>No it doesn't. It's a crazy bigoted rant with an undercurrent of misogyny.
That blog article wasn't written by the study authors. Also what did you find crazy and bigoted about it? I haven't read anything else on that site and the author may be prone to "cray bigoted rants" (I have no idea), but that the article in question seemed to be a fairly level headed reporting of findings in a journal article that pretty closely matches the study's abstract. Maybe I missed something?
>'scientific'
I don't know anything about the journal that published this study, but from a quick google search it appeared to be an actual academic peer reviewed journal, and the author is a professor of sociology at Western Washington University who was the chair of the department at the time the study was written. The data used in the study also seems to be readily available from the CDC.
Why the scare quotes? Do you have any evidence that this study is invalid?
>study only looked at women implies that something is a bit dodge.
Many studies are limited in scope in a similar manner. How you can make that claim that a study looking only at women implies that it's dodgy?
Both the blog post and the grandfather comment refer to gender non-speciic 'people' whereas the paper abstract is clear that the only data collected is on woman.
The figure in the blog post is completely spurious: the study does not analyse the number of sexual partners of the women.
Having now skimmed the paper, I know that it splits women into 'sex only with husband' and 'sex with other', and similar for cohabiting before marriage with 'husband' 'and or other'.
The black lines in the blog figure are a complete misuse of statistics. The confidence interval from the Student's t-test is somehow (probably not mathematically correct) extrapolated out to the simplistic decay exponential and then integrated out to 10 years [why? who knows]. Yet the errors for the 1 partner only women are not similarly extrapolated. These confidence intervals are mistakenly labelled as 'minimum' and 'maximum', as if they are limits, rather than an approximation to quality of fit.
The green bars for the background of the plot are from an entirely different, non peer-reviewed, study by a conservative thinktank.
Presenting data like this is scientifically misleading.
The blog post refers to the study author's choice of model as 'genius', when it appears to me that it is nothing more than the regurgitation of age old 'truisms'.
The undercurrent of misogyny is in framing the hypothesis in terms of some purity of idealised women hood, failing to attempt a similar analysis on the men, and consistently using language that suggests that divorce is somehow the 'bad event' ('risks' of divorce rather than 'likelihoods', etc.)
So my sense after spending a few minutes reading both the comment + the blogpost was that both of these were being written from a strange, almost certainly male and politically conservative perspective, and were distorting the facts of a (possibly dubious / flawed) paper to suit a women-hating, virgin-bride celebrating, perspective.
>Many studies are limited in scope in a similar manner.
How can you suggest your study has predictive power when you don't compare it against 50% of the population? Why was this study limited? Surely the dataset would have been symmetric, or a similar dataset could have been found for men?
>Why the scare quotes?
Because I generally don't consider such 'social sciences' science. This is post-facto reduction of an extremely small self-reported dataset, with no attempt to form experiments or apply the models predictively to other datasets. It's an ideal place for agenda-driven research.
I expect single-author papers, in this day and age, to be relatively unsafe. Doubly so when they're written by departmental chairs.
That blog article wasn't written by the study authors. Also what did you find crazy and bigoted about it? I haven't read anything else on that site and the author may be prone to "cray bigoted rants" (I have no idea), but that the article in question seemed to be a fairly level headed reporting of findings in a journal article that pretty closely matches the study's abstract. Maybe I missed something?
>'scientific'
I don't know anything about the journal that published this study, but from a quick google search it appeared to be an actual academic peer reviewed journal, and the author is a professor of sociology at Western Washington University who was the chair of the department at the time the study was written. The data used in the study also seems to be readily available from the CDC.
Why the scare quotes? Do you have any evidence that this study is invalid?
>study only looked at women implies that something is a bit dodge.
Many studies are limited in scope in a similar manner. How you can make that claim that a study looking only at women implies that it's dodgy?