Search Results
7/16/2025, 2:17:19 AM
Reminder that this schizo's claims that the results of Rind et al. have been rejected are completely baseless and rely on selectively posting critiques of the study, which have actually been rejected themselves. He also claims that the results of the study have been rejected because the field of psychology did not adopt alternative terminology suggested for further research in the concluding remarks of Rind's study, but this is irrelevant to the findings of the study, despite how much importance he wants to assign to it.
>Passed rigorous peer review process for publication by the APA in the first place.
>Study reviewed by expert in statistical analysis, finding that it meets standards, according to APA internal memo: >>17843564
>Study refused for review by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, as they found no reason to doubt the peer review process which lead to it being published.
>Critiques of the study exhaustively refuted by Rind and his co-authors in various papers, which can be read on sci-hub.
>Study independently replicated taking into account these critiques, authors of replication concluding, "The overall results of both meta-analyses are almost identical, and support the claim made by Rind et al. that child sexual abuse is not typically associated with intense harm in a college population." >>17845237
>Study replicated again recently by Daly, N. R. (2021), confirming results of study, "These results suggest that based on CSA status, a college sample does not exhibit significant deficits in psychological functioning"
>Outcomes of study generally accepted in the field of psychology as valid: >>17843419
>Study still cited to this very day in papers being published, accepting results of study as valid (see Google scholar).
He is likely hearing voices telling him "Rind et al. has been refuted!", considering how disconnected from reality his claims on this particular study are. He has probably missed his routine haloperidol injection.
>Passed rigorous peer review process for publication by the APA in the first place.
>Study reviewed by expert in statistical analysis, finding that it meets standards, according to APA internal memo: >>17843564
>Study refused for review by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, as they found no reason to doubt the peer review process which lead to it being published.
>Critiques of the study exhaustively refuted by Rind and his co-authors in various papers, which can be read on sci-hub.
>Study independently replicated taking into account these critiques, authors of replication concluding, "The overall results of both meta-analyses are almost identical, and support the claim made by Rind et al. that child sexual abuse is not typically associated with intense harm in a college population." >>17845237
>Study replicated again recently by Daly, N. R. (2021), confirming results of study, "These results suggest that based on CSA status, a college sample does not exhibit significant deficits in psychological functioning"
>Outcomes of study generally accepted in the field of psychology as valid: >>17843419
>Study still cited to this very day in papers being published, accepting results of study as valid (see Google scholar).
He is likely hearing voices telling him "Rind et al. has been refuted!", considering how disconnected from reality his claims on this particular study are. He has probably missed his routine haloperidol injection.
7/15/2025, 2:21:04 AM
7/14/2025, 5:47:51 AM
What are some books you wish you had read as a boy?
Page 1