The purpose was to find the most "normal" group of homosexuals Hooker could find, and represent them as "typical." It was unnecessary to tell them how to act. By telling them that the purpose of the study was to determine whether homosexuals functioned normally in society, Hooker enabled anyone in the study group to skew the results if he believed homosexuality is normal.
Any mental health professional can confirm that mentally ill persons often conceal their symptoms and pretend to be perfectly normal. No one is more skilled at such pretending than a homosexual who was once in the closet.
The fact that homosexuals respond differently to that type of PROJECTIVE test is unsurprising, and is certainly not evidence of a pathology; but it does not provide the goal of presenting EQUIVALENT examples.
Oh, yes, it is indeed evidence of a pathology: obsession with sex, or sexual addiction.
That's debatable, especially in the case of Hooker. Landess certainly hasn't demonstrated Hooker's work to be "deeply flawed."
It is beyond debate. Hooker deliberately skewed the sample to present more "normal" homosexuals, then advised them of the purpose of the study, allowing them to modify their responses and skew the results even more.
Logical inconsistency. Kinsey was indeed a trained SCIENTIST, but you wish to invalidate him for expanding his scope.
It's clear that you wish to invalidate Landess for "expanding his scope." Remember, Landess wasn't conducting research. He was simply pointing out the methodological flaws and the bias in Hooker's research. As I said, that can be done by anyone who paid attention in a freshman biology class.
By the way, some sort of freshman-level lab science course is required to obtain a bachelor's degree at most universities. So it's perfectly reasonable to assume that Landess had at least that level of rudimentary training in the scientific method. It does not "bury my argument."
[Herek has ...] (PERTINENT credentials that Landess can only dream about.)
Cameron and Reisman have similar credentials. So does Socarides at NARTH. They all have very good credentials. Even Cameron, the "disgraced researcher" who resigned from the APA, is still a licensed mental health professional and therefore has better credentials than Kinsey, a zoologist. Cameron, Reisman and Socarides are all licensed psychiatrists and psychologists.
And yet you want to dismiss them with a wave of your hand.
If a "gay" site does it, it's a "bad" thing; but when a group that YOU like does it, you defend them to the hilt.
madg, I'm simply pointing out the deep and profound level of your own hypocrisy. You bleat, whine and squeal about the bias of such organizations as FRC. But you cite sources like Herek and QRD, which are equally biased.
FRC and other organizations that oppose the gay normalization agenda certainly have an agenda of their own. And they look for evidence that supports that agenda. There's plenty of it to be had.
So why don't you make this easy and just post the compelling, valid, and peer-reviewed evidence that supports your assertion of sexual orientation as a pathology? Go ahead... make your case.
I already did that. I again direct your attention to Posts #113-120 on this thread, where I posted an abundance of compelling, valid and peer-reviewed research, by the most renowned names in the mental health professions ... none of whom were named Cameron.