Sex Ed taught in Grade1 now!

[Smallc]

I don't know the reason why the Netherland's has such low statistics as regards teen sexual behavior. I do know that sex ed is not the reason.

You know that....how?

[Guest TrueMetis]

You know that....how?

Crystal ball

Edited April 25, 2010 by TrueMetis

[lukin]

another myth based on uniformed opinion how unscientific of you, a teacher you say

despite it's lax drug laws Netherlands has half the rate of Marijuana use as the USA and only 25% of the USA's herion use...and the USA has 3 times the cocaine use...it's drug problems are worse than neighbouring countries which means significantly less than the USA

nope, you have no research ability you're not a teacher and never were, like Pliny you base your opinion you facts you make up

How can you accurately determine marijuana use rates in Holland compared to USA? You obviously haven't been to Holland. I spent a month there last summer. It's not the liberal utopia you think it is. Stats have nothing over actual experience. Keep surfing the net for stats that you deem to be correct wyly.

[wyly]

How can you accurately determine marijuana use rates in Holland compared to USA?

randon surveys, obviously since there is no punishment for it's use no one needs to fear telling the truth...whereas in the USA there may be that fear yet they still have much higher reported usage...

You obviously haven't been to Holland. I spent a month there last summer. It's not the liberal utopia you think it is. Stats have nothing over actual experience. Keep surfing the net for stats that you deem to be correct wyly.

been there many times, Amsterdam, Lieden, Utrecht, Apeldoorn and my favourite spot Maastricht so ya I guess I trump you in actual experience too if that's your criteria...going to France, Belguim, Germany and Netherlands again this summer with my teenagers, they're excited to experience a pot cafe, a bit to smelly for me I'll have a cold Amstel on the patio next door...

and ya it is a liberal utopia, a live and let live society, I'll be scouting to buy a vaction condo this time... mrs wyly perfers to buy in Spain......

Edited April 25, 2010 by wyly

[Guest TrueMetis]

How can you accurately determine marijuana use rates in Holland compared to USA? You obviously haven't been to Holland. I spent a month there last summer. It's not the liberal utopia you think it is. Stats have nothing over actual experience. Keep surfing the net for stats that you deem to be correct wyly.

Your hilarious. "I've spent a month in Holland so I know what it really like and how many drugs users there are, your scientifically gathered statitics with their methodology are nothing compared to my one months experiance." Seriously there is a reason why witnesses are the lowest form of evidence and anecdotes aren't trusted.

[Pliny]

The USA is nowhere near Swedens stats and neither is Canada, the USA is the hands leader in this issue among industrialized countries, it's not even close...want the stats again these are a bit earlier from a different source ( Unicef 2001)

Netherlands-live births 7.7 , abortions 3.9, combined 11.6...

Sweden- live births 7.7 abortions 17.7 combined 25.4...

Canada- live births 22.3 abortions 22.1 combined 44.4...

UK-live births 29.6 abortions 21.3 combined 50.9...

USA- live births 55.6, abortions 30.2 combined 85.8...

and Sweden has no abstinence programs...and from an earlier link I posted the UK intended to follow the Netherlands as a guide and not Sweden's as the better sex-ed system....

My stats are overall abortions not just teen abortions.

US - 21.3/1000

Sweden - 18/1000

Canada - 16.5/1000

Abortions as a percentage of known pregnancies is

Sweden - 25.7% (2003)

US - 24.3% (2002)

Canada - 24.2% (2002)

You can find information regarding the above

hereand hereand anywhere else you might look.

the flaw in you data is you have none, you make up stuff as you go along, you have no idea how to research...I have data you have ?? nothing...

you claimed netherlands had high abortion rate when it in fact has one of the lowest, why? because you can't research.

I corrected that before you had a chance to reply.

I was wrong on that when I checked the statistics.

..you now claim Sweden has a pregnacy rate equal to USA and it's not even close, why? again because you can't research...science is all about research, not opinion based on personal beliefs...

I never claimed it had a high pregnancy rate. I said it had a high

pregnancy abortion ratio. And it does.

If you look at fig. 8 in your Unicef 2001 citation. You will note that the Netherlands never did have a high rate of teen pregnancies.

In 1970 the rate per thousand was 22.6

1n 1998 the rate was 6.3

In the US the rate in 1970 was 69.2

In 1998 the rate was 52.1

Remember these were just teenage pregnancies.

What percentage of marriages in the US were teenagers? Lots of women married in the US were teens. Is there a differantiation between marreid teens and unmarried teens?

Questionis like these need to be asked before statistics are accepted as hard core facts and proofs positive of claims.

The fact is that in figure 8 all countries show a decline in teen age pregnancies. Why the Netherlands, which was traditionally low in the first place, has such a low rate now has not definitively proven to be it's sex ed program - as much as the family planners would like to claim it is, and believe me they would.

I don't know how you would discover the real use of drugs in a country where it is illegal.

Polls are unreliable and obviously polling is the only way to determine drug use in a country where it is illegal, other than by convictions. Otherwise you are just using what people say as the raw data for the statistic.

In a country where it is legal you are also only using polling data.

For accuracy you would have to perform drug tests on all individuals polled.

You are certainly no scientist. But then again the social sciences are not really sciences.

Edited April 25, 2010 by Pliny

[Pliny]

You know that....how?

Read over some of wyly's statistics and I'm sure you will discover that yourself.

[wyly]

You know that....how?

his objective research ability?

[Pliny]

Your hilarious. "I've spent a month in Holland so I know what it really like and how many drugs users there are, your scientifically gathered statitics with their methodology are nothing compared to my one months experiance." Seriously there is a reason why witnesses are the lowest form of evidence and anecdotes aren't trusted.

Go over and see for yourself. You might like it.

Scientific methodology doesn't work too well in the humanities. There are no axiomatic or mathematical definitives.

Perhaps that is wyly's confusion. Trying to apply scientific methodology to subjects that are not scientific.

[Pliny]

his objective research ability?

Precisely. I know statistics need to be really scrutinized. All the things you mentioned in one of your posts such as methodology are true. But you would probably apply the scientific method to the social sciences and political science as well because they have the word science in them. The fact is it can't be applied with the same mathematical precision.

Science does try and eliminate any human bias or influence. That is why the scientific method exists. It works fine for the most part and the only factor in question is the scientist himself which is why peer review exists. As a further filter to human error.

I'm just making it up as I go along though.

Edited April 25, 2010 by Pliny

[wyly]

My stats are overall abortions not just teen abortions.

US - 21.3/1000

Sweden - 18/1000

Canada - 16.5/1000

Abortions as a percentage of known pregnancies is

Sweden - 25.7% (2003)

US - 24.3% (2002)

Canada - 24.2% (2002)

I corrected that before you had a chance to reply.

I was wrong on that when I checked the statistics.

I never claimed it had a high pregnancy rate. I said it had a high

pregnancy abortion ratio. And it does.

If you look at fig. 8 in your Unicef 2001 citation. You will note that the Netherlands never did have a high rate of teen pregnancies.

In 1970 the rate per thousand was 22.6

1n 1998 the rate was 6.3

In the US the rate in 1970 was 69.2

In 1998 the rate was 52.1

Remember these were just teenage pregnancies.

What percentage of marriages in the US were teenagers? Lots of women married in the US were teens. Is there a differantiation between marreid teens and unmarried teens?

Questionis like these need to be asked before statistics are accepted as hard core facts and proofs positive of claims.

The fact is that in figure 8 all countries show a decline in teen age pregnancies. Why the Netherlands, which was traditionally low in the first place, has such a low rate now has not definitively proven to be it's sex ed program - as much as the family planners would like to claim it is, and believe me they would.

nice try mr MOVE THE GOALPOSTS...the issue is sex-ed and children/teenagers

as well we're comparing USA Canada and Netherlands with the issue of sex-ed for kids and now you want to deflect to adult pregnacy rates

I don't know how you would discover the real use of drugs in a country where it is illegal.

Polls are unreliable and obviously polling is the only way to determine drug use in a country where it is illegal, other than by convictions. Otherwise you are just using what people say as the raw data for the statistic.

In a country where it is legal you are also only using polling data.

For accuracy you would have to perform drug tests on all individuals polled.

ya you're just so smart all those government experts on drug in their countries use should call you up for advice, you have the real answer I just don't understand how the world can function without your input...

You are certainly no scientist. But then again the social sciences are not really sciences.

[Pliny]

nice try mr MOVE THE GOALPOSTS...the issue is sex-ed and children/teenagers

It is about sex ed. Sweden and the Netherlands have both had sex ed programs for awhile. Why is Sweden so high in abortions if sex ed is so effective? They shouldn't be having unwanted pregnancies.

as well we're comparing USA Canada and Netherlands with the issue of sex-ed for kids and now you want to deflect to adult pregnacy rates

We're talking about the effectiveness of sex education and unwanted pregnancies.

ya you're just so smart all those government experts on drug in their countries use should call you up for advice, you have the real answer I just don't understand how the world can function without your input...

They are social engineers so they naturally engineer society the way they think it should be engineered. They wouldn't like my input.

Edited April 25, 2010 by Pliny

[lukin]

People like wyly resort to name-calling when someone disagrees with him. His type is the most intolerant.

[Pliny]

wyly can quote all the statistics he wants to, as did the whole socio-political element in designing sex ed and political policy for 4 decades around the very definitive and credible "scientific" statistical study on human sexual behavior called the Kinsey Report. We know what file that report can be found in today. Like myself, Mr. Kinsey made it up as he went along but for decades the study was cited as scientifically sound by the social scientific community. It told them what they wanted to hear.

The only empirical fact known in the social sciences that I am aware of is that man will act, beyond that, it is anybody's guess as to how he will act. Claiming knowledge of such is a claim to the ability to predict human behavior and ultimately that would infer an ability to control it. The wet dream of the social engineer.

Quoting statistics to make sex ed credible is a bit of a stretch, in my view. The Netherlands has a traditionally low pregnancy and abortion rate. I would like to know why. If the US rate were descending to the levels of the Netherlands then I might be more accepting of the fact that there was an effective element, perhaps even sex ed, influencing it.

I think adults need to discover what sex is before they start educating people about it. Trying to deny it's prime purpose is procreation and subverting that purpose with hedonistic gratification for the purposes of population control and/or economic convenience is idiocy. There is more to it than the act.

The approach to drug problems is similar in that their use is not discouraged and addiction is a disease. It isn't a disease. Saying it is, is just an excuse to allow the behavior to continue and remove individual responsibility for one's behavior. In essence that is the effect of labeling drug addiction as a disease. It's also a convenient tool of intervention. They should try and understand what addiction is before they start teaching us about it.

Edited April 25, 2010 by Pliny

[Michael Hardner]

It is about sex ed. Sweden and the Netherlands have both had sex ed programs for awhile. Why is Sweden so high in abortions if sex ed is so effective? They shouldn't be having unwanted pregnancies.

Comparing two countries, or two different time frames is like comparing apples and oranges. The US study I quoted from seemed to give tepid support for education, but it did seem to be a comprehensive study and it did say that there were benefits.

They are social engineers so they naturally engineer society the way they think it should be engineered. They wouldn't like my input.

The medical field pushes for a lot of these changes.

[Wild Bill]

wyly can quote all the statistics he wants to, as did the whole socio-political element in designing sex ed and political policy for 4 decades around the very definitive and credible "scientific" statistical study on human sexual behavior called the Kinsey Report. We know what file that report can be found in today. Like myself, Mr. Kinsey made it up as he went along but for decades the study was cited as scientifically sound by the social scientific community. It told them what they wanted to hear.

The only empirical fact known in the social sciences that I am aware of is that man will act, beyond that, it is anybody's guess as to how he will act. Claiming knowledge of such is a claim to the ability to predict human behavior and ultimately that would infer an ability to control it. The wet dream of the social engineer.

The approach to drug problems is similar in that their use is not discouraged and addiction is a disease. It isn't a disease. Saying it is, is just an excuse to allow the behavior to continue and remove individual responsibility for one's behavior. In essence that is the effect of labeling drug addiction as a disease. It's also a convenient tool of intervention. They should try and understand what addiction is before they start teaching us about it.

If someone wants to be a scientist but he can't handle maths then he becomes a "social scientist".

Opinions don't carry you that far with physics.

[Smallc]

You do understand that much of the work done in social science does is empirical, right?

Edited April 25, 2010 by Smallc

[Handsome Rob]

You do understand that much of the work done in social science does is empirical, right?

If that were completely true, the same principals could be applied to something like the stock market, no? Human system, predictable system, semi-standarized rules.

Shouldn't we have a lot more millionaires?

[Smallc]

If that were completely true, the same principals could be applied to something like the stock market, no? Human system, predictable system, semi-standarized rules.

Actually, studies show that the human brain is generally wired to make bad decisions when it comes to things like the stock market. Social science in many cases is very empirical.

[Michael Hardner]

If that were completely true, the same principals could be applied to something like the stock market, no? Human system, predictable system, semi-standarized rules.

Shouldn't we have a lot more millionaires?

How could you apply the principle of these experiments to the stock market ?

[Handsome Rob]

How could you apply the principle of these experiments to the stock market ?

It's a human system set within a pre-established set of guidelines.

You query 15 people individually, you get a different response for each person. You train them all the same way, you still get 15 different individual responses. There is more than one way to skin a cat.

People working on wall street are all trained within essentially the same guidelines, rules, and consequences, yet it is unpredictable.

If a group of children are all taught within a similar set of guidelines, are we certain we can produce a predictable response? Is there nothing differing of things like economic status, peer groups, localized cultural factors, and about a billion other things?

The living system with it's near infinite amount of interactions, all of which influence decision making in one way or another, can this be predicted?

Edited April 25, 2010 by Handsome Rob

[Michael Hardner]

If a group of children are all taught within a similar set of guidelines, are we certain we can produce a predictable response? Is there nothing differing of things like economic status, peer groups, localized cultural factors, and about a billion other things?

The living system with it's near infinite amount of interactions, all of which influence decision making in one way or another, can this be predicted?

There are two things that experiments do to try to eliminate other variables: random sampling and the control groups. These methods are effective in determining whether the experiment has had an effect or not. They use it extensively in advertising, and that definitely works.

It's a good question, though.

[Pliny]

Actually, studies show that the human brain is generally wired to make bad decisions when it comes to things like the stock market. Social science in many cases is very empirical.

Can you empirically prove that the human brain is wired to make bad decisions. You can't. Why do you think it is any different when it comes to the stock market? Empirical evidence would bring the same result each time under the same circumstances. Obviously, when it comes to making decisions about the stock market some good decisions are made so, empirically there isno evidence to show the brain is wired to make bad decisions when it comes to things like the stock market.

The social sciences try to apply the scientific method in their field but the best they can approach to empiricism is a bell curve of possibilities. No hard and fast predictable actions or empirical results.

[Smallc]

The social sciences try to apply the scientific method in their field but the best they can approach to empiricism is a bell curve of possibilities.

No it isn't just a curve of possibilities, it's a curve of documented outcomes which can be repeated time and again with very little variation. Humans have an aversion to loss. Because of this, people often pull money out at the worst times and put it in at the worst times. Our aversion to loss seems to take over rational though. You can find studies on it, not that you care or would pay them any attention.

Here's one:

http://scienceblogs.com/cortex/2010/02/loss_aversion.php

Edited April 25, 2010 by Smallc

[Pliny]

No it isn't just a curve of possibilities, it's a curve of documented outcomes which can be repeated time and again with very little variation. Humans have an aversion to loss. Because of this, people often pull money out at the worst times and put it in at the worst times. Our aversion to loss seems to take over rational though. You can find studies on it, not that you care or would pay them any attention.

Here's one:

http://scienceblogs.com/cortex/2010/02/loss_aversion.php

In the aggregate, you may be able to attempt a demonstration of empiricism but never on an individual one to one basis. Even your own statements, like "people often", demonstrate an absence of empiricism.

Nevertheless. The efficacy of sex ed is still in question, in my view. You can be convinced like wyly, the absolutist skeptic, that sex ed is the determining factor in low teen pregnancy/abortion rates but it isn't conclunsive to me. The most important factor from my point of view is people's love and respect for each other as individuals in their own roles and identity. The use of each other for self-gratification is exactly that - a use, for which once the purpose is served the tool is dispensed with. I think in North America the equalization of women where women have demanded and gotten legislation for the elimination of gender differentiation, what they term "discrimination", has resulted in men treating women like they do other men - just as friends. Who wants to marry their friend? There has been a loss of a definitive gender role or identity. We have recently seen some reversal in this idea, I think. The teen pregnancy and abortion rates started to soar in the early sixties, date coincident with the rise of the feminist movement. Don't get me wrong, the feminist movement brought about some necessary changes to a changed society but they didn't have to try and eliminate femininity for equality. What they wanted, I think, was "fairness", not the sameness that equality attempts to bring about but never can.