If i did it. It was accidental.
1 Like
This is eva goldfarb explaining her own study.
And her conclusion is significantly different.
Before I bother to watch, you are saying that she disagrees with her own conclusions?
I canât speak for every state, but, depending on your role you must pass a background check, here. Personally, I went through I lost count 4 or 5 last year, alone.
And one, this year, because I bought a new gun.
You can be a criminal and pass a background check. In fact, that is almost requisite in order to poach your prey. The background check mostly says you havenât been caught, yet.
Wait, wut? Again with the self-contradiction.
American school children may be people you have never met, but that is not the case with me.
I interact with them regularly.
Including my own alleged spawn.
They pay me to, sometimes, ironically enough.
Meaning primarily black areas, with primarily black local governments, ran by primarily black government agencies, with black Executive Directives pay me to this, all the time.
To get data on their own community, and to help them analyze the data.
Yes, when my tax dollars help pay for it, of course I do, or would.
And when my kids will or may also be in those classes, you bet.
All children are vulnerable.
That said, letâs talk about suicide are a measure of vulnerability, as an example.
The children who commit suicide in the U.S. before the age of puberty, both in greatest numbers, and as a percentage of population, are black males, who commit suicide by hanging themselves in around 80% of the cases, usually in their own bedroom.
At puberty, and throughout the teen years, white males then become the majority of the teen suicides, and half of the teen suicides are with a handgun, around a third of the suicides are from hanging, and a little over ten percent are from poison.
In both pre-puberty and post puberty, males are 4 times as likely to commit suicide than females.
Teen females are much more likely to claim to have attempted suicide than males, or to express suicidal ideations, but their rates of actually committing suicide are much, much lower than that of teen males.
Gay and Trans people, like females are much more likely to claim to have attempted suicide, or to state that they sometimes think about suicide,
Here is what the studies do show:
- Black males in poor areas before puberty commit the most child suicides,
- Post puberty, white male teens commit the majority of teen suicides,
- Most pre-puberty suicides are from hanging,
- From teen years on, hand guns account for half the suicides.
- Regarding adults, more than 2/3 to 75% of all successful suicides in the U.S. are straight white males.
- By percentage of population, Native American adult males have even higher rates than white adult males.
- Gay people, Trans people, and females talk about suicidal ideations, and claim past suicide attempts more than straight males, but talking about suicidal ideations, and claiming past suicide attempts is not the same as committing actual suicide.
What the studies do show, is that females, gay people, and trans, whether teens or adults, do talk about their feelings, or claim past suicide attempts, or claim suicidal ideations, or claim to be depressed, more than straight males.
That clearly does not mean that those demographics are more vulnerable than straight males, particularly not when it is those males that actually commit the vast majorities of actual suicides.
It just means that straight males do not talk about their feelings, as much, nor make claims of attempted suicide - rather when it comes to suicide, they actually do it, in much higher numbers and rates, than the demographics that talk about it.
So, all children are vulnerable.
And gay and trans children are not more vulnerable, for suicide, by the data.
Male children are, however, regardless of whether they are gay or straight or trans or not.
There are other measures of vulnerability, besides suicide, such as bullying.
Children do tease and bully other children, for race, for being too small, for being too fat, for being poor, for sex type, for styles of dress, who they get crushes on, for being disabled, gender compliance, for being too smart, and for not being smart enough.
We can discuss that as a separate measure, or area of study, separately from this post.
I already provided you proof where she misrepresented other studies, when she made her claims, in her own study.
I told you right where you could go, to see that proof for yourself, in black and white.
Not opinions from me, but where she made misrepresented claims, and you can go right to the sources she was citing, to see that what she was saying about those sources were misrepresentations of the sources.
If you choose not look at those proofs, and just go with this lady, and what she says on faith, that is your choice.
There are âexpertsâ in Homeopathic medicine, too, but the product they are selling is still junk.
But just like CSE, there is still a market for it,
even though Goldfarbâs study makes misrepresentations,
and a lot of the âresearchâ on CSE is not scientifically supported,
and when it is scientifically rigorous is tends to show that CSE does not do better than âabstinence plusâ programs,
and in fact often does slightly worse than âabstinence plusâ regarding achieving positive outcomes,
and tends to result in a lot more negative outcomes than âabstinence plusâ programs.
Which is what the non-partisan meta studies showed.
Pointing out that the people you are presenting as experts are funded by groups whose stated mission is to advance abortion, and advance LGBTQ political reach, is not me twisting anything.
Those are facts, and they are material when we consider these people as speakers, or researchers, and their work.
Which is why in research, that is called a financial conflict of interest, and is supposed to be disclosed and disclaimed anytime that work is presented or discussed.
And it is material that both Goldfarb and Rollston have both said that it is their mission to drive CSE adoption before they do studies, and then they produce essays that always support CSE.
That is the definition of bias.
Rollstonâs current funded research project stated purpose before it was began was to get policy makers to adopt CSE, it is actually in the title of the âresearchâ project she is currently doing.
It does not get any more biased than thatâŚAnd she is claiming it, or announcing it, that is her stated objective with that âresearchâ project.
Not to research whether or not it really works, scientifically, or objectively.
Side note: has somebody coined the term âselectspert,â yet? If not, Iâve got dibs.
So, I read a couple of Rollstonâs papers about CSE today, and a couple of her papers about non-CSE related medical issues.
Rollston is the Harvard trained physician that @gregaquaman put forward as a CSE subject matter expert.
Rollston has been careful to disclaim in the CSE papers of hers I have read so far that:
âAdditional obstacles to implementation of CSE include a dearth of rigorous scientific data demonstrating its benefits.â
Meaning Rollston plainly disclaims and acknowledges that there is a lack of rigorous scientific data that demonstrates CSEâs benefits or that scientifically proves that CSE has benefits when compared to the alternatives such as abstinence plus programs.
Her CSE papers that I have read so far, are undoubtedly strongly advocating CSE adoption, and strongly advocating abortion access and utilization.
She does make some claims in the CSE papers of hers that I have read so far, that are clearly correlation, not necessarily causation, but that is a reader beware kind of thing,
although in those papers she does not explain that correlation is not necessarily causation, each time she makes many of her âmayâ statements as thoroughly as I might like,
But, a lot of academic writers donât.
She also perpetuates the device of using stating suicidal ideations, and/or claims of past suicides as a surrogate measure for actual suicide rates, which is also misleading,
but a lot academic writers and lay people do that as well,
even though that surrogate and actual suicides are very different things, and in many cases the surrogate they are using has an inverse relationship to actual suicide executions.
But only people with strong statistics and math backgrounds are likely to be sticklers about that statistical surrogate measure mistake.
So far, she is a good writer.
While I myself couldnât advocate CSE without scientific evidence supporting it, given the evidence that does exist that abstinence plus programs have better outcomes than CSE, and are less controversial,
she is at least honest about her bias, and plainly disclaims it, and explains her advocacy in clear terms, in her papers about CSE,
acknowledging that her purpose in writing those papers is specifically to advocate for CSE, as advocacy papers,
and in the CSE papers by Rollston that I have read so far, she has plainly and honestly disclaimed the lack of scientific evidence that CSE provides benefits, over abstinence plus programs.
I give her an âA-â, as a writer and advocate,
I would give her an âAâ, as a writer and advocate, if she more consistently, plainly, and redundantly explained to her less educated readers when she makes her correlation observations and potential effect speculations, that correlation is not necessarily causation, and may be due to other factors, or even coincidental.
Otherwise, the first couple of her papers that I read were enjoyable reads, even where I might disagree with some of her speculative conclusions / recommendations from the correlation observations, or some of her points.
She is a good writer.
I also had the pleasure of reading some of her papers that were not about CSE or abortion, and were about other medical issues, and they were well written, and seemed generally useful.
So why arenât you biased?
Why are we just trusting your take on this?
Two major points. One she disagrees with Gonzos opinion about the conclusions of her study.
And two. She presents these extra ideas of sex education being about more than sex. And explains why.
Which should make the whole topic at least easier to understand whether you agree or not.
Can you explain why?
Words mean shit.
Apparently not. Because i have been trying to for a hundred posts.
You are not trusting his take on this, clearly. But you are also not trusting my take, as somebody that works in this exact field, because I donât have your bloody blue card.
Goldfarb and Rollston have plainly disclaimed that they write papers, including Goldfarbâs research papers, that are going to advocate for CSE before they write those papers.
Goldfarb makes misrepresentations in hers of the sources she cites to support the narrative she is presenting.
Rollston is not dressing hers up as scientific studies, and plainly disclaims that she is writing advocacy papers as an advocate of CSE to drive government and policy adoption.
So, those authors activities demonstrate their bias, because their express purpose is to advocate for CSE, not scientifically experiment or determine, neutrally, whether CSE or abstinence only is better.
Goldfarb also has documented financial conflicts of interest.
First, her research activities and workshops are funded and sponsored by pro abortion groups.
Goldfarb is also the owner of two different commercial for sale CSE curriculum programs that schools may license.
And Goldfarb writes and produces other commercial for sale CSE materials.
Those are financial conflicts of interest that Goldfarb has.
If a government agency paid either of them to review studies that compared various sex ed approaches neutrally, and do a meta study, and let the chips fall where they may, without making speculative conclusions, that would not be a bias, nor a financial conflict of interest.
If the government paid them as a consultant, or using their university professor salary or budget, they designed an observation experiment, to neutrally,
and without bias test whether children had better outcomes with CSE or Abstinence Plus or Abstinence Only or No Sex Ed, that would not be biased, and nor would that be a financial conflict of interest.
My bias is that of a data scientist, meaning for something to be worth doing, or funding, the data has to show strong correlation, and preferably outright causation that a treatment actually does better than placebo,
and then further that a chosen treatment should also do better than other available treatments.
I have no financial conflict of interest,
as I receive no monies from pro Abortion groups, nor anti-abortion groups,
And, I receive no monies from pro LGBTQ groups, nor anti-LGBTQ groups.
I am paid as data scientist, cybersecurity consultant, software developer, strategic planning consultant, and sometimes as a grant developer by various government agencies,
I am paid a full time university salary as an academic,
And I do not sell materials related to sex education or abortion, or pro-LGTBQ or anti-LGTBQ.
Are you trying to say that what Goldfarb wrote in the body of her paper did not match what she wrote in the conclusions and results sections of her study?
Or are you saying that when I pointed out that Goldfarb made claims about sources she cited, that on multiple occasions in her paper, if you read some of the sources she cited, she misrepresented in her paper what those sources actually said?
Or are you stating that the meta study that I posted from the non-partisan research group that did meta study analysis on 120 studies concluded that abstinence only produces more good outcomes and less negative outcomes than CSE?
Or, are you referring to Rebekah Rollstonâs honest disclaimer that there is a lack of rigorous scientific evidence that demonstrates CSEâs benefits contradicts Goldfarbâs claim that there, which is a serious misrepresentation on Goldfarbâs.
As even other academics that advocate for CSE, like Rollston the Harvard educated physician, who is a staunch advocate of CSE, acknowledge the opposite of Goldfarbâs claim is true.
Dude, you unleashed the academic.
Except there is no rigorous scientific evidence that CSE had better outcomes than other approaches such as abstinence plus programs, in those other areas that are not sex.
And in the areas that are sex related, such teens not getting pregnant, or not engaging in sexual activities earlier, or not spreading STDs,
there is evidence, that abstinence only programs have more positive outcomes, and less negative outcomes.
Greg, you really should have read her actual study.
Around 1:43 into this dumbed down video for people who donât or canât read,
She repeats her claim that she also made in her paper, that the sources she reviewed to make this claim demonstrated that starting CSE in Kindergarden reduces child sex abuse,
that I already documented proof of that she misrepresented what the sources she cited in her paper to âsupportâ that claim, actually said, and were,
and told you how you could verify that she made those misrepresentations, yourself.
None of those 9 sources demonstrated that implementing CSE as early as Kindergarden helps prevent child sex abuse.
Only 3 the 9 sources were about early age sex ed or early age sex child abuse prevention programs.
Of those three, only 1 of the 3 was about early age sex ed.
The other 2 of the 3 were not early age sex ed programs, they were if an adult tries to look at or touch your private parts, report them to your parents or teachers, and donât talk to stranger programs, having nothing to do with sex ed.
If you ever deigned to actually READ her paper, instead of watching the for dummies video version, you can look up her quote / claim about it,
Then look at those 9 sources she cited, and you will see yourself, that what I just said was true.
And I already debunked several of her other claims as misrepresentations of the sources she cited to âsupport those claimsâ.
You really should start reading papers before, or at least after you post links to them.
Otherwise, it is impossible for you to know or understand what you are posting links to.