Anecdotal Evidence From Sexual Allies

[Pramana]

I would like to consider the role of anecdotal evidence for learning about human sexuality and asexuality. Anecdotal evidence is evidence from testimonies of personal experience. It is gathered in an informal manner with no attempt to control for bias, and it is not subjected to statistical analysis.

This strategy has been followed on AVEN for developing definitions of key concepts such as asexuality and sexuality, and sexual attraction and sexual desire. The result has been the generation of claims about human sexuality that conflict with scientific interpretations. These include the desire-only definition of asexuality, and the claims that many sexual people, or that all sexual women, don’t experience sexual attraction.
 

But Charles Darwin writes in The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex (Part 2, Chapter 20) that “Preference on the part of the women, steadily acting in any one direction, would ultimately affect the character of the tribe; for the women would generally choose not merely the handsomest men, according to their standard of taste, but those who were at the same time best able to defend and support them. Such well-endowed pairs would commonly rear a larger number of offspring than the less favoured. The same result would obviously follow in a still more marked manner if there was selection on both sides; that is, if the more attractive, and at the same time more powerful men were to prefer, and were preferred by, the more attractive women. And this double form of selection seems actually to have occurred, especially during the earlier periods of our long history.”

Darwin’s argument is based on the observed behaviour of humans and various other species, rather than on personal reports of what people think they are experiencing or not experiencing. His theory of sexual selection as a driving force in human evolution has been highly influential, reflected in the widespread use of the concept of sexual attraction in behaviourist psychology.

Sometimes, it is suggested that if anecdotal evidence concerning sexual attraction and sexual desire conflicts with published science, then the entire field of behaviourist psychology must be mistaken and deluded. The reasoning here is similar to Donald Trump’s reasoning with respect to climate science, as demonstrated in these tweets reported by CBS News. “The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.” (November 6, 2012). And “It’s really cold outside, they are calling it a major freeze, weeks ahead of normal. Man, we could use a big fat dose of global warming!” (October 19, 2015).

It should be obvious why this type of reasoning is problematic. Much of the confusion that has unfolded on AVEN with respect to the concepts of sexual attraction and sexual desire and the definition of asexuality is the result of overreliance on anecdotal evidence. That result is unsurprising, because anecdotal evidence is not evidence.

[God of the Forest]

27 minutes ago, Pramana said:

I would like to consider the role of anecdotal evidence for learning about human sexuality and asexuality and gender. Anecdotal evidence is evidence from overreliance on anecdotal evidence personal accounts and/or testimony. That result is unsurprising, because anecdotal evidence is not evidence.

   * the bold is my own addition lol and/or correction

 

And I agree... This is how Tumblr was born. But I don't think "sexual allies" are to blame.

[Pramana]

24 minutes ago, King of the Forest said:

   * the bold is my own addition lol and/or correction

 

And I agree... This is how Tumblr was born. But I don't think "sexual allies" are to blame.

I think what's to blame is the fact that relying on this type of evidence is easier than doing actual research. On AVEN, it happens that most of the anecdotal evidence about human sexuality comes from sexual allies.

[chair jockey]

Well, I don't much like the apparent rhetoric of quoting Donald Trump on a primarily anti-Trump forum when drawing parallels to what are claimed to be erroneous views, but, overall, this is a very sound post that needed to be made a long time ago. Years ago I made similar but less sophisticated and much more abrasive attempts to point out that AVEN was not relying on science for its understanding of asexuality (in my regrettable original words, "people are pulling things out of their ass"), so I'm glad someone who knows how to talk to people and is taken seriously has taken the trouble to make a related point constructively.

 

i personally love anecdotal evidence because I am unschooled and rely on half a century of life experience, observation and conversation about other people's experiences. That's how we all learn to live our lives. But when claims of fact applying to other people are made, which those other people may use to guide their own lives without personal involvement with whoever is making the claim, a more stringent standard of determining what's true and what isn't, is required. That's why science exists in the first place, that's why laws and regulations and codes rely on expert input from scientists, and that's why AVEN shouldn't base its official views on anecdotal evidence.

 

 

[Pramana]

5 minutes ago, chair jockey said:

Well, I don't much like the apparent rhetoric of quoting Donald Trump on a primarily anti-Trump forum when drawing parallels to what are claimed to be erroneous views, but, overall, this is a very sound post that needed to be made a long time ago. Years ago I made similar but less sophisticated and much more abrasive attempts to point out that AVEN was not relying on science for its understanding of asexuality (in my regrettable original words, "people are pulling things out of their ass"), so I'm glad someone who knows how to talk to people and is taken seriously has taken the trouble to make a related point constructively.

 

i personally love anecdotal evidence because I am unschooled and rely on half a century of life experience, observation and conversation about other people's experiences. That's how we all learn to live our lives. But when claims of fact applying to other people are made, which those other people may use to guide their own lives without personal involvement with whoever is making the claim, a more stringent standard of determining what's true and what isn't, is required. That's why science exists in the first place, that's why laws and regulations and codes rely on expert input from scientists, and that's why AVEN shouldn't base its official views on anecdotal evidence.

I agree with everything you've said here, including your observation that my choice to reference Donald Trump was intended to take advantage of a rhetorical opportunity that I couldn't resist.

[chair jockey]

Just now, Pramana said:

I agree with everything you've said here, including your observation that my choice to reference Donald Trump was intended to take advantage of a rhetorical opportunity that I couldn't resist.

Well, it's definitely effective because you pointed out exactly what pisses Trump-haters off about Trump, and pleases his admirers about him. The people who support him believe in relying on anecdotal evidence ("experience and common sense") and not formally structured and rigorously tested knowledge.

[Arctangent]

Claiming that (a)sexuality is not necessarily defined by sexual attraction (or lack thereof) is not the same as claiming that sexual attraction doesn't exist or isn't important. Sexual attraction is something that can be observed on the level of populations, I agree - but that doesn't mean it's a concept that holds the same meaning to individual people. In my experience, personal interpretations and experiences of sexual attractions diverge significantly. I can back this up with more than just anecdotal evidence - I read a chapter in Lisa Diamond's book Sexual Fluidity (2008) where she surveys women who experience some degree of same-sex attraction and asks them to describe attraction. The results she got back were so diverse that they appeared to be "utterly incomparable" to her. So it's not that unbelievable to me that some people define sexual attraction in such a way that not many sexual people actually experience it or consider it central to their sexuality (and in fact this seems to be rather common on AVEN).

 

One of my main beefs with AVEN is that asexual people often use their own anecdotal evidence about sexuality in order to make sweeping generalizations about sexual people. For example, the interpretation of sexual attraction as "finding a stranger 'hot' and spontaneously wanting sex with them" is often used to characterize sexual people as being shallow and driven by base desires. We need the voices and personal experiences of sexual people in the community to counter mistaken perceptions like these.

 

The thing about defining asexuality is that it's not done in a vacuum. Asexuality is typically thought of as a lack of some fundamental component of "regular" sexuality, so when someone defines what it means to be asexual, they are often also making an implicit claim about what it fundamentally means to be sexual. Sometimes sexual people have a problem with the way asexual people characterize sexuality - the desire definition seems to have originated in part from this conflict. It seems inconsistent to me to say that asexual people can define asexuality however they wish, but sexual people can't have their own personal definitions of what it means to be sexual (which, for some, is centered around desire rather than attraction). If asexuals get to do it, then sexuals should get to do it too, IMO. If we want to respect the ability for both groups to self-identify on the basis of their personal experiences, then overlaps and conflicts between personal definitions are probably practically inevitable.

 

I'm not sure this rambling is coherent at all, but I spent all this time writing it, so I will submit it anyway.

[chair jockey]

There's also personal self-interest to consider here. The people who acquire the most power and influence are those who thrive in an atmosphere of indeterminacy, because it assists them in exploiting ambiguity and nuance to their advantage. Those people have self-interest in maintaining an atmosphere of indeterminacy. No, I'm not alleging any Star Chamber conspiracy here, because that would be silly. I'm just saying that we are most influenced by the people I've described, and they have the most power to use to influence us deliberately. And such power is used and such influence exerted most effectively from concealment, so that it's very hard to tell who is making a fool of us, or often even _that_ they are. It just seems self-evident that all the indeterminacy surrounding issues such as what is asexuality (and whether the world was created or evolved spontaneously, and whether life begins at birth or at conception, etc.) is in the self-interest of those we can't see pulling the strings; and we likely can't even see or feel the strings!

[Pramana]

@Law of Circles Your examples show that back and forth exchanges between sexuals and asexuals based entirely on anecdotal evidence is likely to lead us further out of touch with reality. Obviously, the "finding a stranger 'hot' and spontaneously wanting sex with them" idea is based on anecdotal evidence and it is a bad definition of sexual attraction. And responding to that with anecdotal evidence from sexuals who say they don't experience that so they don't experience sexual attraction makes matters even worse.

Among the small group of 5-10 members on AVEN who are vocal desire-only supports, it does seem to be a common view that sexual attraction either doesn't exist or isn't experienced by women, and that psychology is some kind of fiction. I have been heavily involved in these discussions, so I've come to know the respective arguments really well.

I've also become relatively well acquainted with the academic literature on the subject, so I can say with confidence that there is little to no support for a desire-only definition. People writing from a behaviourist psychology perspective usually follow an attraction-based definition, while people writing from a social constructivist perspective usually follow an attraction and/or desire based definition. I've discussed in detail the differences between these two academic perspectives through my posts on social constructivism and feminism in the context of asexuality.

Of course, there's always going to be differences of personal opinion on these matters. But recall that desire-only supporters are often not just stating their personal opinion, but presenting that opinion as fact when advising new members, and claiming that AVEN should change its official definition. I argue that is problematic. In those areas, we should be following science.

[Arctangent]

Just now, Pramana said:

@Law of Circles Your examples show that back and forth exchanges between sexuals and asexuals based entirely on anecdotal evidence is likely to lead us further out of touch with reality. Obviously, the "finding a stranger 'hot' and spontaneously wanting sex with them" idea is based on anecdotal evidence and it is a bad definition of sexual attraction. And responding to that with anecdotal evidence from sexuals who say they don't experience that so they don't experience sexual attraction makes matters even worse.

But who gets to decide what a "bad" definition of sexual attraction is? I feel as if the desire to nail down a single definition of sexual attraction and claim that to be the "right" one is contradictory to the notion of inclusivity, which is one of the main reasons people claim to favor the attraction-based definition in the first place. I fail to see how being dogmatic about an attraction-based definition is any better or more inclusive than being dogmatic about a desire-based one. I'll admit I'm not a huge fan of the whole inclusivity thing to begin with, but if people are going to state inclusivity as their objective, then I feel like they should be consistent about it.

 

The situation is such a mess that I've mostly made peace with the plurality of conflicting definitions that currently exist. For what it's worth, I don't think the desire-based definition is perfect either, but I think it does capture some phenomena that the attraction-based definition fails to capture, so I will continue to explain the reasoning behind it when it seems like it might be helpful to someone. I avoid making claims like "most women don't experience sexual attraction" because I recognize that such a claim is based on only one interpretation of what sexual attraction is... and there are many. I'd be willing to bet that if you started from the same definition of sexual attraction as the person making that claim, though, you'd agree with what they were saying.

 

A lot of conflicts on AVEN seem to occur more due to differences in the use of language than disagreements about the substance of what's being said.

[Pramana]

1 minute ago, Law of Circles said:

But who gets to decide what a "bad" definition of sexual attraction is? I feel as if the desire to nail down a single definition of sexual attraction and claim that to be the "right" one is contradictory to the notion of inclusivity, which is one of the main reasons people claim to favor the attraction-based definition in the first place. I fail to see how being dogmatic about an attraction-based definition is any better or more inclusive than being dogmatic about a desire-based one. I'll admit I'm not a huge fan of the whole inclusivity thing to begin with, but if people are going to state inclusivity as their objective, then I feel like they should be consistent about it.

Concerning inclusivity, I've been consistently in favour of self-identification and an expansive attraction and/or desire definition of asexuality. On the other hand, desire-only supporters are more likely to be against those values.

Regarding the definition of sexual attraction, it wouldn't be a word if it didn't have a definition. My answer for how to define it is, not surprisingly, that we should follow the science. There seems to be a fairly standard usage of the concept in psychology tracing back to the Charles Darwin quote that I provided in my original post. And see my thread on sexual attraction in Site Comments for more detail.

[Pramana]

I thought that I would add to this thread an excellent Darwin quote concerning the role of sexual attraction in the mating habits of birds, which illustrates his methodology:
 

"With respect to female birds feeling a preference for particular males, we must bear in mind that we can judge of choice being exerted only by analogy. If an inhabitant of another planet were to behold a number of young rustics at a fair courting a pretty girl, and quarrelling about her like birds at one of their places of assemblage, he would, by the eagerness of the wooers to please her and to display their finery, infer that she had the power of choice. Now with birds the evidence stands thus: they have acute powers of observation, and they seem to have some taste for the beautiful both in colour and sound. It is certain that the females occasionally exhibit, from unknown causes, the strongest antipathies and preferences for particular males. When the sexes differ in colour or in other ornaments the males with rare exceptions are the more decorated, either permanently or temporarily during the breeding-season. They sedulously display their various ornaments, exert their voices, and perform strange antics in the presence of the females. Even well-armed males, who, it might be thought, would altogether depend for success on the law of battle, are in most cases highly ornamented; and their ornaments have been acquired at the expense of some loss of power. In other cases ornaments have been acquired, at the cost of increased risk from birds and beasts of prey. With various species many individuals of both sexes congregate at the same spot, and their courtship is a prolonged affair. There is even reason to suspect that the males and females within the same district do not always succeed in pleasing each other and pairing.
 

What then are we to conclude from these facts and considerations? Does the male parade his charms with so much pomp and rivalry for no purpose? Are we not justified in believing that the female exerts a choice, and that she receives the addresses of the male who pleases her most? It is not probable that she consciously deliberates; but she is most excited or attracted by the most beautiful, or melodious, or gallant males. Nor need it be supposed that the female studies each stripe or spot of colour; that the peahen, for instance, admires each detail in the gorgeous train of the peacock—she is probably struck only by the general effect. Nevertheless, after hearing how carefully the male Argus pheasant displays his elegant primary wing-feathers, and erects his ocellated plumes in the right position for their full effect; or again, how the male goldfinch alternately displays his gold-bespangled wings, we ought not to feel too sure that the female does not attend to each detail of beauty. We can judge, as already remarked, of choice being exerted, only from analogy; and the mental powers of birds do not differ fundamentally from ours. From these various considerations we may conclude that the pairing of birds is not left to chance; but that those males, which are best able by their various charms to please or excite the female, are under ordinary circumstances accepted. If this be admitted, there is not much difficulty in understanding how male birds have gradually acquired their ornamental characters. All animals present individual differences, and as man can modify his domesticated birds by selecting the individuals which appear to him the most beautiful, so the habitual or even occasional preference by the female of the more attractive males would almost certainly lead to their modification; and such modifications might in the course of time be augmented to almost any extent, compatible with the existence of the species."

(Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex, Part 2, Chapter 14)

[Tofer]

18 hours ago, Pramana said:

an excellent Darwin quote concerning the role of sexual attraction in the mating habits of birds

I like the quote, and it does illustrate his methodology, but it does not define "sexual attraction." In the quote, he uses the verb "attract" once and the adjective "attractive" once, but that's it.

[Tofer]

On 5/24/2017 at 9:52 PM, Pramana said:

Concerning inclusivity, I've been consistently in favour of self-identification and an expansive attraction and/or desire definition of asexuality. On the other hand, desire-only supporters are more likely to be against those values.

I favor the desire-only definition for the top-banner, briefest version of a definition of asexuality, the definition to be noticed first by newcomers. I favor it for its simplicity and its lower likelihood of creating confusion and requiring a lot of explanation for a basic level of comprehension; also because I don't actually believe it contradicts a rightly understood attraction-based or attraction-and/or-desire definition. And I do support inclusivity.

[Pramana]

5 minutes ago, Tofer said:

I like the quote, and it does illustrate his methodology, but it does not define "sexual attraction." In the quote, he uses the verb "attract" once and the adjective "attractive" once, but that's it.

I find that "sexual attraction" is a concept that is employed far more often than it is defined. And it's clear that what Darwin is discussing here is what behaviourist psychologists understand when they use the term "sexual attraction", although I'm not sure when the term itself first came into vogue. Even in more recent papers, evolutionary psychologists will discuss preferences with respect to mate choice without ever writing "sexual attraction", but other psychologists will reference the paper as being about sexual attraction. See my thread on "AVEN's Definition of Sexual Attraction" for examples.
 

4 minutes ago, Tofer said:

I favor the desire-only definition for the top-banner, briefest version of a definition of asexuality, the definition to be noticed first by newcomers. I favor it for its simplicity and its lower likelihood of creating confusion and requiring a lot of explanation to be comprehended at a basic level; also because I don't actually believe it contradicts a rightly understood attraction-based or attraction-and/or-desire definition. And I do support inclusivity.

I can see why people think that a desire-based definition would be less confusing, but then we have people confused about spontaneous versus responsive desire. Now with a proper understanding of spontaneous versus responsive desire, that shouldn't be a problem, but of course that can be difficult for people who are questioning whether they experience sexual desire or not.

In addition, I'm reluctant to use a definition that – as far as I can tell – has no academic support. And it seems that the desire-only definition would exclude sex-favourable asexuals, so I don't see how it would be sufficient, even if rightly understood. It seems to me that we would need an attraction and/or desire definition.

I would add that your position is distinct from that of most of the vocal desire-only supporters on AVEN, who have been explicitly against inclusivity and self-identification.

[Tofer]

2 hours ago, Pramana said:

...difficult for people who are questioning whether they experience sexual desire or not.

In addition, I'm reluctant to use a definition that – as far as I can tell – has no academic support. And it seems that the desire-only definition would exclude sex-favourable asexuals...

Maybe "desire-based" is not in fact the best name to give the definition I favor. What I favor is an English translation of the definition at http://www.aven-info.de/asexualitaet/ : Asexualität - kein Verlangen nach sexueller Interaktion. The English translation proposed by Myst was "no desire/urge for sexual interaction." Pan's version was "no innate desire for partnered sex" if I remember correctly. I quibbled with the word innate, preferring inherent. But the concept of sexual desire isn't necessary. I think of this definition as a simple heuristic: Do you ever want partnered sex (other than for extrinsic reasons)? If not, you're asexual. 

[andreas1033]

Anecdotal evidence is good enough for me, and my existence.

 

We are not here trying to prove a science theory, we are here, to talk about our experiences of being asexual. If it helps others, it doe snot matter, i am sure just writing it, helps many socalled asexuals, with how they view it, and having a place where they can openly talk about it on the net, as most cannot talk to anyone in real life about such a thing, as most people are sexual, and deny such things, as no sexual attraction, like asexuals claim.

 

This i snot a science forum, anecdotal evidence is good enough for the person experiencing it. ie being asexual.

 

Bringing darwin into this does not help you op, as alot do not believe in evolution.

 

I proved being asexual to myself as much as i needed to prove it. We are not here to live for some science stuff, we are living our own lifes. Science can go elsewhere trying to understand something like asexuality for me.

[Pramana]

40 minutes ago, andreas1033 said:

Bringing darwin into this does not help you op, as alot do not believe in evolution.

 

52 minutes ago, andreas1033 said:

We are not here to live for some science stuff

Seriously????? I'm content to simply quote your statements because I think they have the unintentional effect of supporting my position. And where do you get your information from, may I ask?

[Pramana]

On 5/26/2017 at 6:05 PM, Tofer said:

Maybe "desire-based" is not in fact the best name to give the definition I favor. What I favor is an English translation of the definition at http://www.aven-info.de/asexualitaet/ : Asexualität - kein Verlangen nach sexueller Interaktion. The English translation proposed by Myst was "no desire/urge for sexual interaction." Pan's version was "no innate desire for partnered sex" if I remember correctly. I quibbled with the word innate, preferring inherent. But the concept of sexual desire isn't necessary. I think of this definition as a simple heuristic: Do you ever want partnered sex (other than for extrinsic reasons)? If not, you're asexual. 

I haven't been able to find any academic support for "innate" or "inherent" with reference to sexual desire, which makes me think that this is just something people made up (i.e. anecdotal evidence). In this context, the term "innate" may be used to indicate two different aspects:

1. That the person's lack of sexual desire has been fixed by an early age due to biological/environmental factors, and this is unlikely to change over the course of the person's life (essentialism and the stability criterion).
2. That the person does not desire partnered sex for its own sake, but may still desire partnered sex as a means to an end (the intrinsic versus instrumental distinction).

I'm under the impression from other posts you've made that we both agree in rejecting that #1 is necessary for someone to be asexual (even though I recognize that is how many people experience their asexuality). Therefore, my best guess is that you mean to endorse only #2, in which case I suggest that it would be better to say "intrinsic desire" in order to avoid confusion.

I agree that "lack of intrinsic desire for partnered sex" should be half of the definition, but I would argue that "does not experience sexual attraction" should be the other half. That must be so if we are to include sex-favourable asexuals within the definition.

[carbomb]

As a politics guy, anecdotal evidence is the bane of my existence.

[Pramana]

7 hours ago, yourcaptaiin said:

As a politics guy, anecdotal evidence is the bane of my existence.

It suffices to say that I do not envy your burden, but I admire your perseverance.

[Tofer]

On 5/26/2017 at 4:25 PM, Pramana said:

I haven't been able to find any academic support for "innate" or "inherent" with reference to sexual desire, which makes me think that this is just something people made up (i.e. anecdotal evidence). In this context, the term "innate" may be used to indicate two different aspects:

1. That the person's lack of sexual desire has been fixed by an early age due to biological/environmental factors, and this is unlikely to change over the course of the person's life (essentialism and the stability criterion).
2. That the person does not desire partnered sex for its own sake, but may still desire partnered sex as a means to an end (the intrinsic versus instrumental distinction).

I'm under the impression from other posts you've made that we both agree in rejecting that #1 is necessary for someone to be asexual (even though I recognize that is how many people experience their asexuality). Therefore, my best guess is that you mean to endorse only #2, in which case I suggest that it would be better to say "intrinsic desire" in order to avoid confusion.

I agree that "lack of intrinsic desire for partnered sex" should be half of the definition, but I would argue that "does not experience sexual attraction" should be the other half. That must be so if we are to include sex-favourable asexuals within the definition.

Maybe you're putting the cart before the horse. We're here only because AVEN is something David Jay "made up," without academic support, based on anecdotal evidence. The academic and scientific research is what came after the emergence of asexuality as a social and cultural movement expressed by AVEN and other groups.

 

Scientific research is very valuable and powerful; I respect it greatly. But scientifically and academically supported statements are not the only kind of discourse or expression of value.

 

I was trying to make it clear in my paragraph about the top-banner definition of asexuality that I was not focusing on the exact words. I'm not working on a definition for this purpose as something "definitive." My point isn't that "innate" or "inherent" are the best words; I accept your criticism. I'm fine with "intrinsic." 

 

I'm just saying that the ideal top banner definition would be whatever best helps the newcomer to AVEN to be able to size up to a fair degree of approximation, with the least possible confusion or need for elaborate explanations, whether or not they feel they have something in common with what motivated the bulk of the people early in the history of AVEN to identify as "asexual."  Maybe my attempt doesn't do a good job of it, I don't know.

 

 

[Pramana]

1 hour ago, Tofer said:

Maybe you're putting the cart before the horse. We're here only because AVEN is something David Jay "made up," without academic support, based on anecdotal evidence. The academic and scientific research is what came after the emergence of asexuality as a social and cultural movement expressed by AVEN and other groups.

 

Scientific research is very valuable and powerful; I respect it greatly. But scientifically and academically supported statements are not the only kind of discourse or expression of value.

 

I was trying to make it clear in my paragraph about the top-banner definition of asexuality that I was not focusing on the exact words. I'm not working on a definition for this purpose as something "definitive." My point isn't that "innate" or "inherent" are the best words; I accept your criticism. I'm fine with "intrinsic." 

 

I'm just saying that the ideal top banner definition would be whatever best helps the newcomer to AVEN to be able to size up to a fair degree of approximation, with the least possible confusion or need for elaborate explanations, whether or not they feel they have something in common with what motivated the bulk of the people early in the history of AVEN to identify as "asexual."  Maybe my attempt doesn't do a good job of it, I don't know.

I agree in principle with what you've said here. I don't mean to suggest that we should only consider scientific/academic evidence, but I would suggest that we should prefer it when there's an apparent conflict with anecdotal evidence (particularly when that involves broad claims regarding human sexuality and the concepts that we use to talk about it). But on a case by case basis, evidence from personal experience is often quite valuable for providing insight into the particulars of other people's experiences.

Regarding what definition would be of most assistance for explaining the concept to laypeople, initially I had been thinking that sexual desire might be easier to explain, but now I've realized that concept presents its own complications (including differences between men and women, analogous to those involving sexual attraction). I've realized that it's always going to be difficult to explain what it's like to feel something to people who haven't had that feeling, or are unsure if they've had that feeling.

[Flygunn]

1 hour ago, Tofer said:

Maybe you're putting the cart before the horse. We're here only because AVEN is something David Jay "made up," without academic support, based on anecdotal evidence. The academic and scientific research is what came after the emergence of asexuality as a social and cultural movement expressed by AVEN and other groups.

 

[...]

 

I'm just saying that the ideal top banner definition would be whatever best helps the newcomer to AVEN to be able to size up to a fair degree of approximation, with the least possible confusion or need for elaborate explanations, whether or not they feel they have something in common with what motivated the bulk of the people early in the history of AVEN to identify as "asexual."

58 minutes ago, Pramana said:

I agree in principle with what you've said here. I don't mean to suggest that we should only consider scientific/academic evidence, but I would suggest that we should prefer it when there's an apparent conflict with anecdotal evidence (particularly when that involves broad claims regarding human sexuality and the concepts that we use to talk about it). But on a case by case basis, evidence from personal experience is often quite valuable for providing insight into the particulars of other people's experiences.

Part of what I enjoy about Science is that it is not concerned with discovering things that don't exist (for the most part, physics has had its fun), but rather explaining phenomena of our world.  Nothing that is real can disagree with Science, but anything can contradict a scientific theory.  If science has a definitive answer, or has disproved something, regardless of opinion, science should be considered first because it is built on the laws of our world.  Asexuality encompasses a ridiculous amount of variations; if one example that science discovers to be true is not the same as another, then it is not necessarily true that that second example does not meet the qualifications of asexuality.  There is not a tiny checkbox list of orientation in our genetics, there are many different factors that make up one part of our manifested sexual attraction.  Due to this, I would not worry about science vs. social culture.  Science, particularly psychology, finds difficulty in removing the possibility of all other explanations, that is why so many concepts we consider proven is still regarded as theories.  If science opposed social culture from the beginning, social culture had no grounds to stand on.  

 

Due to the direction of everything, I see a predictable future where no definitive singular "asexual" classification is ever brought up, but rather a list of similar orientations that asexuality encompasses.  In fact, we already have this in a way, considering all of the different classifications and subdivisions asexuality currently has.

[nanogretchen4]

The definition of asexuality is not a scientific question. It could be regarded as a linguistic or political or legal question, but a definition is simply not falsifiable by experimental means. A scientist performing a well designed experiment defines quantities clearly before trying to measure them. A scientist can design an experiment to test the effects of blood alcohol content on reaction time, but only if blood alcohol content and reaction time already have clear definitions. If a clear and specific definition of asexuality were chosen first, then scientists might be able to gather useful data about asexuality as so defined. 

 

By pointing to AVEN's definition, you are treating the definition of asexuality as a legal question. I guess that is valid in the limited sense that the AVEN board of directors can enforce AVEN's terms of service on AVEN. However, to the extent that you treat AVEN's attraction based definition of asexuality as authoritative, you should also treat AVEN's desire based definition of attraction as authoritative. 

 

 

 

[Flygunn]

17 hours ago, nanogretchen4 said:

The definition of asexuality is not a scientific question. It could be regarded as a linguistic or political or legal question, but a definition is simply not falsifiable by experimental means. A scientist performing a well designed experiment defines quantities clearly before trying to measure them. A scientist can design an experiment to test the effects of blood alcohol content on reaction time, but only if blood alcohol content and reaction time already have clear definitions. If a clear and specific definition of asexuality were chosen first, then scientists might be able to gather useful data about asexuality as so defined. 

The definition of asexuality is a psychological question which is a science, therefore it is a scientific question.  We can use brain scans and and measure hormones in saliva, so yes empirical data can be gathered, but no, it does not all need to be quantitative.  In my personal opinion, if science waits for politics to catch up, we will end up with unnecessary fragmentation.  Politics may create unnecessary and arbitrary lines that would irrationally constrain science or force science to prove politics wrong.  We already have a basic definition of asexuality, it is someone who feels little to no sexual attraction, and sometimes we add sexual desire to the equation as a clause.  Science can go off that and find all the possibilities and facts.  Politics can then take those facts and create its arbitrary distinctions from there.

[a minor triad]

On ‎5‎/‎24‎/‎2017 at 7:00 PM, Pramana said:

I would like to consider the role of anecdotal evidence for learning about human sexuality and asexuality. Anecdotal evidence is evidence from testimonies of personal experience. It is gathered in an informal manner with no attempt to control for bias, and it is not subjected to statistical analysis.*

I just wanted to clarify some misconceptions people may have about anecdotal evidence. In psychology, I believe anecdotal evidence is usually referred to open-ended questions or free responses, and they actually can be coded and statistically analyzed. For example, in a study about morality, a researcher may ask participants their opinions on moral issues. This participant would write an open-ended response (or talk about it while the researcher records them). After the data has been collected, (usually) 2 researchers go through the responses using a predetermined coding system to score the response. Following the morality example, the researchers may look for instances in which participants express "moral disgust" towards an issue or how they rationalize their stance on an issue. Done this way, anecdotal evidence can be analyzed statistically, and anecdotal evidence is used fairly frequently in psychology. It's probably more common in social psych. research areas, of course.

 

That being said, I agree that the way AVEN and its users get anecdotal evidence is not a random (unbiased) way to conduct the type of research that can be used for generalizing sexuality. For example, the "sample" of sexual people we get via accounts is what is called a "convenient sample." If most of the information we are getting is from within this website, we run the high risk of not getting experiences that are representative of the population because certain people are more likely to end up at AVEN. I'm not even certain about the survey that AVEN runs every year is safe from this flaw. I don't know if they only offer it here. If they do, then the survey is probably subject to the convenient sampling error, as well. Granted, every study runs the sampling errors and no study can get a "perfect" sample, but there are ways to make the sample as representative as possible, and AVEN is not a conducive place to reduce that error. 

 

*bolding mine

[Pramana]

@a minor triad Thanks for the elaboration. My original post is primarily directed towards the convenient sample issue that you discuss in your second paragraph.

[aceidk]

On 25/05/2017 at 5:20 AM, Pramana said:

But recall that desire-only supporters are often not just stating their personal opinion, but presenting that opinion as fact when advising new members, and claiming that AVEN should change its official definition. I argue that is problematic. In those areas, we should be following science.

I have been reporting these posts for breaking rule 2f, though I would prefer if there was a rule against propaganda, word which I think better suits their behaviour.

 

Rule 2f:

 

Quote

Making judgments about other users, especially about the validity of their asexuality, is strongly discouraged. We are here to figure ourselves out, not to put each other in boxes.