The Sling-Chair Curve: Skewing Results to Hide Inconvenient Findings

There are seven people I know who have worked in coffee shops. One hated it, and his former boss. Two loved it, with one still working as a barista. The remaining four would describe their experiences with various words ranging from “okay” to “tedious”, but would not describe it as terrible; it was a way to earn money and employment experience, and each has indicated that they’ve taken something positive or constructive from the experience.

Seven is hardly a representative sample, but the range of attitudes summarized here follows the usual distribution for any given occupation or activity – a few detest it, a few delight in it, and most take a mixed or ambiguous view. Even jobs that most would consider “ideal” follow this curve; not everyone is cut out to be a movie star, for example, and some who think they’d love it are likely to be disappointed once they discover the reality from the inside.

I bring this up because those opposed to commercial sex seem to feel that such realities simply could not apply to sex workers. In their minds, only an extremely small percentage like their jobs, and the rest all hate it and are being compelled to do so. So instead of the classic “bell curve”, a graph measuring attitudes of sex workers towards their work would be asymmetrical and inverted, like a sling chair – the positive end turning slightly up, the negative end going almost straight up into oblivion, and near-zero in between. Such uneven and polarized distribution is virtually unheard of in social science, and is a sign of flawed methodology based on confirmation bias.

So-called anti-prostitution researchers like Melissa Farley tend to avoid sharing many of the details of their data-sampling methods; indeed, Farley tends to self-publish her studies, often under the auspices of the organization she runs, thus avoiding the accountability of peer review. Still, the effects of their bias show through in their work. In his paper “The Mythology of Prostitution”, sociologist Ronald Weitzer discusses how such practitioners of “advocacy research” attempt to explain away “inconvenient findings” so as to fit their ideological stance. For example, when Farley’s interviews with women who work in Nevada’s legal brothels revealed lower rates of childhood sexual abuse than she had predicted, she attempted to explain this as being due to “numbing, avoidance and dissociation” on the part of interviewees – in short, Farley claims to know the reality of these women’s lives better than they do.

Such a pattern would explain how a bell curve could become warped into that of a sling chair – simply shove any sex worker with ambiguous or mixed attitudes towards their occupation into the “extreme negative” category, explain the ambiguity as being the result of “defense mechanisms” or some other reason, and voila! But this is ideological skewing, not sound research. I’m not holding my breath for Farley and her ilk to conduct a thoroughly vetted double-blind study, with both sex worker and control cohorts. If someone is doing such a study, I’m sure there are plenty like myself who would love to see the results.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s