Sample Of Questionnaire Filled By Public: Fill & Download for Free

No, there’s no such list, though creative writers imagine one.“Psychopathy” and “psychopath” are widely misunderstood terms. There’s no blood test or any other reliable test for it. It’s more an idea than a diagnosis, and the populations where “it” has been studied have typically been people in prison.The so-called “tests” are self-report questionnaires, and I sincerely doubt large samples of surgeons have filled these out, even if they had much value. They don’t. Besides, surgeons are far too busy for such foolishness.It’s fun to speculate about the personality types of various medical specialties. I used to do it when I was simultaneously a chaplain in a big general hospital, a public member of a state medical licensing board, and a Ph.D. student in psychology. A perfect storm. I couldn’t help myself.I didn’t figure surgeons for psychopathy, way too simple. Besides, there are so many surgical specialties, and so many more interesting possible stereotypes. Did I fantasize that endocrinologists and oncologists were somewhat compulsive detective-types and that pediatricians and gynecologists who did OB were the kindly, patient ones? Guilty, but no more than idle mental wandering.There’s scant, vague science on the question, mostly consisting of disclaimers. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/247729051_Personality_and_Medical_Specialty_Choice_A_Literature_Review_and_Integration/citation/downloadHere is a reprehensibly disrespectful and utterly inaccurate exposition of personality types of 12 specialties. I include it only to demonstrate how terminally dumb it is to try to type personalities by specialty.The above is from What are the personality stereotypes for each specialty? Are they somewhat rooted in reality?

Science is a wonderful thing. The scientific method tells us that we may start with observations or known items and from those observations propose a hypothesis. Then, we gather data to test that hypothesis. If the data gathered supports the hypothesis, it gains strength and we continue to gather data to test the hypothesis. If the data gathered does not fit the hypothesis, we take that data back to the beginning step and revise our hypothesis.That’s General Science 101.One of the cores of the scientific method is the concept of repeatability. If I run the same experiment with a different sample set or size, does the new data align with the older data? When new data doesn’t align with old data, we start looking for why. Were there problems with the methodology of either test? Can we identify variables that may be important that were previously dismissed?In short, we keep asking questions and we keep learning.When people examine the state of transgender research, proposing what I can only refer to as “conspiracy theories” that some political agenda is driving results, I refer back to the research.Let’s look at Surgical Satisfaction, Quality of Life, and Their Association After Gender-Affirming Surgery: A Follow-up Study as an example study.The first thing I want to pull out from this is the geographic diversity of study participants.All individuals diagnosed with gender dysphoria applying for gender-affirming interventions in Amsterdam (the Netherlands), Ghent (Belgium), Hamburg (Germany), and Oslo (Norway) filled out a battery of questionnaires during their diagnostic procedure[1]Here, the sample set in question spans four countries. This allows not only for a larger sample, but reduces variables like single clinical location, or specific cultural context. It gives us a more reliable data source.But let’s circle back to repeatability because there’s something else important here…The high number of satisfied respondents found in the present study is comparable to earlier studies (Bouman et al, 2016; Buncamper et al, 2015; De Cuypere et al, 2005; Horbach et al, 2015, Lawrence, 2003; Lawrence, 2006; Nelson, Whallet & McGregor, 2009; Rehman et al, 1999; Smith et al, 2005; Weigert et al, 2013) and emphasizes the effectiveness of gender-affirming procedures.[...]With regard to regret, similar to other studies (De Cuypere et al, 2005; Lawrence, 2006, Smith et al, 2005) only a few study participants reported feelings of regret, which was exclusively related to disappointment and not the wish to detransition. [2]Here we have a study looking back over a roughly 20 year span at similar studies conducted all over the world, which have produced similar results.The science of transgender identity is replete with these instances. Research is repeated, again and again and again, and the results frequently match other studies.Do they always confirm previous research?No, of course they don’t. If you look, you’ll find a lively debate about the protein CYP17 and whether or not it correlates with transmasculine identities. In 2011 Nuttbrock et all attempted to repeat Blanchard’s research regarding Autogynophilia, only they used an order of magnitude larger sample size that was more diverse by age of participant, ethnicity of participant, and geographic location of participant[3] . Some results they were able to reproduce but others they weren’t.Higher levels of attraction to women (gynephilia) were associated with monotonically increasing levels of transvestic fetishism in this sample. Blanchard (1992) found a non-monotonic association between transvestic fetishism and levels of gynephilia, in which transvestic fetishism was highest at an intermediate level of gynephilia. This empirical finding was interpreted as supporting an etiological hypothesis in which transvestic fetishism interferes with the development of heterosexuality among non-androphilic MTFs. This interesting and potentially significant finding could not be replicated. Higher levels of gynephilia were associated with monotonically increasing levels of transvestic fetishism in this sample.[4]Further, because they collected additional data points, they introduced a new hypothesis that fetishistic transvestism may be a generational phenomenon that is less present in successively younger generation which they supported in reference to other research about the eroticization of the unusual or exotic.Is research into transgender identity political? Not inherently. Does the research have political implications? Yes it does, absolutely. That’s part of the reason that bad science published in disreputable sources is rapidly eviscerated in the public space. It can feel like suppression of debate… the reality, however, is that this reaction is science functioning as it should. Examine the research, the methodology, the credibility of the source… and when it looks like junk science or propaganda, reject it accordingly.(See Jae Alexis Lee's answer to What opinion should one form about gender dysphoria and transgender identity with the ongoing debate and one research refuting another research overtime? for a break down on one such article or Jae Alexis Lee's answer to Does Gender Ideology really harm children as stated by The American College of Pediatricians? for another.)Returning to the original question… how can we be sure? Be educated. Look at the literature. Are the findings replicated? Are they well supported by other authors? When an author claims that prior research supports their position, does it really?The global consensus is supports the validity of transgender identity and supports the position that affirming transgender identity both socially and with medical intervention when necessary produces superior outcomes for transgender patients. You’ll find that research consistent in Sweden, the Netherlands, Germany, Belgium, Spain, Brazil, Canada, the United States, India, Thailand (and those are just the countries where I’m familiar with the work of at least one or two research teams, there are many more.) In the face of global repeatability of so many findings core to affirming transgender identity, it strains credibility to imagine a global conspiracy to suppress research conducted with appropriate levels of academic rigor simply because they produced results counter to the observed data to date.There are many questions still to ask and much refinement left to do, but on the broad and simple questions of ‘is it good for transgender people to validate their identities’ and ‘do medical interventions produce better outcomes for transgender people’ the answers are in, and are well supported.Footnotes[1] Surgical Satisfaction, Quality of Life, and Their Association After Gender-Affirming Surgery: A Follow-up Study[2] Surgical Satisfaction, Quality of Life, and Their Association After Gender-Affirming Surgery: A Follow-up Study[3] A Further Assessment of Blanchard’s Typology of Homosexual Versus Non-Homosexual or Autogynephilic Gender Dysphoria[4] A Further Assessment of Blanchard’s Typology of Homosexual Versus Non-Homosexual or Autogynephilic Gender Dysphoria

They were invented to measure public opinion.Early designs tended to measure the opinion of one specific group of people, usually by direct mail. An early example was the Literary Digest which mailed out postcards to its subscribers, questioning them about their preferences in the upcoming election. Then they simply tabulated the results of the postcards that were filled out and returned. This poll correctly predicted the outcomes for Wilson, Harding, Coolidge, Hoover and Roosevelt (in ‘32). It was a big sample (estimated at over 2 million completed questionnaires) but it had a flaw: it wasn’t a scientific sample, it was a convenience sample, that is, it only measured the opinion of subscribers to the Literary Digest, who were willing to fill out a postcard and return it. In the ‘36 election, this method predicted that Alf Landon would defeat Roosevelt, but Roosevelt defeated Landon in the largest landslide victory in U.S. history, 523 to 8 in the electoral college. Apparently, while subscribers to the Literary Digest preferred Landon, 61% of the actual voters preferred Roosevelt.Then two different researchers, Elmo Roper and George Gallup, happen to have the same idea at around the same time, even though they were working completely independently. They both decided to try to use a scientific sample of the general population to survey public opinion. They believed that opinions, such as presidential preferences, are normally distributed in the general population, so a random sample of that population should provide a good model of the preferences of the population as a whole. And this method had the added advantage of letting them know how close the prediction could be to the outcome… in other words they knew the confidence interval, and confidence level before they conducted the poll. In 1936 they both got the outcome right, and Roper nailed it, coming very close to the actual outcome.It soon became clear to the advertising industry that if Roper and Gallup could predict a presidential election outcome, they could make predictions about other forms of public opinion, like consumer preferences for example. The market research industry was born.Since 1936 many people have refined and improved the methods used by Roper and Gallup and extended the range of tools available to researchers. For example, by combining insights from quantitative methods with those from qualitative methods it became possible to get vast amounts of very reliable information about what, and even why, people think what they think. These methods transformed how the work of psychology, sociology, and political science was done, and advances in the theory and practice also changed management, design engineering, medicine, and a wide range of other industries as well.