Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
FA Cup - QFs ⚽ Europa - QFs ⚽ Champions League - QFs ⚽ Conference League QFs
ESS v PA · CAR v WB ·
Supercoach Round 3 SC Talk - Round 3 Trades ,//, AFL Fantasy Round 2 AF Talk - Round 3 AF Trades
Normal
Yeah, and you know a lot less about biopsych than you do about tax law. I actually know what I’m talking about here which is why I’d really love to see some sources.IT challenged isn’t an excuse, you can literally give authors, dates and publication. Easy.Mate, what about your Brain Institute citation requires analysis? It’s been well established that both play a role, you’re brandishing this article as if it’s something new or meaningful. If that’s the extent of your research into this then Jesus Christ. There’s nothing to analyse there.The issue is that you’re suggesting that all things are the same ratio of nature vs nurture, including orientation. That is not supported, and is a horrible misreading of the science. If you think that, then there’s no telling what else you may have misread.One of the major issues you actually get with twin studies and assessing level of genetic influence is that sexuality is a spectrum - self-reported sexuality is often a gigantic over-simplification. A lot of people like both, but to such varying degrees that they just settle one one and don’t explore that other side. A lot of people also assume they’re straight when they’re not (e.g. a good family friend came out as gay when he was about 50 and had been married and divorced - had a study been done before he came out he would have been considered straight).To give an example of how this can mess up these studies, women, generally, are under far less social pressure to be exclusively straight, and the rate of women who are not exclusively straight is much, much higher than for men. Men TEND to be more black and white in the orientation, but is that just because there’s so much pressure not to express non-straight orientations? I don’t know the answer to that, just trying to highlight a fundamental limitation to studying orientation like this.Incidentally, that’s exactly why we want you to cite your sources. People citing statistics they don’t realise they don’t understand is a huge problem - there’s a whole field dedicated to preventing things like this called science communication.Not that any of this is actually relevant unless you think homosexuality is something to be prevented, which apparently you do. Can you see why people call you a bigot?
Yeah, and you know a lot less about biopsych than you do about tax law. I actually know what I’m talking about here which is why I’d really love to see some sources.
IT challenged isn’t an excuse, you can literally give authors, dates and publication. Easy.
Mate, what about your Brain Institute citation requires analysis? It’s been well established that both play a role, you’re brandishing this article as if it’s something new or meaningful. If that’s the extent of your research into this then Jesus Christ. There’s nothing to analyse there.
The issue is that you’re suggesting that all things are the same ratio of nature vs nurture, including orientation. That is not supported, and is a horrible misreading of the science. If you think that, then there’s no telling what else you may have misread.
One of the major issues you actually get with twin studies and assessing level of genetic influence is that sexuality is a spectrum - self-reported sexuality is often a gigantic over-simplification. A lot of people like both, but to such varying degrees that they just settle one one and don’t explore that other side. A lot of people also assume they’re straight when they’re not (e.g. a good family friend came out as gay when he was about 50 and had been married and divorced - had a study been done before he came out he would have been considered straight).
To give an example of how this can mess up these studies, women, generally, are under far less social pressure to be exclusively straight, and the rate of women who are not exclusively straight is much, much higher than for men. Men TEND to be more black and white in the orientation, but is that just because there’s so much pressure not to express non-straight orientations? I don’t know the answer to that, just trying to highlight a fundamental limitation to studying orientation like this.
Incidentally, that’s exactly why we want you to cite your sources. People citing statistics they don’t realise they don’t understand is a huge problem - there’s a whole field dedicated to preventing things like this called science communication.
Not that any of this is actually relevant unless you think homosexuality is something to be prevented, which apparently you do. Can you see why people call you a bigot?
