Bruce Rind

From William A. Percy
Jump to: navigation, search

Biography

Bruce became a chess master in his teens and went on to become a masterful statistician. Dr. Rind received his bachelor's degree from the College of William and Mary in Williamsburg, VA. Until 2007, he taught the most advanced courses in statistics to grad students in psychology at Temple University where he had earned his MA and PhD.

Rind et al. (1998): "A meta-analytic examination of assumed properties of child sexual abuse (CSA) using college samples,"[2] was written by psychologists Bruce Rind, Philip Tromovitch and Robert Bauserman. The paper was unanimously condemned by both houses of congress and so was the APA for publishing it.

It's not to be confused with an earlier study by Rind and Tromovitch, "A meta-analytic review of findings from national samples on psychological correlates of child sexual abuse"[3], which had appeared in 1997 in the Journal of Sex Research[4], published by the Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality.

The authors' stated goal was "...to address the question: In the population of persons with a history of CSA [child sexual abuse], does this experience cause intense psychological harm on a widespread basis for both genders?" Some of the authors' more controversial conclusions were:

"CSA does not cause intense harm on a pervasive basis regardless of gender."

"An important reason why the assumed properties of CSA failed to withstand empirical scrutiny in the current review is that the construct of CSA, as commonly conceptualized by researchers, is of questionable scientific validity."

They also claim that the "consensual" versus "non-consensual" variable is predictively valid because it can be used empirically to predict the degree of psychological damage based on whether the child describes the encounter as consensual or not.

Please refer to this link for more detailed information about Bruce Rind.[1]

Retrieved from "http://www.williamapercy.com/wiki/index.php/About_Bruce_Rind"

rind3@temple.edu

Note From Bruce Rind (November 3, 2008)

Below are three excerpts from Dynes. Below that, I comment:

(a) Setting aside the Bonobo, who are a special case, the problem with these comparisons is that most such activity is an assertion of dominance and humiliation--the very things that pedophile advocates seek to dispel in their idealization of human intergenerational arrangements.

(b) Respondents alleged many design defects in the study, including sample bias, non-standardization of variables, statistical errors, and researchers' personal bias. The article's authors have published replies to these claims.

(c) All in all, one cannot help but be impressed by the profusion and ingeniousness of the propedophile arguments.

On point (a), he is absolutely wrong. Bagemihl’s review, no ifs and buts, refutes what he says. Additionally, by reading the primary primate literature, which I have done, the refutation only gains strength. What Dynes is doing is writing about something of which he has no understanding. What he does is to substitute his prejudices or politically correct wishes for actual facts or scholarship. On point (b), he repeats the drivel of the critics of the meta- analysis, but clearly has not read the rebuttals, the key one being the one in Psychological Bulletin (2001). If he had, and if he were capable of following the methodological and statistical arguments, which is not a given that he could, he would not state the critics’ drivel and let it hang unfinished without noting that it is drivel. Regarding point (c), his being impressed is meaningless, since he shows in his comments that he is not up to the scholarship at hand in this area.

Back to Scholars/Activists

Personal tools