.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Friday, August 04, 2006

 

New Op-Ed: The study the media ignored

New op-ed, probably out next week...

Comments:
Warren -- have you published this already?

Oops. Perhaps nobody will notice.

Run those survey numbers year age by year age. What happens? No. Really. Do those nummbers.

(Although we did acquire the raw dataset "illegally" -- anyone with access is free to test the numbers.)

There is a big fat warning for you pro-family-environment types, and I wish you had explored both the first comment, and the second assumption.

The first is what biologists already know need, the second is a load of "genetic codswallop". That's a direct quote, BTW, and you may guess from who... :)

The first model, the idea that homosexuality is a polygenetic trait cannot be tested with our data. Nevertheless, we show that concordance rates do not correspond to the general genetic model, and this fact alone falsifies the idea that there could be genetic influence in the absence of a social structural interaction.

Polygenetic - -you get that? This is what biological studies are looking at. Yet this study does not look for this.

The second -- what on Earth does that meam? It's dead wrong, from a geneticist's view. So why did a social scientist declare it?

We hope to hear from both parties soon, but until then...

All your "SCIENTIFIC" media outlets would allow you a retraction if necessary, i presume, yes? And you would make that retraction?
 
The fraternal birth order studies are not polygenetic; they are not genetic at all in fact. They are testing a birth order association with a hypothesized pre-natal cause. The only polygenetic study I know is the Mustanski study that looked at the human genome and found not much. The x chromosome is univariate, brain studies are not genetic. I am not sure what studies you are referring to. Please enlighten.
 
No Warren, you please enlighten. I'm not the one making claims about others.

We know these studies are not polygentic. We told you that. As did Bearmean and Bruchkner. What's your point???

More the point -- who is looking for a unigenetic cause? Let me guess-- nobody...

Warren - there will come a day when someone will ask what you know rather than simply repeat what you doubt.

On this... I can think of one very good reason why you have never, ever, clearly written down what you think you know about homosexuality. What it is. Who they are. Why it is.

Why are you always a critic of gay men and lesbians, but are seemingly never willing to lay your own views out straight?

Warren, lay it out -- your hypothesis -- openly and honestly and allow others to do the same to you as you do others.

Not willing? Why not???
 
grantdale - perhaps I missed the point of your first remark.

I am not sure what you are objecting to. It sounded like at first that you are criticizing Bearman & Bruckner because they could not test a polygenetic model and the other genetic (or prenatal) studies were doing that.

I disagree that their inference from the twin data is wrong. Twin studies look at the comparison of MZ twins and DZ twins to come up with heritability. There were no significant differences in the twin groups in B&B.

So I did answer what I thought you asking. I am not going to go into detail in a blog comment about my views on this. But I think you have read most of my remarks on this to know that I like Bem's work but I do not believe that the pathway he theorizes is the only one.

Dr. Welton and I have been doing some work this month which I hope will yield something I can post and/or publish but we are not there yet.
 
Why doesn't anybody ask what causes heterosexuality? Isn't it because everyone assumes that straight is good, moral, normal and that homosexuality is not? Does anyone really know what causes people to be attracted to the opposite sex? Does anybody care?
 
Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link



<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?