Replies

Feel free to read it yourself and draw your own conclusions.

Of course, but there are methodologies that I have not studied in the Social Sciences, other than to know that it is difficult to come up with a good methodology. I could read Kinsey, but it would be foolish to do so since Kinsey's methodologies are known to have been flawed.

As I said, a 1981 work that was actually of value would not be obscure - especially one that had the capacity to prove wrong what we all know to be right - that sexual preferences are learned.

Shalom.

"I could read Kinsey, but it would be foolish to do so since Kinsey's methodologies are known to have been flawed."

I think Kinsey can be educational, even though flawed. You just have to be alert for the flaws and their implications.

"As I said, a 1981 work that was actually of value would not be obscure - especially one that had the capacity to prove wrong what we all know to be right - that sexual preferences are learned."

It certainly doesn't prove that sexual preferences aren't learned. There's no study out there that does that. We still don't know what causes sexual orientation, other than that there are likely both genetic and environmental components to the cause. It does address the points I noted, though.

All in all, I think there are at least three problems with much of the research done on the etiology of sexual orientation:

1. The question is inherently unanswerable using the scientific method with today's ethical limitations. The search for causation must involve use of the experimental method (manipulation of independent variables such as abuse, seduction, genetic makeup, hormone exposure, parenting style, and family structure, and observation of the dependent variable, sexual orientation).

2. Much of the research that can be done is of poor quality due to sampling problems, politically motivated but poorly trained/qualified researchers (on both sides of the issue), and methodological problems.

3. The good research that has been done is almost always misinterpreted. I don't think most people really WANT to know the truth about the etiology of sexual orientation. They want to continue to believe what they already believe about it, and they are frequently ready to distort (or simply ignore) existing research that is inconsistent with their views, but might be informative. This happens all the time in science, but it is especially egregious on this topic.