The 'blind spot' in quantitative research, a.o. of Rind c.s.

In the essentially excellent and groundbreaking research of Rand a.o., especially the meta-analisis [*], the researchers in the by Rind a.o. meta-studied research asked the former children their experience-afterward of sexual contacts that they have had with adults.

•   [*]  < https://www.ipce.info/library_3/rbt/metaana.htm >
      < https://www.ipce.info/ipceweb/Library/rbt_files.htm >

 The results were, rounded:

• Boys: 1/3 positive, 1/3 neutral and 1/3 negative,
• Girls: 1/6 positive, 1/6 neutral and 2/3 negative.
  

In a Dutch article written by Jan Willem Steutel in 2009 says that he missed the difference between children and adolescents, assuming that the experience of sex diffrers by age, especially before and after puberty.

I miss something else.

The quantitative working researcher works within his or her logic withe three concepts: positive, negative and neutral. After all, between +1 and -1 is just zero. But the qualitalive researcher knows that between +1 an -1 two values are to expect:

• neutral - OK, but also
• ambivalent: +1 as well -1, thus both.
  

Grafically, there will not appear a line between +1 and -1, but a tilted quadrant, with horizontally a left point +1, right a point -1, and vertically between both an upper point 'neutral' and a bottom point 'ambivalent'.

Ambivalence is, psychological viewed, a quite normal phenomenon, known by anyone, young and old. On the annual Mothes Day, mamma is the most lovable mother worldwide, but mamma can also be quite angry, crancy, annoying, demanding and capricious. Fathers, brothers, sisters and teachers also.

Next, we have to split the subgroup 'neutral' in 'yes, neutral' and 'no, ambivalent':

• 'Yes, neutral':
  'It was not good, not bad, just normal' and
• 'No, ambivalent':
  'My experience? Ehm ... on the one hand, it was nice, exiting ... even lovingly ... but ... on the other hand, ... also strange, dirty, unpleasant ... and ... eh ... did he, that man, want to make me happy, or ... only wanting to have fun for himself ... Maybe both ... so I had mixed feelings ...'
  

In the clinical practice, we actually hear 'neutral' quite seldom. More often, we hear ambivalent feelings.

Those ambivalent feelings can be told in two formats:

• Primary:
  the double feelings during the act itself, but also:
• Secundary:
  after influence of others,
  
  • maybe: 'First I fund it dirty, but he said that is was real love ... well, OK then.'
  • maybe: First, I found it good nd nice, but later I have learned that is was abuse, and that I am abused ...'
  • or, more serious: 'My parents have told me tha the psychologst has said that all problems I have had thereafter have been cuased by that dirty man.'
    

 The latter explanation is even more frequent. The psygologist has been blind for the often quite visable attachment problems between parent(s) and child - this to the reassurance of the parents: 'thus we have made no faults'.

Note, that the primary feelings are an emperical category: 'My experience was / my feelings were ...', but that the secundairy feelings are an moral category: 'I have learned that it was moraly spoken bad.'

If the moral view wins the debate, there will follow: tell the police, start an accusation, following a condemnation and forced treatment of the man - not a family therapy to solve the attachment problems of the family.
Or, OK then, let both kinds of treatment start.

• Back to The RBT Files:
  < https://www.ipce.info/ipceweb/Library/rbt_files.htm >