Does A New Scientific Report on Gender Identity Support the Church?

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Storm Rider said:

I guess I just never realized that one person could control the entire thread.  It never worked for me, but obviously others are better at control.  

It is clear that the thread was started because the information did not support the tired, liberal position.  If those Liberals still wanted to support that incorrect position they would need to contradict science.  So, your answer, not to discuss it because doing so would "force" critics to abandon science in favor of....their own unrealistic opinions.  What a terrible thing - being set up to either accept reality or bury one's head in the sand and just repeat an opinion based on nothing but desire.  

The thread-starter has explained why he started the thread (it wasn't "because the information did not support the tired, liberal position"). I guess you missed that. No, he doesn't "control the entire thread," but there's nothing wrong with pointing out what the purpose of the thread was. 

I'm happy to discuss possible explanations about where homosexuality comes from, but taking the OP's bait is not likely to further such a discussion. What do you think is the "cause" of homosexuality? That's a good place to start.

[Johnnie Cake]

Quote

Stormrider: It really is interesting to review what people say, like J-cake, and then compared to what is reality.  Perspective is everything.

First, let's review the source of actual article in The New Atlantis  The Atlantis states about itself - "The New Atlantis is a nonpartisan publication; indeed, the subjects addressed in our pages often cut across existing political lines, forcing liberals and conservatives, progressives and libertarians, to revisit their guiding principles. We are published by a nonprofit organization that receives most of its support from private foundations and individual donors; we receive no funding from business or government sources."  This appears to throw neutralize the attempt to poison the well by Mr. J-cake who did not apparently actual read anything, but noticed that the article was PUBLISHED, not written, not financially supported by, but published the article.  

What is interesting is the stated purpose of the magazine - "The New Atlantis is an effort to improve public understanding of the social, political, ethical, and policy implications of modern science and technology. Since the first issue of our quarterly journal in 2003, we have sought to make sense of the larger questions surrounding technology and human nature, and the practical questions of governing and regulating science — especially where the moral stakes are high and the political divides are deep."

Now we get to the part of reliability - "Co-authored by two of the nation’s leading scholars on mental health and sexuality, the 143-page report discusses over 200 peer-reviewed studies in the biological, psychological, and social sciences, painstakingly documenting what scientific research shows and does not show about sexuality and gender."  

Let's drill down on the these supposed experts.  Quoting again - " Editor’s Note: Questions related to sexuality and gender bear on some of the most intimate and personal aspects of human life. In recent years they have also vexed American politics. We offer this report — written by Dr. Lawrence S. Mayer, an epidemiologist trained in psychiatry, and Dr. Paul R. McHugh, arguably the most important American psychiatrist of the last half-century — in the hope of improving public understanding of these questions."  

So the reality is that we have an article written by qualified, non-partisan medical professionals that have reviewed the leading studies of our day to clarify what science does and does not support.  Who knew reality could be so hard to see when a dumb fellow like me just reads a little. 

Stormrider, I guess we just have a different definition of what constitutes "reality" but thanks for clarifying for the board what your standard is... Again I'm just gobsmacked that I'm even finding any push back from the members of this board...this seems like such an obvious agenda driven essay...  Obviously we just have see things differently...

[Gray]

15 minutes ago, Calm said:

I like the term "literature review" for these types of reports.  They are studying something, but it avoids the confusion between studies of humans, behaviors, etc. and studies of those studies.

That seems like a better term, thanks!

[Calm]

19 minutes ago, Gray said:

That seems like a better term, thanks!

Picked it up in my psych research class.****  It was a required part of any research we undertook in my psych courses.  It makes no sense to me to start out an experiment or other form of research without knowing what the current status of the research is, especially if you are trying to justify a significant allocation of resources to the research.  

Literature reviews of a more global form such as the one the OP article refers to are essential imo to ensure that the science community (and hopefully those listening to the science community) as a whole stays on track and doesn't go off on rabbit trails after something that does not really exist (for example, it should be the exception, not the rule that researchers decide to do research from a foundation built on a few anomalous studies that are not widely supported by other studies).

Scientists are probably much more aware of where the science is going (due to all being taught that one needs to build research on past findings and not start from scratch each time), but the greater community needs to be educated in what we do and do not know better than what usually happens given the appeal of the controversial finding.  These types of reports should not be all that surprising to those keeping track, but for those who are not (as many aren't who look to the media to keep them informed), getting what may be noncontroversial to the researchers out there to the public may be harder.  Unfortunately controversial findings in isolation don't lead to better awareness of the whole dialogue on issues and can even make it appear that the science is constantly flip flopping when nothing of the sort is happening.

****still in use:  http://writing2.richmond.edu/writing/wweb/psychology/BG Psychology.pdf

Edited August 23, 2016 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

The thread-starter has explained why he started the thread (it wasn't "because the information did not support the tired, liberal position"). I guess you missed that. No, he doesn't "control the entire thread," but there's nothing wrong with pointing out what the purpose of the thread was. 

I'm happy to discuss possible explanations about where homosexuality comes from, but taking the OP's bait is not likely to further such a discussion. What do you think is the "cause" of homosexuality? That's a good place to start.

Sigh.

No it was because the information did not support the tired liberal position

Plus I genuinely wanted to see how the mdd community would react so that I could possibly learn something

For at least the 10th time, John, do not characterize my positions.  Quote all you want to make your point but do not interpret what I have said.  You are simply not able to understand me on any possible point.

It appears that our brains are simply wired totally differently.  You see black, I see white.  You see white and I see black.  

Edited August 23, 2016 by mfbukowski

[Storm Rider]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

The thread-starter has explained why he started the thread (it wasn't "because the information did not support the tired, liberal position"). I guess you missed that. No, he doesn't "control the entire thread," but there's nothing wrong with pointing out what the purpose of the thread was. 

I'm happy to discuss possible explanations about where homosexuality comes from, but taking the OP's bait is not likely to further such a discussion. What do you think is the "cause" of homosexuality? That's a good place to start.

Hmm, we have been given an article that links to a summation about this very topic that science supports.  Did you read it or peruse it?

If we want to trade opinions I am not interested because it is not very helpful.  What do you think?

[jkwilliams]

14 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Hmm, we have been given an article that links to a summation about this very topic that science supports.  Did you read it or peruse it?

If we want to trade opinions I am not interested because it is not very helpful.  What do you think?

Hmm. I read the original study referred to, which, as others have noted, gives a pretty unqualified answer: we don't know exactly how sexuality and gender develop.  Unless you know something I don't, I'm not sure how that relates to church doctrine. 

[UtahTexan]

16 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Does the journal have a political bias or agenda?  I'm going to guess Yes

why?  because it takes a position you do not like?

If you have scientific evidence more recent than this study that disproves, please post it

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

It's not scary to me. I have no idea how humans develop sexual desire. I've read quite a bit on the subject, but yes, it is complex. I'm not averse at all to discussing the science of sexuality. I just recognize that the "social experiment," or whatever you want to call this thread, was never about thoughtful discussion. That the OP's creator has confirmed it suggests I'm not being paranoid at all. 

Now who's attacking?

Another process comment with no relevance to the topic. Look up "process comment" in psychotherapy.

Just the usual pattern, just like the last time. 

[Scott Lloyd]

May I suggest a take-away point to the "social experiment"? Bias is in the eye of the beholder, just as I said in a previous post. 

[Johnnie Cake]

Quote

mfbukowski:

Bing bing bing

Give this man a cigar!!  I was stirring the pot as I do occasionally.

Notice that the OP asks a question

Others have caught the tension as well.

I honestly wanted to know what others thought about this study.   I wanted to turn it around and see how the critics handled it.   Not well, I must say.

Not Well?  I beg to differ.  I think I've handled it quite well.  In fact all I did was point out an obvious hidden agenda behind the essay and exposed it.  In addition to exposing the hidden bias in the essay I also exposed the obvious bias of several members of this board and their willingness to accept any crazy claim when it supports their closely held beliefs instead of asking questions to the motivations of a so called study when doing so might undermine those beliefs.  But hey I'm just some jobless, 500 lbs fat guy, stuffing my face with Cheetos and living in my parents basement so what do I know.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Johnnie Cake said:

Not Well?  I beg to differ.  I think I've handled it quite well.  In fact all I did was point out an obvious hidden agenda behind the essay and exposed it.  In addition to exposing the hidden bias in the essay I also exposed the obvious bias of several members of this board and their willingness to accept any crazy claim when it supports their closely held beliefs instead of asking questions to the motivations of a so called study when doing so might undermine those beliefs.  But hey I'm just some jobless, 500 lbs fat guy, stuffing my face with Cheetos and living in my parents basement so what do I know.

Wow, you've lost weight since I last saw you. Great job!

[Jeanne]

You're looking good Johnny!

[ttribe]

20 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Now who's attacking?

Another process comment with no relevance to the topic. Look up "process comment" in psychotherapy.

Just the usual pattern, just like the last time. 

You are hypersensitive to anything John says.  He didn't "attack" you in the least; he highlighted what he believed to be the purpose of the thread and you confirmed it.  He simply pointed that out.

[Johnnie Cake]

Quote

jkwilliams:Wow, you've lost weight since I last saw you. Great job!

Thanks...Its from climbing the stairs in my parents basement to get more Cheetos

Quote

Jeanne:  You're looking good Johnny!

Gee thanks Jeanne...all the girls at the call center tell me the same thing...but then I'm paying them to tell me that...so coming from you, it means a lot

 

Edit to Add: I've reached the 12 posts that the mods have, in their most benevolent, auspicious and generous wisdom, decided to allot me in any given rolling 24 hour period.  How grateful I am to them for their act of charity given to little ol' me, despite weighing in at a little over 500lbs.  It reminds me of something  Mahatma Gandhi once said:  The simplest acts of kindness are far more powerful then being able to make a thousand posts a day...or something like that. And so dear friends, I bid you adieu, until I post again.

Edited August 23, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[mfbukowski]

37 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

May I suggest a take-away point to the "social experiment"? Bias is in the eye of the beholder, just as I said in a previous post. 

That was my exact point

[mfbukowski]

28 minutes ago, ttribe said:

You are hypersensitive to anything John says.  He didn't "attack" you in the least; he highlighted what he believed to be the purpose of the thread and you confirmed it.  He simply pointed that out.

Lol.

In the previous thread peppermint patty said that John was the victim in an abusive relationship.

Poor John. I am quite a monster.

[ttribe]

4 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Lol.

In the previous thread peppermint patty said that John was the victim in an abusive relationship.

Poor John. I am quite a monster.

[Hamba Tuhan]

7 hours ago, Thinking said:

My brother once had a roommate who happened to be gay. He asked my brother (who happens to be straight) what was it about the female breast that turns men on. He just didn't get it. My brother's response: "They just do." Heterosexuals are "born that way" too.

And yet for the vast majority of human history, men have lived in societies in which the female breast was on constant display, and they somehow managed to not be perpetually 'turned on' -- and the majority of the world's men still live in such societies (though Western hypersexualisation is certainly spreading daily). Which body parts are sexualised in a particular society -- and in which contexts -- are demonstrably cultural constructs that, viewed uncritically, always feel 'natural' and inborn to those who share them. Overly sexualised Western heterosexuality is no different: men inside the socially constructed cultural system simply cannot see the female breast as anything other than inherently arousing.

Edited August 24, 2016 by Hamba Tuhan

[Hamba Tuhan]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

I like the term "literature review" for these types of reports.  They are studying something, but it avoids the confusion between studies of humans, behaviors, etc. and studies of those studies.

'Metastudy' is another good term ... though Gray does seem determined for some reason to downplay the 'scientificness' of this particular piece of research.

[guerreiro9]

4 hours ago, Thinking said:

My brother once had a roommate who happened to be gay. He asked my brother (who happens to be straight) what was it about the female breast that turns men on. He just didn't get it. My brother's response: "They just do." Heterosexuals are "born that way" too.

I think there is a possibility that factors other than "being born that way" may contribute to a person being homosexual, but IMO the greatest factor is "being born that way,"

Finding a female's breast attractive is a learned behavior tied to cultural norms.  In some cultures they are considered attractive, in others they are not.  What we find attractive does not develop in a vacuum and is certainly not set at birth.

When I was younger I used to find pregnant women unattractive.  After passing through multiple pregnancies with my wife, I now find her, and other women attractive when pregnant.

So which attraction was I born with?

-guerreiro9

[cacheman]

12 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

'Metastudy' is another good term ... though Gray does seem determined for some reason to downplay the 'scientificness' of this particular piece of research.

Some of the hesitation might be due to the fact that it was published in a non peer-reviewed journal.  Also, one of the authors has a history of controversial articles and statements.  I think these factors warrant some caution in immediately accepting the article's conclusions.  I'll wait to hear if there is a response from the broader community of qualified academics before making a judgment on the 'scientificness' of the study.

cacheman

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 minute ago, cacheman said:

Some of the hesitation might be due to the fact that it was published in a non peer-reviewed journal.

I'm an editor at a peer-reviewed academic journal. I desperately wish people would exercise a bit more caution about accepting all articles' conclusions -- and especially those that uncritically sail past the self-appointed gatekeepers of the discipline.

Quote

Also, one of the authors has a history of controversial articles and statements.

The subtext in this statement causes me concern. At one point, we prided ourselves on advancing understanding over forming consensus. <sigh>

[cacheman]

9 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I'm an editor at a peer-reviewed academic journal. I desperately wish people would exercise a bit more caution about accepting all articles' conclusions -- and especially those that uncritically sail past the self-appointed gatekeepers of the discipline.

The subtext in this statement causes me concern. At one point, we prided ourselves on advancing understanding over forming consensus. <sigh>

You have misread the subtext of my statement if you think I was implying that consensus rules. How does one come to an understanding of an issue while simply relying on a conclusions of a few experts (with a controversial history) who bypassed a review of their peers?  

[Hamba Tuhan]

7 minutes ago, cacheman said:

How does one come to an understanding of an issue while simply relying on a conclusions of a few experts (with a controversial history) who bypassed a review of their peers?  

How, indeed?