walkitout: (Default)
http://pewforum.org/Other-Beliefs-and-Practices/U-S-Religious-Knowledge-Survey.aspx

R. was telling me about this, so I went to check it out. Amusingly, he got 100% even tho he had to guess on the Great Awakening question. He misread it, thinking it was about the 2nd Great Awakening, but still picked Jonathan Edwards.

Digging down to find the full questionnaire is really interesting; it answered a bunch of longstanding questions I had about how they extract denominational affiliation (short form: they just pick a level of detail and let you volunteer more if you want to, and yes, they do arrange the questions based on a combination of what you said earlier about affiliation and your stated race).

R. and I then had a very long conversation about whether he ever learned about Jonathan Edwards in his two years of high school US history, which only had an honors division in the second year. He went to Longmeadow High School (you know, really, not that freaking far from Edwards stomping grounds. And I do mean stomping.), so it is just inconceivable to me that this wouldn't even be mentioned. OTOH, Massachusetts has demonstrated a remarkable capacity over the centuries to really Just Not Talk About things that make people uncomfortable. A few rounds of people like Edwards and nearly anyone would decide to make religion a No Go zone for conversation.

Given the incredibly low rates on that question (in the face of only three choices, even! One of them Billy Graham!), I have to suspect that a whole lot of people never learned about the Great Awakening. I'm a little uncertain how much sense the First Amendment religion clauses could make if you didn't know this part of our history. Honestly, what went on in the colonies make JW's look calm and reasonable.
walkitout: (Default)
http://www.slate.com/id/2269951/

LJ is going to make my whole journal adult content one of these days.

This is more secondary coverage of the recent, large sex survey that I still haven't tracked down a copy of yet. It's Slate, and it's by someone with a man's name, so this isn't too surprising:

"That's a lot of butt sex. And remember, this is what women are reporting. If anything, they're probably understating the truth.

So what's with all the buggery? Is it brutality? Coercion? A porn-inspired male fantasy at women's expense?"

Obviously, not a man who is reading romance novels with a lot of the sex lately. Or, for that matter, the SB tribe talking about same. But despite having a steep learning curve, this is someone who can read the data and understand it.

"So why did the inclusion of anal sex bump the orgasm figure up to 94 percent? It didn't. The causality runs the other way. Women who were getting what they wanted were more likely to indulge their partners' wishes. It wasn't the anal sex that caused the orgasms. It was the orgasms that caused the anal sex."

That is decent analysis. I am impressed.

ETA: Don't go assuming that just because I think Saletan did a nice analysis here implies that I think Saletan does a consistently good job of analyzing data. He does not.
walkitout: (Default)
http://www.the-digital-reader.com/2010/07/04/nielsens-kindle-reading-speeds-study-was-flawed/

Fantastic analysis. Basically: a bunch of people who may or may not have ever used any of these devices were timed reading a _short story_.

Yeah. _Not_ measuring reading speed.

July 2025

S M T W T F S
   1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1314 1516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 15th, 2025 06:28 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios