Quote:
Originally Posted by dippin
But when there is systematic bias like that, that becomes an included variable, and tests on omitted variables turn significant.
I'm not saying self reported studies are perfect, just that they are informative and that there are several known ways to deal with the most obvious statistical issues.
Regarding the issue you mentioned, they include a number of variables in the study, some related to individual experience, some to the so called "measurement error" and that is how the eliminate the "genetic" aspect of it all. For some bias to explain the insignificance of genetic factors in a multivariate study like this, the bias would have to be one that is extremely high correlated with experience and uncorrelated with genetics. Is it possible to have something like that? Sure, but that is why we have significance levels in statistics.
|
Ideally it becomes an included variable, and you'd expect that such things would be accounted for, but you can't really tell unless you read the actual study.
I'm not saying that I necessarily disagree with their analysis and results. I do think that the abstract doesn't do much to provide support for their conclusion and without reading the study I can't tell whether the study actually supports their conclusion.
*edit because I responded before your third paragraph made it in*
From a completely anecdotal standpoint, I think that sexuality is sufficiently complicated that experience might play an an equally significant or greater role than genetics.