Maybe it’s just me, but almost all the really virulent gay-haters I’ve observed seem to hate them as a byproduct of religious dogma. At least in North America. In most cases, albeit not all, these people were raised from childhood to despise homosexuals.
I don’t see that being a repressed homosexual is the determinant in being a homophobe. The number one factor appears to be having certain religious beliefs.
Er…well, in some sense one is trying to guage the population with a sampling of the people, even though it isn’t a public opinion survey proper. But because the experiment is comparing two groups, one can use smaller experimental samples, it just means that if one does, then one needs a larger effect to establish statistical significance. IIRC, one gets close to the distribution one wants to establish at around 32 experimental observations, so in that sense 64 would be about minimumally acceptable. Regardless, one could do the same experiment with eight people, but to get significance one will need a much larger difference between the groups. With a few hundred observations a much smaller difference will be statistically significant. What the experiment really needs is replication and face validity; e.g., it’s questionable that the Index of Homophobia is up to the job.
Agreed that the study requires replication (although the Index of Homophobia is a different thing from this experiment). I was responding to the rather, shall we say, “challenging” tone of Dominic in dismissing both the study and any scientist who would dare release it. I note he has not returned to the thread.
Agreed. The index is separate; however, it’s just one of the things that has to be looked at to say the experiment is valid. It may be a poor measure, for example, that really hasn’t been fully validated.
Paul in Saudi also has a thread on this, so if this seems familiar, I’m ripping myself off from there:
The psychological theory usually bandied about to explain the “homophobe as repressed homosexual” is projection, a defense mechanism in which undesirable or unacceptable character traits one subconsciously see in oneself are instead projected on others. The unpleasant traits intrude on the person’s consciousness and cause the person psychological pain, and projecting those thoughts as being attributable to others instead lessens that pain. Since those characteristics are distressing and unacceptable, heaping shame and derision on others that the person has projected those characteristics onto spares them from some of the internal shame and derision they feel by directing it outwardly instead of inwardly.
It makes some degree of sense and I wouldn’t be surprised if at least some homophobia and gay-bashing occurs in response to painful and intrusive homsexual thoughts, but most likely some people denigrate homosexuality merely because they honestly believe their religion requires it, and other people just plain need someone to hate.
Nicely stated. Hopefully, the OP did not mean to suggest that there is only one explanation for some type of behavior.
I hadn’t returned to the thread because, to be frank, I forgot I posted in it and not for any other reason.
Well, for a start, has the supposed Index of Homophobia been properly validated? If, for instance, a man ranks a 10 on the scale and another ranks a 5, how can we objectively discern whether there is any real difference between the attitudes that the two men possess?
But the Index of Homophobia forms an integral part of the experiment.
We have a (seemingly) unreplicated experiment using the bare minimum group size and using a (possibly) faulty metric to determine levels of homophobia. Why should anyone take any notice of this experiment?
Well, because it represents an attempt to determine a richer understanding of a phenomenon. Now it falls to the rest of the curious community to go further, maybe with a larger sample, different metrics, or with the same parameters with a different group. That’s the way science works. Try this: the next time you see something written by a scientist (including Einstein) add this in your mind - “As far as we know.” Such is the way that advancement of our understanding of nature, human and other, works. xo, C.
Upon rereading the thread it comes across as if I’m being unnecessarily snarky. I’m sorry if this is the attitude other readers had of my posting style, too. It wasn’t my intention.