Is this true?

[leigh.bess.toad]

CRAP[/size] in my own field is one reason I'm glad I left academia.

 

What he said

[bcohen7719]

Actual bcohen is sort of on the right track. If Dr. Logan had read Daddy's at any length he certainly would have changed some of his conclusins, I believe. First, he would have discovered what we all know here: M4RN has a lot of dead ads and you really can't rely on it for any scientific research. I know I wouldn't. There tends to be, in my experience, a lot more part-timers, players, and long-goners on M4RN than other sites. Then as we all learn early on around here, "asking ain't getting". just because you're a top and list $400/hour doesn't mean that's what you are getting. And then the biggest problem of all, the one raised by Kevin -- you just can't look at 2 ads side by side in a vacuum and say 1 has a penalty and 1 has a premium. For example, if Escort A is a bottom and is at $200/hoiur and his ad draws 10 customers while Escort B is a top and is at $300/hour but his ad draws 2 customers is Escort A really have a bottom penalty? Does Escort B really have a top premium. Strictly from a financial point of view, which guy would you say had the penalty -- the one who made $2000 or the one who made $600?

 

Dr. Logan made an interesting start but he has a long way to go. But spending a considerable amount of time here at Daddy's really isn't a bad idea. In case you haven't noticed, this really is a pretty intelligent and sophisticated group. I may be way off base, but I would wager that the average IQ and income of Daddy's regulars are both considerably above the American norm so Dr. Logan could find a thoughtful group to answer some questions he might have. However, one interesting thing. Even though the article was published in ASR, Dr. Logan is not a sociologist. He is an economist by training and practice.

 

But the question I have is this: where does his interest in this area of study come from? Has he employed any of our friends. I'm certain he is not a poster because he wouldn't have made some of the "errors" we believe he made. I mean it is interesting research. It certainly is completely non-judgmental and I appreciate that. I just think the base of his data is wrong, therefore some of his conclusions are wrong. GIGO. Everytime.

 

But I really want to thank bchoen for calling attention to the article and Steven for printing all of it. It was a very interesting read, at least it was for me.

 

Lee:

 

Your critique is right on the money!

 

BC (bcohen)

[bcohen7719]

What he said

 

Lee:

 

Was it the qualitative crap that made you vomit, or the

quantitative crap? Please provide supporting research

with any answer, preceded by a thorough literature review.

 

BC

[Battle]

It proves that sociology is a "soft" science.