Replies

”Unlike the voir dire process for selecting jurors, establishment science has no process for vetting the fairness of peer reviewers. In fact, peer reviewers are often anonymous.”

"Peer-review" in most of the social sciences is a joke. I've seen books and articles shot down and/or unfairly criticized simply because they took an unpopular or non-PC point of view. It's not infrequent at all. I used to work on a journal called Sexual Addiction and Compulsivity and there was a certain subset of people in the psychiatric world who wanted nothing to do with such a journal, believing for purely political/cultural reasons that addiction to sex is impossible or not worth discussing. Such people were working to push an agenda and had no interest in helping people who desperately need it.

I used to work on a journal called Sexual Addiction and Compulsivity and there was a certain subset of people in the psychiatric world who wanted nothing to do with such a journal, believing for purely political/cultural reasons that addiction to sex is impossible or not worth discussing. Such people were working to push an agenda and had no interest in helping people who desperately need it.

Funny you should say this. Tonight at work I was reading the article by Socrades (?) about sexual politics, and I jotted down a question next to one of the paragraphs--- maybe y'all can answer it. The question is: Why do psychologists, psychiatrists, people in the media, politicians, etc. who have NO ulterior motives (say, because they and their families/friends are all straight) or bias FOR homosex take the position that homosexuality is NOT an aberrant condition? Is it because they really, really believe it's perfectly normal?

If they actually believe that it IS abnormal (even tho' they don't admit it), what do they have to gain by pretending that it's normal and OK?