Ummm… Last time you claimed MZ twins weren’t always identical…and they absolutely are lest any environmental influences. You were claiming MZ twins with a genetic marker for a defect were some how comparable to a behavior THAT HAS NO GENETIC MARKER. What are you talking about? Stick to the subject.
and then it's "volunteer errors" and failing in that, it's "unrepresentative samples". You don't know what you're talking about.
Volunteer error or bias MEANS unrepresentative samples! If the opinions of volunteers are different from those of the population they are supposed to represent then the research is worthless. I claimed Bailey discredited his own study because of the biased sample, cited it and you panned it with some garbage excuse of commercialism.
Who are you? Donahue? I said what I said and I'm not going to argue against your lack of understanding.
What ever Josh…I’m not the homosexual trying to justify his own behavioral choices, you keep on trucking.
Yep. So... "prove it". Show me the survey. Show me the organization that has the resources to conduct such a survey. NARTH, et al, claim that reparative therapy works - show me the proof on how successful it is.
What does that have to do with proving to you information can be found without the use of volunteers? Too bad if it’s expensive, the fact still remains and BTW Cameron did a very successful study from a very large survey. Stop changing the subject.
Big deal -- does that make him wrong in what he says about Cameron?
NO…but it doesn’t make Cameron wrong either. There are many studies with methodology errors still accepted by the general “medical” community at large and the only way to make them WRONG is to debunk them…that’s all I’ve claimed from the very beginning.
Hell, you sit here defending Cameron's studies, denying or minimizing their weaknesses, and attempt to successfully discredit studies you don't agree with. Hello, pot, you're black.
I’m glad to finally see you’re coming around to my ORIGINAL point…thank you. DEBUNKING is the only way to make Cameron wrong. Now just get over it.
Interestingly, I did quote a study that said something like that: It turns out that identical twins who differ for a single genetic trait are quite common.
and they absolutely are lest any environmental influences.
Which is also something I said, and you seemed to have some sort of problem with at the time. I'm still waiting for you to show any genetic condition having 100% concordance rates in MZ twins, BTW. These particular posts start right about here, if you need to refresh on who said what.
Volunteer error or bias MEANS unrepresentative samples!
Your ignorance is showing. No, in fact, they don't.
"Volunteer error" is an error caused by the fact that some people had a chance to come forward with their opinions; people with something to say on the subject responded to a greater degree than those that didn't.
An "unrepresentative sample" is asking five people what they had for breakfast and extrapolating those percentages to the entire population.
And frankly, I'm not surprised your selective memory missed the whole "commercially-driven source" gibe. Which, BTW, is another statement you made in the previous argument that I'm still waiting for you to back up.
What does that have to do with proving to you information can be found without the use of volunteers?
Because you can't.
Too bad if it’s expensive
Tell that to the people who aren't paying for it, but could use the information.
Cameron did a very successful study from a very large survey
Define "successful".
NO…but it doesn’t make Cameron wrong either.
Either Herek's bias tainted his analysis of Cameron, rendering it false and useless, or it's accurate and Cameron is false and useless. Do you see another option here? I don't.
There are many studies with methodology errors still accepted by the general “medical” community at large and the only way to make them WRONG is to debunk them
Finally, you said something correct! Partially. Most, if not all, studies have some sort of weakness methodoligically -- "human nature" comes into play. Efforts can be made to minimize those errors, but there'll always be a "margin of error".
Most studies that are still used are "Wrong" because their results are over-stated; Cameron's forté, actually. Bailey-Pillard found what they found -- unless they've falsified their data, that's what they found. It would be correct to say their data supports the idea of a genetic cause of homosexuality; it would be "wrong" to say their data proves it. That's where "activists and amateurs" come into play -- they're always overstating study results. Some make a career of it, including anyone who makes absolute claims about homosexuals or homosexuality.
Oh, and "successfully" discredting a study requires knowing what you're talking about. You don't, re: "volunteer error" and "unrepresentative sample".