09 Jun 2009, 10:40 am
^ I agree that the data is very questionable. The only place I can find where the figures may have originated is Aston's website. There's an online questionnaire there asking about the physical and mental health of partners of those with AS. If that is the source of the data, then there is a strong selection bias and I can't understand why it would be quoted by any reputable professional.
ManErg wrote:
So NT women with worse psychological health get involved with AS men? Maybe because NT men aren't so desparate, daft or clueless at reading the signs, to get involved with someone with psychological problems in the first place?
So I assume you think that anyone who gets involved with someone with psychological problems must be desperate, daft or clueless.
09 Jun 2009, 3:08 pm
ManErg wrote:
I just don't see a world of unbridled bliss in NT/NT relationships, either.
Brilliant line! I love it.
outlier wrote:
So I assume you think that anyone who gets involved with someone with psychological problems must be desperate, daft or clueless.
Or the touchy-feely codependent social worker I-can-help-you type....though probably none of them have AS.
09 Jun 2009, 5:18 pm
outlier wrote:
ManErg wrote:
So NT women with worse psychological health get involved with AS men? Maybe because NT men aren't so desparate, daft or clueless at reading the signs, to get involved with someone with psychological problems in the first place?
So I assume you think that anyone who gets involved with someone with psychological problems must be desperate, daft or clueless.
That apples are not oranges does not imply that everything that is not an orange must be an apple
Feel free to add any other reasons you can think of, the list is not exhaustive.
Unlike TA and MA, I admit I'm only speculating an alternative hypothosis - I'm sure there are many more possibilities. I doubt if there is any research to *disprove* my speculation. In the interest of science and truth, all alternative explanations must be eliminated by research before these charlatans open their mouths for money.
PS Maxine Ashtons figures would appear to be nothing *but* selection bias!
10 Jun 2009, 6:59 am
ManErg wrote:
That apples are not oranges does not imply that everything that is not an orange must be an apple Feel free to add any other reasons you can think of, the list is not exhaustive.
Feel free to add any other reasons you can think of, the list is not exhaustive.I understand that. It's just that particular hypothesis you came up with is ... well, interesting.
I still don't understand why a reputable professional would quote such figures. Is it just sloppiness? If that online questionnaire is the known source, wouldn't it be obvious to such a professional that the figures were strongly biased? Has anyone raised the point with him?
sinsboldly
Veteran
Joined: 21 Nov 2006
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,488
Location: Bandon-by-the-Sea, Oregon
10 Jun 2009, 7:25 am
outlier wrote:
ManErg wrote:
That apples are not oranges does not imply that everything that is not an orange must be an apple Feel free to add any other reasons you can think of, the list is not exhaustive.
Feel free to add any other reasons you can think of, the list is not exhaustive.I understand that. It's just that particular hypothesis you came up with is ... well, interesting.
I still don't understand why a reputable professional would quote such figures. Is it just sloppiness? If that online questionnaire is the known source, wouldn't it be obvious to such a professional that the figures were strongly biased? Has anyone raised the point with him?
and perhaps more importantly, do we have those figures reflected in any documentation of Attwood's body of work?
11 Jun 2009, 4:58 am
outlier wrote:
I still don't understand why a reputable professional would quote such figures. Is it just sloppiness? If that online questionnaire is the known source, wouldn't it be obvious to such a professional that the figures were strongly biased? Has anyone raised the point with him?
Yes, I don't really understand what Tony Attwood is doing! At first, I thought he was really one of the 'good guys'. His talks and writing suggested his understanding of AS was top-notch - for an NT. Then he appears to have got pulled into the Cassandra syndrome thing, which is highly dubious, and then he seemed to distance himself from it and now he's back again effectively implying that 98% of AS men are abusive.
It puts a cloud over the 'good work' he has done, if it was all done as sloppily as this latest.
BTW Don't get me wrong, I am not saying AS men are all angels and that there is not *some* level of reduced emotional support when compared to NT men. It just seems that there are a hundred questions NOT being asked by the 'true believers' in Cassandra syndrome and I want to see those questions rasied and considered. Maybe I should just email him and tell him that he should not let Maxine's undoubted charms cloud his better judgement.....
