well, I've already been mudded troll once for this but I guess I can take the heat if people don't like what I have to say.
I agree with the parent post. Why is often times this idea that women 'must' do something other then what they want to do.
I know many women , my wife is one of them, several of her friends, my mother in-law etc. who the only reason they went to college was because it was what their friends were doing and it was a good way to meet a husband as far as they were concerned. The degree was just a back up plan. For people like that, why would they do something that takes a lot of work. Even that being said, I know women who have engineering degrees , who are more then happy being stay at home moms.
Regardless of how violently certain people want to get about that fact, modding people as trolls for just expressing the possibility. The fact remains there are many people, women included, who idealize and want, the nuclear family, with children, a husband that works and the wife staying at home taking care of the children.
If that is what they actually want, why try to force them. Maybe part of the reason there are fewer women in computer science is that it has gotten harder to graduate in and so they want to do something else that hard, because making money with their degree , just isn't what they value.
That's odd, I'd say about half the women that I know went to college looking to find a husband, not to make money.
As the adage goes they were looking to earn their 'Mrs.' degree.
There are still a lot of people out there who prefer, given the choice, the nuclear family model with 1 person, usually the male, working and the other , usually the female, staying home and taking care of children.
The social thing to do, if you want to stay with you peer group however is go to college now days. Often women are basically forced to go , because they are not yet married and your ability to feed yourself is in question without a degree of some kind nowadays.
I know women who have degrees in genetic engineering, education, nursing, music, all kinds of things, but the only real reason they went to school was that wanted to be around people their own age and hopefully find a mate. The career was a back up plan.
Which to me explains a lot. As CS and engineering programs have become more work , why do that if your hope , in the back of your mind you don't really ever have to use your degree.
Seems, like it should all be good so long as that is what people want to do, but I have met women who get really angry at other women for not having a profession ( as if staying at home and taking care of children isn't a profession worth having).
I've never really understood that myself. Given our choice, I would both hang out with my wife and our child 24 / 7. The only reason I spend 8-10 hours a day away from her and my child is that food and housing are also important to us. She feels the same way and doesn't want to work. So, I'm glad I earn enough money she doesn't have too.
why do you suppose the perception develops? Is there some natural mechanism in play that wants to categorize men and women into an 'ideal' and that 'ideal' gets assigned the small actual differences but to a higher degree?
I mean everyone knows there is a difference between what people do and what people are expected to do.
Often times there is often a difference between what people are expected to do and what people 'should' do from their given ethics world view as well.
The really interesting questing to me has always been, why don't people do what they believe they 'should' do.
Have you tried telling the people you don't want to talk to to go away? There are laws against creating a hostile work enviourment. If you want someone to back off, it should take nothing more then asking. If it does and you report it. it had better stop or you have a good case for a law suit that might make you more money then you'll earn at the company in the next 5 years or so.
If you were to remove the ability to copy write, or contractually prevent the copying of software. That would pretty much do it. I've always considered that source code should either be handled under trade secret law and or a specialized patent law, if it deserves it. Of coarse that still wouldn't prevent you from passing out binaries, which is the thing that kills the proprietary business model. It really won't be 'all that hard' it would literally take 'only' an act of congress. There are thousands of such acts a year so it is possible. I'm a fence sitter on this issue myself, but given your views you should donate to Stallman's GNU..
Do you really think so? you might be right, but just because something is immoral doesn't mean we always need to have laws against it.
I haven't ever read anything that says he believes in forcing people to use or write free software. Except of coarse some early stuff about copy write law for software being unnecessary, but it is one thing to force someone to use a specific business model, it is another if said business model is dependant on law and people with guns to ensure compliance with it, so I can kind of see his point there.
Stallman has been around since 1980. I hope there isn't that much to discuss. I mean seriously haven't we all heard it.
Let's talk about weather chevy or ford is better while we are at it.
My opinion is simple enough. I don't oppose his ideas. I don't see him forcing anyone else do to anything. So the compitition looks good to me. If you want to use a service provided , you use it under the circumstances provided or don't use it. That seems simple enough to me. Use free software, or open source software, or role you own.
Of coarse at the end of the day even if you could prove with beyond doubt that homosexuality was caused by a specific gene. It really makes no argument whatsoever for weather or not homosexuality is 'wrong' only weather or not the homosexual is responsible for their own actions.
If you could prove kleptomania was genetically caused it would not mean theft was any less wrong or that the social acceptance of theft should be elevated or that kleptomaniacs should be treated as a minority group. It only means we should take their accountability in perspective when trying to figure out how to deal with them as human persons.
So let's read the article you linked to shall we. 55% in one study 22% in another study. At least one counter study.
This does not show a cause. It shows a contributing factor that increases the chances of something happing.
Working from the data most favorable to your argument:
If 55% of people with identical genes, raised in independent environments exhibit homosexual behavior of both individuals that means the 45% of people with identical genes did had only one of the individuals exhibit homosexual behavior.
So is this a 'cause' or a 'contributing factor' we are looking at here.
I have to tell you, if you tell me 1 out of 4 times you let go of a ball it floats in mid air and the rest of time it falls to the ground. I'm just not ready to say letting go of the ball is a cause of it falling to the ground. To be a cause something has to happen nearly every time.
Even then letting go isn't the actual cause, the fact that a force called gravity is pulling down on the ball is the actual cause.
Alcoholism is a much better studied problem. Researchers are even starting to close in on specific genes that contribute to higher risks of addiction and other behaviors and effects those genes may have. Yet no one makes the claim your genes 'cause' you to be an alcoholic. Genes contribute, as does environment, as does personal choice ( if you believe it exists.)
I see no reason, given by any study to not assume that same is not true for homosexual behavior. In fact I'd say so far the studies support it. There is a genetic component, an environmental component and a degree of personal choice. The exact mix of each is probably debatable but that each does contribute seems, given the evidence highly unlikely. If the primary cause of homosexual behavior was genetic one would expect to see consistent numbers of 70% in twin studies. Thus genetics is a 'contributing factor', which is what I've been trying to argue.
A contributing factor does not justify the assertion that an individual cannot behave differently nor can it be used as an argument to justify they should not be expected too, because a contributing factor means the individual is most certainly as responsible for their actions as any other person is.
The only 'should' or 'should not' argument about such an expectation would then be a moral one and or socially based one which is beyond the scope of objective science.
Homosexual behavior opens one up to higher risk of various deseases. ( physically unhealthy) It tends to cause depression and feelings of isolation ( because you don't feel normal)(mentally unhealty) Certainly from the 'judeo-christian-islamic'and I suspect the same is true from a hindi-buddist prespective it distorts ones ability to precieve lagitimate sexuality as intended by god. (sprititually unhealty).
Or you could try presenting the objective evidence to someone about the difficulty and help them accomplish their goals , weather it is to remain homosexual or 'go straight' given they have the knowable objective facts and let them make an informed decision for themselves based on their own moral principles.
That would be legitimately attempting to act as an expert in a science rather then a pusher of a given philosophy.
"Since homosexuals aren't social pariahs anymore and since they are well accepted in many places there isn't anything to prevent one from leading a happy life."
By your logic, if this statement were not true then encouraging all homosexuals to 'go straight' would be the proper thing to do.
I fail to see how the 'right' thing to do can be dependant on it's acceptability.
If they are social pariahs anymore is a matter of opinion. If they can live a more fulfilled and happy life embracing homosexuality as opposed to rejecting it is also a matter of pure conjecture and opinion of coarse the idea that they won't is also a matter of conjecture and opinion. 'happy' is very hard to measure.
"A psychological disorder is just a disorder that makes it difficult or impossible for a person to function normally."
well, referencing back to the top of the thread. Unfortunately the word 'disorder' is not that well defined. First of all define 'normal' secondly define 'function'.
That is why I originally said pseudo-science is being engaged in here. There is no objective or testable definition of a disorder. So there is no amount of objective evidence that can prove or disprove that some set of exhibited symptoms are or are not a disorder.
"The effects of a predisposition for addiction is probably a couple of orders magnitude less than predisposition for sexual partners. Especially since sex is heavily linked to our survival as a species on a biological level (and no, it doesn't seem to matter what orientation!, curious no?), while alcohol addiction is not."
Do you mean probably as in you are guessing or as in it is statistically validated through objective scientific evidence? If so can you provide me some links to those studies?
So far as I know you are putting forward an untested hypothesis. One that I suppose 'could' be tested, but given that treatment programs of similar natures have about the same success rate for 'alcohol addiction' vs 'same sex addition', your hypothesis seems counter intuitive at least.
"there is no innate reason not to embrace your sexual" Explain to me, without reference to morality, what the innate reason is for not embracing ones alcoholism?
You are making the moral assumption that a person should act in a way that brings them a subjective advantage.
The reasons for rejecting or embracing homosexual behavior are similar. I readily admit they would be moral and based on a specific world view. I suggest the reasons you call 'innate' for rejecting alcoholism are exactly the same.
A person might say 'if you want to accomplish X your chances are raised by doing Y so you should do Y.' This can be objectively verified.
The assumption that a person should want to accomplish X requires a moral judgment. Should a person not want to kill themselves? Should a person want to have financial success? Should a person not want to destroy their relationships and body with alcohol? Should a person not have anal sex? Should a person not have sex with children? Should a person not have sex with animals? Should a person want to raise children with a member of opposite sex?
Those are all moral questions. I disagree that morality is subjective, but I'll stop now and wait for that 'innate' reason to overcome alcoholism.
why do we need it to be numerous and goo. All we need is a machine that can self replicate , uses glucose for energy and mal-functions in such a way that it destroys DNA when it comes in contact with it. It would have to be something unusual enough that the immune system can't recognize it. That should wipe out most animal life in short order. Assuming it is small enough to be excreted in perspiration and isn't destroyed by contact with the normal atmosphere or sunlight. Kind of a tall order, but if were just talking, bad things that MIGHT happen even though truly unlikely, why not.
Yes, but many people trying to quit is not ALL alcoholics. I have two grandparents who were sever alcoholics, drank every night until passed out drunk. They raised kids , they held down jobs and only in there old age did they really start to show signs of medical disabilities probably contributed too by alcohol.
There was of coarse a great deal of alcohol related abuse and neglect in their family and it detracted greatly from the welfare of themselves and their children.
My point however is that there is a significant difference between, 'surviving and contributing' and living a healthy happy life.
I think you would be hard pressed to prove out that being 'gay' actually is healthier then choosing to overcome those inclinations.
Especially considering that 'healthier' is an extremely complex thing and very difficult to measure objectively.
Personally I think people attracted to members of the same sex are done a disservice when professionals they trust tell them not to attempt to overcome their inclination and instead to embrace a way of life that will ultimately alienate them from having a normal healthy family.
The only reason I can find that doing so has become the norm is literally politics and nothing scientific.
If the case were otherwise someone needs to explain to me why they don't do the same for people who exhibit bestiality.
Sorry for the misspellings. I was in a hurry with the last post. Spelling has never been my strong suit. No offense intended.
As for the rest , I fail to see your objection. exactly what leaps of logic did I make?
The statement "god exists" is either true of false.
My 'definition' of sanity is no such thing. It is a practical example of what the word means when most people use it. I made no attempt at giving a definition.
As a matter of fact PSYCHOLOGIST make no attempt to give a definition and my above post was a somewhat 'tongue in cheek' example as to why.
Sorry if you missed the humor.
I'll refrain from returning your abusive language back to you, but you obviously missed the whole point of the post.
1) It was an attempt at showing something serious with a bit of light humor.
2) It demonstrates why psychologist stay away from the loaded term 'sanity'. It isn't simply a 'pass' for people who have religion of one kind or another. It is because the term, as commonly used is NOT a scientific term and is NOT easy to define in an objectively verifiable way. That of coarse is something you would know if you had ever taken an intro to pshyc because they always discuss that fact as one of the first things.
3) I did not 'bemoan' science I was simply pointing out that it has proper limits which it cannot move beyond.
I understand what you are saying and tend to agree which is why I took the trouble to discriminate between neuropsychology, and psychiatry as opposed to 'psychology'..
The simple fact is that there a lot of practitioners who push off their best guess as if it were absolute fact and the relative newness of this science leaves way to a great deal of abuse by disingenuous individuals. Like those who push "parental alienation syndrome" and present themselves as if they were medical experts in a court of law. Or people who claim that sex between parents and children is 'within the normal bounds of human sexual interaction' and should not be illegal.
That is why I hold there is a great deal of pseudo-science out there that passes for legitimate psychology. Until the greater psychological community comes up with decent and objective classification schemes for things like 'normal' and 'harmful' it will remain that way.
There is utterly no evidence that being gay is genetic or even inborn, there is some self-reported anctictodal evidence that suggest the possiblity.
There is evidence that certain genes riase your chances of exhibiting homosexual behaviour. Corilation does not prove causality.
However, it is fairly well established that certian genes make you much more likely to become an alcholic.
That is why I said there is greater evidence that alchoholism is genetic then homosexuality. All of the studies I'm aware of, and all of the studies that my aunt who is a pshychologist and homosexual rights advoctates can point out, demostrate a various cirmstances and genetics that cover 10% or so of the actual homosexual popuplation,suggusting contributary causes but not showing an actual likely cause. No study has found any single gene or characteristic shared by all homosexuals. Homosexuality does not appear to run in familes.
I would suggest you take the time to actually look into the data instead of simply listening to the popular opinion of those who engage is pseudoscience.
"Being gay doesn't really prevent you from being part of society if society doesn't actively hunt you down." -- being 'gay' prevents you from properly understanding normal human social interactions and the basic nature of the human person. Homosexual sex tends to be physically unhealthy.
BTW. The same techniques used to treat alcholism , have shown about the same level of success in correcting homosexual behaviour and allowing homosexuals who want to , to live normal heterosexual lives. So that stands as significant counter evidence , that it is a fixed state.
My aunt believes it is a fixed state for only about 20% of people who actually engage is homosexual behaviour, but i don't know where she gets that from exactly.
The problem comes when you fail step 2 and then going around claiming something is proven. For instance there is as much or more evidence that alcoholism is an inherited trait the sexual orientation, but there is no one running around telling people who have the genetic tendency towards alcoholism that they should just embrace the way they were born. As someone who has strong antidotal evidence that I have inherited the traits for alcoholism. I find the suggestion that someone cannot or should not rise above the inherited traits through self awareness, self control , and proper actions especially offensive.
You have stated the legal definition of sanity. ( responsible for and in control of ones actions).
You are right it is the only definition, which is exactly what I mean, there is no scientific definition of sanity. There is also , no test for weather or not a person is responsible for and in control of ones actions. That is something a jury has to decide.
Worse yet, the American Psychiatric Associationsociety puts out a book called the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).
It classifies everything as being a disorder or not being a disorder, but there is no test and no objective reason for the classification. It is basically voted on.
Coarse , a few, and the psychology professor who taught the master level class i took agreed with my statement. he told me psychology is more of a 'humanities' then a science. Some psychologist ( of the Jungian branch) don't even believe in objective evidence and therefore reject the scientific method.
"There's a huge difference between an emerging scientific field--where the subject matter is extremely complicated--and pseudoscience. You don't give physicists a bad rap because they once believed in aether, do you? "
I would if they were testifying in court that murders couldn't help there actions because of the the alignment of the stars or that homosexuals aren't doing anything wrong because they were born with the balance of humors that is responsible for thier inclination and actions and then attempted to see that assumption codified into civil law.
Everyday many 'experts' from the field of psychology ignore the complexity of the problem, overstate their data and assert that various moral or social constructs should change without having sufficient data to prove there case. That is pseudo-science.
Actually it is the athiest who are deluded. They do not believe in God. Who of coarse does exist;) To not acknowledge the existance of what is real is as much a delusion as the assumption of the existance of soemthing that is.
This is how it was explained to me once. Sanity is easy to define. We all know what it means. It is living in reality. For instance if a man says " i can stand in front of a moving train and it will pass through me and not kill me" and then goes and stands in front of a moving train which passes through him but does not kill him we say he is perhaps odd, or has an unusal ability, but he is most certianly sane.
On the other hand if he stands in front of the train and is splattered into a pancake then he was obviously insane.
The problem comes form a scientific presepctive when a matter of fact is not objectivly verifiable. Pshychology can tell you either the athiest or the diest in insane, but can't tell you which one until there is object proof that god either exists or does not exists.
well, it is natrual for all human being to seek to validate the assumptions they make about the world. Especially when those assumptions are ambigious. The real question becomes wheather or not the problem is in the data 'belief' or the 'hardware' brain. pshychology assumes that you should not fix the 'data'.
The real problem is psychology is not very scientific. They is no real definition of sane or insane. Nor a testable definition of order or disorder ( for that matter). The whole science is wish washy and based on subjective judgment as opposed to a first order science that basis it's classification scheme on measurable objective facts.
For instance, why is it homosexuals were ever classified as a having a disorder? Why is it that they are now classified as not having a disorder. How come no other sexual inclination a person might have , bestiality for instance, has not changed status from being a disorder?
The reason is simple. Weather or not something is considered a disorder or not is basically voted on ( majority opinion is so scientific after all).
There is no real definition of a disorder and there is no way of performing concrete test or deterring from data if a given set of symptoms constitute a disorder.
This is not to say there aren't consolers out there that help people and I'm am limiting myself comments to psychology formal here not to include psychiatry ( medical ) or neuropsychology.
But the broader psychological community regular engages in what is little more the pseudo-science.
yeah, but that kind of news I can find ANYWHERE, I wouldn't mind some discussions on tech involved in the elections, but on/. it is just a waist of my bandwidth because I have other ways of filtering for that news.
Slashdot Mirror
well, I've already been mudded troll once for this but I guess I can take the heat if people don't like what I have to say.
I agree with the parent post. Why is often times this idea that women 'must' do something other then what they want to do.
I know many women , my wife is one of them, several of her friends, my mother in-law etc. who the only reason they went to college was because it was what their friends were doing and it was a good way to meet a husband as far as they were concerned. The degree was just a back up plan. For people like that, why would they do something that takes a lot of work. Even that being said, I know women who have engineering degrees , who are more then happy being stay at home moms.
Regardless of how violently certain people want to get about that fact, modding people as trolls for just expressing the possibility. The fact remains there are many people, women included, who idealize and want, the nuclear family, with children, a husband that works and the wife staying at home taking care of the children.
If that is what they actually want, why try to force them.
Maybe part of the reason there are fewer women in computer science is that it has gotten harder to graduate in and so they want to do something else that hard, because making money with their degree , just isn't what they value.
That's odd, I'd say about half the women that I know went to college looking to find a husband, not to make money.
As the adage goes they were looking to earn their 'Mrs.' degree.
There are still a lot of people out there who prefer, given the choice, the nuclear family model with 1 person, usually the male, working and the other , usually the female, staying home and taking care of children.
The social thing to do, if you want to stay with you peer group however is go to college now days. Often women are basically forced to go , because they are not yet married and your ability to feed yourself is in question without a degree of some kind nowadays.
I know women who have degrees in genetic engineering, education, nursing, music, all kinds of things, but the only real reason they went to school was that wanted to be around people their own age and hopefully find a mate. The career was a back up plan.
Which to me explains a lot. As CS and engineering programs have become more work , why do that if your hope , in the back of your mind you don't really ever have to use your degree.
Seems, like it should all be good so long as that is what people want to do, but I have met women who get really angry at other women for not having a profession ( as if staying at home and taking care of children isn't a profession worth having).
I've never really understood that myself. Given our choice, I would both hang out with my wife and our child 24 / 7. The only reason I spend 8-10 hours a day away from her and my child is that food and housing are also important to us. She feels the same way and doesn't want to work. So, I'm glad I earn enough money she doesn't have too.
why do you suppose the perception develops?
Is there some natural mechanism in play that wants to categorize men and women into an 'ideal' and that 'ideal' gets assigned the small actual differences but to a higher degree?
I mean everyone knows there is a difference between what people do and what people are expected to do.
Often times there is often a difference between what people are expected to do and what people 'should' do from their given ethics world view as well.
The really interesting questing to me has always been, why don't people do what they believe they 'should' do.
Have you tried telling the people you don't want to talk to to go away?
There are laws against creating a hostile work enviourment. If you want someone to back off, it should take nothing more then asking. If it does and you report it. it had better stop or you have a good case for a law suit that might make you more money then you'll earn at the company in the next 5 years or so.
If you were to remove the ability to copy write, or contractually prevent the copying of software. That would pretty much do it. I've always considered that source code should either be handled under trade secret law and or a specialized patent law, if it deserves it. Of coarse that still wouldn't prevent you from passing out binaries, which is the thing that kills the proprietary business model. It really won't be 'all that hard' it would literally take 'only' an act of congress. There are thousands of such acts a year so it is possible. I'm a fence sitter on this issue myself, but given your views you should donate to Stallman's GNU..
Do you really think so? you might be right, but just because something is immoral doesn't mean we always need to have laws against it.
I haven't ever read anything that says he believes in forcing people to use or write free software. Except of coarse some early stuff about copy write law for software being unnecessary, but it is one thing to force someone to use a specific business model, it is another if said business model is dependant on law and people with guns to ensure compliance with it, so I can kind of see his point there.
Stallman has been around since 1980. I hope there isn't that much to discuss.
I mean seriously haven't we all heard it.
Let's talk about weather chevy or ford is better while we are at it.
My opinion is simple enough. I don't oppose his ideas. I don't see him forcing anyone else do to anything. So the compitition looks good to me. If you want to use a service provided , you use it under the circumstances provided or don't use it. That seems simple enough to me. Use free software, or open source software, or role you own.
Of coarse at the end of the day even if you could prove with beyond doubt that homosexuality was caused by a specific gene. It really makes no argument whatsoever for weather or not homosexuality is 'wrong' only weather or not the homosexual is responsible for their own actions.
If you could prove kleptomania was genetically caused it would not mean theft was any less wrong or that the social acceptance of theft should be elevated or that kleptomaniacs should be treated as a minority group. It only means we should take their accountability in perspective when trying to figure out how to deal with them as human persons.
So let's read the article you linked to shall we.
55% in one study 22% in another study. At least one counter study.
This does not show a cause. It shows a contributing factor that increases the chances of something happing.
Working from the data most favorable to your argument:
If 55% of people with identical genes, raised in independent environments exhibit homosexual behavior of both individuals that means the 45% of people with identical genes did had only one of the individuals exhibit homosexual behavior.
So is this a 'cause' or a 'contributing factor' we are looking at here.
I have to tell you, if you tell me 1 out of 4 times you let go of a ball it floats in mid air and the rest of time it falls to the ground. I'm just not ready to say letting go of the ball is a cause of it falling to the ground. To be a cause something has to happen nearly every time.
Even then letting go isn't the actual cause, the fact that a force called gravity is pulling down on the ball is the actual cause.
Alcoholism is a much better studied problem. Researchers are even starting to close in on specific genes that contribute to higher risks of addiction and other behaviors and effects those genes may have. Yet no one makes the claim your genes 'cause' you to be an alcoholic. Genes contribute, as does environment, as does personal choice ( if you believe it exists.)
I see no reason, given by any study to not assume that same is not true for homosexual behavior. In fact I'd say so far the studies support it. There is a genetic component, an environmental component and a degree of personal choice. The exact mix of each is probably debatable but that each does contribute seems, given the evidence highly unlikely. If the primary cause of homosexual behavior was genetic one would expect to see consistent numbers of 70% in twin studies. Thus genetics is a 'contributing factor', which is what I've been trying to argue.
A contributing factor does not justify the assertion that an individual cannot behave differently nor can it be used as an argument to justify they should not be expected too, because a contributing factor means the individual is most certainly as responsible for their actions as any other person is.
The only 'should' or 'should not' argument about such an expectation would then be a moral one and or socially based one which is beyond the scope of objective science.
I don't recall you asking me to prove it. I tried to read back through your posts and didn't see it. Sorry if I missed it.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez
This one sums it up pretty well.
I can go out and find more if you like.
Homosexual behavior opens one up to higher risk of various deseases. ( physically unhealthy)
It tends to cause depression and feelings of isolation ( because you don't feel normal)(mentally unhealty)
Certainly from the 'judeo-christian-islamic'and I suspect the same is true from a hindi-buddist prespective it distorts ones ability to precieve lagitimate sexuality as intended by god. (sprititually unhealty).
So what else do you want for evidence.
Or you could try presenting the objective evidence to someone about the difficulty and help them accomplish their goals , weather it is to remain homosexual or 'go straight' given they have the knowable objective facts and let them make an informed decision for themselves based on their own moral principles.
That would be legitimately attempting to act as an expert in a science rather then a pusher of a given philosophy.
"Since homosexuals aren't social pariahs anymore and since they are well accepted in many places there isn't anything to prevent one from leading a happy life."
By your logic, if this statement were not true then encouraging all homosexuals to 'go straight' would be the proper thing to do.
I fail to see how the 'right' thing to do can be dependant on it's acceptability.
If they are social pariahs anymore is a matter of opinion.
If they can live a more fulfilled and happy life embracing homosexuality as opposed to rejecting it is also a matter of pure conjecture and opinion of coarse the idea that they won't is also a matter of conjecture and opinion. 'happy' is very hard to measure.
"A psychological disorder is just a disorder that makes it difficult or impossible for a person to function normally."
well, referencing back to the top of the thread. Unfortunately the word 'disorder' is not that well defined.
First of all define 'normal' secondly define 'function'.
That is why I originally said pseudo-science is being engaged in here. There is no objective or testable definition of a disorder. So there is no amount of objective evidence that can prove or disprove that some set of exhibited symptoms are or are not a disorder.
"The effects of a predisposition for addiction is probably a couple of orders magnitude less than predisposition for sexual partners. Especially since sex is heavily linked to our survival as a species on a biological level (and no, it doesn't seem to matter what orientation!, curious no?), while alcohol addiction is not."
Do you mean probably as in you are guessing or as in it is statistically validated through objective scientific evidence? If so can you provide me some links to those studies?
So far as I know you are putting forward an untested hypothesis. One that I suppose 'could' be tested, but given that treatment programs of similar natures have about the same success rate for 'alcohol addiction' vs 'same sex addition', your hypothesis seems counter intuitive at least.
"there is no innate reason not to embrace your sexual"
Explain to me, without reference to morality, what the innate reason is for not embracing ones alcoholism?
You are making the moral assumption that a person should act in a way that brings them a subjective advantage.
The reasons for rejecting or embracing homosexual behavior are similar. I readily admit they would be moral and based on a specific world view. I suggest the reasons you call 'innate' for rejecting alcoholism are exactly the same.
A person might say 'if you want to accomplish X your chances are raised by doing Y so you should do Y.'
This can be objectively verified.
The assumption that a person should want to accomplish X requires a moral judgment.
Should a person not want to kill themselves?
Should a person want to have financial success?
Should a person not want to destroy their relationships and body with alcohol?
Should a person not have anal sex?
Should a person not have sex with children?
Should a person not have sex with animals?
Should a person want to raise children with a member of opposite sex?
Those are all moral questions. I disagree that morality is subjective, but I'll stop now and wait for that 'innate' reason to overcome alcoholism.
why do we need it to be numerous and goo. All we need is a machine that can self replicate , uses glucose for energy and mal-functions in such a way that it destroys DNA when it comes in contact with it. It would have to be something unusual enough that the immune system can't recognize it. That should wipe out most animal life in short order. Assuming it is small enough to be excreted in perspiration and isn't destroyed by contact with the normal atmosphere or sunlight. Kind of a tall order, but if were just talking, bad things that MIGHT happen even though truly unlikely, why not.
Yes, but many people trying to quit is not ALL alcoholics. I have two grandparents who were sever alcoholics, drank every night until passed out drunk.
They raised kids , they held down jobs and only in there old age did they really start to show signs of medical disabilities probably contributed too by alcohol.
There was of coarse a great deal of alcohol related abuse and neglect in their family and it detracted greatly from the welfare of themselves and their children.
My point however is that there is a significant difference between, 'surviving and contributing' and living a healthy happy life.
I think you would be hard pressed to prove out that being 'gay' actually is healthier then choosing to overcome those inclinations.
Especially considering that 'healthier' is an extremely complex thing and very difficult to measure objectively.
Personally I think people attracted to members of the same sex are done a disservice when professionals they trust tell them not to attempt to overcome their inclination and instead to embrace a way of life that will ultimately alienate them from having a normal healthy family.
The only reason I can find that doing so has become the norm is literally politics and nothing scientific.
If the case were otherwise someone needs to explain to me why they don't do the same for people who exhibit bestiality.
Sorry for the misspellings. I was in a hurry with the last post. Spelling has never been my strong suit. No offense intended.
As for the rest , I fail to see your objection. exactly what leaps of logic did I make?
The statement "god exists" is either true of false.
My 'definition' of sanity is no such thing. It is a practical example of what the word means when most people use it. I made no attempt at giving a definition.
As a matter of fact PSYCHOLOGIST make no attempt to give a definition and my above post was a somewhat 'tongue in cheek' example as to why.
Sorry if you missed the humor.
I'll refrain from returning your abusive language back to you, but you obviously missed the whole point of the post.
1) It was an attempt at showing something serious with a bit of light humor.
2) It demonstrates why psychologist stay away from the loaded term 'sanity'. It isn't simply a 'pass' for people who have religion of one kind or another. It is because the term, as commonly used is NOT a scientific term and is NOT easy to define in an objectively verifiable way. That of coarse is something you would know if you had ever taken an intro to pshyc because they always discuss that fact as one of the first things.
3) I did not 'bemoan' science I was simply pointing out that it has proper limits which it cannot move beyond.
I understand what you are saying and tend to agree which is why I took the trouble to discriminate between neuropsychology, and psychiatry as opposed to 'psychology'..
The simple fact is that there a lot of practitioners who push off their best guess as if it were absolute fact and the relative newness of this science leaves way to a great deal of abuse by disingenuous individuals. Like those who push "parental alienation syndrome" and present themselves as if they were medical experts in a court of law. Or people who claim that sex between parents and children is 'within the normal bounds of human sexual interaction' and should not be illegal.
That is why I hold there is a great deal of pseudo-science out there that passes for legitimate psychology. Until the greater psychological community comes up with decent and objective classification schemes for things like 'normal' and 'harmful' it will remain that way.
There is utterly no evidence that being gay is genetic or even inborn, there is some self-reported anctictodal evidence that suggest the possiblity.
There is evidence that certain genes riase your chances of exhibiting homosexual behaviour.
Corilation does not prove causality.
However, it is fairly well established that certian genes make you much more likely to become an alcholic.
That is why I said there is greater evidence that alchoholism is genetic then homosexuality. All of the studies I'm aware of, and all of the studies that my aunt who is a pshychologist and homosexual rights advoctates can point out, demostrate a various cirmstances and genetics that cover 10% or so of the actual homosexual popuplation,suggusting contributary causes but not showing an actual likely cause. No study has found any single gene or characteristic shared by all homosexuals. Homosexuality does not appear to run in familes.
I would suggest you take the time to actually look into the data instead of simply listening to the popular opinion of those who engage is pseudoscience.
"Being gay doesn't really prevent you from being part of society if society doesn't actively hunt you down."
-- being 'gay' prevents you from properly understanding normal human social interactions and the basic nature of the human person. Homosexual sex tends to be physically unhealthy.
BTW. The same techniques used to treat alcholism , have shown about the same level of success in correcting homosexual behaviour and allowing homosexuals who want to , to live normal heterosexual lives. So that stands as significant counter evidence , that it is a fixed state.
My aunt believes it is a fixed state for only about 20% of people who actually engage is homosexual behaviour, but i don't know where she gets that from exactly.
The problem comes when you fail step 2 and then going around claiming something is proven.
For instance there is as much or more evidence that alcoholism is an inherited trait the sexual orientation, but there is no one running around telling people who have the genetic tendency towards alcoholism that they should just embrace the way they were born. As someone who has strong antidotal evidence that I have inherited the traits for alcoholism. I find the suggestion that someone cannot or should not rise above the inherited traits through self awareness, self control , and proper actions especially offensive.
You have stated the legal definition of sanity. ( responsible for and in control of ones actions).
You are right it is the only definition, which is exactly what I mean, there is no scientific definition of sanity. There is also , no test for weather or not a person is responsible for and in control of ones actions. That is something a jury has to decide.
Worse yet, the American Psychiatric Associationsociety puts out a book called the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagnostic_and_Statistical_Manual_of_Mental_Disorders
It classifies everything as being a disorder or not being a disorder, but there is no test and no objective reason for the classification. It is basically voted on.
Coarse , a few, and the psychology professor who taught the master level class i took agreed with my statement.
he told me psychology is more of a 'humanities' then a science. Some psychologist ( of the Jungian branch) don't even believe in objective evidence and therefore reject the scientific method.
"There's a huge difference between an emerging scientific field--where the subject matter is extremely complicated--and pseudoscience. You don't give physicists a bad rap because they once believed in aether, do you? "
I would if they were testifying in court that murders couldn't help there actions because of the the alignment of the stars or that homosexuals aren't doing anything wrong because they were born with the balance of humors that is responsible for thier inclination and actions and then attempted to see that assumption codified into civil law.
Everyday many 'experts' from the field of psychology ignore the complexity of the problem, overstate their data and assert that various moral or social constructs should change without having sufficient data to prove there case. That is pseudo-science.
Actually it is the athiest who are deluded. They do not believe in God. Who of coarse does exist ;)
To not acknowledge the existance of what is real is as much a delusion as the assumption of the existance of soemthing that is.
This is how it was explained to me once.
Sanity is easy to define. We all know what it means. It is living in reality.
For instance if a man says " i can stand in front of a moving train and it will pass through me and not kill me"
and then goes and stands in front of a moving train which passes through him but does not kill him we say he is perhaps odd, or has an unusal ability, but he is most certianly sane.
On the other hand if he stands in front of the train and is splattered into a pancake then he was obviously insane.
The problem comes form a scientific presepctive when a matter of fact is not objectivly verifiable.
Pshychology can tell you either the athiest or the diest in insane, but can't tell you which one until there is object proof that god either exists or does not exists.
well, it is natrual for all human being to seek to validate the assumptions they make about the world.
Especially when those assumptions are ambigious. The real question becomes wheather or not the problem is in the data 'belief' or the 'hardware' brain. pshychology assumes that you should not fix the 'data'.
The real problem is psychology is not very scientific.
They is no real definition of sane or insane. Nor a testable definition of order or disorder ( for that matter).
The whole science is wish washy and based on subjective judgment as opposed to a first order science that basis it's classification scheme on measurable objective facts.
For instance, why is it homosexuals were ever classified as a having a disorder? Why is it that they are now classified as not having a disorder. How come no other sexual inclination a person might have , bestiality for instance, has not changed status from being a disorder?
The reason is simple. Weather or not something is considered a disorder or not is basically voted on ( majority opinion is so scientific after all).
There is no real definition of a disorder and there is no way of performing concrete test or deterring from data if a given set of symptoms constitute a disorder.
This is not to say there aren't consolers out there that help people and I'm am limiting myself comments to psychology formal here not to include psychiatry ( medical ) or neuropsychology.
But the broader psychological community regular engages in what is little more the pseudo-science.
yeah, but that kind of news I can find ANYWHERE, I wouldn't mind some discussions on tech involved in the elections, but on /. it is just a waist of my bandwidth because I have other ways of filtering for that news.