Sigh. I probably didn't phrase something clearly enough. Or perhaps we're not occupying the same universe. Since I was feeling free to impute sloppiness to Gall

Sigh. I probably didn't phrase something clearly enough. Or perhaps we're not occupying the same universe. Since I was feeling free to impute sloppiness to Gallup last night, I'll do my best to take your imputation of bias in stride. > This assumes that homosexuality is evenly distributed across age groups, something that is directly contradicted by the data. Your bias makes you think that this is caused by unacceptability of identification, but you would need to show that the change in acceptability has only affected younger generations. Exactly the opposite. It is possible that a significant fraction of the age correlation the poll observed might disappear if they controlled for different identification rates at different ages. They don't try to use the data to investigate the possibility that the rates young people guess and the rates old people guess are actually pretty similar (even if over-estimated!) relative to identification rates in their peer group. It directly assumes the rate (at least of identification) can differ. > This metaphor seems directly contradicted by... The change in ever cheating on a test over the last 70 years does not seem pretty profound to me. The point of the metaphor isn't a time-correlated rate change. It's that the narrative of the release (Americans don't know Americans) is trying to compare quantities that might be expected to differ (because they measure different things) and then making news out of the fact that they aren't the same. > It's clear that your personal bias is that there is an iceberg of non-identifying homosexuals who still feel oppressed. Even in SF, the number barely reaches 15% [1] I have no strong opinion on or suspicion about what portion of the population does or doesn't identify as gay. If anything, I think the entire project of ontologizing our sexuality is fraught.