contestgamer said:
What do you mean that you're "sure" another 10-15 chose 2? Where do we see that number to know it's not 30 or 60 or 70%? Also for reference his studies are incredibly small in comparison to far larger ones with far better sampling and totally different results. His methodology amounts to junk science:
There have been serious criticisms pertaining to sample selection and sample bias in Kinsey's research. In 1948, the same year as the original publication, a committee of the American Statistical Association, including notable statisticians such as John Tukey condemned the sampling procedure. Tukey was perhaps the most vocal critic, saying "A random selection of three people would have been better than a group of 300 chosen by Mr. Kinsey." [2]. Criticism principally revolved around the over-representation of some groups in the sample: 25 percent were, or had been, prison inmates, and 5 percent were male prostitutes. A related criticism, by some of the leading psychologists of the day, notably Abraham Maslow, was that he (Kinsey) did not consider the bias created by the data representing only those who were willing to participate. |
I meant to say I'm sure at least another 10-15% are a 2.
5300 white males and 5940 white females provided almost all the data, with the majority of participants being younger white adults with some college education. (This part of the sample is referred to as the "College Sample.") Kinsey tried to compensate for volunteer bias in his sample by interviewing 100% of the individuals available in a given organization or group. Approximately 25% of the sex histories came from these 100% groups. (Kinsey did not believe a random sample was possible.)
Certainly in 1950 only 1% of people will admit they're homosexual. Most modern surveyS have seen that number increase to at least 5%.
According to a study from the National Bureau of Economic Research, about 20 percent of the population is attracted to their own gender. That’s nearly double the usual estimates of about 10 percent. The authors explain that their methodology might have something to do with it:
Participants were randomly assigned to either a “best practices method” that was computer-based and provides privacy and anonymity, or to a “veiled elicitation method” that further conceals individual responses. Answers in the veiled method preclude inference about any particular individual, but can be used to accurately estimate statistics about the population. Comparing the two methods shows sexuality-related questions receive biased responses even under current best practices, and, for many questions, the bias is substantial. The veiled method increased self-reports of non-heterosexual identity by 65% (p<0.05) and same-sex sexual experiences by 59% (p<0.01). The veiled method also increased the rates of anti-gay sentiment. Respondents were 67% more likely to express disapproval of an openly gay manager at work (p<0.01) and 71% more likely to say it is okay to discriminate against lesbian, gay, or bisexual individuals (p<0.01).
^ And again that is only people admitting their same-sex attractions.









WHO IS JESUS REALLY?