Study Shows People with Tatoos Drink More

JennieAL

It's crap like this that disillusioned me in college... sophomore year, Psych major. It's moronic, pointless studies that add no value to society... and it's a lot of smart morons crunching numbers, and thanking their lucky stars they got in X grad school program instead of X grad school program... behind these types of studies.

The Psych prof (well respected) who nominated me for a very prestigious award was kicked out of the school eventually for sexual harassment, and the grad student I assisted quit halfway through for no apparent reason... one was an alcoholic, the other was a drug addict. I was on my way to being both... Lol.

Those were the days...

It's why I went over to the Philosophy dept where I could finally breathe. I'm almost embarrassed to have a degree in Psychology because of things like this.

AlsDonkBoxSquat

The article is using a flawed sampling technique in order to make generalizations about tattooed people.

It is studying the amount of alcohol that people with tattoos have been drinking in a bar, compared to the amount of alcohol that other people have been drinking in the same bar.

Bearing in mind that neither of us have seen the protocols, what is the flaw in the methodology that you have identified, other than not liking the results of the study?

It is flawed because they did not chose a wide of sample size. They simply chose one bar. Bars attract the same kind of clientele, so they probably should have used a wide spread of bars, wine bars, country clubs, bar AND bat mitzvahs as well as a healthy sampling of the local VFW.

You forgot work Christmas parties and my family reunions.

doorki

The article is using a flawed sampling technique in order to make generalizations about tattooed people.

It is studying the amount of alcohol that people with tattoos have been drinking in a bar, compared to the amount of alcohol that other people have been drinking in the same bar.

Bearing in mind that neither of us have seen the protocols, what is the flaw in the methodology that you have identified, other than not liking the results of the study?

It is flawed because they did not chose a wide of sample size. They simply chose one bar. Bars attract the same kind of clientele, so they probably should have used a wide spread of bars, wine bars, country clubs, bar AND bat mitzvahs as well as a healthy sampling of the local VFW.

You forgot work Christmas parties and my family reunions.

Those would skew the results irreparably.

ElizabethRoad

A slightly more valid conclusion that could be drawn from this study:
Of people who go to bars on Saturday nights, those with tattoos are more willing to take a breathalyzer test regardless of how much they've had to drink.

FitLink

<~~~Doesn't drink and has Tattoos......Don't do risky behavior either. I'd like to see the actual study. The people in the study "may" have been drinkers and execise "risky" behavior prior to getting tattoos. Just Say'n..

You can't see the actual study, because msnbc didn't publish ANY information about it at all except that it was done in France. No names, no credentials, no dates, no journals information--nothing. France isn't a huge country, but you'd need a little more to get the actual study. I can't find anything in PubMed or Elsevier, but I don't have really good search criteria either. Nor did they give any information about the alleged "previous studies."

DAMNCHARLIE

stuides are full if *kitten*:drinker:

dlyeates

Hmmmm.....let's stand outside bars and measure if people are drinking!?!? I wonder what bars are they hanging out around.....college bars (binge drinkers), yuppie bars (maybe not as much), biker bars (can go either way). And college students have tattoos and they drink more than the general public.

I would also want to know age groups on that!!!! Not a complete study!!!

And I have a tattoo, drank a hell of a lot more BEFORE the tattoo and never engaged in risky behaviors!!!!

TourThePast

The article is using a flawed sampling technique in order to make generalizations about tattooed people.

It is studying the amount of alcohol that people with tattoos have been drinking in a bar, compared to the amount of alcohol that other people have been drinking in the same bar.

Bearing in mind that neither of us have seen the protocols, what is the flaw in the methodology that you have identified, other than not liking the results of the study?

It is flawed because they did not chose a wide of sample size. They simply chose one bar. Bars attract the same kind of clientele, so they probably should have used a wide spread of bars, wine bars, country clubs, bar AND bat mitzvahs as well as a healthy sampling of the local VFW.

Yes I agree with you, that is certainly a flaw in the study which I had not considered.

Nevertheless, they tested people with and without tattoos in that bar, so it's fair to say that /of the demographic using that bar/, the people with ink were drinking more than the people without.

It is still disappointing to see so many people here bashing the study for apparently saying "people with ink drink too much" without understanding that it was measuring the VARIOUS AMOUNTS that various people IN A BAR had been drinking.

doorki

A slightly more valid conclusion that could be drawn from this study:
Of people who go to bars on Saturday nights, those with tattoos are more willing to take a breathalyzer test regardless of how much they've had to drink.

quite true.

TourThePast

Hmmmm.....let's stand outside bars and measure if people are drinking!?!?

Read the OP again, the study did not measure whether people were drinking or not.

doorki

The article is using a flawed sampling technique in order to make generalizations about tattooed people.

It is studying the amount of alcohol that people with tattoos have been drinking in a bar, compared to the amount of alcohol that other people have been drinking in the same bar.

Bearing in mind that neither of us have seen the protocols, what is the flaw in the methodology that you have identified, other than not liking the results of the study?

It is flawed because they did not chose a wide of sample size. They simply chose one bar. Bars attract the same kind of clientele, so they probably should have used a wide spread of bars, wine bars, country clubs, bar AND bat mitzvahs as well as a healthy sampling of the local VFW.

Yes I agree with you, that is certainly a flaw in the study which I had not considered.

Nevertheless, they tested people with and without tattoos in that bar, so it's fair to say that /of the demographic using that bar/, the people with ink were drinking more than the people without.

It is still disappointing to see so many people here bashing the study for apparently saying "people with ink drink too much" without understanding that it was measuring the VARIOUS AMOUNTS that various people IN A BAR had been drinking.

So we should them blame the author for trumping up a generalized headline from a survey that showed how the patrons of one bar drank on one night.

FitLink

It's crap like this that disillusioned me in college... sophomore year, Psych major. It's moronic, pointless studies that add no value to society... and it's a lot of smart morons crunching numbers, and thanking their lucky stars they got in X grad school program instead of X grad school program... behind these types of studies.

The Psych prof (well respected) who nominated me for a very prestigious award was kicked out of the school eventually for sexual harassment, and the grad student I assisted quit halfway through for no apparent reason... one was an alcoholic, the other was a drug addict. I was on my way to being both... Lol.

Those were the days...

It's why I went over to the Philosophy dept where I could finally breathe. I'm almost embarrassed to have a degree in Psychology because of things like this.

I majored in psych and all our studies were, in actuality, studies, and involved rats. We controlled the variables. Your experiences in college are no more a representative sample than the so-called study this thread began with.

TourThePast

A slightly more valid conclusion that could be drawn from this study:
Of people who go to bars on Saturday nights, those with tattoos are more willing to take a breathalyzer test regardless of how much they've had to drink.

quite true.

All the study shows is an interesting correlation.

It would be quite impossible from the data to draw conclusions about causations, nor does it attempt to do so.

xmommyof2boysx

My tattoo must be broken.

I think mines are too.

neverstray

So, the researchers stood outside a bar on a Saturday night, and asked if they have a tattoo and then came to the conclusion that people with tattoos drink more. Uh, that's a small sample of people. What kind of bar was it?

Stupid research.

ElizabethRoad

You can have all the best data, but if you don't interpret it correctly, you'll still get bad results.

And they didn't have good data. It's limited to people who go to bars, so you can't draw a conclusion about the general population from that sample. More importantly, it was voluntary. To me that makes the entire study worthless.

ElizabethRoad

So, the researchers stood outside a bar on a Saturday night, and asked if they have a tattoo and then came to the conclusion that people with tattoos drink more. Uh, that's a small sample of people. What kind of bar was it?

Stupid research.

It was 3000 people outside of various bars. But yes, stupid research.

FitLink

The article is using a flawed sampling technique in order to make generalizations about tattooed people.

It is studying the amount of alcohol that people with tattoos have been drinking in a bar, compared to the amount of alcohol that other people have been drinking in the same bar.

Bearing in mind that neither of us have seen the protocols, what is the flaw in the methodology that you have identified, other than not liking the results of the study?

It is flawed because they did not chose a wide of sample size. They simply chose one bar. Bars attract the same kind of clientele, so they probably should have used a wide spread of bars, wine bars, country clubs, bar AND bat mitzvahs as well as a healthy sampling of the local VFW.

Yes I agree with you, that is certainly a flaw in the study which I had not considered.

Nevertheless, they tested people with and without tattoos in that bar, so it's fair to say that /of the demographic using that bar/, the people with ink were drinking more than the people without.

It is still disappointing to see so many people here bashing the study for apparently saying "people with ink drink too much" without understanding that it was measuring the VARIOUS AMOUNTS that various people IN A BAR had been drinking.

So we should them blame the author for trumping up a generalized headline from a survey that showed how the patrons of one bar drank on one night.

What they didn't do was sample randomly. People leaving a bar are likely to have been drinking. Without knowing the sample size OR the number in each group--with or without tattoos--we can't calculate the margin of error. Unless the bar was football-stadium sized, they are unlikely to have enough data points to say anything at all outside the margin of error. These are the things you HAVE TO KNOW to determine if this is valid.

silmeria2

I have four tattoos and have a couple glasses of wine 4-5 times a year. Apparently I've been missing out.

Dtho5159

Funny.. My husband and I each have 3 tattoos so far (plans for many many more) and he drinks maybe 1 beer every week and I don't drink at all LOL