New furry survey is out

[altivo]

I've made some negative comments on this survey in the past, but this year I can see the questions evolving a bit more toward the kind of objectivity I believe is appropriate.

My only significant objection this year is to the question about the population of the "town" you live in, which leaves no way for the respondent to specify that there is no town at all. Some of us live in rural locations. Duh. Wouldn't it be interesting to know how many?

Addendum: There is another, more extensive and rather more scientific survey that is presented by the University of Waterloo and Niagara Community College. You can take that survey as well. I recommend doing both.

Comments

[frith]

For the town I used the nearest one, the one that I pay taxes to. I couldn't remember what the population is but luckily I guessed correctly. I preferred this survey to the one linked to (in January?) on Flayrah. This one seemed a lot more solid. I wondered about the 'rate your zoophilia, rate your plushophilia' part: did they mean 'likes animals' and 'likes stuffed toys' or did they mean sexual attraction? Some other part of the questionnaire later on makes me assume they meant sexual attraction. I found that the Flayrah linked study was less solid due to parts that had you rate exhaustively different animal taxa in ways that are mostly cultural, and then again had you rate the entire animal kingdom on criteria that vary immensely from one species to the next. What both studies seemed to assume was a general homogeneity in Furry society. What lacks is a section that examines the social make-up of Furry society beyond artist, non-artist, fursuiter. There should be a way to parse the elements of nerds, the socially inept, exhibitionists, cliques, masquerade (via alias or other anonymity), gamers, specialists and the gregarious. I'm having trouble finding Furry "conferences" attractive: they seem to be made of 90% nerds, cliques and fursuits.

[altivo]

I've added the link for the University of Waterloo study above, and I assume that is the other to which you refer here. I agree that both surveys are pretty deficient in the way in which they assume a homogeneity in the fandom that simply does not exist. They also fail to recognize that there are a great many different ways in which individuals decide to associate (or not) themselves with the fandom.

Though I live within ten miles of three incorporated cities or villages, I pay taxes to none of them and feel no particular connections with them other than the fact that I'm allowed a library card at one. The library tax is independent of the city taxes, though. With respect to amenities and services, we are pretty much a rural environment. Law enforcement is from the county level, and so are building codes. Zoning is agricultural, telephone service is substandard, electricity is unreliable, and there are no water, sewer, natural gas, or cable television facilities available. In the context of furry fandom, I think this is fairly significant, since so much of it depends on heavy internet usage and access to entertainment facilities, etc.

I thought the U. of Waterloo survey was interesting in the way in which it (naively) approached the animal attributes issue. But in a real sense, they are looking at perceptions, not actual scientific assessment. Most non-furries seem to think of wolves as very aggressive and threatening animals, for instance. Furries seem to view them as non-tame dogs with certain sexual attributes in most cases. Scientists are aware of the complex social interaction and community nature of the wolf pack, but the general public (including most furries) are for the most part ignorant of that. In any case, I think what the researchers are looking for is the furry fandom's perception of these species, rather than their actual scientific or experiential knowledge. Your level of direct knowledge of the wild animal's behaviors, or even my own experience with domestic species would be well beyond what is expected in this survey sample.

Conventions vary a great deal. I've become disenchanted with them as they have grown into huge parties that focus on entertainment, but when I first began attending MFF there was a significant amount of energy devoted not only to teaching about art and literature, but to spirituality and the role of animals as symbols, totems, and so forth. Much of this seems to have fallen by the wayside as the convention has grown into one massive entertainment event, and consequently I've pretty much lost interest in it. I do appreciate fursuits and the stage artistry involved in bringing them to life, but there's a lot more to furry fandom than that in my opinion.

[corelog.livejournal.com]

I was going to link you to the UW survey, but I see you've already got it linked in an edit that didn't make it over to LJ. :)

I particularly liked two things about the UW survey. First, that they plainly said that the survey had been reviewed and approved by the ethics committee. That's good--they're doing their job properly and they're not afraid to tell us that. BIG bonus points in my book. Second, the lead researcher will be posting some aggregate results to her LJ in September. Which is convenient and more accessible than putting them in a peer-reviewed journal which most people will never read.

[altivo]

The results of the other survey go online every year as well. I remember reading them last year, though off-hand I don't remember just where. Both are adequately anonymous but still tend to suffer from experimenter bias or misconception. They've backed off considerably from the attempt to link furry fandom to sexual behavior, but not enough in my opinion. The vague questions about plushophilia and zoophilia on the UW survey show that the half-truths are still very much alive.

[corelog.livejournal.com]

That's interesting to hear, since neither Loial nor I had any such questions when we did the UW survey. Those may have been included on a different one of the four variations. (He and I got the same variation.)

[altivo]

I don't recall the exact wording, but there was just one question for each, something like asking how much your personal connection to furry fandom had to do with the topic, or else how much you thought furry fandom had to do with the topic.

[corelog.livejournal.com]

And I saw no such questions at all, which is why I figure it must be variation-specific.

Or I just missed them. *shrugs*

[frith]

Yes, that was the survey I was referring to. What's funny is that my sister wrote in pre-Christmas correspondence that she is considering studying the Furry 'culture'. I sent her links to two of the larger "conferences" and some other links besides. There must be some sort of awakening of interest in all things Furry in Academia.

The county I live in was swallowed by the local town about 4 years ago. I am about 3 km from the edge of suburbia and I am surrounded by mostly forest, pasture and cropland. Like you, my zoning is agricultural and there are no water, sewer, natural gas, or cable television facilities available. Electricity and telephone companies are "Crown Corporations" which are both profitable and reliable. I might get two short power failures a year. Phone service is never out, baring a natural disaster. I shall try not to think how far down shit creek the private corporation model has taken the US lest my heart start pounding with rage.

Digression city. Where were we? Ah. U of W study. Yes, the animal attribute questions were narrow in scope and will probably give uninspiring ethnocentric results. They might as well ask us if balls bounce. I liked the grounding provided by including robots and computers in the mix. I'm surprised that furries would be ignorant of animal behaviour. Usually nerds, while inept, have an encyclopedic knowledge of their obsession. I guess the obsession is _cartoon_ animals, thus the lapse?

I never was much of a party animal (tongue firmly in cheek). Since I don't have anything to offer, it's only the panels that hold my interest. No panels and I'd just be sitting there twiddling my thumbs. Not an attractive prospect.

[altivo]

I suspect that the academic interest is being aroused by the increasing publicity and apparent rapid growth of the "movement." Unfortunately, the growth is perceived and measured in the number of conventions and the level of attendance, which is something of a false indicator in my opinion. Wishful thinking says that mainstream marketeers will start to cater to furries and that we'll see furry characters in film and television who aren't presented as neurotic and unstable manic-depressives, but that seems highly unlikely.

[altivo]

Oh, and you're right about the "plushophilia" and "zoophilia" questions. They should have defined the terms, and I agree that they were thinking of them as sexual expressions (or perversions, as most would consider it) and therefore I ignored the questions. I do collect and enjoy plush animals, but it is not a sexual issue at all. Probably more like what most psychologists would consider either a "regressive" behavior or a "maturity issue." Sleeping with plush toys on or in my bed may be peculiar in some ways, but it has nothing to do with sexuality.

[frith]

I think your affinity for plush critters is an extension of a natural nurturing instinct, very similar to why people keep pets. A strong nurturing instinct is a part of our success as a species. Any innate behaviour will be expressed to varying degrees by different individuals, we are not all cast from one mold. The variability itself is a survival benefit. And in the end, that's what it is all about -- survival. Survival of the genes.

So, "regressive" and "maturity" be damned.

[altivo]

You may be right, though it might be hard to tell whether I nurture the pets and plushies or they nurture me. XD One thing, though: plushies are much easier to care for than are the living creatures.