Freethought & Rationalism Archive

God Fearing Atheist · 06-02-2003, 12:33 PM

I thought this was pretty interesting.

Eisenman (2003) looked at 110 women in a midsize city who were "asked about their last pregnancy, and whether or not birth control had been used. They were also asked if they intended to use birth control but had forgotten to do so, since pilot work had shown many cases of this."

Interestingly, it as found that:

Quote:

...32 women said that their last pregnancy had occurred because they had forgotten to use birth control. On purpose, 51 women had not used birth control, and 21 women had used birth control but reported that it did not work, i. e., they got pregnant anyway.

The author wonders

Quote:

...if this is motivated forgetting, in that ovulation caused them, in some way, to want to become pregnant. Although that cannot be proved with the present data, it is certainly something worthy of further investigation. Could it be that, at ovulation, one's physiology and brain chemistry sabotage the desire to avoid pregnancy?

Could it? Seems possible.

Eisenman, R. (2003) Forgetting to use birth control: unwanted pregnancies support evolutionary psychology theory. Journal of Evolutionary Psychology, 2003: 30.

cricket · 06-02-2003, 03:36 PM

I would think it's more like motivated recklessness than forgetfulness.

Daleth · 06-02-2003, 04:23 PM

From what you've outlined about this study, it's not even marginally sufficient to draw that conclusion. They'd have to show that women are more likely to forget to use birth control when ovulating than they are to forget it at other points in their cycle.

All this study can offer is that is doesn't prove the given theory wrong.

Dal

Elvithriel · 06-02-2003, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Although that cannot be proved with the present data, it is certainly something worthy of further investigation

Daleth, did you completly miss this part of the article?

Daleth · 06-02-2003, 04:55 PM

Nope. Just highlighting the same. Even just posing the question:

Quote:

Could it be that, at ovulation, one's physiology and brain chemistry sabotage the desire to avoid pregnancy?

itself is a mighty big leap from the data. The data doesn't in any way even suggest asking the question. The question follows the data like free association, verging on non sequitur.

In this context, what is there to discuss? Things that make us go hmmm?

Dal

Elvithriel · 06-02-2003, 05:03 PM

If you can prove it then great, they give awards out for that kind of thing. If you can't, then find something else that makes you go "hmmm?"*

*Alternatives could include "Huh?", "Odd..." or "Thats interesting"

Daleth · 06-02-2003, 05:07 PM

Quote:

If you can prove it then great, they give awards out for that kind of thing.

If I can prove WHAT? I'm sorry, let's step back. What did I say that offended you? I have no idea what you're talking about. I merely reiterated and expanded upon a point made in the article itself. What have I said that needs proving?

Dal

Elvithriel · 06-02-2003, 05:12 PM

Sigh... I didn't mean you specifically.

By suggesting there is something wrong with even posing the question is absurd.

Ask the question and experiment. If the experiment backs up your theory then great and if it doesn't then move on.

The article doesn't say that they have proven anything. It just points out a thought they had and should do more research.

Daleth · 06-02-2003, 05:19 PM

Well, hell, I never said there was anything wrong with posing the question. I said it doesn't logically follow the study. And that was all I said. Hardly seems like something worth getting pissy at me about. Don't you think you might have overreacted just a tad?

Dal

Elvithriel · 06-02-2003, 05:29 PM

Regardless of whether it logically follows the study or not, is it a valid question?

He even correctly states the study proves nothing.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-02-2003, 03:36 PM	#2
cricket Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: St Louis MO USA Posts: 1,188	I would think it's more like motivated recklessness than forgetfulness.

06-02-2003, 04:23 PM	#3
Daleth Regular Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: NYC, 5th floor, on the left Posts: 372	From what you've outlined about this study, it's not even marginally sufficient to draw that conclusion. They'd have to show that women are more likely to forget to use birth control when ovulating than they are to forget it at other points in their cycle. All this study can offer is that is doesn't prove the given theory wrong. Dal

06-02-2003, 05:03 PM	#6
Elvithriel Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Canada Posts: 127	If you can prove it then great, they give awards out for that kind of thing. If you can't, then find something else that makes you go "hmmm?"* *Alternatives could include "Huh?", "Odd..." or "Thats interesting"

06-02-2003, 05:12 PM	#8
Elvithriel Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Canada Posts: 127	Sigh... I didn't mean you specifically. By suggesting there is something wrong with even posing the question is absurd. Ask the question and experiment. If the experiment backs up your theory then great and if it doesn't then move on. The article doesn't say that they have proven anything. It just points out a thought they had and should do more research.

06-02-2003, 05:19 PM	#9
Daleth Regular Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: NYC, 5th floor, on the left Posts: 372	Well, hell, I never said there was anything wrong with posing the question. I said it doesn't logically follow the study. And that was all I said. Hardly seems like something worth getting pissy at me about. Don't you think you might have overreacted just a tad? Dal

06-02-2003, 05:29 PM	#10
Elvithriel Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Canada Posts: 127	Regardless of whether it logically follows the study or not, is it a valid question? He even correctly states the study proves nothing.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.