I will start my post with my reply to Robert. Now, please try to listen carefully, because it has started to become a little tiring to have to teach you all the time about what science and the scientific truth is, and then having you go off and make HUGE erroneous assumptions mixed with a good dose of disjointed thinking. I am willing to discuss for as long as you like, but I am not willing to have to reply to things that are simply not logically founded- or disprove the same assumptions again and again. Let me show you.
All studies are faulty because you can never test everybody, only portions of people.
There is a difference between the term 'faulty' and the term 'representative'. A study is meant to show trends, trajectories, general rules
about things. It is not meant to be taken as some sort of prophetic truth about each and every person. If the study is conducted with all the rules and precautions that it should be conducted (you should go to university to know about those rules), and then repeated (the term is 'replicated') accodingly in different populations and different points in time and always yields the same results
, then this study is representative and reflecting a certain pattern of behavior
. How the study will be interpreted is the next stage, which should be done with due support. Therefore
: NOT ALL STUDIES ARE FAULTY (or 'flawed', as is the correct term). Faulty are only those studies that are not conducted properly. If you want to really be objective about what you believe and what you tell other people, then you should get educated on how to tell the two apart and refrain from stating an opinion when you can't.
However, for a person who believes all studies are faulty and therefore none (including those that seek to prove that homosexuality is biologically based) are reflecting the truth of the matter, you sure do struggle dreadfully to support something you have no support for. ;)
Also people lie on tests. AND if you make a test about homosexuality between siblings more people who have homosexual siblings will sign up than those with straight families. Plus what about closeted gays who take the tests and lie?
Well, if you ever study research, you will see that all researchers that respect themselves take all of the above for granted, and therefore design studies that do not rely on what people say
but on what people do
, and also devise ways to make sure that their sample (that means the people they examine) include both those who are willing to sign up and those who are not. How this is done? It's called a 'research design'.
Numbers do lie. Numbers lie ALL the time. You can do two different studies and get completely different results just based on location, social class, gender, religion, race, etc.
Numbers and statistics lie IF YOU LET THEM. As I stated above, if you know where to look, if you know the language of these numbers, you will be able to tell which study is 'lying' and which is not. Or if they both are. That's what being a scientist means.
Your body decides who you are attracted to, your mind decides how you deal with that attraction.
Your mind decides who you are attracted to. NOT your body. Your body may concur or not, but your mind is the one making all the clicks. You are attracted to the one you think
attracts you. There was a great case study of a man who was sitting in a train seat and this beautiful, gorgeous woman came and sat next to him. Needless to say, he was immediately attracted to her, but he was too shy to initiate conversation or acknowledge her or the like. Anyway, during the train ride, he dozed off, and at some point his leg muscles relaxed and his knee softly swung to the right, where the woman was sitting and touched her. The man immediately was aroused at that touch. He opened his eyes and was about to sit up, when he realised that while he'd been dozing, the woman had left an another man was sitting next to him, whose knee he had touched with his knee. He immediately lost all attraction and arousal. Now, why did I tell this story? Because it shows beautifully how by touching another man he was aroused because his mind believed
the other man to be a charming woman. It was not because his body was attracted to the other man's. If attraction was determined
by biology, then this would have been impossible to occur. These instances of misinterpretation of stimuli happen all the time, and it is also what happens to homosexuals when they are convinced early in their life that this is who they are. It is a fallacy that is then further encouraged by other stimuli. It is NOT biological.
But it is proof that our minds do not control everything we do. Right? One person might experience something and learn a positive lesson from it while another might learn a negative lesson from it. Neither of those cancer people become attracted to obesse people, even though they were obsessed with slender people their whole lives, right? If you work with just psychology then yes, its a huge involvement, but when you mix biology into it...
This is incoherent and I can't follow it. It does not follow a logical pattern. I gave you an example of how two people respond to a different stimulus in their life, thus demonstrating how the same stimulus may push a man towards homosexuality and fail to do the same for another on a subconscious level. How is it not proof that the mind controls the way you interpret things? And what is all this about cancer people being attracted to the obese or not??
And psychology primarily
works with biology. The standard modus operandi is to scratch off any chance for biological reasons for a phenomenon, then move on to the social. Psychology and biology go hand in hand, but those who are
psychologists are taught where to attribute things based on proof- not hearsay, not flawed studies and not what is the easy thing to believe. YOu are not making sense in this last quote (not logical sense, anyway) and I get the feeling you just want to keep this argument going for the sake of the argument.
Does surviving a plane wreck make you suddenly not allergic to chocolate?
What are you seeking to prove with this? Yes, there have been instances where a plane wreck has cured people of many things. There is also this really famous study about a man with terminal brain cancer. He had tumours the size of nuts in his brain. There was no cure for him and he was expected to die in 2-3 months maximum. Then this doctor presented him with a sugar pellet in the form of an obscure pill, and told him this was a hush-hush super drug that would cure his cancer if he took it. The man believed this to be true, and started to take the pellets according to the 'prescription'. In one week or so, the tumour was gone
. Utterly, completely gone. There are x-rays to prove this. It does not stop there, though. The man was released from hospital and went every month or so for a check up. After about 6-7 months where he had been 100% healthy, this other doctor told him that the cure he had taken (he had not been taking it ever since the tumour was gone) was just sugar. The man was devastated, and believed everything was faulty, including the assurance that he was tumour-free. In a couple of days, the tumours were back.
The hospital could not cure him, and so they did it once more with him- they gave him a different treatment (which consisted of coloured water) and told him this was a sure cure. The tumours were gone again within two weeks (or so). However, after a few years of healthy living, the man realised again (through some other unethical guy telling him so) that he had been given a placebo yet again. The tumours were back the next day, and he died within the week.
Now I ask you, aside for the criminal non-ethical treatment of this man, who controlled the tumour? His body or his mind? Let me also tell you that the same effect, called 'placebo effect' where your mind is convinced that you are getting treatment, has been demonstrated in several other people. When you mix the mind and the body (not 'psychology and biology, that's silly), then the mind wins. Therefore: Homosexuality is something you choose to be. How this is done, at what level of consciousness and what it denotes is another matter. However let me tell you that from very early in psychology up until now, homosexuality is associated with high levels of unconscious fear.
(Please don't tell me 'I am not afraid of anything' or 'my brother is afraid of nothing, in fact he's a dare devil' or something to that trajectory. I am talking about deep set fear about things that have never been brought to the conscious to be addressed- therefore there is only emotional reactivity and not cognitive one to the particular issue. )
Errrn! Wrong answer! Accepting it does have a lot to do with it. The more a socioty opresses a people, those people will try to hide who they are. Those people will be afraid to be honest in such tests. Also, the people doing the tests will look at them a certain way. You can't be nuetral if you think homosexuality is wrong. The only way to know the truth about homosexuality is if we stopped hating gay people.
You are mixing concepts again. If you are a true scientist and not a quack with a diploma, it won't matter if you like it or not. If you accept it or not. If you decide to study it, you will be objective and face the music. Otherwise, you just don't study it. About the people lying as subjects and interpreting wrong as researchers, I have already answered there are safeguards. I cannot give you the full course in research methods and statistics- I think I have shown and told enough.
Hating something is worlds apart with thinking something wrong or, to put it in the non-value judgement term, 'erroneous'. Yes, gay people should not be hated just like NO person should be hated. Hatred is a social vice that should be fought and not promoted. Hatred is what blinds people, along with greed and desire for control over others.
What also blinds poeple and makes them unable to be neutral is the need to prove something no matter what. Which happens a lot with regards to homosexuality and other issues. Many times the need to evade guilt or the need to 'let things be' instead of putting in the gruelling work needed to make things right (on any issue) is stronger than the need for truth. This is also a fact of psychology to which many (scientists and not) fall. The question is if you can get up from that trap and move on.
Not believing something is right/natural/okay to do does not mean you do not want to look at it objectively. If that were the case, nothing would have been done by humanity to make things better- from the discovery of antibiotics (nobody things the disease is right/natural/okay) to the emergence of better social systems where fewer and fewer are oppressed, people have made these inroads because they were not afraid to look at a problem/issue in the face and do something about it. Hatred was not part of the equation- and do not confuse it with intense dislike or rage (in the case of the social systems). Hate is a desire for thoughtless destruction. Rage is just anger that can be put to constructive use.
Unfortunately, hate is easier, because there's no demand to fix anything.
Also, you can't mark my comment as wrong unless you prove it in a logical and coherent way as I have been doing. However the way you phrased it gives me the impression you believe we are in some sort of contest to prove who's right. This is not a contest. There are no losing parties. Please don't bring it down to that.
Look at your example from WW2. People hid their religions and ethnic backgrounds to escape persecution. Do you think that if hitler put up a huge campaign asking for jewish people to come and get their blood tested that many would?
Of course not. Still, despite their hiding and running, Hitler did find a whole lot of them, didn't he? He also had experiments conducted on them of many types, from medical to social. A few million people is a pretty massive sample of the Jewish. Was their refusal to reveal themselves prevent him from getting what he wanted?
There is a huge difference between those two quotes. You even said later that you DIDN'T say specific, predictable events, even though you had. There is a world of difference in 'These things make you gay." and "Sometimes we see paterns in the lives of gay people and believe this may be the cause."
You are trying to twist my words out of context here. There is no difference between the two quotes. What do you mean by 'things'? A 'thing' as I understand it, is a concrete situation or an object. What I mean by 'event' is the mathematical concept of a particular situation which may occur in several superficially different contexts (with different variables) yet still be the same 'event' with the same 'outcome'. A 'pattern' consists of 'events'.
Do you understand now how everything I said is consistent? If you need concepts/terms/ideas to be defined, please state so. It is something we should have done initially, but we can always do it now.