4 ms·
First critique that immediately comes to mind is how the 1,077 homosexual men and 1,231 heterosexual men were selected. If Republicans have taught us anything,
by throws990 9y ago
First critique that immediately comes to mind is how the 1,077 homosexual men and 1,231 heterosexual men were selected. If Republicans have taught us anything, it's that self-reporting is not an accurate measure.
From the paper:
"classified men as homosexual based on both their self-reported sexual identity and sexual feelings"
Furthermore, how does this study explain sexual fluidity? IE: I liked kissing boys when I was 13 but I married a woman at 25?
- taneq 9y agoNext paper: Two genes in Chromosomes 13 and 14 linked to willingness to participate in scientific studies.
- itronitron 9y agosci-curious
- bonesss 9y agoLUG: Labrat Until Graduation
- MAGZine 9y agoIs this a troll? How do you intend to determine whether or not if someone is of an orientation EXCEPT for asking them? "I'm gay." "Well my 'science test' says that you're not." Nice.
- brucephillips 9y agoThe inability to avoid selection bias doesn't preclude selection bias. Not to say the above comment makes any sense...
- throws990 9y agoMore like: Researcher: "Excuse me sir, are you gay"? Senator Larry Craig: "No I just have a very wide stance in public bathrooms"
- dillondoyle 9y agoThe intro to the paper discuss male fluidity a bit (more Kinsey scale extremes for men, ie all gay all straight). I was wondering why it seems always focused on male sexuality and that was an interesting explanation.
- matthewmacleod 9y agoI mean, there's no real other way to classify sexuality beyond self-selection. There might be bias in it, but that's okay and can be accounted for. And it doesn't have to explain sexual fluidity. Human sexuality is pretty flexible by nature, but you could easily see that some genetic changes could lead to predisposition.