If there's one thing I am not approving of...
Page 1 of 1 [ 13 posts ]
07 Apr 2012, 7:10 pm
It's the lack of recognition over the fact that orientation's causes through scientific method so far has resulted in little evidence meaning that there is hardly suffice evidence that one is technically born gay or straight. Asides, there is hardly any evidence to prove that environmental causes may be the cause of their orientation. Not to mention people whose sexuality changed through a slow period time sort of makes the people are born this way so much less valid. And I'm not implying sexuality is a choice either.
As for my sexuality, I consider it undefinable because no labels have done me any good nor I care to provide myself one.
Also, when people imply they're confused or they're really born this way or that when the other is denying it... I have to brought up these 3 questions. One thing that annoys me is that people say I found out I am this way when I lived through fluid sexuality when in reality my sexuality has changed.
1. Do you have any official documentary that proves sexuality is brought by X or Y or even Y and X for 100 percent of the people? No, I don't think so. It would be merely unscientific for one to claim it's suppose to be like that for all of the people disregarding varieties caused by differing conditions.
2. Do you really understand the background of other person if you don't want to listen to their experience as in your disregarding it entirely? How do you he/she is confused or not? Do you claim yourself as an all-knowing being who knows exactly what the person is feeling? You should realized there are 2-faces people and what they look like isn't what they are.
3. Why not account for exceptions to the rules as you know everyone has different experiences?
Joker
Veteran
Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)
10 Apr 2012, 12:34 pm
Notwithstanding our inability to definitively demonstrate causation, we can certainly point to correlative anatomical difference between gay men and heterosexual men and it appears that there are anatomical differences between men and transexuals who were born male.
Do these anatomical differences appear in every gay man? Certainly not. Do they appear in men who do not identify as gay? Probably so. But medical, genetic and physiological studies are almost never about absolutes--they will identify patterns that are generally applicable with the clear understanding that there will always be atypical or exceptional examples.
_________________
--James
10 Apr 2012, 1:30 pm
There is sufficient evidence that homosexuality has a genetic basis. As have all human likes, dislikes and urges, and ultimately all human behavior. However, as with all other behavioral and developmental neurological traits, there is also an environmental component.
Some quotes and links:
Quote:
... researchers from Queen Mary's School of Biological and Chemical Sciences, and Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm report that genetics and environmental factors (which are specific to an individual, and may include biological processes such as different hormone exposure in the womb), are important determinants of homosexual behaviour.
...
This study looked at 3,826 same-gender twin pairs (7,652 individuals), who were asked about the total numbers of opposite sex and same sex partners they had ever had. The findings showed that 35 per cent of the differences between men in same-sex behaviour ... is accounted for by genetics.
...
This study looked at 3,826 same-gender twin pairs (7,652 individuals), who were asked about the total numbers of opposite sex and same sex partners they had ever had. The findings showed that 35 per cent of the differences between men in same-sex behaviour ... is accounted for by genetics.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 205430.htm
The environmental factors likely occur before birth. Which means that sexual orientation is not 35% nature and 65% upbringing, as one might assume after reading the above article, but 100% genetics and in utero development:
Quote:
US researchers are finding common biological traits among gay men, feeding a growing consensus that sexual orientation is an inborn combination of genetic and environmental factors that largely decide a person's sexual attractions before they are born.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/de ... netics-usa
Experiments with fruit flies prove beyond doubt that partner preference in animals is determined by genes:
Quote:
... the female flies are cowering in groups at the top and bottom of the jars. The males, meanwhile, are having a party--no, an orgy -- among themselves. ... Odenwald claims that these male fruit flies are gay -- and that he and Zhang made them that way. The scientists say they transplanted a single gene into the flies that caused them to display homosexual behavior.
http://www.skeptictank.org/gaygene.htm
Finally, there are studies that show a different neurological development in gay and straight persons. Simply put, the brain structure of gay people resembles that of the opposite gender:
Quote:
MRI and PET scan studies are showing remarkable similarities between the brains of gay men and straight women, and between those of lesbians and straight men.
For example, the brains of straight men and of gay women share certain common features: both are slightly asymmetric, with the right hemisphere larger than the left, say the Swedish researchers. On the other hand, the brains of gay men and straight women are both symmetrical.
Similar trends emerged when scientists tracked connectivity in the amygdala, the region of the brain involved in emotional learning and in activating the fight-or-flight response. They noted strong similarities between gay men and straight women, and lesbians and straight men.
For example, the brains of straight men and of gay women share certain common features: both are slightly asymmetric, with the right hemisphere larger than the left, say the Swedish researchers. On the other hand, the brains of gay men and straight women are both symmetrical.
Similar trends emerged when scientists tracked connectivity in the amygdala, the region of the brain involved in emotional learning and in activating the fight-or-flight response. They noted strong similarities between gay men and straight women, and lesbians and straight men.
http://health.usnews.com/health-news/fa ... lar-brains
I hope this helps clear things up and remove all doubt that many if not most gay people are indeed born gay.
10 Apr 2012, 3:45 pm
visagrunt wrote:
Do these anatomical differences appear in every gay man? Certainly not. Do they appear in men who do not identify as gay? Probably so. But medical, genetic and physiological studies are almost never about absolutes--they will identify patterns that are generally applicable with the clear understanding that there will always be atypical or exceptional examples.
Which is why there'll never be a resolution because the three valid sides(Genes v. Environment V.Neutral) are always conflicting with different interpretations of the studies which only leads to more questions than it is answered though new discoveries are found.
CrazyCatLord wrote:
...
This study looked at 3,826 same-gender twin pairs (7,652 individuals), who were asked about the total numbers of opposite sex and same sex partners they had ever had. The findings showed that 35 per cent of the differences between men in same-sex behaviour ... is accounted for by genetics.
This study looked at 3,826 same-gender twin pairs (7,652 individuals), who were asked about the total numbers of opposite sex and same sex partners they had ever had. The findings showed that 35 per cent of the differences between men in same-sex behaviour ... is accounted for by genetics.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 205430.htm
The environmental factors likely occur before birth. Which means that sexual orientation is not 35% nature and 65% upbringing, as one might assume after reading the above article, but 100% genetics and in utero development: [/quote]
Here's the questions, why isn't errors being mentioned for 35 percent of the men while how do you explain 65 percent other than it's simply environmental and wouldn't be possible that one has more on the genetic influence on the 65 percent? And no scientists would assume it's 100 percent genetic especially in humans who are much larger than fruit flies considering varied genetic factors and combination within the humans themselves at the same time that there are varied possible neuropsychological development. As mentioned, people who had experienced fluid sexuality do bring questions about whether it's gene or environment or both. And this study only brings more questions.
CrazyCatLord wrote:
Experiments with fruit flies prove beyond doubt that partner preference in animals is determined by genes:
http://www.skeptictank.org/gaygene.htm
Quote:
... the female flies are cowering in groups at the top and bottom of the jars. The males, meanwhile, are having a party--no, an orgy -- among themselves. ... Odenwald claims that these male fruit flies are gay -- and that he and Zhang made them that way. The scientists say they transplanted a single gene into the flies that caused them to display homosexual behavior.
http://www.skeptictank.org/gaygene.htm
Problem #1- The size of humans makes up for so many varied genetic conditions and many different conditions.
Problem #2-No gay genes have been found on humans. It's probably because of the varied conditions and the brain makes for more questions than answer.
As for the MRI and PET studies, read the posts regarding anatomical difference. So why are those exceptions are that way?
So to get to the point, all of those studies will bring more questions than answers. Studies that shows exceptions to the rules will always bring more questions than answers as in the questions are more valid.
10 Apr 2012, 10:09 pm
Reptillian wrote:
CrazyCatLord wrote:
Quote:
This study looked at 3,826 same-gender twin pairs (7,652 individuals), who were asked about the total numbers of opposite sex and same sex partners they had ever had. The findings showed that 35 per cent of the differences between men in same-sex behaviour ... is accounted for by genetics.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 205430.htm
The environmental factors likely occur before birth. Which means that sexual orientation is not 35% nature and 65% upbringing, as one might assume after reading the above article, but 100% genetics and in utero development:
Here's the questions, why isn't errors being mentioned for 35 percent of the men while how do you explain 65 percent other than it's simply environmental and wouldn't be possible that one has more on the genetic influence on the 65 percent? And no scientists would assume it's 100 percent genetic especially in humans who are much larger than fruit flies considering varied genetic factors and combination within the humans themselves at the same time that there are varied possible neuropsychological development. As mentioned, people who had experienced fluid sexuality do bring questions about whether it's gene or environment or both. And this study only brings more questions.
I think you must have misunderstood something there. The percentages mean that in all people, sexual orientation is controlled by both genetic makeup and environmental factors. Genetics account for 35% of the contributing factors (in 100% of all people), and the environment -- most likely the prenatal environment -- does the rest.
Quote:
CrazyCatLord wrote:
Experiments with fruit flies prove beyond doubt that partner preference in animals is determined by genes:
http://www.skeptictank.org/gaygene.htm
Quote:
... the female flies are cowering in groups at the top and bottom of the jars. The males, meanwhile, are having a party--no, an orgy -- among themselves. ... Odenwald claims that these male fruit flies are gay -- and that he and Zhang made them that way. The scientists say they transplanted a single gene into the flies that caused them to display homosexual behavior.
http://www.skeptictank.org/gaygene.htm
Problem #1- The size of humans makes up for so many varied genetic conditions and many different conditions.
I suppose by size, you mean "the complexity of the human genome". I agree that humans are far more complex than fruit flies, and our sexual behavior and orientation are controlled by a vast number of genes. Which is why it is not possible to point at a single human gene and proclaim "that's the gay gene".
The same goes for autism btw. There is a huge number of genes that contribute to a susceptibility for autism spectrum disorders, as well as environmental factors that trigger these genes and cause an autistic brain development. Only a few have been identified so far, but there is no doubt that autism has a genetic component. This also applies to homosexuality.
Quote:
Problem #2-No gay genes have been found on humans. It's probably because of the varied conditions and the brain makes for more questions than answer.
Like I said, there is no single gay gene. We don't know how many genes are involved in controlling human sexual behavior, but there is strong evidence that some genes on the X chromosome help determine sexual orientation: http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/ ... e-gay-gene
In other words, there definitely are "gay genes", some of which have been identified.
Quote:
As for the MRI and PET studies, read the posts regarding anatomical difference. So why are those exceptions are that way?
I'm not sure what you mean by that. You do know what a PET scan is, do you? It has nothing to do with pets. The study was conducted on humans.
10 Apr 2012, 11:55 pm
CrazyCatLord wrote:
There is sufficient evidence that homosexuality has a genetic basis. As have all human likes, dislikes and urges, and ultimately all human behavior. However, as with all other behavioral and developmental neurological traits, there is also an environmental component.
Some quotes and links:
Some quotes and links:
Thank you for posting these.
_________________
Male-bodied pansexual and panromantic.
Your Aspie score: 130 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 90 of 200
You are very likely an Aspie
EQ Score: 37/100 ("low empathy")
11 Apr 2012, 6:04 am
CrazyCatLord wrote:
most likely the prenatal environment -- does the rest.
How do you explain fluid sexuality if it the prenatal environment? Yes, people who had experienced alternated sexuality do exists. Epigenetics could explain this, but one might see that there are environmental development being involved.
CrazyCatLord wrote:
Only a few have been identified so far, but there is no doubt that autism has a genetic component. This also applies to homosexuality.
And chances are we will not identify all of the gay genes. It may have a genetic component, but we don't have much proof that everything has to do with genetic component and prenatal environment. The amount of things that will be need to be found will actually open a door to actually explaining a lot more individuals than pointing out which is which... CrazyCatLord wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean by that. You do know what a PET scan is, do you? It has nothing to do with pets. The study was conducted on humans.
By anatomical difference, I mean correlation that matches a group. That will not match every individuals in a certain group of sexuality for those who have that correlation which do lead to questions.
11 Apr 2012, 7:36 am
It's important to realize a couple of things.
1. You are implying that sexuality can ONLY be a choice or ONLY be from birth. It's quite possible that there are multiple causes of sexual orientation; some of which are from birth, and some of which are environmental.
1b. There has been a grand total of one thing I know of which has helped prove nature or nurture in the case of homosexuality, and it sides on nature. It's one of the most ridiculously silly things, but it has a near 100% accuracy rate. Digit Ratio. Digit ratio is STRONGLY tied to the amount of testosterone and estrogen present in the uterus, something which is supposed to be controlled by the genetic material of the fetus, and produced by the mother. Digit ratio shows that in homosexual women, the child had the mother produce male levels of testosterone estrogen, and with homosexual males, the child had the mother produce female levels of testosterone and estrogen. This is silly, this is weird, and it's hard to believe that this is the ONLY thing scientists have found. But it is nearly 100% accurate. (FYI: It applies to transsexuals too, but not bisexuals)
2. With regards to people who's sexuality changed slowly over time; it is generally my observation through examining all the different cultures of the world throughout history, that the largest segment of the population is actually bisexual (likely over 50%), not heterosexual (though homosexuality is still the rarest of the three). Due to the heavy sociological pressures with a frequent religious undertones in major first world countries, the majority of these bisexuals just go about their day as heterosexuals, and don't worry about it. It's easy to see why most people wouldn't want to cope with bigotry when they can just happily pretend to be heterosexual instead of bisexual. It would be congruous for the people who's sexualities change slowly over time, to be members of this group, who have several bad heterosexual experiences, and start to realize that they don't give a f**k what society says, and become more willing to have relationships with the same sex. This creates the illusion that their sexuality changed over time, when in reality, they just stopped restricting themselves from something they were already attracted to.
3. While a testimony does not prove an argument, I had a crush on my first girl in pre-school. Take that as you will. It seems extremely unlikely that environmental factors could have turned me into a homosexual in the first three years of my life, at a time when I had my first real interaction with other children outside of my family. Especially considering I was pre-puberty and thus did not have a sexual attraction at the time, just a romantic attraction. Puppy love. Crush. Call it whatever you want.
_________________
Not approved for vegetarian consumption.
11 Apr 2012, 12:22 pm
Reptillian wrote:
Which is why there'll never be a resolution because the three valid sides(Genes v. Environment V.Neutral) are always conflicting with different interpretations of the studies which only leads to more questions than it is answered though new discoveries are found.
You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that physiology, medicine, psychology and genetics can create a "Grand Unified Theory" of homosexuality. That type of absolutism is perfectly appropriate in mathematics or physics, but it has no place in medical or physiological research.
The research stands only for the proposition that there are statistically significant, observable anatomical differences between self-identified gay men and the control population. Why do you expect that research can ever stand for more than it purports to investigate?
Quote:
Here's the questions, why isn't errors being mentioned for 35 percent of the men while how do you explain 65 percent other than it's simply environmental and wouldn't be possible that one has more on the genetic influence on the 65 percent? And no scientists would assume it's 100 percent genetic especially in humans who are much larger than fruit flies considering varied genetic factors and combination within the humans themselves at the same time that there are varied possible neuropsychological development. As mentioned, people who had experienced fluid sexuality do bring questions about whether it's gene or environment or both. And this study only brings more questions.
You seem preoccupied with the idea that people are trying to uncritically apply the results of research.
But look critically at the research. Sexuality is not a rigid or binary state. While the vast majority of human beings conform to a heterosexual-homosexual dichotomy, that is by no means universal. In a world in which bisexuality clearly exists, and where the margins between heterosexuality, bisexuality and homosexuality are so diffuse.
No reputable scientist is attempting to say that there is one answer that fits all individuals. You are projecting your own prejudices onto the results of research.
You quite correctly claim that, "I'm different, the research doesn't describe me." And any reputable scientist would agree. You are an outlier, and outliers are an expected part of any research that involves organisms or organic systems.
Quote:
Problem #1- The size of humans makes up for so many varied genetic conditions and many different conditions.
Problem #2-No gay genes have been found on humans. It's probably because of the varied conditions and the brain makes for more questions than answer.
Problem #2-No gay genes have been found on humans. It's probably because of the varied conditions and the brain makes for more questions than answer.
No one has ever suggested that a genetic origin requires a single gene. For some conditions that is so--but only where a single specific sequence on a specific chromosome is reponsible for the relevant protein synthesis. There is no "cancer" gene--but we know that genetics is clearly linked to certain cancers.
You don't want to be like everyone else. You don't want to fit into a nice, simple descriptive box. I understand that--it's a typical human response. But understand that no one is trying to put you there. If you don't identify as homosexual or heterosexual then clearly research focussed on those categories isn't going to adequately understand your experience.
But that does not invalidate the research, or the applicability of its results to people who do fit within the classifications of the study.
_________________
--James
11 Apr 2012, 12:27 pm
visagrunt wrote:
stuff about how there won't be a single gay gene, even though there is genetic predictability to homosexuality.
Stuff like this is both nice and bad at the same time.
Good: Homosexuality is something people are born with
Good: Homosexuality can't be cured because it's tied into too many genetic traits like cancer
Bad: f*****g cancer genes why can't you be simpler to fix?
_________________
Not approved for vegetarian consumption.
11 Apr 2012, 2:44 pm
Karilyn wrote:
It's important to realize a couple of things.
1. You are implying that sexuality can ONLY be a choice or ONLY be from birth. It's quite possible that there are multiple causes of sexual orientation; some of which are from birth, and some of which are environmental.
1b. There has been a grand total of one thing I know of which has helped prove nature or nurture in the case of homosexuality, and it sides on nature. It's one of the most ridiculously silly things, but it has a near 100% accuracy rate. Digit Ratio. Digit ratio is STRONGLY tied to the amount of testosterone and estrogen present in the uterus, something which is supposed to be controlled by the genetic material of the fetus, and produced by the mother. Digit ratio shows that in homosexual women, the child had the mother produce male levels of testosterone estrogen, and with homosexual males, the child had the mother produce female levels of testosterone and estrogen. This is silly, this is weird, and it's hard to believe that this is the ONLY thing scientists have found. But it is nearly 100% accurate. (FYI: It applies to transsexuals too, but not bisexuals)
2. With regards to people who's sexuality changed slowly over time; it is generally my observation through examining all the different cultures of the world throughout history, that the largest segment of the population is actually bisexual (likely over 50%), not heterosexual (though homosexuality is still the rarest of the three). Due to the heavy sociological pressures with a frequent religious undertones in major first world countries, the majority of these bisexuals just go about their day as heterosexuals, and don't worry about it. It's easy to see why most people wouldn't want to cope with bigotry when they can just happily pretend to be heterosexual instead of bisexual. It would be congruous for the people who's sexualities change slowly over time, to be members of this group, who have several bad heterosexual experiences, and start to realize that they don't give a f**k what society says, and become more willing to have relationships with the same sex. This creates the illusion that their sexuality changed over time, when in reality, they just stopped restricting themselves from something they were already attracted to.
3. While a testimony does not prove an argument, I had a crush on my first girl in pre-school. Take that as you will. It seems extremely unlikely that environmental factors could have turned me into a homosexual in the first three years of my life, at a time when I had my first real interaction with other children outside of my family. Especially considering I was pre-puberty and thus did not have a sexual attraction at the time, just a romantic attraction. Puppy love. Crush. Call it whatever you want.
1. You are implying that sexuality can ONLY be a choice or ONLY be from birth. It's quite possible that there are multiple causes of sexual orientation; some of which are from birth, and some of which are environmental.
1b. There has been a grand total of one thing I know of which has helped prove nature or nurture in the case of homosexuality, and it sides on nature. It's one of the most ridiculously silly things, but it has a near 100% accuracy rate. Digit Ratio. Digit ratio is STRONGLY tied to the amount of testosterone and estrogen present in the uterus, something which is supposed to be controlled by the genetic material of the fetus, and produced by the mother. Digit ratio shows that in homosexual women, the child had the mother produce male levels of testosterone estrogen, and with homosexual males, the child had the mother produce female levels of testosterone and estrogen. This is silly, this is weird, and it's hard to believe that this is the ONLY thing scientists have found. But it is nearly 100% accurate. (FYI: It applies to transsexuals too, but not bisexuals)
2. With regards to people who's sexuality changed slowly over time; it is generally my observation through examining all the different cultures of the world throughout history, that the largest segment of the population is actually bisexual (likely over 50%), not heterosexual (though homosexuality is still the rarest of the three). Due to the heavy sociological pressures with a frequent religious undertones in major first world countries, the majority of these bisexuals just go about their day as heterosexuals, and don't worry about it. It's easy to see why most people wouldn't want to cope with bigotry when they can just happily pretend to be heterosexual instead of bisexual. It would be congruous for the people who's sexualities change slowly over time, to be members of this group, who have several bad heterosexual experiences, and start to realize that they don't give a f**k what society says, and become more willing to have relationships with the same sex. This creates the illusion that their sexuality changed over time, when in reality, they just stopped restricting themselves from something they were already attracted to.
3. While a testimony does not prove an argument, I had a crush on my first girl in pre-school. Take that as you will. It seems extremely unlikely that environmental factors could have turned me into a homosexual in the first three years of my life, at a time when I had my first real interaction with other children outside of my family. Especially considering I was pre-puberty and thus did not have a sexual attraction at the time, just a romantic attraction. Puppy love. Crush. Call it whatever you want.
1. Nope, never implied it's either born or a choice or even developmental. Just implied all of those researches should not be taken any more granted than something closer to the answer.
1b.My family is the exception to the rule regarding digital ratio.
2.Do you have proof of that?
3. Sounds like puppy love, but it still somewhat a romantic attraction.
visagrunt wrote:
Reptillian wrote:
Which is why there'll never be a resolution because the three valid sides(Genes v. Environment V.Neutral) are always conflicting with different interpretations of the studies which only leads to more questions than it is answered though new discoveries are found.
You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that physiology, medicine, psychology and genetics can create a "Grand Unified Theory" of homosexuality. That type of absolutism is perfectly appropriate in mathematics or physics, but it has no place in medical or physiological research.
The research stands only for the proposition that there are statistically significant, observable anatomical differences between self-identified gay men and the control population. Why do you expect that research can ever stand for more than it purports to investigate?
Quote:
Here's the questions, why isn't errors being mentioned for 35 percent of the men while how do you explain 65 percent other than it's simply environmental and wouldn't be possible that one has more on the genetic influence on the 65 percent? And no scientists would assume it's 100 percent genetic especially in humans who are much larger than fruit flies considering varied genetic factors and combination within the humans themselves at the same time that there are varied possible neuropsychological development. As mentioned, people who had experienced fluid sexuality do bring questions about whether it's gene or environment or both. And this study only brings more questions.
You seem preoccupied with the idea that people are trying to uncritically apply the results of research.
But look critically at the research. Sexuality is not a rigid or binary state. While the vast majority of human beings conform to a heterosexual-homosexual dichotomy, that is by no means universal. In a world in which bisexuality clearly exists, and where the margins between heterosexuality, bisexuality and homosexuality are so diffuse.
No reputable scientist is attempting to say that there is one answer that fits all individuals. You are projecting your own prejudices onto the results of research.
You quite correctly claim that, "I'm different, the research doesn't describe me." And any reputable scientist would agree. You are an outlier, and outliers are an expected part of any research that involves organisms or organic systems.
Quote:
Problem #1- The size of humans makes up for so many varied genetic conditions and many different conditions.
Problem #2-No gay genes have been found on humans. It's probably because of the varied conditions and the brain makes for more questions than answer.
Problem #2-No gay genes have been found on humans. It's probably because of the varied conditions and the brain makes for more questions than answer.
No one has ever suggested that a genetic origin requires a single gene. For some conditions that is so--but only where a single specific sequence on a specific chromosome is reponsible for the relevant protein synthesis. There is no "cancer" gene--but we know that genetics is clearly linked to certain cancers.
You don't want to be like everyone else. You don't want to fit into a nice, simple descriptive box. I understand that--it's a typical human response. But understand that no one is trying to put you there. If you don't identify as homosexual or heterosexual then clearly research focussed on those categories isn't going to adequately understand your experience.
But that does not invalidate the research, or the applicability of its results to people who do fit within the classifications of the study.
While those researches are all fine and dandy, the problem is that people should take into account about the degree of potential outliers and understanding that these researches are not 100 percent valid. That's the problem I have when I see people using it to back up such claims when it comes to talking about all people rather than saying that it's valid to a certain extent. As pointed out, outliers will always bring more questions and any legitimate organization should be able to see that. I don't identify as anything since I see no point in putting myself into a box. But whether I am a outlier or not does not affect my opinion about using those studies to try to support outlandish claims which can be easily dismissed by pointing out outliers or any possible conditions. Some people are more affected by prenatal development, some are environmental, and some are both, but that is as far as we can go.
12 Apr 2012, 11:57 am
Reptillian wrote:
While those researches are all fine and dandy, the problem is that people should take into account about the degree of potential outliers and understanding that these researches are not 100 percent valid. That's the problem I have when I see people using it to back up such claims when it comes to talking about all people rather than saying that it's valid to a certain extent. As pointed out, outliers will always bring more questions and any legitimate organization should be able to see that. I don't identify as anything since I see no point in putting myself into a box. But whether I am a outlier or not does not affect my opinion about using those studies to try to support outlandish claims which can be easily dismissed by pointing out outliers or any possible conditions. Some people are more affected by prenatal development, some are environmental, and some are both, but that is as far as we can go.
You are being very sloppy with your language. A statement like, "these researches [sic] are not 100 percent valid," is ambiguous--are you suggesting that the methodology is flawed? The argument? The conclusion? No, it seems to me that you are complaining about the use that laypeople are making of others' research. I have said time and again that research on human sexuality can never apply universally to all subjects. If people purport to make it apply, that is not the fault of the researchers, and it does not invalidate the research.
As for your conjecture, "Some people are more affected by prenatal development, some are environmental [sic], and some are both [sic], but that is as far as we can go," that is a complete nonsense. You have no empirical basis to make these statements. They are certainly intuitive, but you are misguided if you believe that we can do nothing more than parrot the intuitive. Were that the case most scientific research would have been stopped before it started.
_________________
--James
