"BUFDRVR" wrote in message
...
Please note that any objective person would definitely NOT consider an
0-6
briefing during formal training to be the same thing as a presentation of
any facts.

The O-6s came with facts. They presented a briefing that compared divorce
and
UCMJ adultery prosecution rates before and after gender integration in
Minuteman. No difference.

See confounds; particularly with respect to time series data and rare
events. Also, anyone who has taken a good series of stats classes ansd a
research methodologies class would still be *very* skeptical of this type of
advocacy briefing.

That's why I find it necessary to continue to ask for these "facts," and am
not satisfied with your "impressions" of the "briefing."

The claim that people under these circumstances would not fall prey to
well-documented human nature is a rather big claim, and needs at least some
proof.

Note that I am not asking you to "prove a negative." Not at all. If there
was no difference, there was no difference. Should be very easy to
demonstrate one way or another. Within the bounds of the confounds listed
below, of cours.


2) The wall came down in 1988, having a great impact on missile duty
(limiting the time available for study)

I fail to see why 1988 is a magic year. In 1991 there were 6 missile wings
(Minot, Grand Forks, Malmstrom, Ellsworth, FE Warren and Whiteman) all
fully
gender integrated. By 1994 Ellsworth and Whiteman had closed (Minuteman II
Wings). In 1997 Grand Forks closed its missile wing, leaving us with
Minot,
Malmstrom and FE Warren, all gender integrated for the last 15 years.
Seems a
substantial amount of data is available for those inclined.


The situation in the silos was affected by the collaps of the FUSSR. That's
what makes it an historical confound. Any comparison of crew behavior
before, during, and after 1988 becomes problematic. Campbell and Stanley
(as well as others) give a good description fo historical confounds in time
series data. Life in the hole in 1985 was somewhat different from life in
the hole in 1995.

Also, your definition of "fully gender integrated" is somewhat misleading.
If you look at the percentage of crew population that were serving in
mixed-gender crews from 1985-1995 ytou do not find a magic point in time
where the ration poofed from "None" to "Full" overnight. This is also a
confound. This is particularly a confound for time series data. You would
see a gradual effect over time, as the percentage of crewmembers serving in
mixed gender crews increased.

The simplest way for this confound to present itself would by the masking of
the effect. If the percentage of crewmembers serving in gender integrated
crews were to slowly increase fromnone" to "some" over a period of time, any
simple "before" vs. "after" comparison would be invalid. Just looking at
(for instance) some arbitrary year as the "integration" year along that
contimuum would include many events as bveing "pre" integration when they
may have been in fact the result of integration.

Something tells me the "facts" shown by the 0-6s during the "training
briefings" were not that sophisticated. It's pretty easy to demonstrate
falshoods using inappropriate analysis.

3) Gender integration was not a singular event; it was rolled in over
time
(making "before & after" comparisons difficult)

Wrong again. Overnight in the early 1980's, Titan crews were gender
integrated.
The delay on Minuteman was due to the much closer quarters and the more
"intimate" crew of two, however in the mid-80's, instantly women were
permitted
on Minuteman crews. Many former Titan female crewmembers, who had been
out of
a job for 3 or more years, were retrained in Minuteman and showed up "in
mass",
to Minuteman Wings throughout SAC. No one complained because the Minuteman
Wings were terribly under manned and the presence of a dozen new
crewmembers
instantly relieved a burden that was forcing most Minuteman crewmembers to
do
over 9 alerts a month.


Re my previous comment about your "Chief of Staff" attitude. Claiming het
percentage of crewmembers serving in mixed gender crews went from 0 to 50%
(or are we choosing to define "full gender integration" at some other, much
lower, level?) "overnight" is an absolute howler.

You can't expect *any* rational person to believe that.

Or are you just selectively misrepresenting what you choose to define as
"full gender integration (letting one woman on one crew)?


Oh, did I mention that studying the topic is
in itself taboo?

Hardly, the Air Force itself keeps (or at least they did up until 1991)
the
comparison figures and presents them to each new space & missile class.


YGBSM! Read what you wrote- do you honestly believe that what the Air Force
has done is "study" in any objective sense of the word of this issue?!

There's no way you can actually believe that.

How long have you been in the war?

You can't be that naive. No way.

(Not to change the subject, but have you ever independently crunched the
Class A mishap data? Wanna take any bets that ORM can be causally linked to
*increased* Class A's? What's the official version on ORM? How can
something so obviously wrong still be the "school solution?")

Apparently, the USAF does not allow any studies to be
performed in this area.

Interesting, is it not?

See above.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it
harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"