Yeah, but Herr Doktor Spitzer made phone calls! Did the APA make any phone calls? Hmmm?
Well, actually, if my idea was to see if there were some black people voted for Bush and I interviewed members of “African-Americans for Bush” and concluded that there were some black people who voted for Bush and that they shared common characteristics such as being happy about voting for the winning ticket, it would be impossible for me to have any sampling bias. Because I did not engage in any sampling. I interviewed members of specific population in order to find out more about that population. When I was studying psychology this was called an ethnology. Maybe it is called something different now but sampling bias is not something that could possibly invalidate the findings.
When science makes findings that invalidate our previously held ideas, we must be open minded enough to evaluate the data objectively and courageous enough to accept the truth and modify our thinking accordingly. This may be painful to some but this is how knowledge is increased and ignorance is defeated.
Conversely, being gay and in the field of psychology, I think I know a LOT about this. His methodology is flawed and shows obvious bias.
Give the life up? Please. If a member of Exodus starts hanging out in gay bars, how is that giving anything up. Strikes me more as trying to have ones cake and eat it as well.
Indeed; 'tis a pity this one researcher’s flawed sampling won’t be doing that any time soon. Like cold fusion in a mayonnaise jar, let’s get it peer reviewed and see those results consistently duplicated, ok?
:rolleyes:
Esprix
This is like the “is left-handness a choice?” debate. I’m sure yes, if he felt he had to a gay man could sleep with women, just like I could write with my write hand if need be- neither of us would feel very natural doing it though. I don’t understand why some people think that other would choose to be different from 85-90% of the population in either case(the stats are about 10% of people are gay too, right? Just like us lefties. Odd, that. )…people don’t normally go out of there way to make their lives difficult. Well, maybe being stubornly, pigheadly biggoted might make one’s life more difficult, so maybe they honestly do think others strive for the same.
A few comments
One, the paper as such is not yet published, above all in a peer-reviewed journal.
I’ll admit my own prejudices: I have a strong sensation that human pyschology is not yet a genuine science. It will be in the near future, but I think there are too many important lacunae, above all genetic.
That being said, I do think the paper addresses a real issue, although badly.
The issue is the idea of gayness versus straightness. Everything about biology, genetics, natural behaviour and human history leads me to expect (a) a range of behaviours rather than either or choices (b) a predominance of socially defined choices determined by the society at hand, © social prejudices will lead to substantial self-reporting errors if we are meaning to judge either or choices.
In the context of the report, we have to look at (a) other comparative reports, (b) the report itself, its methodology and conclusions. We don’t have those at hand.
I will state one thing, it strikes me that most “Queer” oriented research ** assumes ** western gender/sex roles as standard (not evil in and of itself but) which strikes me as problematic if we desire to draw species level conclusions.
In conclusion:
(a) It strikes me as expected, socio-biologicically speaking that some “gay” oriented people can “blow with the wind” – i.e. there will be a range of inclinations and some portion of that range will be able to pass between each black/white category w/ too much psych trouble.
(b) the range of (a) is hard to define objectively
© sexual choices remain highly determined by social situations and conclusions re in choice should be treated in that context.
As such, while on one hand statement in re impossible for gays to go back on decision to be “straight” are likely to be too black and white, so are the very same categories of straigh and gay likely to be inadequate in describing human sexual prefernces.
So, I fail to see that puddlegums argument is well supported in re sexual facists. On the other hand one should admit that that there are popular, although one understands the reaons, portrayals of gayness as an either or choice. (Of course I’re personally noted that this largely from the “other side” as it were)
In re puddlegum’s approach to the science. Well, frankly the methadology described does not strike me as particularly… rigorous and highly subject to selection bias. Your OP title, while sexy as it were, is inherently inaccurate. If there was a concencus of peer-reviewed literature over a representative period, we might say “science says” else we have but one researcher with what appears to be a somewhat limited survey. Sorry, not weighty in my mind.
C
<Hair Club Ad>And remember, he’s not just a member, he’s the goddamn poster boy.</Hair Club Ad>
And eating one’s cake and having it, too, seems to be a Religious Right modus operandi…
jayjay
Do Goth’s not choose their lifestyle? Do Nerds and Geeks choose their lifestyle? Do Poor people choose their lifestyle? Fat people?
Every lifestyle comes with social pressures associated with it. EVERY lifestyle. Whether it is choice or not. But no, generally people do not choose, they just fall in where they are accepted.
I find it hard to fathom why it is so hard for people to understand that there was no selection bias even possible in this study. While the methodology may seem strange for those used to other kinds of studies,it was the appropriate choice for the subject matter. I hope it will lead to more studies so that these phenomena may be better understood. However the knee jerk reactions of it being immoral and unprofessional may discourage further research, which would be shame because who knows how many people could use this kind of help.
You never have answered the question, “Should a mental health professional help a straight person turn gay?” It would be sexual fascism to deny such people this opportunity, would it not? After all, they are just as “unhappy” as the gays who want to turn straight, right?
I find it equally hard to fathom that someone could take one limited study’s results that fly in the face of over 35 years of research by innumerable experts and take it for gospel. And you say we’re being knee-jerk? :rolleyes: It seems to take very little for someone to rationalize the irrational, particularly when one can’t differentiate between sexual orientation and sexual behavior. If the “converted” gay men in this study were motivated to “be straight,” I’d say you’re just as equally motivated to believe whatever the hell you want to believe, overwhelming evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.
And even if this were a valid sampling, the percentage is so small as to be insignificant. I could easily have started a thread that said, “Can straights go gay? Science says yes,” and pointed you to the several studes regarding transient homosexuality in prison populations. After all, it’s not bias - it’s the perfect representative population for the study I’m conducting, n’est-ce pas? :rolleyes:
Esprix
My reaction is not that it was immoral. My reaction is that a “study” that elicits unconfirmed anecdotal reports from a predefined sub-population on undefined criteria cannot be considered science. It is politics. If my disapproval discourages others from doing the same, I am pleased to find that out. Science is a method. This report does not conform to that method.
Helping people reach desired emotional and social goals for their own personal betterment is a fine task, worthy of support. Psychology is a fine art when it stays within those parameters. Nothing I have said could discourage any person who wanted to alter his sexual preferences from that endeavor, or from helping a willing client in attempting it. But trying to build up a set of “scientific evidence” to bolster the desire of the treatment community to please some political point of view or religious stereotype is unprofessional, and calling it such is nothing to regret.
Amadeus is right, gays choose their lifestyle. They just don’t choose to be gay.
The problem is that the study has no way to verify that they are no longer gay. Sure they can convince themselves that they are not, but that means nothing. Really if you do the sex with only one person thing in marrage its easy to have wierd ideas about sex.
And I think the other problem is that you consider that “help”. Highly motivated people can make themselves believe anything they want, this is not news. I don’t see why you consider willful ignorance and delusion helpful.
Dr. Spitzer knew, or reasonably should have known, that his “research”, conducted as it was, would be interpreted by, at the least, the Religious Right as proof that homosexuality is generally curable. The manner in which he chose to announce his results indicates that his interest was not scientific, but rather political. In short, he was at the least carelessly ignorant as to the political ends to which his “research” would be used.
Dr. Spitzer’s characterization the ability of people to deny their sexual preferences as the ability to “change” it is highly questionable. That alone makes me distrust his evaluations; such language suggests at best a superficial understanding of human sexuality. And I can find no evidence at all that Dr. Spitzer has any specific credentials in sexology. His experience appears to lie in completely unrelated directions.
In my opinion, this study, and especially the way it was announced to the media, were carelessly irresponsible on his part. Scientists have a responsibility not to misrepresent truth which includes not stating the truth in a manner which the media are likely to misconstrue. I believe this is what Spitzer has, possibly unwittingly, done.
**Puddleglum wrote:
However the knee jerk reactions of it being immoral and unprofessional may discourage further research, which would be shame because who knows how many people could use this kind of help.**
And here, I think, we find the deeper undercurrent in this argument. Puddleglum, why are you so anxious to “help” gay people turn straight? What is so bad or horrible about being gay that requires intensive (and questionable) therapy to help people change?
Let’s turn the situation around abit. Let’s say you’re a psychologist and you have a patient, a black man who desparately wants to be white. He wants to take classes to emulate white speech and mannerisms, he’s thinking of using cosmetics and such to straighten out his hair and finally, he wants the extensive plastic surgery that would change his skin tone and facial features so that they’re anglo instead of african. Would you approve of this and make the arrangements for his transition to a white man?
Think of the advantages he’d have. Higher pay, a more prestigious postion in corporate America. No more hassles from the less educated police in his town. There would be advantages to doing this, but would you, as a psychologist recommend it?
So, why would you recommend that a gay person who’s unhappy being gay that he try to turn straight?
Wellnow…
I think the flaws in this study have been sufficiently pointed out already, but I’d like to poke around with one point that has not yet been sufficiently (I think) explored
[sup][sub](at least in this thread)[/sub][/sup]
Here’s an illustrative quote:
This is rather disingenuous. The study does not “condemn” gay people at all, only suggest that it may be possible for some people to choose between heterosexual behvior and homosexual behavior. How, precisely, does it follow from that fact that one sort of sexual behavior is Good[sup]TM[/sup], and all others are not? be sure to only use scientifically valid arguments and valid logic in your response…
(note: I am not trying to hijack this thread; I simply would like to know why and how this study, assuming broadly that its methodology is valid, has any sort of societal consequence at all.)
Which of course was my original point in response to the OP.
If I had a choice, I’d stick with being gay. While I can appreciate a good looking woman, I sure don’t want to go to bed with one.
And, for me, it wasn’t a choice.
Somebody already pointed out that two thirds of the participants in the study were chosen by groups who promote the idea that homosexuality is a curable disease. So think about it. These groups are financially dependant on propogating such a viewpoint. Now along comes a researcher who wants to do a study, so what are the conversion groups going to do? They’re going to send him a list of people who they recorded as successful converts. And that is selection bias.
Now, you ask why some people are so militantly set against the idea of conversion therapy. Three years ago, when the topic made headlines throughout the media, many people came forward to tell about how dangerous the therapy was, and how it had driven them to depression or even attempts at suicide. The pro-conversion groups have yet to provide any evidence to contradict this assertion. If the cure actually is causing problems, then people should take a stand against the implementation of converson therapy.
Really, I don’t care why someone is gay. Any sensible person who honors God and his fellow humans recognizes the sheer stupidity and moral turpitude of homophobia. If a gay person lives by the Golden Rule, why should I be so arrogant to judge a monogamous relationship between consenting adults as “immoral”?
A child who is raised by two gay parents who is taught to live by the Golden Rule, and to love his neighbors regardless of their race, sex, sexual orientation, etc. is being given excellent moral guidance. A child who is raised by the values of the “Christian” Coalition and Family Research Council is taught that egocentric sanctimony and slavery to fear is God’s will for humanity.