[broken-kebab]

Self-reporting isn't something to be taken at face value. It's not a dichotomy between they say, and you imagine, there's a healthy scepticism option. Also the URL leads to "Our mission" section of some organization's rather clunky website, so if it was intentended as a proof, it failed.

[jrflowers]

> It's not a dichotomy between they say, and you imagine

Buddy when it comes to strangers’ sex lives, those are pretty much the only two options.

I’m trying to figure out how “healthy scepticism” in this context means anything other than making something up in your head and then believing it. Do you mean that your imaginative process is really good?

> some organization's rather clunky website

Trying to figure out if “I don’t know what AASECT is and don’t like scrolling down a simple webpage” was meant to be a complaint or meant to be a brag.

[broken-kebab]

1. I'll explain, no worries! Here: the absence of verifiable source doesn't make unreliable one worthy of blind trust. So being healthy sceptical means you just don't pretend that matter is settled when it's not. In fact, it's encouraged for whatever science students to actively look for ways why self-reporting may bring invalid or distorted data, and make hypotheses stemming from that possibility.

2.I had no idea what AASECT is (still not sure if it a good source), and I think it puts me in a vastly bigger share of the world's population compared to those who know. And especially to those who believe that everybody knows.

3. This "Our mission" in itself is just that, you know, statement of their mission/values. I found neither proofs, nor farther links there. Maybe I couldn't find anything important because I'm inattentive or dumb. But I self-report as genius, and according to you theory, it must be accepted as truth.

[jrflowers]

None of this post says anything about how you know stuff about stranger’s sex lives without believing what they say or imagining stuff.

Can you complete the statement “I am able to ascertain the truth of the sex lives of strangers by ignoring self-reported data or imagining things by the following process through which I reach my conclusions about strangers’ sex lives”

Now keep in mind if you want to sort of vaguely gesture at any scientific study of sexuality you have to exclude it due to your own rules. There is no such thing as a study of sexual relationships that doesn’t rely on self-reported data. I certainly hope you have the self awareness here to not attempt to imagine in your head that some self-reported data is valid (because it sort of feels right to you) but not other data (that feels icky) and then believe it. That would be kind of embarrassing.

I’m going to have to guess that by ignoring the basis of every scientific study of sexuality and not imagining things, your insight comes from your… heart? Divine revelation? Messages decoded from a numbers station? Sections of the digits in pi converted into ascii? Anime?

[bossyTeacher]

> the absence of verifiable source doesn't make unreliable one worthy of blind trust

Say it louder for those who skipped scientific reasoning classes.

[jrflowers]

What did they say about researching sexuality in your scientific reasoning class

Did you do a module on verifying sexual satisfaction