experience victimisation and marginalisation than hets, and thus it’s not surprising that they are more likely to suffer from mental illness. The fact that you’ve had a rough time of it with the courts doesn’t mean that het men are just as likely to experience victimisation. Actually, I’m sure there are far more men out there don’t have that particular problem than do (not that I don’t have sympathy with your situation).
“however I can’t get my head around why homosexuals would continue with a practise that I liken to me playing Russian roulette with a 9mm revolver?”
D4J: think of it this way, if NZ women had aids at the same rate as NZ gay men would that stop you from having sex?
November 20th, 2006 at 2:22 pm
“* abortion significantly boosts a young woman’s risk of mental health problems
- interesting to know whether this is the actual decision to have an abortion; or being in the position of having a possibly unwanted child in the first place. Would need to compare with women who thought about having an abortion, but didn’t. Does anyone know if Ferguson or someone else has done this comparison? (Bear in mind that post-partum depression is hardly uncommon – so _having a baby_ increases a woman’s risk of mental illness). ”
Heres a few facts about the abortion research findings.
-42% of women in the survey group who had an abortion had suffered from a major depression, one third higher than the number who had chosen to keep their babies, and double the rate of those who had never become pregnant.
-In the study wether or not there were pre-existing mental health problems, ethnicity,education levels, social background, were taken into account.
-Dr Fergusson has pro-choice political views
The above results lead to the conclusion that the damage done to a womens mental health from abortion is greater that that of pregnancy and childbirth. Wether the damage was done by having an unwanted pregnancy ort the abortion itself is not looked into by Dr Fergussons study, but if tjhe mental health problems occured from the unwanted pregnancy, not the abortion, one would expect them to disappear with the abortion, as abortion ends the unwanted pregnancy. I’m not aware of any such study done.
November 20th, 2006 at 2:23 pm
Andrew B. wants to accept any research findings without question.
“..you really betray your ignorance..”. Now that’s rational. You don’t agree with me therefore I am ignorant.
I never referred to them as experiments, simply used the reference to experimental questions the results of which are what you are presented with in DPF’s post. At some stage the investigator has to ask these questions and that sometimes happens at the beginning, sometimes at the end. Yes, the actual studies themselves are not experiments, but the questions are still experimental questions or hypotheses, but then because these aren’t experiments ‘hypothesis’ is not a good word and we are going to get confused all over again.
At no stage did I say I disagree with the findings.
As it stands I can now see the benefits from using this cohort for these kinds of studies, in terms of cost and efficiency, since the ideal random sample is mostly an elusive dream. While I think the male/female violence and sexual abuse results might be a bit dicky, results for most of the rest of the questions are probably pretty good because they are less prone to bias or poor measurement and some of them benefit from the longitudinal nature of the study.
All results of all psychological studies are open to question. To fail to question them at all is the real ignorance.
November 20th, 2006 at 2:45 pm
The Dunedin Study uses what is called an unselected birth cohort – In their case ALL the children born at one specific hospital between April 1972 and March 1973. Sure, that is not entirely random, but it is pretty bloody good. The point is that they were not selected based on any predetermined characteristics other than location and age. (you have to use some limits).
I can’t find anything that supports your claim that they cross-check their results with random samples, although I’ll admit I haven’t read them all.
I am uncertain about the CHCH study, but I know for a fact that the Dunedin study does. Some academics argued that being part of the study had changed the participants, and therefore they were no longer representative of the population. For this reason they (the researchers at the Dunedin study) randomly selected comparison samples (i.e. same age) and were cross-validated.
Look, I am not saying these longitudinal studies are the be all end all in research – of course they aren’t. They are however very good at some things. People like Kent and Alison Towns use flawed simplistic and incorrect reasoning to knock them back because they don’t like the findings.
I note with some interest that the rate of reported abortions in Professor Fergusons study is different to that of the general population:
The observed rate of abortion by age 25 in the cohort (178 per 1000) was 81% of the rate expected based on population figures (220 per 1000). This difference was statistically significant
This finding alone should be cause enough for doubts about the studies conclusions. If they don’t represent the general population at a very basic level like that then I suggest that they ARE just 74 people out of our entire population.
Oh for goodness’ sake.
November 20th, 2006 at 3:03 pm
Andrew B. wants to accept any research findings without question.
NONSENSE!!
All results of all psychological studies are open to question.
Actually, the results from ALL studies (not just in psychology) are open to question.
To fail to question them at all is the real ignorance.
I agree. However, there is a difference between real and informed criticism and just blindly quoting Stage I lecture notes. I read Nicholas O’Kane’s comments and I see real questions. That is, some thought went into them.
November 20th, 2006 at 3:31 pm
Andrew B. wants to accept any research findings without question.
“..you really betray your ignorance..”. Now that’s rational. You don’t agree with me therefore I am ignorant.
I never referred to them as experiments, simply used the reference to experimental questions the results of which are what you are presented with in DPF’s post. At some stage the investigator has to ask these questions and that sometimes happens at the beginning, sometimes at the end. Yes, the actual studies themselves are not experiments, but the questions are still experimental questions or hypotheses, but then because these aren’t experiments ‘hypothesis’ is not a good word and we are going to get confused all over again.
At no stage did I say I disagree with the findings.
As it stands I can now see the benefits from using this cohort for these kinds of studies, in terms of cost and efficiency, since the ideal random sample is mostly an elusive dream. While I think the male/female violence and sexual abuse results might be a bit dicky, results for most of the rest of the questions are probably pretty good because they are less prone to bias or poor measurement and some of them benefit from the longitudinal nature of the study.
All results of all psychological studies are open to question. To fail to question them at all is the real ignorance.
November 20th, 2006 at 4:29 pm
Dr Alison Towns is a contracted research fellow with the Werry Centre for child and Adolescent Health. Who is the (self) esteemed Andrew Bannister in all this.
November 20th, 2006 at 4:55 pm
Who is the (self) esteemed Andrew Bannister in all this?
You’ll be surprised
November 20th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
Kent, I’ll give you a hint – check the name carefully and you’ll work it out.
November 20th, 2006 at 6:13 pm
On the abortions thing, isn’t this similar to a self selecting survey?
In order to really know if abortions contributed to mental illness you would need to randomly select pregnant women to have abortions and randomly select those who get to keep their babies and then compare the two groups. You might need a placebo group who don’t know what happened to their babies.
I suppose another approximation would be to force unwanted pregancies on women and then compare this group with those who did have abortions.
Given the unacceptability of the both above lines of research, I suggest anyone who makes black and white statements like “abortion significantly boosts a young woman’s risk of mental health problems” might also have a stadium in Auckland to sell you.
November 20th, 2006 at 7:25 pm
The abortion impact on mental health has long been suspected by pro-life organizations including groups like WEBA (women exploited by abortion) and AVA (American Victims of abortion) and Feminists for life. They have described such as Post-Abortion syndromme. This issue is controversial but Dr Fergussons study does give weight to its existance. As a result I would be inclined to provisionally accept Dr Fergussons research but more research into this topic would be usefull. One good way to do a fair study would be to select a sample group of women from a country with restrictive abortion laws and a similar sample group from a country with liberal abortion laws. It is important the countries be very similar, so cultural factors, levels of wealth won’t distort the study. Of the two sample groups will be divided into the following groups
1) Women who have never had a pregnancy.
2) Women who have had a wanted pregnancy.
3) Women who have had an unwanted pregnancy but hve been forced to keep the baby (presumably women from the country with restrictive abortion laws) .
4) Women who have had a unwanted preganancy and aborted it (presumabably from the country with liberal abortion laws).
Then we can look at the mental health issues across all groups. We must take mental health problems that women have had before the pregnancy, into account, and if possible other socio-economic factors into account. A series of studies with large sample groups would help provide clear information on the effects of abortion for women.
November 20th, 2006 at 10:21 pm
Andrew, I’m not psychic and a google search reveals nothing, so you’ll have to be old fashioned and just tell me.
November 21st, 2006 at 1:35 am
Fergusson’s findings are contested in the Journal of Marriage and the Family, available here:
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/toc/jomf/67/5
In particular, Johnson criticises Fergusson’s adoption of the term “domestic violence” in the paper, when what it describes is a wide range of couple conflict behaviours, most of which are relatively minor and don’t cause injury. It’s certainly a much wider range than is covered by the Domestic Violence Act 1995 or in the court cases we see in the media.
The last part of the conclusion of Fergusson’s original paper acknowledges that the study was not large enough to examine the more serious kinds of partner violence.
“There is clearly a need for further research to reconcile findings that suggest: (a) the absence of gender differences in domestic violence involving mild or moderate assault, (b) a clear male predominance in incidents involving severe injury and death. As was evident from the present study, even with a moderately large sample, severe outcomes of domestic violence (e.g., hospitalization, death) were too infrequent for study. Such findings clearly suggest the need for large (N>10,000) sample studies or for stratified research designs involving the oversampling of high risk groups to provide an in-depth analysis of the way in which the gender ratio in the perpetration of domestic violence varies with the severity of violence.”
Until such time as there are studies large enough to include the very small group at the severe end of the spectrum, police and hospitalisation/mortality statistics are better sources of data on serious partner violence than the Christchurch and Dunedin longitudinal research. They show unequivocally that the large majority of victims at that serious end of violence are women. The White Ribbon campaign is asking men – the vast majority of whom are not violent to women – to take the lead in opposing that kind of violence.
November 21st, 2006 at 10:20 am
Echo, of course and you are right. That is the nature of research. Studies like the Christchurch and Dunedin study provide some evidence, but nobody is claiming that they are perfect or definitive. However, they are important and play a part in the greater body of knowledge.
My issue in this thread has been that some people make criticisms that are just not valid. I just read the post by emailsagogo and that is just another example of someone who just does not understand how research works. They have a few snippets ‘knowledge’ they picked up here and there and start putting these together to come up with silly arguments.
It’s a bit like saying 2 + 2 = 22.
It isn’t and everyone here knows that it is a stupid answer. However, without some rudimentary understanding of maths this might seem like a rational answer, but it isn’t. That is the way I see some of the arguments presented here.
I think a number of people have made some good and valid points (which I have acknowledged). I just try to point out uninformed nonsense.
November 21st, 2006 at 10:45 am
“I think a number of people have made some good and valid points (which I have acknowledged). I just try to point out uninformed nonsense.”
Still waiting to know who the real Andrew Bannister is…
November 21st, 2006 at 11:26 am
Why is that so important Kent?
Does that change anything? Whether you are Kent Parker, Mickey Mouse or Albert Einstein, your comments are still your comments.
However, if it is that important to you:
The answer you seek is in the name
And the letters are all the same
I am closer than you think
Remember, I could be wearing pink
If that doesn’t help
Try thinking kelp
For my presence is near the sea
And I also love to ski
If you can’t work it out then bummer for you.
November 21st, 2006 at 5:17 pm
Oh, you’re a famous poet. Well, I knew you had to be somebody.
November 24th, 2006 at 11:15 am
Independent research (as oppose to that concocted by various groups with vested interests) overwhelmingly proves domestic violence is neither exclusively nor even predominantly a male problem, but generally takes the form of low-level brawling involving both men and women.
Unfortunately, most responses to domestic violence are ideologically driven and ignore the reality that violence is a human issue, not a gender one. Male victims are just as numerous as female victims, yet they face enormous difficulty even having their existence acknowledged.
There are no massive taxpayer-funded campaigns to draw attention to their plight and battered men are reluctant to phone the police as they are likely to either be laughed at or be the one who gets arrested as the police seem to be stuck in “blame the man” mode. However, most male victims of domestic violence will never speak up because the shame of being a battered man usually is worse than the battering itself.
The white ribbon movement is unhelpful by choosing to only focus on some domestic violence and ignore the rest. While this campaign purportedly started out as men’s initiative, I can say from 18 years involvement with various men’s organisations that it is definitely not part of the mainstream men’s movement, neither in New Zealand nor overseas.
While many men-against-violence type organisations do appear to be well-intentioned, they are often dominated by formerly violent men who are rightfully ashamed of their actions, but seek to redeem themselves by transferring their guilt onto all other men.
I refuse to wear a white ribbon, but am wearing a black ribbon instead, to acknowledge the plight of all victims of violence, not just some of them. Until we are prepared to acknowledge that domestic violence is a two-way street, this blight on our society will never go away.