"Objectification": Science, or Junk Science?

[caseymoz]

56. Why don't you list the points in this paper?

And tell everyone exactly how they're supported by evidence, and what is cited?

About this article in the OP's link, the only test it gave about whether people saw mostly nude men and women as objects rather than "humans" is to show them photos of the person upside down and see if they could then recognize the person right-side up.

So, the whole assumption here is if a subject can better recognize a person in a pictures both upside down and right side up, the conclusion is that the subject is then seeing them more as object when right-side up, too.

Subjects were less successful recognizing males from upside down to right-side up, but they could recognize women. The conclusion is that the sexualized women were more "objectified" and less humanized. because it's correlated to other experiments that people perceive upside down human images more as objects, and right side up as people as "humanized."

My first question: what if the subjects recognized the female bodies better as human beings when seen upside down in the purported "objectified" state, and so recognized when turned right-side up? There's no baseline given, here between the sexes.

Also, besides the previous research upon which this is based, is there any correlation between how the human brain reacts to this and the treatment of women? Any whatsoever? Maybe what he's measuring as objectification has nothing to do with what we call "objectification" in the mistreatment or sexualizing of women? The experiment doesn't connect one with the other, apparently. I believe it's not the normal response for people to beat or demean random objects.

Maybe a totally different part of the brain is involved when a series of upside down images are given? Was there any effort given here to find out what parts of the brain are actually involved in this and what their activity level is? No, because psychologists shun the rigors of neurology.

Why is there no mention of a control group, here? Nothing given about responses differing between genders. No. Is there any mention about how distinct the female models really were from each other? I mean, maybe the men were blond, brown haired and red-haired while the women were all dark brunettes? Or maybe the women wore more distinct lingerie? They definitely have more distinction in that.

Nothing is given here about the study's size. If it's eight subjects, the results are hypothetical but scientifically invalid.

I'll admit it does make me suspicious, because this study looks so negligent of anything of approaching scientific discipline. Just publishing indicates an ideological motive, or it indicates the researcher knows it won't be properly peer reviewed because its conclusions are meant to concur and bolster an ideological outlook.

However, I wouldn't be tempted by suspicion at all even considering that, except I see study after study presented like this with dozens of questions about their methodology and huge jumps in their conclusions. They all seem to pass muster without serious question. At least when they're reported to the public. We're just told they're good science, when really, we're talking low standards of validity if the right ideology is supported.

And for those of us who can't afford pay to toll to read the study, or have to wait forever for inter-library loan, it's hard to see how these studies can be presented in such a sloppy manner and not be questioned or explained.

I ask you, why didn't any of this bother you about a purportedly "scientific study?"