Puzzles Of The Mind: Just What Are They After?

January 29th, 2008 by Steve Diamond

“The Rind Report”…

…Do you know what it was about?…

It was published in the highly prestigious Psychological Bulletin (a publication of the American Psychological Association)…All published research, must go through comprehensive peer review, and be cleared as sound, before it goes to the press…

…so, there must have been something honest, and of value, in it…else, it would have never made it into the journal, to begin with.

…It is not that the meta analysis did not belong in the journal…clearly, it did…

…but, many people objected…

What did the Rind report do, to offend people so?…

…Let’s start from the beginning…

Bruce Rind, was one of three professionals, chosen to do a meta analysis, on child sex abuse research.

What is a “meta analysis”?…

A meta analysis, is a typical process within the field of research…Once a substantial number of like (or similar) research studies have been conducted, it is common practice, to take these studies…and review their data, methodologies and conclusions, in order to surmise, what the general concurrence is…

…Or, in other words, you put each incident of research under the microscope…dissect it…and determine what the general trend is, with regards to how research on a topic gets conducted, and what typical findings result.

…It is a mass audit of past research.

That said…it should go without saying…meta analysis happen in the research world, all the time.

…So, what happened with this meta analysis?…

Firstly, Bruce Rind bucked the system…

…he had the “nerve”, to face the taboo, with neutrality…and push forward with research as it was scientifically intended to be done…

Dr. Rind found an unusual trend, in what was being put forward as, “authoritative research on child sex abuse”.

…the consistent use of value laden terminologies, instead of neutral ones.

Neutral terminologies are the typical rule, in the field of research, because…usage of value laden terms, introduces the aspect of bias (which is corrupting, in any research), and greatly endangers the work of becoming skewed.

Further, usage of these same value laden terms, in the resulting papers, articles and interviews, are likely to cause some level of skewing, in the public perception of the research findings.

It is wrong to infuse bias, and use “hot button” terms, when conducting what is supposed to be scientific research…Dr. Rind called them on this…

Secondly…the methodological processes, commonly embarked on such puzzling, unscientific tendencies, as grouping all forms of sexual activity, regardless of the vast differences (ie. violent rape vs enjoyable sex play), into one group…and treating them as though they are all the same…

…or, more specifically…allowing the horrendous effects of being violently raped and beaten, to methodologically bleed over into the realm of happy sex play (which still qualifies as “sex abuse” under the law), and corrupt the findings, by averaging all of this together…

Dr. Rind further found, that there is a clear bias, in the manner in which collected data is analyzed and used…

With little fail…all victims who say it was terrible are taken at their word, and trusted by default to be telling the truth…while those who say it was neutral, or even good, are not taken at their word…and, in fact, their accounts are disregarded…

…with exception to whatever value they can glean from it, under the theory of “cognitive distortion”…

…Or, in other words…those “victims” who enjoyed it, and wanted to be there…Those people were put into a special category…where it was presumed, that they must have been so horribly abused, that they lost contact with reality…

…Social rules say, “children are not supposed to like, seek out, or want sexual contact”…Anyone falling outside of this paradigm, is automatically deemed “defective”…and, their contributions to the research are discarded…while the researchers assign them “more proper” testimonies and accounts.

This has effectively nullified the countless voices, of those involved in “child sex abuse” research over the past several decades, who knew their experiences to have not been abusive in nature.

Dr. Rind found, that “child sex abuse” research is rife with critical flaws…because so much of it is conducted in such a grossly biased manner.

…a manner, where it would seem, the methodologies were not designed so much to study the topic at hand, as they were designed to produce and intentional outcome…

Dr. Rind, after explaining this, and showing it to be the case, took the raw data from these many instances of research, and subjected it to scientifically sound methodologies, without biased terms, and categorized it in ways which made logical sense…

The findings were interesting…

Once you got rid of the bias, and the resulting skewing…it was clearly seen, that a very substantial percentage of those characterized as “child sex abuse victims”, were not effected negatively at all, by the experience.

…Indeed…when their voices are not gagged, those who enjoyed and cherished the experiences, are properly represented (as opposed to, pretended not to exist).

This was Dr. Rinds “sin”…

…He wanted to establish the truth, as the data would indicate, after being put through scientifically sound methods of analysis.

…He gave the people who enjoyed the sexual activity, or were indifferent to it, a voice and a fair representation…

So…it gets published…and the seemingly strangest thing in the world happens…

The world (or western culture…U.S. to be specific) finds out, that previously presumed effects of “child sex abuse” are not accurate…in fact, they are very substantially wrong…

…The wonderful news is that…very many of those millions of children, who have previously been presumed to have been impacted very negatively (having their life destroyed, etc) are, in reality, just fine…perfectly okay…They are not damaged…

Common sense would conclude, that the world should have rejoiced at this wonderful revelation…It is not only good news, it is great news…

…isn’t it?…

Shockingly…”no”…in fact, this is not “good news”…it is “offensive”, and an “outrage”…

Quite revealing…the people who seemingly should have been most overjoyed at this discovery, were the ones that went on the attack, and attempted to undermine this research.

It was the “child advocates”…the conservative christians…those who fancy themselves “most concerned with the well being of children”, who objected the loudest, over findings that amounted to, “children are enormously, much better off than we had expected”.

…the paradox here, is that people who were claiming to fight for the day when children are safe, happy and grow up healthy, were soundly rejecting anything which indicated that we are much closer to their stated goal, than what was previously presumed…

…They were not happy to learn this…

…in fact, it had these sorts of people seething with anger…

Why?…

…Are they just insane?…or, is there more to this than meets the eye?

“The Rind Report” was the tragic victim of a destructive, social trend…a trend, with enormous momentum…

…and the report was not convenient, to that social trend.

It did not tow the party line…It did not give further confirmatory permission, to those who wish to continue pushing their social agenda, without having to face opposition.

It told us all, that there is no reason, or excuse, for the social panic…or the dishonesty…It told us, that we can, and should, make important distinctions…It told us, that this “dark danger” looming over the heads of all of our children, really is not so dark as some would have you believe…

…but, when the goal is to get all people under the age of 21 years, barred from their own sexuality and experiencing it with others…well…”We” don’t want to hear such good news, when it is not scaring everyone into going along with “our” plan…

…”We” don’t want to hear it, when it indicates that the need for more action has passed…

…and “we” sure don’t want to hear it, when it indicates that we, as a culture, have gone to far…

6 Responses to “Puzzles Of The Mind: Just What Are They After?”

  1. Strato Says:

    Reaction to the Rind Report is an illuminating one, as you demonstrate, since it establishes the lengths that individuals, academics, and entire governments, are willing to go to in order to preserve the illusions that they have created. The idea of the illusion being shattered is, quite simply, too frightening an idea to countenance. The holder of the idea must cling to it with his/her last dying breath, since, even if deep down he/she realizes that the edifice is built upon sand, the consequences of its collapse are just too great.

    The point is an important one, because it shows what we are dealing with when struggling against our persecution. It is not simply isolated notions that we are asking people to challenge (e.g. ‘childhood innocence’ or ‘sex-negativity’, etc) – it is the entire distorted order of knowledge, truth and reality upon which contemporary society is based (why we believe what we believe…the blind faith we place in science as the new religion…facing up to the fact that the society we have constructed is a mass of illusion, indoctrination, distortion and voluntary subservience).

    People – whether the husband and wife in their suburban sanctuary, educated professionals who have passed through the system, or politicians clinging to the notion of power – do not want (and will not accept) the gaping void that would ensue from the collapse of the artificial reality which sustains them.

    This is what we, as pedophiles, MAAs, CLs, freedom-fighters, activists, the persecuted minority – however we choose to view ourselves – must acknowledge and face. Attempting to expose the myths and hypocrisy…attempting to fight fire with fire…would be futile when our antagonists, the majority, would not want those myths exposed, even if they could be convinced that they were indeed myths.

    Majority reaction to the Rind Report is the perfect illustration of this point.

    This does not mean, of course, that we should not continue to expose the myths and continue scraping away at the sandy foundation – a point that we have touched upon in a previous discussion. Merely that our strategies must encompass and build upon the awareness that the antipathy of the majority towards pedophiles lies on an (extremely fragile) existential basis, which is on a far more fundamental level than mere ‘adult-child sex’, and that accordingly the answer to hysteria is not ‘truth’.

  2. Daniel Lièvre Says:

    In a way, “truth” is substantial, and timeless, but it requires traction. In this sense, the report came twenty years before its time. Instead of the countercultural flare that one would expect to see slightly more of today, and ten years in the future, we got the almost Reismanesque rebuttal by Stephanie Dallam.

    Of course, the authors would argue that the effect their work had on society was irrelevant.

  3. Daniel Says:

    Steve… could you check your haloscan please.

  4. Steve Diamond Says:

    Thank you for the responses…

    Daniel…

    I’ve checked my account, and the matter has been seen to.

    The question of “truth”, it’s timelessness…and whether or not any perceived truth is absolute…is a vast discussion to undertake, for sure.

    But, I would certainly agree with any notion…that ideas and emotions can not be killed…and that they will continue to resurface, wherever they find an outlet or an acceptance.

    “Traction” is a good term to use, here.

    Strato…

    I think the primary problem, is that they have invested so much of themselves, and their idea of “culture”, into the whole “nuclear family” model.

    For all minorities who do not conform…we get delegated to the ghettos of society, because allegedly…we are eroding the larger culture, by not conforming to the model…

    …and, of course, their is this belief that society will give way to mass havoc, should the nuclear family dissolve into a relic of the past.

    Funny thing is…they’ve been eroding their own, nuclear family for years…and the minorities have always been here, anyway.

    Many of our cultures are no longer based on that model…not honestly (we are evolving into something else)…but, people don’t want to let go of the old model…the idea of it…

  5. Viamund Says:

    Those who have read the various books based on childhood sexuality and expression – such as those by Dr Brongersma or Theo Sandford to name two popular authors – will be aware of the neutral and frequently positive experiences. It should not be surprise to discover that this would be the case. Social programming is a means to an end for political objectives and the media is a part of that. As with all things it begins and ends with Humanity. So repression leads to resentment and backlash. Our job should be to retain and document this for future generations so that when it is acceptable for these truths to be accepted as they are (without idealogical bias), we will have it.
    Thanks for this information Steve. I never heard of this Dr Rind but it sounds like a topic worth exploring.

  6. Steve Diamond Says:

    Hi Viamund…

    You are more than welcome. If you’d like more information about this chain of events, read here…

    http://home.wanadoo.nl/ipce/library_two/rbt/science_frame.htm

    This happened a number of years ago…It’s hard to believe how long it’s been…

    I am still appalled, whenever I go back and read this chronology.

Leave a Reply