You're welcome.
Dating is a Failed Modern Experiment
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
- Status
Dr.Watson
New member
RE: "As for my writing abilities, (which do not change the merit of my research and conclusions in anyway)"
Correct. Your writing abilities do not undermine the conclusions of your paper. However, the paper itself does that by making claims that go unsupported. The support you provide for your opinions are references to another persons opinion... And that's it. Mr.Raddish is correct in observing that such a paper would receive a failing grade if it were actually submitted for publishing.But what about the peer review panel?
You made no reference to any statistics whatsoever even though your paper made the claim that it was founded upon them. Instead, although well writ in an expressive sense, it (the paper) was merely an inexperienced rant of a 16 year old whom referenced a couple time magazine articles and a few books on how women can "hook up" (I combed your reference list).
It's good to be passionate about a topic but it's also good to be objective with your conclusions based on solid research. It's bad science and bad writing to only selectively reference what you feel supports your opinion. In this case, an unfounded one.
And when did you read the paper?
She wrote more of an opinion piece and less of a work of scholarship. That's all well and good but nobody should pretend she wrote something she didn't. This type of work would not be considered serious "scholarship" by an instructor in a community college, much less a state university.
amongstweeds
New member
Quotes of my actual paper:
"A study by Dennis H. Osmond, PhD of the University of California San Francisco shows that in 1993, close to the origin time of the hookup a total of 173,772 people in America were infected with AIDS (Osmond, Epidemiology of HIV/AIDS in the United States, 2003 ). Three years later, in 1996, 237,735 people in America were infected with AIDS (Osmond, Epidemiology of HIV/AIDS in the United States, 2003 ). Another three years after that, in 1999, 312,804 people in America were infected with AIDS. By 2001, 362,827 people in America were infected with AIDS (Osmond, Epidemiology of HIV/AIDS in the United States, 2003 ). From 1993 to 2001 there was approximately a 48% increase in Americans infected with AIDS (Osmond, Epidemiology of HIV/AIDS in the United States, 2003 ). Another study conducted by Dr. Osmond showed that during the time AIDS and “patient zero” was discovered, 5% of the heterosexual population of America was infected with AIDS. In 1992, two years after the introduction of the hookup, 9% of the heterosexual population of America was infected with AIDS. By 2003, 13 years after the introduction of the hookup, 28% of the heterosexual population of America was infected with AIDS: a marked increase (Osmond, Distributions of U.S. AIDS Cases* by Transmission Exposure Group over Time, 2003)"
"In 2002 a survey showed that four out of five television shows watched by adolescents contained sexual material (Stepp, 2007)"
"In 2000, Elizabeth Paul, a professor at the College of New Jersey, did a survey of 555 college students to see the rate of hooking up. After surveying the student body she found that four out of every five students admitted to hooking up and two out of every five started the evenings planning for intercourse (Stepp, 2007). Two other studies, one in James Madison University with 1,500 students and the other in the University of Washington with 28,000 students, showed the same results (Stepp, 2007). Just as this behavior has shown to be highly pervasive in college atmospheres it has also been seen in middle schools and high schools. One study in the 1990s by Green State University, showed that 55% of eleventh graders in a Toledo high school admitted to having intercourse and that one third of that 55% pursued it with people who were just friends or acquaintances and not significant others (Stepp, 2007). In 2005 a CDC report showed that this study did have credence for the population of America (Stepp, 2007)."
How are these not statistics? How are they opinions? I thought that worldly science was based on studies. Which of my claims were unsupported I will do my best to clarify any evidence I did not make clear, as I said earlier there was a page restriction so I was unable to express all of my evidence and ideas. As for my opinions, yes, I did point out and agree with some opinions expressed in my sources but most of them were my own. I began with my opinion and built upon it and molded as I researched and learned more about my topic. As for peer review most of the people my age who read it were from my school and both sides were represented. There were some who supported and agreed with my ideals and there were others who did not and scoffed at simply the idea, but I appreciated both sides of input after all the fun is in the debate. There will never be a 100% consensus, everybody’s different. I would have let others of my age bracket outside of my school read it but there is tension with certain family members over the topic of dating and I can’t afford to stress any ties with them. As for it being published that was never the intention, I disagree with your assesment of the quality of my work, but commercially neither of our opinions matter if there was no intention to publish anyhow.
It already has, what is your definition of scholarship then maybe I'd know where you are coming from.
"A study by Dennis H. Osmond, PhD of the University of California San Francisco shows that in 1993, close to the origin time of the hookup a total of 173,772 people in America were infected with AIDS (Osmond, Epidemiology of HIV/AIDS in the United States, 2003 ). Three years later, in 1996, 237,735 people in America were infected with AIDS (Osmond, Epidemiology of HIV/AIDS in the United States, 2003 ). Another three years after that, in 1999, 312,804 people in America were infected with AIDS. By 2001, 362,827 people in America were infected with AIDS (Osmond, Epidemiology of HIV/AIDS in the United States, 2003 ). From 1993 to 2001 there was approximately a 48% increase in Americans infected with AIDS (Osmond, Epidemiology of HIV/AIDS in the United States, 2003 ). Another study conducted by Dr. Osmond showed that during the time AIDS and “patient zero” was discovered, 5% of the heterosexual population of America was infected with AIDS. In 1992, two years after the introduction of the hookup, 9% of the heterosexual population of America was infected with AIDS. By 2003, 13 years after the introduction of the hookup, 28% of the heterosexual population of America was infected with AIDS: a marked increase (Osmond, Distributions of U.S. AIDS Cases* by Transmission Exposure Group over Time, 2003)"
"In 2002 a survey showed that four out of five television shows watched by adolescents contained sexual material (Stepp, 2007)"
"In 2000, Elizabeth Paul, a professor at the College of New Jersey, did a survey of 555 college students to see the rate of hooking up. After surveying the student body she found that four out of every five students admitted to hooking up and two out of every five started the evenings planning for intercourse (Stepp, 2007). Two other studies, one in James Madison University with 1,500 students and the other in the University of Washington with 28,000 students, showed the same results (Stepp, 2007). Just as this behavior has shown to be highly pervasive in college atmospheres it has also been seen in middle schools and high schools. One study in the 1990s by Green State University, showed that 55% of eleventh graders in a Toledo high school admitted to having intercourse and that one third of that 55% pursued it with people who were just friends or acquaintances and not significant others (Stepp, 2007). In 2005 a CDC report showed that this study did have credence for the population of America (Stepp, 2007)."
How are these not statistics? How are they opinions? I thought that worldly science was based on studies. Which of my claims were unsupported I will do my best to clarify any evidence I did not make clear, as I said earlier there was a page restriction so I was unable to express all of my evidence and ideas. As for my opinions, yes, I did point out and agree with some opinions expressed in my sources but most of them were my own. I began with my opinion and built upon it and molded as I researched and learned more about my topic. As for peer review most of the people my age who read it were from my school and both sides were represented. There were some who supported and agreed with my ideals and there were others who did not and scoffed at simply the idea, but I appreciated both sides of input after all the fun is in the debate. There will never be a 100% consensus, everybody’s different. I would have let others of my age bracket outside of my school read it but there is tension with certain family members over the topic of dating and I can’t afford to stress any ties with them. As for it being published that was never the intention, I disagree with your assesment of the quality of my work, but commercially neither of our opinions matter if there was no intention to publish anyhow.
It already has, what is your definition of scholarship then maybe I'd know where you are coming from.
MrRadish
New member
Hello Amongweeds, nice to see you on the forum. I hadn't noticed this thread had moved on since a month or so ago when I last posted.
It's not about what you've got, it's about how you use it. It's all very well having statistics, but they don't really help much unless they can solidly support the central features of your argument.
Aside from the fact that a large proportion of the citations are from the same source (Stepp), there is the perhaps more fundamental problem that the information given often only tangentally relates to the controversial part of the argument you attempt to present. The miasma of statistics in the third of the paragraphs you mentioned, for example, all help to back up your statement that young people hook up a lot. That's fine, as far as it goes, but then you often elaborate with leaps of logic that aren't really inferred from the sources nor necessarily bear the reader along with them.
The first source is probably the best-used of the ones you list, but nevertheless the only thing you show statistically is that AIDS spread throughout the population rapidly from 1993. You suggest in somewhat vague terms that the increase started roughly around when hooking up became popular and suggest a link but critically fail to provide concrete evidence behind the main assertion of the paragraph, that 'hooking up' caused the AIDS epidemic. Correlation, famously, does not prove causation. Nevertheless, this passage was one of the stronger ones, at least up until it said:
'Corruption' is an entirely ambiguous word and is implicitly indicative of an opinion, one you assume your reader to understand and share.
It is in this loaded terminology that the main weakness of the essay (in my opinion) lies. In using such language as "corruption", "innocent", and "regression", and making hyperbolic assertions such as 'dating causes genocide', you cripple your argument before it even begins.
And here we have the other problem. The problem is not that you agreed with your sources. The problem was that you didn't discuss alternatives to the argument, even in a way that allowed them to be discounted later. A good essay will, at the very least, acknowledge the presence of other factors. Otherwise, in implying direct causation without a consideration of alternative standpoints, you end up making outlandish assertions like:
Now, although there is a certain case to be made for growing consumerism and a resultant growth in superficiality, what basically comes across here is that jealousy, feelings of inferiority and concern over attractiveness, image or appearance were all a direct result of 'dating', and only existed after its genesis. This, frankly, is a ridiculous proposal. A cursory read of any Austen novel will show that people were worrying about that sort of thing even when the courtship idyll you present was at its apex. Why else would 19th century women poison themselves with lead powder and suffocate themselves in corsets if not to make themselves beautiful and thus desirable?
I'm not saying that you shouldn't have made the argument you did, you make it look very weak and simplistic by failing to address any counterarguments.
I think Granite and I meant the academic peer-review process that real papers undergo before they're published.
Well, quite.
Which is why both Granite and I repeatedly made it clear that our main objection was not about whether the work was good or not, but about the fact Bob Enyart and SD were touting it as a 'paper', as though it was on a par with a peer-reviewed, published script.
It's not about what you've got, it's about how you use it. It's all very well having statistics, but they don't really help much unless they can solidly support the central features of your argument.
Aside from the fact that a large proportion of the citations are from the same source (Stepp), there is the perhaps more fundamental problem that the information given often only tangentally relates to the controversial part of the argument you attempt to present. The miasma of statistics in the third of the paragraphs you mentioned, for example, all help to back up your statement that young people hook up a lot. That's fine, as far as it goes, but then you often elaborate with leaps of logic that aren't really inferred from the sources nor necessarily bear the reader along with them.
The first source is probably the best-used of the ones you list, but nevertheless the only thing you show statistically is that AIDS spread throughout the population rapidly from 1993. You suggest in somewhat vague terms that the increase started roughly around when hooking up became popular and suggest a link but critically fail to provide concrete evidence behind the main assertion of the paragraph, that 'hooking up' caused the AIDS epidemic. Correlation, famously, does not prove causation. Nevertheless, this passage was one of the stronger ones, at least up until it said:
'Corruption' is an entirely ambiguous word and is implicitly indicative of an opinion, one you assume your reader to understand and share.
It is in this loaded terminology that the main weakness of the essay (in my opinion) lies. In using such language as "corruption", "innocent", and "regression", and making hyperbolic assertions such as 'dating causes genocide', you cripple your argument before it even begins.
And here we have the other problem. The problem is not that you agreed with your sources. The problem was that you didn't discuss alternatives to the argument, even in a way that allowed them to be discounted later. A good essay will, at the very least, acknowledge the presence of other factors. Otherwise, in implying direct causation without a consideration of alternative standpoints, you end up making outlandish assertions like:
Now, although there is a certain case to be made for growing consumerism and a resultant growth in superficiality, what basically comes across here is that jealousy, feelings of inferiority and concern over attractiveness, image or appearance were all a direct result of 'dating', and only existed after its genesis. This, frankly, is a ridiculous proposal. A cursory read of any Austen novel will show that people were worrying about that sort of thing even when the courtship idyll you present was at its apex. Why else would 19th century women poison themselves with lead powder and suffocate themselves in corsets if not to make themselves beautiful and thus desirable?
I'm not saying that you shouldn't have made the argument you did, you make it look very weak and simplistic by failing to address any counterarguments.
I think Granite and I meant the academic peer-review process that real papers undergo before they're published.
Well, quite.
Which is why both Granite and I repeatedly made it clear that our main objection was not about whether the work was good or not, but about the fact Bob Enyart and SD were touting it as a 'paper', as though it was on a par with a peer-reviewed, published script.
I'd hate to learn what you think unworldly science is made of.:think:
What you wrote, miss, was a puff piece. It was a mediocre position paper, at best. More an opinion paper than a work of actual cold, hard, solid, scholarship. You might not like hearing that, and it might annoy and even sting a little, but it's the truth. So, really: do yourself a favor, stop insisting that you wrote something you didn't, and do better next time.
Although Radish took a lot of time to point out the most serious problems with your work, I'll reiterate. Your tone was too casual, your bibliography too thin, and your conclusions were--simply put--immature, uninformed, ridiculous, and poorly wrought. You strike me as a very well-meaning young lady who needs to get out more.
And by the way: until you've actually been on a date, don't knock it. You don't seem to know what you're actually talking about.
Last edited:
- Status