• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

DC City Council votes to legalize gay marriage

All qualitative measure are insufficient in and of themselves and subject to bias. A questionnaire is considerably more standardized and quantifiable than an interview and is also less subject to bias. That isn't to say that questionnaires are perfect, because they rely on self report and everything from how and when it is administered to how the questions are interpreted can substantially change the results. However, the fact that they are quantifiable gives them greater objective legitimacy than interviews. The best tool for psychological research are experiments, but the conditions to control variables in experiments can alter behavior and it is sometimes unethical or implausible to create the conditions in a laboratory setting.

However, psychology as a science has one thing working for it. Human behavior is rather consistent, despite being difficult to measure. As a result, questionnaires can constantly be improved so that they do a better job of measuring what they are suppose to measure.

I explained this, similarly. He doesn't understand the difference between research and individual assessment. He won't get it.
 
No, you will not reduce my argument. The number of children does make a difference in this case. I'm arguing that 8 to 10 million children benefiting is justification for same sex marriage.
Ok this is worse than I thought. Let's try to deal with this first bit of your argument to get the logic juices flowing. You've made a couple of claims:

1) Lots of kids + effective parenting = justification
2) Few kids + effective parenting = justification ( "Demonstrate that there are children being raised by incestuous couples and that those couples are capable of effectively raising children, and I'll support incestuous marriage too." )

Now from those two claims it would seem that the number of kids doesn't really matter to you so long as there are at least some, and that there is evidence of effective parenting.

Do you want to backtrack on the statement you made on 2) or concede that the number of children isn't terribly relevant? It doesn't matter to me, I'm just identifying your premises here to illustrate why your argument is weak.
 
Not in the least. You continue to demonstrate that you cannot debate logically, below.

Look at all those facts. Still up to the same old games I see.

No, because it is illogical... yet something else that you cannot understand.

I understand how the Constitution works. I understand we have our own laws and I understand how stupid it would be to look to other countries to write our own laws considering the broad spectrum of opinion out there.

You simply can't understand that.

More illogic.

Try not to stand so close to the microwave. Perhaps it will help.

You cannot prove that it should stay that way it is except to say that it has always been that way. Irrelevant to debate.

That like many of your points makes no sense. It is not up to me to prove it should stay that way. Once again you fail miserably on not only how to debate but how laws get changed. It is up to YOU to bring forth the argument.

But you've never understood this up to this point so I'm not hopeful you will understand it now.

Hmmm... until 1870 blacks couldn't vote... BUT WAIT...THAT'S HOW IT WAS ALWAYS DONE. ONE CAN'T PROVE THAT IT SHOULD BE CHANGED BECAUSE THAT'S HOW IT'S ALWAYS BEEN DONE! :roll: Until 1920 women couldn't vote... BUT WAIT...THAT'S HOW IT WAS ALWAYS DONE. ONE CAN'T PROVE THAT IT SHOULD BE CHANGED BECAUSE THAT'S HOW IT'S ALWAYS BEEN DONE! :roll: These are examples of how ridiculously illogical your argument is. It is illogical to try to prove your position because "that's how it's always been done." Unless you can prove, logically, that that particular way is correct, you have NOTHING... as I have told you repeatedly. Now, I'm sorry I had to use BIG words, but I don't believe you're going to get it anyway, so I just explained it best as I could.

hahahhahaha Now you've fallen into the race and gender argument. So typical of pro gay marriage argument. Once again, race and gender is scientifically proven to be genetic, gay marriage IS NOT. You might as well compare hair color to hair styles :rofl

Still don't understand the concept of what we are debating nor how to debate it, I see.

Still running away from the argument I see.

You obviously had difficultly understanding my sentence. As you said, let me use small words. Presenting information that gay marriage is not harmful from other countries, is presenting information that gay marriage is not harmful. This is what you did, assisting me in torpedoing your position. Not that I needed any help.

LOL So if I find a country that executes gays because they claim its deviant behavior then gays are deviant.

My God the stupidity of what you are saying is beyond words. You can't even grasp the other side of the coin can you?

I never said they did. YOU presented evidence that there was evidence that gay marriage was not harmful in other countries... assisting me in torpedoing your position. Not that I needed any help.

Thats a bald face lie and I challenge you to provide the exact quote where I made that claim. Sloppy debating when you can't even remember whom you are debating.

You still can't grasp the concept if what is being discussed, can you? No one is talking about laws. We are talking about evidence that gay marriage is not harmful.

No, we are not. Check the OP of this thread. Its incredible you can't even follow basic sentence structure.

It is irrelevant whether it is legal or not legal in other countries.

LOL This coming from the guy who just said we should follow what other counrtries do on gay marriage as long as it perscribes to your train of thought.

You said there was evidence from other countries that it was not harmful.

Again, another bald faced lie. I never EVER made that statement. Your sloppyness and poor attnetion to detail strikes again.

This helps torpedo your position, not that I needed any help. Try to stay focused on what we are discussing.

Actually you need to try and stay focused on who you are debating. You've obviously gotten sloppy in your responses.

Typical of you. When your lack of logic is presented, instead of admitting it, you throw out red herrings.

I'm not the one trying to label your arguments then running away claiming the label obfuscates you from debating the point. Thats your side.

Awww... did I hurt your feelings? Perhaps if you listen long enough you might pass Debate 101. Maybe.

Are we back in forth grade now? Whats next? Are you going to try and steal my pencils? Amazing how immature you get when you are challenged.

You have no facts. Because something is a law doesn't prove it's right... I've already demonstrated that. All it does is prove it's a law. This is why you fail at this. You can't tell the difference.

You can't even grasp the OP can you? This is a debate about changing the LAW. Not a philosophical debate on your feelings about gay marriage. Its about supporting an argument to change the law. But since you can't do that you try and change the argument to a philosophical one because you think you can live in the world of theory and proclaim victory without evidence. Sorry sport, it doesn't work that way.

You still haven't figured it out. And I doubt you will. Government sanctions marriage because it helps society. I've explained this over and over.

You've explained this opinion of yours yes.

Marriage assists in the rearing of children, contributes to a stable society, assists in the health of the people married, and a number of other things. There is evidence that gay coupling creates all these things equally as well as straight marriage.

There are unsupervised questionaires not evidence.

Evidence in plural marriage does NOT produce the same results; therefore it does not benefit society and the government has no reason to sanction it. This illustrates how completely poor is your understanding of this entire debate...and how to debate logically. It is logical to be pro-GM because it provides equal benefits to society and government as straight marriage. It is ILlogical to be pro-polygamy because it does NOT do these things. I'm sure you will either not get this or throw out an irrelevant red herring, but there it is for you. Sorry if it continues to prove you wrong.

Back that fantasy up about polygamy not being able to raise healthy children. 1/4 of all countries have polygamy so once again this is another uneducated and ignorant statement made by a desperate individual seeing his arguments fall down like a house of cards under any real scrutiny. You are once again pulling facts from the lower end of your back and as usual with nothing to support them. Besides, since you are still having trouble with paying attention to detail, the argument was based on the right to marry, not the ability to raise children. I wish you would actually pay attention to detail. It would clear things up far quicker and I wouldn't have to draw it in crayon for you over and over again.

That does NOT prove it is genetic or biological.

Yes, IT DOES. I ask you again, what other explanation is there? Immaculate Conception? :rofl You can't even support these ignorant theories of yours.

And since you were not around when time began, you do not know whether there was homosexual coupling, then... which based on historical data of there always being approximately 4-6% of the population being homosexual, there most certainly was. If one was genetic, they both were. If one is not, they both are not. Sexual orientation does not distinguish. And procreation is irrelevant to sexual orientation. I've explained all this to you, before. You just don't like the answer. Too bad.

LOL Which again does not make it genetic because it appears in history any more than cannibilism is genetic because it appears in history.

Heterosexuality is a BIOLOGICAL REQUIREMENT FOR PROCREATION. ITS A PROVEN FACT. You have NOTHING to support a biological or genetic argument for homosexuality AT ALL. That is why you continue to loose this argument over and over again. Frankly, its getting pretty sad watching you try to peddle this ignorance without a shred of evidence to support you over and over again.
 
You have NOTHING to support a biological or genetic argument for homosexuality AT ALL.

US researchers find evidence that homosexuality linked to genetics | World news | guardian.co.uk

Compared to straight men, gay men are more likely to be left-handed, to be the younger siblings of older brothers, and to have hair that whorls in a counterclockwise direction.

US researchers are finding common biological traits among gay men, feeding a growing consensus that sexual orientation is an inborn combination of genetic and environmental factors that largely decide a person's sexual attractions before they are born.

Homosexual Activity Among Animals Stirs Debate

But, actually, some same-sex birds do do it. So do beetles, sheep, fruit bats, dolphins, and orangutans. Zoologists are discovering that homosexual and bisexual activity is not unknown within the animal kingdom.

Roy and Silo, two male chinstrap penguins at New York's Central Park Zoo have been inseparable for six years now. They display classic pair-bonding behavior—entwining of necks, mutual preening, flipper flapping, and the rest. They also have sex, while ignoring potential female mates.

Wild birds exhibit similar behavior. There are male ostriches that only court their own gender, and pairs of male flamingos that mate, build nests, and even raise foster chicks.

Homosexual behavior due to genetics and environmental factors | Eureka! Science News

Homosexual behaviour is largely shaped by genetics and random environmental factors, according to findings from the world's largest study of twins. Writing in the scientific journal Archives of Sexual Behavior, researchers from Queen Mary's School of Biological and Chemical Sciences, and Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm report that genetics and environmental factors (which are specific to an individual, and may include biological processes such as different hormone exposure in the womb), are important determinants of homosexual behaviour.

Dr Qazi Rahman, study co-author and a leading scientist on human sexual orientation, explains: "This study puts cold water on any concerns that we are looking for a single 'gay gene' or a single environmental variable which could be used to 'select out' homosexuality - the factors which influence sexual orientation are complex. And we are not simply talking about homosexuality here - heterosexual behaviour is also influenced by a mixture of genetic and environmental factors.

Genetics Behind Male Homosexuality Could Be Explained By Sexually Antagonistic Selection

A new model has been proposed to explain the evolutionary origin and maintenance of male homosexuality in human populations in the context of Darwinian Evolution by invoking the idea of sexually antagonistic selection. This was proposed in an article released on June 17, 2008 in the open access journal PLoS ONE.

Homosexuality in males is widely considered to be influenced by factors that are both psychosocial and genetic. The latter is suggested by a few items. Namely, the high correlation of sexual orientation in identical twins points to a genetic component. Additionally, there is a higher frequency of homosexuality in males who belong to a maternal line of male homosexuals. These same effects have not, however, been shown for female homosexuality -- so these two phenomena very likely have different origins and dynamics.

You keep saying it. It doesn't make it true.
 
For the type of research we are discussing, they are. Sorry, but you are wrong about this... not surprisingly.
No CC, had you bothered to read some of the articles that YOU posted, you would see that typically, research methodology is considerably more robust than simple questionnaires and will more often than not employ numerous measures using different techniques, including interviews.

Your blanket statement, "Questionnaires are the best and most objective tools when doing research." is utterly false and should be clarified.
 
Your blanket statement, "Questionnaires are the best and most objective tools when doing research." is utterly false and should be clarified.

Why? I would completely agree.

They might not always be truthful considering that people might lie, but it is definitely the most objective.
 
Why? I would completely agree.

They might not always be truthful considering that people might lie, but it is definitely the most objective.

While I'm not saying that this happens a lot, you can put bias into one depending on the sequence of the questions. I'm not disagreeing that they are the most objective, just point out that they aren't perfect.
 
All qualitative measure are insufficient in and of themselves and subject to bias. A questionnaire is considerably more standardized and quantifiable than an interview and is also less subject to bias. That isn't to say that questionnaires are perfect, because they rely on self report and everything from how and when it is administered to how the questions are interpreted can substantially change the results. However, the fact that they are quantifiable gives them greater objective legitimacy than interviews. The best tool for psychological research are experiments, but the conditions to control variables in experiments can alter behavior and it is sometimes unethical or implausible to create the conditions in a laboratory setting.

However, psychology as a science has one thing working for it. Human behavior is rather consistent, despite being difficult to measure. As a result, questionnaires can constantly be improved so that they do a better job of measuring what they are suppose to measure.
You have a much better understanding of research methods than does CC, but I disagree with the first statement. The use of a qualitative vs. quantitative approach is dictated by the research question and as such are perfectly "sufficient" for answering what it is intended to address. As with survey research, there are techniques that can be used to minimize bias.
 
No CC, had you bothered to read some of the articles that YOU posted, you would see that typically, research methodology is considerably more robust than simple questionnaires and will more often than not employ numerous measures using different techniques, including interviews.

Your blanket statement, "Questionnaires are the best and most objective tools when doing research." is utterly false and should be clarified.

And I did clarify. CriticalThought also said it well. In the case of this kind of research, questionnaires are the best and most objective tools.
 
While I'm not saying that this happens a lot, you can put bias into one depending on the sequence of the questions. I'm not disagreeing that they are the most objective, just point out that they aren't perfect.

Even so, it is still more objective than other methods, because you are actually inquiring upon the source, instead of the source coming to you.
 
You have a much better understanding of research methods than does CC, but I disagree with the first statement. The use of a qualitative vs. quantitative approach is dictated by the research question and as such are perfectly "sufficient" for answering what it is intended to address. As with survey research, there are techniques that can be used to minimize bias.

And, if you had bothered to read my other posts on this issue, you would notice that I explained how the development of the questionnaires, or as I termed them, research tools, in order to get accurate data is as important as the data itself. One of the best ways to identify what type of psychological issues one may have is by using the MMPI... a questionnaire that took years of development and has a good track record of accuracy.

I already explained this, before. You are, as I said, wrong. Questionnaires, properly developed are more objective than any interview could be in this type of research.
 
While I'm not saying that this happens a lot, you can put bias into one depending on the sequence of the questions. I'm not disagreeing that they are the most objective, just point out that they aren't perfect.

This is possible, and why the development of these tools is equally as important as the research itself. The right tool is easily the best way to obtain objective results in this kind of research.
 
I explained this, similarly. He doesn't understand the difference between research and individual assessment. He won't get it.

His debate style is to misrepresent or oversimplify his opponent's position. I like debating people like him in the sense that it forces me to make my argument more and more concise so that it can't be misrepresented or oversimplified but at a certain point he is forced to argue definitions or to distort the argument, and that is when it no longer makes sense to debate with him.
 
The funny thing is, all the arguments here have been used before against interracial marriage - why are the arguments any more valid now than they were then?
 
The funny thing is, all the arguments here have been used before against interracial marriage - why are the arguments any more valid now than they were then?

Because race is viewed as something that can't be changed and sexual orientation as viewed as something that can be changed.

The biggest predictor for support of same sex marriage is whether a person believes sexual orientation it is changeable or not.
 
Because race is viewed as something that can't be changed and sexual orientation as viewed as something that can be changed.

The biggest predictor for support of same sex marriage is whether a person believes sexual orientation it is changeable or not.

Not necessarily, I know people who think it's a choice but still support it for the sake of liberty.
 
Rinse, repeat, texmaster. You still don't understand the debate, how to debate, or how badly you are failing at this. I'm sure that you will remain uneducatable on any of these factors, but continuing to demonstrate how poorly you have done here, amuses me, so I will do so again.

Look at all those facts. Still up to the same old games I see.

Still can't grasp the understanding of this.



I understand how the Constitution works. I understand we have our own laws and I understand how stupid it would be to look to other countries to write our own laws considering the broad spectrum of opinion out there.

You simply can't understand that.

Not what I said. You didn't understand the argument... as usual. Re-read what I said and try again.



Try not to stand so close to the microwave. Perhaps it will help.

Try reading what is read and actually trying to understand the debate. It might help.



That like many of your points makes no sense. It is not up to me to prove it should stay that way. Once again you fail miserably on not only how to debate but how laws get changed. It is up to YOU to bring forth the argument.

But you've never understood this up to this point so I'm not hopeful you will understand it now.

You still don't understand your error. Your argument makes no sense. Just because something has always been done a particular way is no PROOF that it is good. See, because of my destruction of your logic, YOU HAVE PROVEN NOTHING. I, however, have proven that they are equal. Me, 1, you, nothing.



hahahhahaha Now you've fallen into the race and gender argument. So typical of pro gay marriage argument. Once again, race and gender is scientifically proven to be genetic, gay marriage IS NOT. You might as well compare hair color to hair styles :rofl

As usual, you missed the concept of what I was saying. I demonstrated how illogical your position is. Nothing to do with genetics. Choose hair styles. If people with curly hair styles have never been allowed to vote, does that make it right? NO...all it does it make it law. But, we are not discussing law, here. We are discussing logic... of which you have none. Let's see if you understand what I just said. I doubt it.



Still running away from the argument I see.

Still don't understand the argument I see.



LOL So if I find a country that executes gays because they claim its deviant behavior then gays are deviant.

If there is evidence to support their claim that gays are deviant, then the claim should be considered. See how logic works?

My God the stupidity of what you are saying is beyond words. You can't even grasp the other side of the coin can you?

Of course I can. You, however, have demonstrated no ability to see the other side of the issue, or to understand the issue at all.



Thats a bald face lie and I challenge you to provide the exact quote where I made that claim. Sloppy debating when you can't even remember whom you are debating.

Here's the sequence:

2. Ignoring the countries that have legalized same sex marriage and making a fallacious argument that it would be somehow harmful to this country.

Your response:

Lesson #2 Laws passed in other countries are inconsequential since we do not live under a world government.

If this is NOT what you meant, you need to be more clear. Either you meant what I presented, or you are again going with the legal argument... irrelevant to this discussion. Either way, you lose.



No, we are not. Check the OP of this thread. Its incredible you can't even follow basic sentence structure.

Yeah we are...the thread has drifted to the issue I described. It's incredible you can't follow a simple conversation.



LOL This coming from the guy who just said we should follow what other counrtries do on gay marriage as long as it perscribes to your train of thought.

"Bald faced lie". Quote where I said that. I have not argued legalities at all, so you're not going to find it. I accept your apology in advance.



Again, another bald faced lie. I never EVER made that statement. Your sloppyness and poor attnetion to detail strikes again.

You're right. You just confirmed it with your response. See above.



Actually you need to try and stay focused on who you are debating. You've obviously gotten sloppy in your responses.

Not at all. You need to try to actually understand what we are debating.



I'm not the one trying to label your arguments then running away claiming the label obfuscates you from debating the point. Thats your side.

You're the one making completely illogical arguments. It would be nice if you actually had some substance of which to discuss.



Are we back in forth grade now? Whats next? Are you going to try and steal my pencils? Amazing how immature you get when you are challenged.

Just responding to your immature, snarky comment. Can't take it? Don't do it.



You can't even grasp the OP can you? This is a debate about changing the LAW. Not a philosophical debate on your feelings about gay marriage. Its about supporting an argument to change the law. But since you can't do that you try and change the argument to a philosophical one because you think you can live in the world of theory and proclaim victory without evidence. Sorry sport, it doesn't work that way.

Please... this thread has morphed from the OP long ago. This is how conversation works. But even with that, I have clearly shown both through evidence and logic how it would be appropriate to change the law. You have demonstrated nothing but logical fallacies to support your position. In other words, you've got NOTHING.



You've explained this opinion of yours yes.

It is factual, something that you have completely failed in refuting.



There are unsupervised questionaires not evidence.

Incorrect, but since you don't understand research methodology, I don't expect you to get it.



Back that fantasy up about polygamy not being able to raise healthy children. 1/4 of all countries have polygamy so once again this is another uneducated and ignorant statement made by a desperate individual seeing his arguments fall down like a house of cards under any real scrutiny. You are once again pulling facts from the lower end of your back and as usual with nothing to support them. Besides, since you are still having trouble with paying attention to detail, the argument was based on the right to marry, not the ability to raise children. I wish you would actually pay attention to detail. It would clear things up far quicker and I wouldn't have to draw it in crayon for you over and over again.

Wait... YOU'RE basing your refutation on evidence from other countries?!!! :lol::lol::lol: You are a walking, talking contradiction. Further, you have presented nothing to disprove what I said. And lastly, believing that the argument is about the right to marry is oversimplifying a complex issue... not surprising for you. One must explore WHY folks would have the right to marry. THAT'S what this debate is about. The fact that you don't know that is why you've failed at it.



Yes, IT DOES. I ask you again, what other explanation is there? Immaculate Conception? :rofl You can't even support these ignorant theories of yours.

No it does not. Procreation is irrelevant to sexual orienation. A gay person can procreate, biologically... and often does. Yet, they are still gay. There... logic. Procreation is irrelevant to sexual orientation.



LOL Which again does not make it genetic because it appears in history any more than cannibilism is genetic because it appears in history.

Heterosexuality is a BIOLOGICAL REQUIREMENT FOR PROCREATION. ITS A PROVEN FACT. You have NOTHING to support a biological or genetic argument for homosexuality AT ALL. That is why you continue to loose this argument over and over again. Frankly, its getting pretty sad watching you try to peddle this ignorance without a shred of evidence to support you over and over again.

And you continue tio lose because you still do not understand the difference between sexual orientation and sexual behavior. A gay person can procreate. Yet, they can still be gay. No absolute connection between sexual orientation and sexual behavior, and procreatio is irrelevant to sexual behavior. Simple logic. Your lack of it is why your position is an absolute nothing.
 
His debate style is to misrepresent or oversimplify his opponent's position. I like debating people like him in the sense that it forces me to make my argument more and more concise so that it can't be misrepresented or oversimplified but at a certain point he is forced to argue definitions or to distort the argument, and that is when it no longer makes sense to debate with him.

This is how I see it. His arguments are so illogical, it gives me an opportunity to demonstrate how logic works in debate.
 
Ok this is worse than I thought. Let's try to deal with this first bit of your argument to get the logic juices flowing. You've made a couple of claims:

1) Lots of kids + effective parenting = justification
2) Few kids + effective parenting = justification ( "Demonstrate that there are children being raised by incestuous couples and that those couples are capable of effectively raising children, and I'll support incestuous marriage too." )

Now from those two claims it would seem that the number of kids doesn't really matter to you so long as there are at least some, and that there is evidence of effective parenting.

Do you want to backtrack on the statement you made on 2) or concede that the number of children isn't terribly relevant? It doesn't matter to me, I'm just identifying your premises here to illustrate why your argument is weak.

I'm still wondering when we are going to see you present what your position actually is.
 
Why? I would completely agree.

They might not always be truthful considering that people might lie, but it is definitely the most objective.
When you say "most objective" what are you comparing it with?
 
While I'm not saying that this happens a lot, you can put bias into one depending on the sequence of the questions. I'm not disagreeing that they are the most objective, just point out that they aren't perfect.
There are MANY ways to introduce bias, not just on the sequence of questions, but how things are worded, how you define the scale (e.g. with or without labels, the number of anchor points, or continuous range, etc. etc.).

All that aside, as a researcher you introduce bias by what questions you use or existing instruments you select to address your research question.
 
There are MANY ways to introduce bias, not just on the sequence of questions, but how things are worded, how you define the scale (e.g. with or without labels, the number of anchor points, or continuous range, etc. etc.).

All that aside, as a researcher you introduce bias by what questions you use or existing instruments you select to address your research question.

But this doesn't mitigate that it is the most objective way. What do you consider more effective?
 
One of the best ways to identify what type of psychological issues one may have is by using the MMPI... a questionnaire that took years of development and has a good track record of accuracy.
The key words being "may have" - proper interpretation of the MMPI (I believe) requires additional information about the patient, which would likely come from an interview of some sort - getting back to Tex's point that research gathered only through questionnaires can be suspect.

I do not share his opinion that questionnaires are necessarily "poor research tools" but it's also not true that they are necessarily the "best" tools for research. The best research tends to come from the use of many different methods, as they all have characteristic strengths, weaknesses and biases.
 
But this doesn't mitigate that it is the most objective way. What do you consider more effective?
It always depends on what question you're trying answer. When CC says it's best for "this type of research" he's being much, much too generic.

Sure it's great when you have an instrument that has been studied, scrutinzed, tested, and retested over years - results obtained from such instruments allow a certain degree of confidence or at the very least confindence in knowing what the limitations of that instrument are.

But let's not forget that a primary reason questionnaires are used in research is because they can be cheap and easy to administer. If I wanted to see how some independent variable (e.g. parental makeup) influenced GPA, would the "best, most objective" method be to ask them via questionnaire or would it be to try to obtain transcripts? I can tell you which would be cheap and easy. When Nanny 911 does her assessments of child rearing, would we expect the more objective "poor parenting" data to come from a questionnaire administered to parents or from her observation of video? (There are positives and negatives to each approach.)

It's not difficult to imagine other contexts in which questionnaires are used not because they're a better tool, but because they're efficient. Let's say you want to measure something as abstract as gender identity in young children. It's doubtful you'll be able to devise a reliable instrument that can be administered directly to a child - that leaves what options? A questionnaire given to a parent? Is that the "best, most objective" means of getting the desired data, or would it be preferable to have the child interviewed by an expert who is blind to the parenting condition?

Point being, the distinction being discussed "Questionnaires are the best and most objective tools when doing research. Interview are the best tools to use when doing assessments" is bollocks. I can't really speak for psychological assessments, but as far as research is concerned, the best tool is a swiss army knife, as the method of choice will always be dependent on what it is you're trying to measure.
 
Last edited:
When CC says it's best for "this type of research" he's being much, much too generic.

By chance, is generic your favorite word?

If you feel he is generalizing, then you could simply say so. This argument about what is the "best" or "most objective" is going to differ to a degree based simply on opinion. No research measure is perfect because the people who construct them, evaluate them, and interpret them are not perfect. Interviews can tell you things that questionnaires cannot and questionnaires can tell you things that interviews cannot. What is the best tool depends largely upon the situation and the question for which you are looking to answer.

The only people who claim to be perfect and to follow a perfect source are religious zealots.
 
Back
Top Bottom