ChildCare Action Project:
Christian Analysis of American Culture (CAP)
SAD BUT TRUE
Thomas A. Carder
I will try in this second installment of SAD BUT TRUE to distill our analysis model into a package palatable for email. As a broad-based audience of professionals, I am confident you understand the need to be cognizant of methodology to enable you to make an informed decision whether to embrace our findings. This second installment is likely the most boring but probably the most functionally necessary. If you wish a more detailed technical explanation of our methodology (including graphs and charts but not functional equations and formulae), it is available online at
If you are statistically or technically oriented, I hope you will visit the CAP Methodology section at the above address, if only to see the serendipitous near-perfect linearity of the model.
This will be the only installment dealing with the analysis methodology. The remaining installments will deal directly with the results of our investigations and how they provide evidence of the root cause(s) of unacceptable behavior, including in-school violence.
SAD BUT TRUE
Thomas A. Carder
President, ChildCare Action Project
May 21, 1998
The CAP analysis methodology provides *comparative* numeric scoring representing the relative morality content of a societal or cultural engine. The CAP numeric scoring system is called the CAP Numeric Analysis Model, or the CAP Model. The CAP Model is applicable to any system or vehicle which imparts information to an observer which requires the observer to learn, to form an opinion, or which elicits emotion(s) or value judgment(s) in the observer.
Over a period of several months in 1995/96, relatively closed societal and cultural engines were observed for examples of unacceptable behavior: unacceptable in accordance with the teachings of Jesus. At development's end, a list of 80 examples were selected. The list of 80 examples of unacceptable behavior became the prescribed Investigation Standards by which all CAP investigations are conducted. The Investigation Standards were fractionated into six Investigation Areas:
Offense to God (focuses on occultism, witchcraft, Satanism, the use of God's name in vain, etc.)
An Investigator observes a relatively closed societal or cultural engine for occurrences of examples of the unacceptable behaviors as prescribed by the Investigation Standards. Since the same Investigation Standards are used in any investigation, consistency and linearity of comparisons are assured. Detailed recording instruments are used to annotate observations which are then input to a computerized analysis system. Intricate statistical and other mathematical equations and formulae are used to generate a numeric score in each of the six Investigation Areas, plus a final score, plus an influence density figure. Each Investigation Area starts with 100 points. Points are subtracted as examples of unacceptable behavior are noted. A very significant feature of the CAP Model is that it is as objective as a human evaluation system can get.
The first objective of the CAP is to scientifically prove a symbiosis between entertainment media preferences of youth and the relationship of youth with fair authority (parental, exofamilial, other youth). To do this, investigations were begun into the impact of the entertainment media using the CAP Model. Using the CAP Model to analyze the impact of the entertainment media gave birth to the CAP Entertainment Media Analysis Model.
To compile a comparative numeric scoring baseline database, 39 randomly selected, feature length, non-cartoon movies were investigated for counterproductive influence using the CAP Model. The sampling included 12 movies from each of the R, PG-13 and PG movie ratings, and three from the G rating. The CAP shall not analyze NC-17 (previously X) rated movies or more extreme material. It is assumed these media possess the capability to significantly corrupt or contaminate the values of the observer. The high and low scoring movie from each of the R, PG-13, and PG rating set were discarded. Discarding the high and low score in a statistical analysis model is a standard technique to compensate for Gaussian skewing in the material under investigation, the model, and the investigator. This action left 10 movies in each of the R, PG-13, and PG rating sets. Only three movies comprised the G set and the high and low scoring movies in the G set were not discarded for two reasons: 1) feature length, non-cartoon G-rated movies were hard to find, and 2) three scores were enough to confidently confirm the scoring projections made from analysis of the R, PG-13, and PG rating sets. Put another way, once the R, PG-13, and PG movies were analyzed and the scoring ranges identified for those three sets, the remaining possible scoring range logically comprised the G-rated set scoring range. Indeed, the CAP scores of the three G-rated movies fell within the scoring projections for G-rated movies. The data revealed by the analysis of the remaining 33 movies comprised the comparative baseline database.
Examples of CAP Entertainment Media Analyses follow, the higher the Final Score and the lower the Influence Density, the better the morality content:
Title, Rating, Final Score, Influence Density
Mary Poppins, G, 100, 0.0
The Apostle (1998), PG-13, 89, 0.19
Deep Impact (1998), PG-13, 72, 0.51
Addams Family Values, PG-13, 56, 0.8
Titanic (1997), PG-13, 51, 90
The Client, R, 5, 1.43
The Shawshank Redemption, R, 53, 1.45
The Basketball Diaries (1995), R, 15, 4.25
Many more Entertainment Media Analysis Reports are available at
One of the key features of the CAP Entertainment Media Analysis Model is its use of the old barnyard thermometer as a data display vehicle. A series of six thermometers display the score in each of the six Investigation Areas. Attached are a few data displays for pictorial completeness. If you were to print the data displays and overlay them, you would be able to better visualize the comparative feature of the CAP model.
Using the CAP thermometers as data display, the observer can determine at a glance much more about the morality content of an investigated entity such as a movie than can be imparted by the worn-out G, PG, PG-13, and R ratings of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA). In addition to revealing the score in each of the Investigation Areas, the CAP data display reveals the rate of presentation of unacceptable programming plus the final score plus the influence density (ID) figure. In this compact package, the parent can determine a great deal about the morality content of a movie. Another strong feature of the CAP scoring system is its utility for comparison -- far, far better than the MPAA system.
Please try to find the time to visit some of the CAP Entertainment Media Analysis Reports (the more recent the better) and the CAP Methodology section of our website. Once you have completed that tour, you will have all you need to understand all I present in this series of installments of SAD BUT TRUE.
SAD BUT TRUE, Second Installment - Methodology.
©1998 ChildCare Action Project: Christian Analysis of American Culture (CAP)
The ChildCare Action Project (CAP) is a nonprofit Christian ministry. We rely on public support. If you wish to contribute to the CAP, please send your donations to
ChildCare Action Project
Post Office Box 177
Granbury, TX 76048-0177
Tax exemption applies in accordance with Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Service Tax Codes.
Please feel free to write to us.
You are welcome to
Go back to the SAD BUT TRUE Introduction Page
Top of the CAP Home Page
CAP Table of Contents
or leave me an email message or comment at
Thank you for visiting us and may God bless you. Prayerfully, we will provide you with some of the most revealing commentary and investigative reporting you have ever read.
In the name of Jesus:
Lord, Master, Teacher, Savior, God.
Thomas A. Carder
ChildCare Action Project: Christian Analysis of American Culture (CAP)
©1998 ChildCare Action Project (CAP)