ABSTRACT

Klein, Savaș, and Conley (2021) argued that sexual science is overdependent on WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic) samples. Though we agree that sexual science needs to increase its generalizability and inclusivity, we describe concerns with their measurement strategy of categorizing samples as WEIRD or Not WEIRD based on the country from which a sample was drawn. Reanalyzing their data with publicly available global metrics of Education, Industrialization, Richness, and Democratic Values (what we refer to as EIRDness), we find (1) EIRDness metrics were not particularly correlated; (2) countries coded as WEIRD by Klein et al. do not appear reliably EIRDer than those that were not; and (3) and categorical measurement models of EIRDness did not support profiles of EIRD and Not EIRD countries. With these limitations in mind, we then express further concerns about the application utility of Klein et al.’s WEIRDness critique, and unintended political implications embedded in its methodology. We conclude by harkening back to critiques of the WEIRD framework, and suggest that the pursuit of a more equitable and just sexual science – which we applaud Klein et al. for pushing our field to consider – may be better served to alternative frameworks for critiquing its sampling practices.

摘要

Klein、Savaş 和 Conley（2021 年）认为，性科学过度依赖于 WEIRD（西方、受过教育、工业化、富裕和民主）样本。虽然我们同意性科学需要提高其普遍性和包容性，但我们描述了他们对基于样本抽取国家将样本分类为 WEIRD 或 Not WEIRD 的测量策略的担忧。使用公开的全球教育、工业化、丰富性和民主价值观指标（我们称之为 EIRDness）重新分析他们的数据，我们发现（1）EIRDness 指标没有特别相关；(2) Klein 等人编码为 WEIRD 的国家。看起来不像那些不可靠的EIRDer；(3) EIRDness 的分类测量模型不支持 EIRD 和非 EIRD 国家的概况。考虑到这些限制，我们随后对 Klein 等人的 WEIRDness 批评的应用效用以及嵌入其方法中的意外政治影响表示进一步关注。最后，我们回顾对 WEIRD 框架的批评，并建议追求更公平和公正的性科学——我们赞扬 Klein 等人。推动我们的领域考虑 - 可能更好地服务于批评其抽样实践的替代框架。