NewgonWiki is moving to a new domain (yet to be decided, but very soon). We will then create a public forum within 10-12 weeks. There is a slight possibility that Newgon.net will expire in early December and therefore not redirect to the new NewgonWiki domain. In that case, JohnHolt will post a notice on BoyChat and BoyLinks will carry the new URL.

Bruce Rind

From NewgonWiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

Formerly a psychology professor at Temple University, Philadelphia, Bruce Rind (born August 3, 1953), is an independent researcher in the field of intergenerational sexualities. Rind is best known for his 1998 paper (published with Robert Bauserman and Philip Tromovitch) and the moral outrage it sparked in America. He has also written about factors that affect persuasion in advertising and tipping.

Rind was born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. As a teenager, Rind was a standout chess player, rising to be the top-rated player in Pennsylvania as an adult. He was awarded a FIDE International Master title in 1979 and achieved a FIDE rating of 2335.

Rind received his bachelor's degree from the College of William and Mary. He then attended Temple University, earning a master's degree, followed by a Ph.D. in psychology in 1990. His dissertation examined factors in the persuasiveness of advertising.[1] Rind taught courses at Temple until 2007. He has since resided in Leipzig, Germany.

Present focus

Despite a strong background in a number of psychological topics including communication, Bruce Rind is best known for his studies of intergenerational sexuality - particularly pederasty in its historical and modern contexts. In addition to this, Rind has been at the heart of numerous statistical analyses of sexology data new and old, also lecturing in the most advanced statistics courses.

Ipce hosts its own selection of Rind articles.

1998 Meta-analysis

Main article

Published by Rind in 1998, A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples collated data from previous studies, concluding that:

"Self-reported reactions to and effects from CSA indicated that negative effects were neither pervasive nor typically intense, and that men reacted much less negatively than women. The college data were completely consistent with data from national samples. Basic beliefs about CSA in the general population were not supported."

The study was condemned by a number of conservative Talk Radio hosts and then formally so by the US house of Congress. Author Thomas D. Oellerich called the study "politically incorrect" but "scientifically correct".[2] It has been suggested that the Rind et al. controversy demonstrates that employing the naturalistic fallacy leads to situations in which empirical descriptions of nature are seen as dictating moral conclusions.[3]

See also

References

  1. Rind, Bruce (1990). A Model for what Makes a Message Persuasive. Temple University
  2. Oellerich, Thomas D. (2000), "Rind, Tromovitch, and Bauserman: Politically Incorrect - Scientifically Correct", Sexuality and Culture, 4 (2): 67–81
  3. Friedrich, James (2005). "Naturalistic Fallacy Errors in Lay Interpretations of Psychological Science: Data and Reflections on the Rind, Tromovitch, and Bauserman (1998) Controversy". Basic and Applied Social Psychology. 27: 59–70.