So I said I'd report back on whether lesbian and "admiration"

I don't know how to read it anon, explain me I'm dumb

>>8808806
We needs to see the results for AGP and other kinds of porn to compare. Otherwise it would simply be a correlation between being AGP and watching porn.

There looks to be a lot of AGPs as well as non-AGPs who don't look at each kind of porn.

>>8808806
Your statistics suck.

>>8808806
If admiration porn is AGP wouldn't that make like 50% of women and 100% of weeb women AAP with how popular yaoi shipping is?

I just don't buy it. AGPs preferring admiration porn makes sense, but everyone liking admiration porn for AGP reasons doesn't. I'm a cisgay (not a tranner) and most of my straight male friends prefer lesbian or solo girl, none of them are trans.

>>8808806
>I asked about AGP
what exactly?

here is a real study of what arouses AGPs vs het men and GAMPs
http://www.psypost.org/2017/04/study-sexual-arousal-patterns-autogynephilic-cross-dressers-resemble-heterosexual-men-48786

>>8808806
tbqhon I like the numbers

>>8809249
surveyautist is hopelessly incapable of following any logic or making conclusions

she'd think that it orange is a fruit and apple is a fruit then apple must be the same as orange

>>8809477
>surveyautist
huh >>8810079

File: hetporn.png (19KB, 467x411px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 467x411px

>>8809148
Each cross in the graphs is a survey response. The x-axis is how AGP the respondent is, and the y-axis is how much porn of a specific type they watch.

>>8809189
The results for AGP transformation porn is in the lower right. As you can see, that kind of porn only starts being popular at the highest intensities of AGP.

The attached image shows the graph for heterosexual porn. You might think it looks similar to admiration and lesbian porn, but notice that the r^2 value is much smaller.

>>8809207
Yes, I know. As I said, I need to do a new survey to test this properly. However, I'd promised /tttt/ to report back on it.

>>8809249
Part of this is a difference in intensity. Usually in trans contexts, we think of "very AGP" as "literally cannot get off to anything but AGP things and experiences intense suicidal-levels of dysphoria" and "slightly AGP" as "has AGP as a preferred fantasy and envies women a lot". In my surveys, however, I ask cis people, and therefore what we would usually consider "slightly AGP" becomes the effective "very AGP". So the upper range of what I measure is probably the lower range of trans-level AGP. On the other hand, the lower range of what I measure is something along the lines of "very occasionally fantasizes about being the girl and thinks it might be cool to sex-swap for a bit but would never do it permanently". This form of AGP seems *very* common and I have so far found no evidence that it is different in any taxonomic way from more intense forms; it seems to be a matter of intensity.

So, how common is low-intensity AGP? Hsu, Rosenthal and Bailey seem to have found rates of around 15% (see the autopedophilia paper for citations), whereas I find somewhat higher rates. I tend to go with 15% as the realistic estimate but sometimes mention my own 50%-ish rates instead. I don't find much lower rates of AAP than AGP, so 50% of women being AAP is... actually possible.

(...)

>>8809249
(...) Your friends aren't trans because they most likely have the low-intensity AGP. rather than the higher-intensity AGP. However, they will still answer questions in "trans-skewed" ways, i.e. they will be more interested in swapping sex than most men.

>>8809469
I used two AGP scales:

My own scale, which asks about the frequency of three sexual turnons on a [Never, Rarely, Sometimes, Frequently] scale:
* "Fantasies about being the opposite sex"
* "Fantasies about having androgynous sex characteristics"
* "Crossdressing or fantasies about crossdressing"

A 9-question fragment of Hsu's General Autogynephilia Scale, containing "thought of being a woman", "picturing self w/ nude female body", picturing self w/ breasts", "picturing self w/ vulva", "having stranger mistake you for a woman", "speaking w/ female voice", "sitting in a feminine way", "picturing self wearing women's underwear", "sex w/ man as woman".

The purpose of the study was to validate my scale against Hsu's, since I was wondering if there was some odd thing about my scale which led me to overestimate the rate of AGP. I found no evidence of this; my scale mostly agreed with Hsu's.

>>8809472
Thanks! :D

>>8809477
I possibly have a tendency of being too willing to accept weird results, but saying I'm incapable of following logic or making conclusions is unfair. My arguments may be too weak for the conclusions I claim to justify, but they're not *trash*.

File: hairvsagp.png (24KB, 457x417px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 457x417px

Also, here's another image of an interesting finding that I'm hoping to replicate with a real sample size: long-haired men are AGP.

>>8810595
>>8810599
>>8810625
tl:dr
sample size = tiny
results = all over the map
conclusions = inconclusive

>>8810687
I believe I said that with
> I'm not all that satisfied with the sample size nor with the sample quality, so I'm not sure this is going to replicate.

>>8810625
*cuts hair*

>>8810625
Is that including transitioners though, or just men? Because I'd imagine the vast majority of trans girls both AGP and not would grow long hair.

Interesting though, I grew my hair out for "metal" but in reality I wanted to be cute very deep inside.

File: faggotry.png (489KB, 640x428px) Image search: [Google]

489KB, 640x428px

>>8810700
And you thought a thread was necessary to convey this useless information, why?

>>8810760
This survey was cis men only.

> Interesting though, I grew my hair out for "metal" but in reality I wanted to be cute very deep inside.
Yeah, I kinda want to add a question where I ask people "Hey, why did you choose this hair length?". It would be fun to compare the stated reasons to reality if reality is as AGP as this suggests.

>>8810768
Because I'd said I'd report back on the reults. :V

>>8810760
I grew my hair out before my agp started.

>>8808806
>subject A had 15 admiration porns and 8 autogynephilias
Label your axes properly, dipshit.

File: image.jpg (155KB, 537x390px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 537x390px

>>8810742
*cuts testicles*

>>8808806
Those are horrible R^2 though. They're below statistical significance.

>>8811354
idiot here, please explain R^2 and statistical significance.

>>8810768
because it further debunks the AGP meme proving that its nothing but a common erotic fantasy unrelated to anyhting

>>8811385
With a low R^2 you need more data to achieve a low p-value. The two aren't related but in general if you have a bad r-squared you need significantly more data to get a low p-value to prove statistical significance because it's cloudy data.
Doesn't instantly rule out the data having a low R^2 but it's not good.