Replies

"How would you know, if you haven't seen it? You can't discredit this study without discrediting the evidence and methodology."
This is long.
I completely disagree, facts can be assembled to prove just about anything, relying on what the author decides to include is at best working half blind. There have been books written using "scientific" data that disprove Jews were gassed in Germany. The conclusion is wrong, yet they present data that says else wise. How is this possible? misrepresentation of the facts thats how.

For the sake of debate lets disregard my belief that this report is worthless before even opening it because of the authors UNDISCLOSED bias which really ends the argument.
Both terms,'happy' and 'well-adjusted', are subjective terms (i.e. open to interpretation). We can go around in circle debating what "happy" is. Supposedly there are people out there that are, "happy" to live in totalitarian regimes headed by ruthless dictators.
Some people don't want democracy or freedom when given the choice. The left has pedaled this for the past 3 or 4 decades. Whole books have been written about these mythical places, and yet if someone else visited these places, they might just find they value the freedom of speech, or the freedom to bear arms, or the checks and balances inherent in a Representative government. Cuba and Fidel are their poster children, and yet who's coming to who's country? When "the wall" fell in Germany, which way were the people running? Was it East or West?

In other words the "data" used to conclude that someone is, "well adjusted" or "happy" is, and will always be, open to debate BECUASE of its subjective nature.
Secondly, the evidence and methodology isn't as important as you'd like to make it. Its secondary in nature. Why? Because it's her study, she wrote it, she decided what evidence to use, and more importantly she decided what evidence not to use.
She is a lesbian, (not telling you she's a lesbian)making a study to say its okay for homosexuals (her) to have children. Low and behold she (a homosexual) has children. Tell me, are you going to argue that there was even a chance she'd come up with a different conclusion? I dare you to even argue that she didn't go into this study with her conclusion already written.
She could have 100 pages of "proof" and yet it doesn't matter because she didn't tell anyone she was gay and that is really all that needs to be said.