Posted on 07/21/2006 5:03:28 PM PDT by wagglebee
It's my birthday today, so I can have a snicker!
But the real question is, is he a wizard?
Please back up your assertions with facts.
LOL no, at least not as far as I know
Let's start with some general observations. This study involves an unusually large sample: almost 1000 subjects. The author had some archival data from other samples, but then went to the time and trouble to collect a lot more data. Data collection and analysis is generally the most time consuming part of research. This tells you that this is not someone looking to do "quick and dirty" research.
The author analyzed his findings in a very methodical manner. Contrary to what his critic here claims, even a cursory glance at his paper shows that he neither started off presuming that homosexuality has a biological origin nor did he conclude that he had proven it. He starts off by noting previous evidence and concludes that his data are supportive. Big difference.
Let's note also that this paper was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. It's not known for publishing just any old tripe that someone churns out.
In my experience, anyone who would call a paper with the above characteristics "rubbish" and "drivel" is the one has a preconceived position.
Now let's turn to specifics. The critic here complains that the author has not taken into account a myriad of possible differences in child rearing practices or family characteristics. (He offers no explanation as to how some of the characteristics he reels off, such as a change in the family's financial situation, could contribute to sexual orientation.) But the important point is that his assertion is false. Although the study design does not control for every variable he manages to come up with it does control for social environment in a compelling way.
The study includes groups of men with varying sibling characteristics. Among them are men who actually had older biological brothers but were not raised with them. In other words, these men were raised as if they were the oldest boy in the family. There were also men who were raised with older nonbiological brothers.
If upbringing (family environment) has a compelling impact on sexual orientation, one would predict that the incidence of homosexuality among males who had older brothers but were not raised with them (i.e. were raised as if they were the oldest) would not differ from the incidence among males who were biologically the eldest male in the family. But that's not what the data showed. What predicted the incidence of homosexuality in this group was having older brothers regardless of whether they grew up together.
Likewise, if the familial environment is so compelling, one would predict a similar incidence of homosexuality among males who were raised with nonbiological older brothers as those who were raised with biological older brothers. But again, that is not what the analysis found. Only biological older brothers were predictive, regardless of whether the men were raised with them.
Both of these findings are consistent with an effect of a prenatal factor. It does not prove it, nor does the author claim that he has proved it.
If you read the critic's piece at the link above and compare it to the actual paper (which is linked in his piece) it will be evident to you who is operating with a demand for a preconceived outcome and who is simply following the data wherever they lead.
3 of which have been disproven. So, Bogaert examined eight different sibling scenarios for 944 men in four samples, three of which were "archival," which means only his "study" had "new" onfo. How many men did he actually "study" first hand? If 3 of the "studies" were archival, he did NOT examine 944 men himself as 3 of the 4 were archival.
All the first references are to people such as [Dean] Hamer, [Simon] LeVay, [Michael] Bailey, etc., whose work has been assessed and critiqued, and there have been no follow-up studies confirming the claims of any of these people."
This isn't science it's propoganda.
Study Claiming Biological Basis for Homosexuality “Absolute Rubbish”: NARTH Psychiatrist
The study suggested that male same-sex attraction results from an immune reaction on the part of the mother to the presence of the male child in her womb, a reaction the study’s authors suggest stems from the gestation of previous male children. In other words, the study suggests, having biological older brothers leads to the development of homosexuality.
The study’s assumption of a biological basis for homosexuality is a “major glaring flaw,” said Berger, since existing research has not produced conclusive findings indicating grounds for such an assumption.
Which did not support his claim.
No scientific basis for 'born gay' theory
Simon LeVay notes, "It is important to stress what I didn't find. I did not prove that homosexuality was genetic, or find a cause for being gay. I didn't show that gay men were born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work."
Sorry DJ, but one does not disprove data. One disproves hypotheses.
All the first references are to people such as [Dean] Hamer, [Simon] LeVay, [Michael] Bailey, etc., whose work has been assessed and critiqued, and there have been no follow-up studies confirming the claims of any of these people."This isn't science it's propoganda.
If you would look at *how* the papers are cited by the author, you would see that his use of the references are appropriate to the context. The mere acknowledging of a paper's existence is not the same as agreeing with its conclusions. I agree that he could have put in a sentence citing papers that take issue with the conclusions of Hamer and LeVay. That is hardly enough to turn the paper into "drivel" and "rubbish." The key issue is the actual research and analysis.
Do you actually believe that all the papers that deny any biological basis for homosexuality have not likewise been "assessed and critiqued." That is how it is supposed to be. Assessment and critique is good. There is no convention holding that one never cites a paper again because someone somewhere doesn't agree with the author's interpretation of the data.
The analysis was well done. It deserved to be published so that others can see the findings and discuss them. A mindset to the contrary is reminiscent of liberals with their speech codes.
If the data is flawed, so is the hypothesis.
I agree that he could have put in a sentence citing papers that take issue with the conclusions of Hamer and LeVay.
He misused/misrepresented LeVays work. That is a serious flaw. See post 29.
You are attributing meaning to him that is beyond what he is alleged to have said. I say alleged because that piece had the ring of a diatribe, not a piece of scientific work.
The idea of a gay gene, if it ever existed, has been discarded. If there is a prenatal factor, the thought is that it is something in the prenatal environment. Something that happens in the womb, during gestation. Assuming LeVay was accurately quoted, his comment did not rule that out at all if you think about it.
As for the part that he did not find a biological contributor, now really DJ. You can reason well enough to acknowledge that just because LeVay admits he didn't find such a factor, it doesn't mean that further research will not discover one. It might, it might not.
I would like to see you willing to be open-minded. If that is asking too much, we will have to agree to disagree on this topic.
He has already been proven to use flawed material.
From the article: A previous study (1999) by Dr. Boegart concluded that homosexual men have larger genitalia than heterosexual men. Boegart based his findings on data from 5,000 interviews of men by Alfred C. Kinsey, the now-discredited sex research pioneer.
A mindset to the contrary is reminiscent of liberals with their speech codes.
How typical.
Now you are making no sense at all.
The data here are about how many brothers a man had, whether he was raised with them, whether they were older or younger. It's not rocket science to collect that type of information, nor is this the kind of information that people are likely to have trouble remembering or reporting accurately.
You will have to show that there was some problem collecting such simple info to have a convincing argument.
LeVay said: I didn't show that gay men were born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work."
As for the part that he did not find a biological contributor, now really DJ. You can reason well enough to acknowledge that just because LeVay admits he didn't find such a factor, it doesn't mean that further research will not discover one. It might, it might not.
The point was that Anthony Bogaert miused data.
I would like to see you willing to be open-minded. If that is asking too much, we will have to agree to disagree on this topic.
I'm the one that's closeminded? LOL You use a discredited psychologist to back up your opinion but I'm closeminded. ;)
And: "Many people confuse mathematical differences with biological differences," Dr. Berger told CWA. "If you traveled to the Middle East and surveyed 1,000 families, would you conclude that the Islamic faith is a genetic predisposition? The mathematical facts do not conclude that there is biological causation."
His "data" proves nothing.
Because no gay gene can be found, the gay movement will change tactics. Now it's "gestation".
From LeVay: " . . . people who think that gays and lesbians are born that way are more likely to support gay rights."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.