Liars, damned liars, and all of ‘em statisticians. (yep, just made that up). The best lies ever orchestrated are overflowing with dubious and compounded statistics. In my UofU, Basic Research Methods Course (101), Professor Tufts suggested that the motive and intent of the creator of a study is paramount. He jocularly referred to it as the “sniff test.” In essence, if a study stinks of bias, independant verification is in order. While reviewing the propaganda, my olefactory senses were repeatedly stung by Edelman’s attempts at columny. In fact, the last six paragraphs were the most caustic putrification and adulteration (yes, I’m punny) of information I’ve encountered since Hitler’s typification of Jews.
If Benjamin Edelman (with the collusion of three researchers and complicity of eight consultants) is inclined to craft a study that pretends to assert that prayerful and scripture-studying American citizens are significantly more engaged in pornography (which accusation is patently illogical), I’m compelled to confound his clever complexities with a simple independant verification. Take a few seconds to see how contrived his numbers are and the skew of the press.
He mentioned porntube.dotcom, so let’s go with that one (if you think this is a small sample size, let it be remembered that Edelman only used one company for his analysis – so in his words [and I couldn't agree more], “it is difficult to confirm rigorously that this seller is representative” p.215 ).
He mentioned using Alexa for online data. We’ll try Quantcast’s unbiased stats and inference models.
Ben fingers the educated and affluent as highest subscribers to porn.
Quantcast identifies that it is the less-educated and non-affluent as the highest over-all population of consumers of porn.
The following shows that subscribers to porn are totally different than the population of porn consumers. Almost exactly opposite of what Edelman described.
Edelman made a map displaying payers for porn by percentages.
Quantcast shows a map of the highest populations of non-paying porn participants.
From an economic perspective, it’s pity that Edelman lacked the genius to identify ways to capitalize on the massive market of non-paying porn consumers. Instead, he points out the ridiculously obvious (people with more money [always highly correlated with more educated] are more likely to spend it). Brilliant. Instead he decides to target the variables anathema to the census: religion. Figured out his motive yet?
Ben claims to have included “standard demograpic variables” but omits race. Why? Because that particular truth wouldn’t villainize whom he wanted to smear. Think about it, if he identified Afr.Am. and Hisp. as primary subscribers (as shown above) everyone would say, well, those races aren’t majorities in Utah and Alaska so it appears as though this repugnant, pornography-viewing behavior is confined to a relatively insignificant portion of the population and is therefore irrelevant. But for Edelman’s campaign to take effect, he needed to paint some things with broad strokes and omit color altogether in others.
Edelman has one “anonymous” source for subscription and zip code data. This is highly suspicious. How probable is it that the unmentionable source has a monopoly on smut within the regions he wanted to criticise? It is not unthinkable that organized vice is as territorial as organized crime.
Now, to put this in the proper perspective: If the filth-pettling businessmen who read the Harvard Journal of Economic Perspectives are seeking subscribers that are willing to pay for vice, the more educated, affluent, religious demographic could be their target market. However, if the public wants to know which populations indulge in porn because Edelman and the press have you feeling maligned and grossly misrepresented, now you know their game and have unbiased material evidence that places burden of shame where it belongs.
Please share these findings liberally. Oh, and if you want to be ahead of the curve, apprehend Edelmans creation as a well-credentialed document to be referenced by the proponents of gay marriage. Speaking of, gporntube (“g” is for gay) ranks first in affinity sites.
p.s. The entire research report is a page right out of “how to write anti-mormom propaganda” as described by Russell Robe in his book: Persuasion and Perplexity (hard to find). Especially in usage of the tactic known as compounding doubt and the tactic of innuendo.
8 Comments
Hi Brian…I saw your blog link on your facebook status and linked to your writing. I enjoyed reading your different point of view and agree with what you found. I didn’t know you were so smart with all those huge words in the first paragraph ha ha.
Hi Chris! Your comment made my day. As the guy who never swore and always checked me when I did, your approbation in this instance adds immense moral credibility.
It took me 30 seconds to discover the fallibilities and ill-intentions of the researchers and about 3 hours to write it up! 
All my best, Brian. p.s. Congrats on the marriage! The happiness in your pics brought a smile to my face.
As for the big words – you’ve been around me long enough to know when I’m just trying to look smart (which I was).
So I asked a friend who works at Comcast if UFC is the biggest pay-per-view in Utah. He said yes, but later cornered me away from the family and told me that it was really second… a distant second to porn.
This is AWESOME! Big Wayne is in the house! Okay, so what I’m hearing is that you agree with the study and that Utahans pay for porn. Here’s the question: Are the Utah viewers porn snobs, or are they just stupid? After all, it’s totally free at porntube.com – a fact that, in per-capita terms, Californians and New Yorkers and Texans lead the nation in experiencing, so to speak.
While I understand your argument Brian, and yes this guy may be biased against Mormons, I could totally believe this study to be true. Utah is the Capital of the World when it comes to living duel lives. Closet alcoholism, drug abuse, child abuse, and many other offenses run rampant in Utah. Stands to reason high levels of pornography subscriptions would follow. The thing I just cant comprehend…why pay for it, there are plenty of free porn sites available.
Keith, thanks for taking a moment and registering your thoughts here. I think a lot of people agree with you about the duplicity (aka hypocrisy)of a population that tries to be good. Historically, the most honorable people fall prey to temptation and try to hide it. Take King David for example. He went from felling Goliath to bedding Bathsheba (and later killing her husband). So I agree with you, it is fairly common for good people to do bad things. The compelling aspect of the David story is the fact that we have it. The historians of Judah had the integrity to preserve the facts of the life of one of their greatest kings while accepting the risk of global and generational shame. That took great courage on the part of the chroniclers. Now take the story of the virtuous Joseph, the one that Potiphers wife falsely accused of lasciviousness. Taken alone, each story leaves the door wide open for reasonable skepticism. However, taken together, the contrasting stories neutralize most doubts.
Now, with that in mind, consider the work of Benjamin Edelman. Has he ever published a work that is complimentary to people of faith (in contrast to the derogatory one he just released?). See for yourself: http://www.benedelman.org/publications/
(I couldn’t find one, but if you can, I’ll retract my assertion that he is mudslinging [but I won't delete my findings, because they are facts]).
Hello Brian,
I enjoyed your comments. It’s also nice to see that Persuasion & Perplexity is still having a positive effect on those interested in searching for truths. It has been out of print for about 18 years, but I’m thinking about bringing it back in an updated edition. Any thoughts on that?
Hello Russell! I tried to find you online so I could link to your writings but what I found was “iffy,” so I’m extremely pleased that you found my little article and posted your website (which contains your extraordinarily varied and beautiful blind-commission art). I believe that you are the first celebrity to register a comment here. THANK YOU!
Also, thank you for Persuasion and Perplexity. It was a gift to me from Pres. Floto when I served the people in the Indiana Mission (1992). Due to several mass production anti-Mormon printing presses in that vicinity, he deemed it wise to empower us with your guidebook. I recall sitting at the dinner table of a gentleman who was interested in learning about The Savior and him presenting a most unfavorable pamphlet about our history/doctrines etc. I perused the text, smiled confidently and said, want me to show you what’s going on here? He flashed a friendly smile and said “sure!” I took my red scriptures pencil and labeled, line-by-line, the menacing mechanics, fallacies and “fillers.” It was a triumph. There were also instances when The Holy Spirit single-handedly dispelled the doubts. While The Spirit is indispensable, the obtaining of wisdom out of “the best books” is proof that due diligence is required at the hand of His servants. I would classify your guidebook as one of those “best books.”
An updated version would be splendid. To resonate with my demographic, additional modern-day examples and more cannon-backed references would make for stimulating reading. To meet sophistry head on, the incorporation of Kahneman and Tversky (heuristics, hedonics, framing, achoring, etc.) as well as references to modern skeptic Nassim Taleb would be a bulls-eye to all readers. Oh, and expanded instruction on the application of formal logic would do us all a world of good. Please let me know when the 2nd edition will hit the shelves. Again, thank you for your faith and works. All my best, Brian
Post a Comment