Misrepresentation of recent study about women with tattoos

I posted the article ‘Why are women with tattoos seen as promiscuous?’ a few days ago and wrote very briefly about it. This study, accurately summarized by the title of the article, claimed nothing about women with tattoos, but made conclusions about how they are perceived by men.

Today I came across a couple of articles referencing this study but using obviously misleading headlines for the sake of getting the attention of more readers and causing controversy.
“Study: Women who have tattoos are sluts.”
“Easy ink: Women with tattoos more approachable but have looser morals, study claims”

That first headline appeared on a celebrity gossip site that I have never heard of, so I expect them to print scandalous headlines. But the 2nd was from the New York Daily News and is a blatant misrepresentation of the finding from this study. There is absolutely nothing in the study to indicate that women with tattoos have looser morals and this is the type of practice that gives journalism a bad name.


Why Are Women with Tattoos Seen as Promiscuous?

Very interesting study. The results showed that men were more likely to approach tattooed women and also approached her more quickly when compared to non-tattooed women.

The findings of this study do help to confirm that women with tattoos are seen as more promiscuous by men, but really don’t sheds any light on why? The study said nothing about women with tattoos themselves, focusing only on the behavior of men observing women with tattoos.

Finding a statistically significant number of people who believe a common stereotype does not make that stereotype true.


How to Disagree – The Hierarchy of Disagreement

This is not related to tattoos at all, but very relevant to some of the comments I have been receiving on the blog lately.
Click here for a more detailed description of each of the levels of the hierarchy.

If we’re all going to be disagreeing more, we should be careful to do it well. What does it mean to disagree well? Most readers can tell the difference between mere name-calling and a carefully reasoned refutation, but I think it would help to put names on the intermediate stages. So here’s an attempt at a disagreement hierarchy:

DH0. Name-calling.

This is the lowest form of disagreement, and probably also the most common. We’ve all seen comments like this:
u r a fag!!!!!!!!!!
But it’s important to realize that more articulate name-calling has just as little weight. A comment like
The author is a self-important dilettante.
is really nothing more than a pretentious version of “u r a fag.”