Your mother really did make you a homosexual

Recent research supposedly shows that not only is male homosexuality a genetic predisposition, but that it's of benefit to the female relatives of the ... er, subject
http://www.slate.com/id/2194232/

[Aunty]

While interesting, it doesn't sound very plausible to me, but then I haven't read the original paper so its findings may have been misunderstood or misquoted in the article old fat guts has supplied. One thing it fails to do is to furnish a mechanism of how this (these) 'homosexual' genes increases female fertility and how they bring about same sex attraction when present in men. (Genes express proteins, what do the proteins do?) I also have no idea of the size of the cohort they used to develop their model, but to make it reliable it would need to be thousands.

By the way, Beryl, you do understand that the anomaly of homosexuality in a Darwinian world is not exactly a new problem, don't you? It's been around for decades luv.

[bao-bao]

I think it's already popped up on a past thread, but it's just cheesy enough to repeat:

One: "My mother made me a homosexual."

Two: "If I bought her the yarn, do you think she'd make me one, too?"

Sorry, should have but couldn't resist.

[kittyboy]

Here is the link to the original article. It was peer reviewed and so I suspect that the math and methods are sound. I do research on gays and lesbians in the workplace and have a background in research methods and statistics and it seems solid work - though I am not a mathmatical modeler.


http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi ... 002282#ack (http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0002282#ack)


IMHO - This kind of research is important and valuable. It is more research adding evidence that homosexuality is not a "choice" but a result of genetic factors. IMHO this kind of research helps in the realm of public opinion and in becoming more accepted by society. In general, people are more tolerant of homosexuals if they believe that it is not a life style choice.

It was peer reviewed and so I suspect that the math and methods are sound. I do research on gays and lesbians in the workplace and have a background in research methods and statistics and it seems solid work - though I am not a mathmatical modeler.

Pissyboy,

if you get paid for that "research" you are taking money under false pretences. The writers of the article relied on statistics compiled entirely by others, whom they listed as references; the first and primary reference was made on the basis of three selected samples - hardly the thousands that Aunty correctly pointed out would be needed, with descendants of those samples checked over a number of generations.

The "anomaly of homosexuality in a Darwinian world" which Aunty also referred to was mentioned once in passing near the beginning, but then ignored rather than addressed even though it totally negates the entire paper: "this is a possible тАШDarwinian paradoxтАЩ: since male homosexuals don't mate with the opposite sex, shouldn't any тАШgenes promoting homosexualityтАЩ have died out of the population by now?"

The article, even for me, was a clear case of baffling with bullshit and never using one word when a few hundred, a chart, some obscure formulae and a few tables would do instead. Rather similar to the purchaser of JB's publication, who gave his first aim as being "To increase the pagination of the magazine" rather than just to add some more pages.

Recommended reading for the confirmed insomniac only.

[kittyboy]

It was peer reviewed and so I suspect that the math and methods are sound. I do research on gays and lesbians in the workplace and have a background in research methods and statistics and it seems solid work - though I am not a mathmatical modeler.

Pissyboy,

if you get paid for that "research" you are taking money under false pretences. The writers of the article relied on statistics compiled entirely by others, whom they listed as references; the first and primary reference was made on the basis of three selected samples - hardly the thousands that Aunty correctly pointed out would be needed, with descendants of those samples checked over a number of generations.

The "anomaly of homosexuality in a Darwinian world" which Aunty also referred to was mentioned once in passing near the beginning, but then ignored rather than addressed even though it totally negates the entire paper: "this is a possible тАШDarwinian paradoxтАЩ: since male homosexuals don't mate with the opposite sex, shouldn't any тАШgenes promoting homosexualityтАЩ have died out of the population by now?"

The article, even for me, was a clear case of baffling with bullshit and never using one word when a few hundred, a chart, some obscure formulae and a few tables would do instead. Rather similar to the purchaser of JB's publication, who gave his first aim as being "To increase the pagination of the magazine" rather than just to add some more pages.

Recommended reading for the confirmed insomniac only.

Now remember GF - I want a point by point by point rebuttal of my comments.

First of all, using non-primary data is a perfectly acceptable research method. And the article was peer reviewed. So GF - you are just flat out wrong... Go ahead admit it.

Second - Don't rely on Aunty for your research design -You don't need samples of thousands to do good research. He does not know what he is talking about. As I mentioned I do research on gays and lesbians in the workplace. Studies with samples with as few as 70 and as many as several hundred have been published in my area.

Third - Just because you do not understand the math behind the study does not invalidate the study. That is why there is a peer review process... - I assume you know what that means?

Finally, This research though a small contribution contributes to the overall body of knowledge on gays and lesbians. Gay and lesbian research at the level of the social sciences and the hard sciences is becoming much more common and accepted. In general IMHO this is a very good trend. In the social sciences it begins to take away the stigma associated with gays and lesbians. At the level of the hard sciences we are beginning to see that homosexuality has a strong genetic component. Those findings go along way toward helping gays and lesbians argue for equal treatment as homosexality is similar to left-handedness or other genetic traits.


So if you would like to tell me about your research qualification, your Phd. is in what area? Unless it is in math or some modeling field I don't think you know what you are talking about.

Now - On with the rebuttal. Remember, I would like you to start by saying.... I know more about the authors of this paper becuase I have a PhD in.... and I am so smart becasuse....


There you go I have given you your opening statement.

First of all, using non-primary data is a perfectly acceptable research method. And the article was peer reviewed. So GF - you are just flat out wrong..

Flat out wrong about what? I pointed out that they had made no original research (not that this is unacceptable), that no research used covered a number of generations (which would be useful when studying inherited traits) and that some research samples were inadequate.


Second - Don't rely on Aunty for your research design -You don't need samples of thousands to do good research. He does not know what he is talking about. As I mentioned I do research on gays and lesbians in the workplace. Studies with samples with as few as 70 and as many as several hundred have been published in my area.

I didn't. "The first and primary reference was made on the basis of three selected samples ". As in one, two, three. Not "as few as 70 and as many as several hundred". A study being "published" has no bearing on its validity. Research for a paper whose central theme is genetic inheritance needs, obviously, to be made over more than one generation; none of the references were, relying on hearsay and recollection instead. This is not "a perfectly acceptable research method", neither is it acceptable to briefly mention then ignore any "paradox" that contradicts the conclusion.


Third - Just because you do not understand the math behind the study does not invalidate the study. That is why there is a peer review process... - I assume you know what that means?

I said it was "baffling with bullshit", not that I was baffled. The "math" are pointless if the original data is flawed, which does invalidate the study. A "peer review process" is a review by one's peers; it does not of itself validate a study, particularly when you see the same "peers" validating each others' research.


This research though a small contribution contributes to the overall body of knowledge on gays and lesbians. Gay and lesbian research at the level of the social sciences and the hard sciences is becoming much more common and accepted.

It contributes nothing unless the original data is sufficient and correct. It was not. Accepted by who - other gay and lesbian researchers (the "peers" who review each others' studies)?


In the social sciences it begins to take away the stigma associated with gays and lesbians. At the level of the hard sciences we are beginning to see that homosexuality has a strong genetic component. Those findings go along way toward helping gays and lesbians argue for equal treatment as homosexality is similar to left-handedness or other genetic traits.

What "stigma"? I have never encountered anything but "equal treatment", as I have said elsewhere, but neither have I had to look for some shield to hide behind as an excuse for my inadequacy.


So if you would like to tell me about your research qualification, your Phd. is in what area? Unless it is in math or some modeling field I don't think you know what you are talking about.

I made Airfix kits when young, does that count? If you think that you need a Phd in order to understand the relatively simple mathematical formulae used in these studies it says little for your educational system. Pissyboy, your background ("I do research on gays and lesbians in the workplace and have a background in research methods and statistics") and mine (my own business) are as dissimilar as it is humanly possible for them to be. Does that make one of us "smart" (something I have never claimed to be) and one of us someone who doesn't know what they are talking about? Along with many others you seem to be so immersed in your own search for "equal treatment" and the removal of any "stigma" that you have become as bigoted as those you set out to "argue" with, accepting anything that is by your "peers" and meets your needs and rejecting anything else. Sad.

[Brad the Impala]

It contributes nothing unless the original data is sufficient and correct. It was not. Accepted by who - other gay and lesbian researchers (the "peers" who review each others' studies)?


What "stigma"? I have never encountered anything but "equal treatment", as I have said elsewhere, but neither have I had to look for some shield to hide behind as an excuse for my inadequacy.



This seems to be a recurring theme. Because you have never suffered unequal treatment, you deduce from your statistical sample of one, that anyone who has suffered such treatment is inadequate in some way.

[kittyboy]

First of all, using non-primary data is a perfectly acceptable research method. And the article was peer reviewed. So GF - you are just flat out wrong..

Flat out wrong about what? I pointed out that they had made no original research (not that this is unacceptable), that no research used covered a number of generations (which would be useful when studying inherited traits) and that some research samples were inadequate.


Second - Don't rely on Aunty for your research design -You don't need samples of thousands to do good research. He does not know what he is talking about. As I mentioned I do research on gays and lesbians in the workplace. Studies with samples with as few as 70 and as many as several hundred have been published in my area.

I didn't. "The first and primary reference was made on the basis of three selected samples ". As in one, two, three. Not "as few as 70 and as many as several hundred". A study being "published" has no bearing on its validity. Research for a paper whose central theme is genetic inheritance needs, obviously, to be made over more than one generation; none of the references were, relying on hearsay and recollection instead. This is not "a perfectly acceptable research method", neither is it acceptable to briefly mention then ignore any "paradox" that contradicts the conclusion.


Third - Just because you do not understand the math behind the study does not invalidate the study. That is why there is a peer review process... - I assume you know what that means?

I said it was "baffling with bullshit", not that I was baffled. The "math" are pointless if the original data is flawed, which does invalidate the study. A "peer review process" is a review by one's peers; it does not of itself validate a study, particularly when you see the same "peers" validating each others' research.


This research though a small contribution contributes to the overall body of knowledge on gays and lesbians. Gay and lesbian research at the level of the social sciences and the hard sciences is becoming much more common and accepted.

It contributes nothing unless the original data is sufficient and correct. It was not. Accepted by who - other gay and lesbian researchers (the "peers" who review each others' studies)?


In the social sciences it begins to take away the stigma associated with gays and lesbians. At the level of the hard sciences we are beginning to see that homosexuality has a strong genetic component. Those findings go along way toward helping gays and lesbians argue for equal treatment as homosexality is similar to left-handedness or other genetic traits.

What "stigma"? I have never encountered anything but "equal treatment", as I have said elsewhere, but neither have I had to look for some shield to hide behind as an excuse for my inadequacy.


So if you would like to tell me about your research qualification, your Phd. is in what area? Unless it is in math or some modeling field I don't think you know what you are talking about.

I made Airfix kits when young, does that count? If you think that you need a Phd in order to understand the relatively simple mathematical formulae used in these studies it says little for your educational system. Pissyboy, your background ("I do research on gays and lesbians in the workplace and have a background in research methods and statistics") and mine (my own business) are as dissimilar as it is humanly possible for them to be. Does that make one of us "smart" (something I have never claimed to be) and one of us someone who doesn't know what they are talking about? Along with many others you seem to be so immersed in your own search for "equal treatment" and the removal of any "stigma" that you have become as bigoted as those you set out to "argue" with, accepting anything that is by your "peers" and meets your needs and rejecting anything else. Sad.





Again you are just flat out wrong. Applying mathematical modeling to the previous findings of a genetic link to homosexuality is original research. You may not understand the concept but that does not make it less valid for those who do understand the concept.


Again you are wrong тАУ the paper cites another study which used family histories from three independent sample. That was among a number of other citations in the paper which indicate a genetic influence on homosexuality. You mischaracterize the citations in the paper. Sad.

I am glad you were not baffled by the math. Damn you are smart. However, the peer review process does validate the study. It is a review by others who do similar work тАУ mathematical modeling I assume in this case тАУ and the process is designed to advance science by making sure work is original and sound.

Wrong again тАУ the paper contributes in a small way toward the understanding of homosexuality as a genetic trait. IMHO тАУ that is an important line of research.

You made Airfix kits as a youngster тАУ that does not make you a pilot тАУ just as having read and then having an opinion on a paper does not make you a qualified researcher.

And finally you are RIGHT (I suspect that must be satisfying that you are finally being validated) I am immersed in my own research. I love what I do.


I want my point by point rebuttal..... I want my rebuttal.

[Smiles]

" ... I want my point by point rebuttal..... I want my rebuttal ... "
Perhaps the Board will get lucky one day and Gone Fishing will change his debatin' technique.
The breathless quote from the lesser mortal(s) followed (inevitably) by a precise and devastating Cartesion/GF logic gets a little stale after the 8th or 9th quote/rebut and loses customers quickly exiting stage left to the safe haven of gogo bars and beach umbrellas (so shallow are we).

Frankly, at this point a good old " ... yer a goddam idiot, so shut the fuck up ... " would seem absolutely refreshing.

Cheers ...

[Bob]

Perhaps the Board will get lucky one day and Gone Fishing will change his debatin' technique.

I propose we simply give the old gals shotguns and let them duel it out from 5 paces. Even if they aim badly, the shotguns at 5 paces ought to quickly put us out of the misery of listening to the meaningless catfights.

[cottmann]

but of little practical meaning.

Plos Medicine published an article by John P. A. Ioannidis called "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False." [http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124&ct=1], which is interesting in the context of the paper under discussion here. Ionnidis wrote an earlier paper, "Contradicted and Initially Stronger Effects in Highly Cited Clinical Research," (Journal of the American Medical Association, 2005;294:218-228) showing that one-third of clinical studies are later contradicted by larger studies.

Frankly, at this point ...I didn't know my tongue-in-cheek posting would get such a deluge. I can only assume that any mention of mothers produces a Pavlovian response in Gone Fishing (who's on my {Ignore} lust) and one has to wonder at the cause. A poll perhaps - "Does Gone Fishing have a mother fixation"?

[Sen Yai]

.....produces a Pavlovian response in Gone Fishing (who's on my {Ignore} lust) and one has to wonder at the cause....

For some it's Pavlovian, in others it's Freudian!

: "Because you have never suffered unequal treatment, you deduce from your statistical sample of one, that anyone who has suffered such treatment is inadequate in some way."

Brad, a very fair point, and I apologise if I have offended those many who have suffered unfairly through no fault of their own. What I meant is that it some, but by no means all, use it as an excuse.

Pissyboy,

your comprehension of basic English is lacking.The "other study which used family histories from three independent samples" was of "selected" samples, as the researchers doubted the "honesty" of a random or volunteer sample. They were based on recollections of previous generations and relatives by those questioned, not on direct investigation, so were anecdotal, nothing more. It was also the only one of many references to have looked at any family histories at all. Hardly empirical data and, on its own, worthless.

There are obviously two problems, Pissyboy, and I can quite understand why you would not want to accept either of them.

Firstly, the research paper into hereditary genetics you refer to is based on data which is either flawed, insufficient, or both.

The "peer review" is only valid as long as it is independent: it was not. The "peers" carrying out the review of the paper are predominantly the same as those who wrote the very papers and provided the data used as base reference sources and who also "reviewed" each others' papers - not "mathematical modellers", as you "assume"; about as impartial as the studies into the effects of cigarette smoke sponsored by tobacco companies.

Hereditary data, of an inherited gene, needs to be made over a number of generations in a considerable number of families. As these studies have only been started relatively recently the data required to make even an initial assessment will not be available in our lifetimes.
Mathematically the data appears to have been selected to match the conclusions made, as do the formulae used, rather than the other way around. The formulae themselves are relatively simple, convoluted rather than confusing - possibly GCE 'O' level standard, but well below the standard required, for example, by 'A/O' level Additional Mathematics, let alone a PhD.

The paper's layout and method is similar to an intelligence analyst being given a conclusion and then collating and interpreting information to support it.

Secondly, even if the "Darwinian paradox" which the paper ignores was resolved and clear, irrefutable evidence for the "gay gene" was found tomorrow it would only make a marginal difference to the "stigma" of being homosexual or to the struggle "for equality". The core opposition to homosexuals comes from mainstream Christians and Muslims, whose beliefs are based exclusively on the written teachings of the Messiah and his prophets which are only open to minimal interpretation, if any, are paramount, and supersede any scientific hypotheses no matter how much evidence there may be to support them.

Their acceptance of homosexuality due to any evidence of the "gay gene", therefore, appears highly unlikely. Far more likely, if they were to accept proof of the "gay gene", is that it would be considered as an identifiable inherited defect which could and should be treated by gene therapy in the same way as other inherited diseases - hardly what you are hoping for.

If mathematical models and scientific evidence alone were sufficient then Richard Dawkins' Big Bang Theory and The God Delusion would have replaced the Bible and the Koran as the two most influential books in the world, and up to half the population of the US (depending on which statistics you believe) would not believe in creationism.

I doubt if you would agree, as the second problem not only invalidates your suggestion that your research is "an important line of research" making the chances of your achieving something constructive unlikely, at best, but it makes your job which you clearly enjoy ("I am immersed in my own research. I love what I do") appear rather pointless. Now that is sad.

Smiles,

... yer a goddam idiot, so shut the fuck up ...and take Homintern and Bob, with you!

[Smiles]

Only one quote! Seems to have gotten the message.

You're doing great kiddo. Keep it up :cheers: :cheers:

Cheers ...

[kittyboy]

[quote="Brad the Impala":1dq4qhbu]: "Because you have never suffered unequal treatment, you deduce from your statistical sample of one, that anyone who has suffered such treatment is inadequate in some way."

Brad, a very fair point, and I apologise if I have offended those many who have suffered unfairly through no fault of their own. What I meant is that it some, but by no means all, use it as an excuse.

Pissyboy,

your comprehension of basic English is lacking.The "other study which used family histories from three independent samples" was of "selected" samples, as the researchers doubted the "honesty" of a random or volunteer sample. They were based on recollections of previous generations and relatives by those questioned, not on direct investigation, so were anecdotal, nothing more. It was also the only one of many references to have looked at any family histories at all. Hardly empirical data and, on its own, worthless.

There are obviously two problems, Pissyboy, and I can quite understand why you would not want to accept either of them.

Firstly, the research paper into hereditary genetics you refer to is based on data which is either flawed, insufficient, or both.

The "peer review" is only valid as long as it is independent: it was not. The "peers" carrying out the review of the paper are predominantly the same as those who wrote the very papers and provided the data used as base reference sources and who also "reviewed" each others' papers - not "mathematical modellers", as you "assume"; about as impartial as the studies into the effects of cigarette smoke sponsored by tobacco companies.

Hereditary data, of an inherited gene, needs to be made over a number of generations in a considerable number of families. As these studies have only been started relatively recently the data required to make even an initial assessment will not be available in our lifetimes.
Mathematically the data appears to have been selected to match the conclusions made, as do the formulae used, rather than the other way around. The formulae themselves are relatively simple, convoluted rather than confusing - possibly GCE 'O' level standard, but well below the standard required, for example, by 'A/O' level Additional Mathematics, let alone a PhD.

The paper's layout and method is similar to an intelligence analyst being given a conclusion and then collating and interpreting information to support it.

Secondly, even if the "Darwinian paradox" which the paper ignores was resolved and clear, irrefutable evidence for the "gay gene" was found tomorrow it would only make a marginal difference to the "stigma" of being homosexual or to the struggle "for equality". The core opposition to homosexuals comes from mainstream Christians and Muslims, whose beliefs are based exclusively on the written teachings of the Messiah and his prophets which are only open to minimal interpretation, if any, are paramount, and supersede any scientific hypotheses no matter how much evidence there may be to support them.

Their acceptance of homosexuality due to any evidence of the "gay gene", therefore, appears highly unlikely. Far more likely, if they were to accept proof of the "gay gene", is that it would be considered as an identifiable inherited defect which could and should be treated by gene therapy in the same way as other inherited diseases - hardly what you are hoping for.

If mathematical models and scientific evidence alone were sufficient then Richard Dawkins' Big Bang Theory and The God Delusion would have replaced the Bible and the Koran as the two most influential books in the world, and up to half the population of the US (depending on which statistics you believe) would not believe in creationism.

I doubt if you would agree, as the second problem not only invalidates your suggestion that your research is "an important line of research" making the chances of your achieving something constructive unlikely, at best, but it makes your job which you clearly enjoy ("I am immersed in my own research. I love what I do") appear rather pointless. Now that is sad.

Smiles,

... yer a goddam idiot, so shut the fuck up ...and take Homintern and Bob, with you![/quote:1dq4qhbu]



I am so disapointed - well only slightly, you have given me your point by point rebutal, but it was incoherent, not well thought out and rambling. I suggest more editing before sending.



Sorry to say you again are wrong and even sadder is that you mislead yourself and others through mischaracterizing the citations. There are several citations which point to a genetic link to homosexuality. You ignore those other citation but the idea is convergent validity. If you have a number of studies pointing in the same direction you can say they are converging and together they offer evidence stronger than a single study. In total it appears that there is a genetic link to homosexuality. I find it strange that you argue against such a link. My reading of the data is that it is not flawed but your assessment of it is flawed. I find it amazing that someone with no advanced training in math, statistics, research methods, mathematical modeling, genetics, or the research on gays and lesbians in general feels they are qualified to make such grand judgments on the work of others. Damn sir, you are either a very smart and I mean a very smart man or you are delusional.

The peer review process does not work the way you describe. Sorry you are wrong again. The paper would have been reviewed by other mathematical modelers not people who whose work was citied by the paper тАУ unless they were mathematical modelers. PS тАУ the review process is double blind. So the analogy of cigarette company studies being published is again just false. Where do you get these silly ideas?

Mathematical modeling is a very valid tool. In this case it was used to see what kind of genetic scenario could explain why and or how a gay gene might work. This kind of work is done all the time. I had a friend who has a PhD in math and was doing mathematical modeling on the spread of HIV. She relied on data showing infection trends and did some modeling for a vaccine company. So sorry, you are just wrong again, when you imply that somehow these models are bad models if the rely on previous data as a starting point to model processes.


I guess it is a matter of opinion on what happens when and if a genetic link to homosexuality is found. As I have stated, research shows that people in general are more tolerant of gays and lesbians if they believe that it is a genetic predisposition and not a life style choice.



And finally, you are again wrong. I never stated that my research was important. Go back and look real hard now. Ok now that you have looked you can confirm that I said the paper that was posted was an important line of research.
Ah... I suspect that you will say I implied that my work was important. Well I can imply a number of things about you but lets stick to the facts shall we?


Well I guess I am gland that you feel my career is sad and pointless. It gives me strong validation to know that you find it to be so. Damn I thought I was on the wrong path. And to return the favor, what are you sir? A shopkeeper? Well good for you! If you find your calling keeping the books and toiling over the register then I salute you! And I hope that validates your decision.



I think one of your problems with trying to discuss these things is that you take things out of context, make grand conclusions based on very little knowledge. Again, If you have advanced training in math, modeling, statistics, genetics, research methods, etcтАж I might give you more credibility. But from what I can tell you are a merchant with no special training.


"Smiles, ... yer a goddam idiot, so shut the fuck up ...and take Homintern and Bob, with you!" Also, I am shocked and saddened that you need to resort to such language. Smiles, Homitern, and Bob. I don't think you are idiots. I think Homitern refters to himself as an old cunt... or is that someone else referring to Homitern? Well it gets all confusing. Anyway, saddened and shocked I am.

PS тАУ To all the business people out there, donтАЩt take my words to GF too seriously, I am just hoping to provoke another epileptic fit from the old sweatheart. And I mean sweatheart not sweetheart.

[Bob]

Smiles, Homitern, and Bob. I don't think you are idiots.

Well, thanks for that. But please don't take a poll on that about me as I'd vote that I'm an idiot - especially for actually reading some of these yawning catfights. You might give us all a break occasionally by not responding to "he who knows everything and can't say anything without using 1000+ words." It really is a bore.

[kittyboy]

Smiles, Homitern, and Bob. I don't think you are idiots.

Well, thanks for that. But please don't take a poll on that about me as I'd vote that I'm an idiot - especially for actually reading some of these yawning catfights. You might give us all a break occasionally by not responding to "he who knows everything and can't say anything without using 1000+ words." It really is a bore.

I appologize to you and the other board members. GF is so easy to provoke and he seems to know so little of what he is talkng about that I got carried away.

I would rate myself more of a moron than an idiot - as in it is moronic to get into a posting catfight with as you say some who knows everything and can't say anything without using 1000+ words.

I will take a couple days off then provoke GF again :)

It is just too easy and it is slow at work.

[Smiles]

" ... please don't take a poll on that about me as I'd vote that I'm an idiot - especially for actually reading some of these yawning catfights ... "
Oh bite me Bob ... you love it, I know you do. 'Disingenuousness' is hardly your greatest ass-ett ... unlike Herr Homintern who's best ass-etts sit on his face (where we'd all like to be, doncha know) for only a few baht and zero off fees.
Just think of a good catfight here on Sawatdee as good practice for your pathetic upcoming Supreme Court brief on Lesbian Free-Our-Clitoris's constitutional rights case next week in DC. Judge Scalia as swing vote! :blackeye:

Cheers ....

Smiles, sorry to disappoint you, but apparently Pissyboy only understands items presented in bite-sized chunks.


There are several citations which point to a genetic link to homosexuality. You ignore those other citation ...

"point" is a long way from "show", as any statistician or researcher worth anything (not that there appear to be many in this field) will tell you.


... it appears that there is a genetic link to homosexuality. I find it strange that you argue against such a link.

I did not "argue against" there appearing to be "such a link"; I pointed out that none had yet been found, which is totally different.


I find it amazing that someone with no advanced training in math, statistics, research methods, mathematical modeling, genetics, or the research on gays and lesbians in general feels they are qualified to make such grand judgments on the work of others. Damn sir, you are either a very smart and I mean a very smart man or you are delusional.

I find it amazing that you know what advanced training, etc, I have in any field. You are either very smart, which you rather arrogantly infer you are, or you are clairvoyant.


The paper would have been reviewed by other mathematical modelers not people who whose work was citied by the paper тАУ unless they were mathematical modelers.

Read the list of references. They were.


... the analogy of cigarette company studies being published is again just false.

It was not an analogy. I said it was "about as impartial".


you are just wrong again, when you imply that somehow these models are bad models if the rely on previous data as a starting point to model processes.

I did not "imply " anything of the sort. My point was that "the data appears to have been selected to match the conclusions made, as do the formulae used, rather than the other way around."


As I have stated, research shows that people in general are more tolerant of gays and lesbians if they believe that it is a genetic predisposition and not a life style choice.

If by "people in general" you are excluding "the core opposition to homosexuals ... mainstream Christians and Muslims" you may well be right. Why not give some references showing how these two groups have "become more tolerant of gays and lesbians" as a result of this research?


Well I can imply a number of things about you but lets stick to the facts shall we?

Lets.


Well I guess I am gland that you feel my career is sad and pointless.

I did not say that either. What I actually said was that the second of the two problems appeared to make it pointless.


And to return the favor, what are you sir? A shopkeeper? Well good for you! If you find your calling keeping the books and toiling over the register then I salute you! ...If you have advanced training in math, modeling, statistics, genetics, research methods, etcтАж I might give you more credibility. But from what I can tell you are a merchant with no special training.

You can tell very little. I am not, nor have I ever been, "a shopkeeper", "a merchant" or in trade of any description, nor, statistically (!) am I "old" (unless you call nearly two decades off conventional retiring age old). As I said in Anonymity, Posting Guidelines, I give "credibility" to posts based on their content, not what the poster claims to be.

Rather than give Smiles another fit, how about limiting your reply to two points which, for someone with your "advanced training", etc, should be relatively simple and may demonstrate just how "smart" you really are:

Specific references showing how mainstream Christians and Muslims (the identifiable majority of "people in general" opposed to homosexuality) "are more tolerant of gays and lesbians if they believe that it is a genetic predisposition and not a life style choice".

The solution to the "Darwinian paradox" of the "gay gene", which the particular paper you are supporting has left unanswered and which negates its findings.

[Bob]

Oh bite me Bob ...

How very dare you! Lol. Pot's got a chance but I'm not about to bite a Canadian wearing swampers (regardless if your legs are cute.....)!



Just think of a good catfight here on Sawatdee as good practice for your pathetic upcoming Supreme Court brief on Lesbian Free-Our-Clitoris's constitutional rights case next week in DC. Judge Scalia as swing vote!


Ya know, I think it was Scalia's pubic hair on Thomas' coca cola can! God would I pay heavy to prove that. Of course, I'd pay even more if it turned out to be Cheney's!

[Wesley]

[quote="Brad the Impala":8a6aiigo]: "Because you have never suffered unequal treatment, you deduce from your statistical sample of one, that anyone who has suffered such treatment is inadequate in some way."

Brad, a very fair point, and I apologise if I have offended those many who have suffered unfairly through no fault of their own. What I meant is that it some, but by no means all, use it as an excuse.

Pissyboy,

your comprehension of basic English is lacking.The "other study which used family histories from three independent samples" was of "selected" samples, as the researchers doubted the "honesty" of a random or volunteer sample. They were based on recollections of previous generations and relatives by those questioned, not on direct investigation, so were anecdotal, nothing more. It was also the only one of many references to have looked at any family histories at all. Hardly empirical data and, on its own, worthless.

There are obviously two problems, Pissyboy, and I can quite understand why you would not want to accept either of them.

Firstly, the research paper into hereditary genetics you refer to is based on data which is either flawed, insufficient, or both.

The "peer review" is only valid as long as it is independent: it was not. The "peers" carrying out the review of the paper are predominantly the same as those who wrote the very papers and provided the data used as base reference sources and who also "reviewed" each others' papers - not "mathematical modellers", as you "assume"; about as impartial as the studies into the effects of cigarette smoke sponsored by tobacco companies.

Hereditary data, of an inherited gene, needs to be made over a number of generations in a considerable number of families. As these studies have only been started relatively recently the data required to make even an initial assessment will not be available in our lifetimes.
Mathematically the data appears to have been selected to match the conclusions made, as do the formulae used, rather than the other way around. The formulae themselves are relatively simple, convoluted rather than confusing - possibly GCE 'O' level standard, but well below the standard required, for example, by 'A/O' level Additional Mathematics, let alone a PhD.

The paper's layout and method is similar to an intelligence analyst being given a conclusion and then collating and interpreting information to support it.

Secondly, even if the "Darwinian paradox" which the paper ignores was resolved and clear, irrefutable evidence for the "gay gene" was found tomorrow it would only make a marginal difference to the "stigma" of being homosexual or to the struggle "for equality". The core opposition to homosexuals comes from mainstream Christians and Muslims, whose beliefs are based exclusively on the written teachings of the Messiah and his prophets which are only open to minimal interpretation, if any, are paramount, and supersede any scientific hypotheses no matter how much evidence there may be to support them.

Their acceptance of homosexuality due to any evidence of the "gay gene", therefore, appears highly unlikely. Far more likely, if they were to accept proof of the "gay gene", is that it would be considered as an identifiable inherited defect which could and should be treated by gene therapy in the same way as other inherited diseases - hardly what you are hoping for.

If mathematical models and scientific evidence alone were sufficient then Richard Dawkins' Big Bang Theory and The God Delusion would have replaced the Bible and the Koran as the two most influential books in the world, and up to half the population of the US (depending on which statistics you believe) would not believe in creationism.

I doubt if you would agree, as the second problem not only invalidates your suggestion that your research is "an important line of research" making the chances of your achieving something constructive unlikely, at best, but it makes your job which you clearly enjoy ("I am immersed in my own research. I love what I do") appear rather pointless. Now that is sad.

Smiles,

... yer a goddam idiot, so shut the fuck up ...and take Homintern and Bob, with you!



I am so disapointed - well only slightly, you have given me your point by point rebutal, but it was incoherent, not well thought out and rambling. I suggest more editing before sending.



Sorry to say you again are wrong and even sadder is that you mislead yourself and others through mischaracterizing the citations. There are several citations which point to a genetic link to homosexuality. You ignore those other citation but the idea is convergent validity. If you have a number of studies pointing in the same direction you can say they are converging and together they offer evidence stronger than a single study. In total it appears that there is a genetic link to homosexuality. I find it strange that you argue against such a link. My reading of the data is that it is not flawed but your assessment of it is flawed. I find it amazing that someone with no advanced training in math, statistics, research methods, mathematical modeling, genetics, or the research on gays and lesbians in general feels they are qualified to make such grand judgments on the work of others. Damn sir, you are either a very smart and I mean a very smart man or you are delusional.

The peer review process does not work the way you describe. Sorry you are wrong again. The paper would have been reviewed by other mathematical modelers not people who whose work was citied by the paper тАУ unless they were mathematical modelers. PS тАУ the review process is double blind. So the analogy of cigarette company studies being published is again just false. Where do you get these silly ideas?

Mathematical modeling is a very valid tool. In this case it was used to see what kind of genetic scenario could explain why and or how a gay gene might work. This kind of work is done all the time. I had a friend who has a PhD in math and was doing mathematical modeling on the spread of HIV. She relied on data showing infection trends and did some modeling for a vaccine company. So sorry, you are just wrong again, when you imply that somehow these models are bad models if the rely on previous data as a starting point to model processes.


I guess it is a matter of opinion on what happens when and if a genetic link to homosexuality is found. As I have stated, research shows that people in general are more tolerant of gays and lesbians if they believe that it is a genetic predisposition and not a life style choice.



And finally, you are again wrong. I never stated that my research was important. Go back and look real hard now. Ok now that you have looked you can confirm that I said the paper that was posted was an important line of research.
Ah... I suspect that you will say I implied that my work was important. Well I can imply a number of things about you but lets stick to the facts shall we?


Well I guess I am gland that you feel my career is sad and pointless. It gives me strong validation to know that you find it to be so. Damn I thought I was on the wrong path. And to return the favor, what are you sir? A shopkeeper? Well good for you! If you find your calling keeping the books and toiling over the register then I salute you! And I hope that validates your decision.



I think one of your problems with trying to discuss these things is that you take things out of context, make grand conclusions based on very little knowledge. Again, If you have advanced training in math, modeling, statistics, genetics, research methods, etcтАж I might give you more credibility. But from what I can tell you are a merchant with no special training.


"Smiles, ... yer a goddam idiot, so shut the fuck up ...and take Homintern and Bob, with you!" Also, I am shocked and saddened that you need to resort to such language. Smiles, Homitern, and Bob. I don't think you are idiots. I think Homitern refters to himself as an old cunt... or is that someone else referring to Homitern? Well it gets all confusing. Anyway, saddened and shocked I am.

PS тАУ To all the business people out there, donтАЩt take my words to GF too seriously, I am just hoping to provoke another epileptic fit from the old sweatheart. And I mean sweatheart not sweetheart.[/quote:8a6aiigo]


God that was long, When I see them that long I tend to scim the post. Hommi has a direct to the [point way of getting to you, mind not all of us are so articulate. But Obviously it was meant for people with a doctorate in some kind. I have a BS in BS if that will help.

Wes

God that was long, When I see them that long I tend to scim the post.

Agreed - so why repeat it all??? And the BF has enough BS already!

[kittyboy]

Oh GF - You silly silly fellow. You are just so wrong again. That is not how the peer review process and the citation process work. You really should stick to making very detailed posting about things which you have knowledge.


Oh you silly silly man.

That is not how the peer review process and the citation process work.

I think you mean "how the peer review process and the citation process should work".

And your reply to

"Specific references showing how mainstream Christians and Muslims (the identifiable majority of "people in general" opposed to homosexuality) "are more tolerant of gays and lesbians if they believe that it is a genetic predisposition and not a life style choice".

The solution to the "Darwinian paradox" of the "gay gene", which the particular paper you are supporting has left unanswered and which negates its findings"

which should be no problem for someone who has "advanced training in math, modeling, statistics, genetics, research methods, etc" and your "research qualifications", and you claim to already know the answer to the first point?


Cottman,

Yours is a very valid point. I contacted a cousin of mine who is far younger, more attractive and smarter than me (not difficult), who told me that she likened the current popularity of mathematical modelling to alchemy (turning base metal into gold, for the non-English speakers) and that with the aid of a computer and someone else's research you could produce a paper proving virtually anything with almost no effort at all. She was a research scientist and the director of a national Brain Donor Programme studying the connection between Alzheimer's and genetics and, although she produced research that indicated a link, she also produced two "spoof" papers from the same data which genuinely proved that there was a link not only with religion (quite possible, apparently, due to diet and mental exercise required by some religions) but also with star signs and height!

I asked her if she had any spare samples, as some here seem in need, but unfortunately she was unable to help.

[kittyboy]

Oh GF -

You are still a silly silly man and again wrong.

You really should stick to your shopkeeping.

Is that a "I can't reply because even though I claim to be smart and know everything about this subject and its what I get paid to do I actually know sweet FA so I will just call you names instead" then?

Piss and wind, Pissyboy, piss and wind - how appropriate.


أحْمَق خدا حاف

[kittyboy]

No - It is a fools game to get into a posting battle with someone who seems to have an opinion on everything but knows nothing.

You are still wrong - as you have admitted you know nothing of the process you describe.

You are a silly silly man.


Now watch the pavlovian response.... the dog salivates... GF must post a multi-tiered rebuttal.

[Aunty]

Thanks Cottman for your post. I was going to try and find some similar papers myself, but then decided I couldn't be bothered wasting my time for the very reasons demonstrated so clearly subsequent to your post. Evidently the take home message of the papers you have drawn our attention to has gone straight over the head of one of the strident foot stomping contributors to this thread!

As a working scientist who has published original research articles in international peer reviewed scientific journals; as a working scientist who has peer reviewed the manuscripts of other medical scientists; as a working scientist who has successfully written and been awarded competitive research grants by my peers (after my research proposals have been peer reviewed and judged for their merit); and as a working scientist etc etc etc., I can tell you and the other readers of this thread quite unequivocally that there is, out of Gone Fishing and Kittyboy, only one who actually does know something of what they are talking about when it comes to the research merits of the original paper under discussion, and the peer review process itself. And it ain't pussy!

I'm not going to argue with you pussyboy. (What would be the point!?) You don't know what you are talking about, and I am in the position to know that and to know why. You strike me as a strident, silly, uptight little queen stomping her immature foot while holding her breath. I can't be bothered with you, I have no reason to. Go away.

[kittyboy]

Aunty - Naw - I think I will stick around. If I irritate you are GF I have done a good job of posting on this board.
I have also gone through the peer review process so I think I will rely on my experiences with the process and not the musings of a shopkeeper.

:)

Aunty - Naw - I think I will stick around.Is naughty Tourette trying to throw in some of her contributions from Nuclear Physics for the Under Fives, the journal that is her life's work? Or perhaps she is citing her important work dissecting amoebae, where her brain is most comfortable, dealing with other single-cell organisms? I have Aunty on {Ignore} from time to time, but she's such a predictable child these things can be readily inferred

[Smiles]

" ... As a working scientist who has published original research articles in international peer reviewed scientific journals; as a working scientist who has peer reviewed the manuscripts of other medical scientists; as a working scientist who has successfully written and been awarded competitive research grants by my peers (after my research proposals have been peer reviewed and judged for their merit); and as a working scientist etc etc etc., I can tell you and the other readers of this thread quite unequivocally ... it ain't pussy! ... "
Herr Hominten, precisely because you have Aunty on ignore, I will quote this delicious little gem of bloated self-opinion. It's a classic, so I just knew you'd be interested.

Cheers and no need for thanks ...

[Wesley]

I rarely get involved in all the psychological entities that often invade this forum, I don't think I have ever seen anyone toot their horn quiet so loudly as My dear Aunty has on this occasion. If it were not such a rhetorical put on I would have been impressed... I think. I am sure not even Mark Twain would attempt to comment successfully on this one.

Wesley

[Aunty]

Coming from you three, particularly Beryl and Smiles, that's real rich. Talk about the ugly kettles calling the pot black!

If stating my professional credentials in passing an informed judgment on this thread is tooting my own horn, so be it. I'll toot away!

Unlike two of you in particualr, I'm not some clapped out old thing that's failed and dropped out to Thailand becuase I can't hack it.

[Wesley]

Well honestly, Aunty, you repeated your credentials so many times it became an obvious toot. had you reflected you credentials once for the record then commented on the subject matter. I for one would would have said nothing. Go back and look at it again. maybe you will see my insight in this one.

Wes

[Bob]

.... I'm not some clapped out old thing that's failed and dropped out to Thailand becuase I can't hack it.

No, but perhaps some clapped out old thing that has provided a fair number of internet messages that would seem to indicate that mental health ain't what it's all cracked up to be?
Even Darwin would question his theory of evolution if he happened to read this claptrap.

[Brad the Impala]

Coming from you three, particularly Beryl and Smiles, that's real rich. Talk about the ugly kettles calling the pot black!

If stating my professional credentials in passing an informed judgment on this thread is tooting my own horn, so be it. I'll toot away!

Unlike two of you in particualr, I'm not some clapped out old thing that's failed and dropped out to Thailand becuase I can't hack it.


Unlike a certain Aunt who spends her time scouring the internet for Asian porn and Asian message boards, because she can't actually make it to Thailand.

Yours

Trailer Trash

[Aunty]

Oh yes, here's all my usual admirers singing a chorus of the disaffected! How very predictable. Perhaps I should give you all new names as a clique of geriatric nancy mutant nut-jobs. Bitter. Jealous. Resentful. Spite and Dummy. You can take your pick as to who's who. Don't all fight among yourselves now, will ya?

You are ALL perverted alcoholic garbage as far as I am concerned, flying half way around the world to exploit the poverty of young Thai men for your own sexual gratification, it's disgusting. You should be ashamed of yourselves.

[Aunty]

Coming from you three, particularly Beryl and Smiles, that's real rich. Talk about the ugly kettles calling the pot black!

If stating my professional credentials in passing an informed judgment on this thread is tooting my own horn, so be it. I'll toot away!

Unlike two of you in particualr, I'm not some clapped out old thing that's failed and dropped out to Thailand becuase I can't hack it.


Unlike a certain Aunt who spends her time scouring the internet for Asian porn and Asian message boards, because she can't actually make it to Thailand.

Yours

Trailer Trash

Thanks for that, Bradely, I'll make a mental note to not post any more pictures on Ting Tongs, just for you.

Why do you bother responding Aunty? You're just giving them more ammunition!

[kittyboy]

I think Homitern is correct. Anunty's outburtst was Tourettes pure and simple. Since it surely was an uncontrollable outburst it should be forgiven.

As I am no more a research scientist than I am a shopkeeper (not that I see anything wrong with shopkeepers) anyone with even a little knowledge of research science, etc, would make a change from Pissyboy, who has shown that when it comes down to producing the goods rather than just talking about them (a good shopkeeper's metaphor!) he is simply unable to perform.

Evidently another member of the Bear Grylls fan club, it looks as if his "research on gays and lesbians in the workplace" is limited to watching who goes into the toilets with whom, that his "background in research methods and statistics" consists of where to move his bucket and mop to get in a better position to count them, and that any "peer review process" he has "gone through" was being told by his co-workers that toilet No 4 was clean, but No 5 needed a scrub out.

Maybe he was even so good that he was promoted to Tea Boy, where he could overhear what was said and remember a few catchphrases from those he so desperately aspired to be.

Goodbye, Pissyboy, until you come up with the goods.

[kittyboy]

As I am no more a research scientist than I am a shopkeeper (not that I see anything wrong with shopkeepers) anyone with even a little knowledge of research science, etc, would make a change from Pissyboy, who has shown that when it comes down to producing the goods rather than just talking about them (a good shopkeeper's metaphor!) he is simply unable to perform.

Evidently another member of the Bear Grylls fan club, it looks as if his "research on gays and lesbians in the workplace" is limited to watching who goes into the toilets with whom, that his "background in research methods and statistics" consists of where to move his bucket and mop to get in a better position to count them, and that any "peer review process" he has "gone through" was being told by his co-workers that toilet No 4 was clean, but No 5 needed a scrub out.

Maybe he was even so good that he was promoted to Tea Boy, where he could overhear what was said and remember a few catchphrases from those he so desperately aspired to be.

Goodbye, Pissyboy, until you come up with the goods.


I'll leave the Tourettes outbursts to you and Aunty. Are you and he the same person?
Go back to your shop.

I will stand by my original comment that the paper which started all this was interestig and makes a contribution to the overall literature on gays and lesbians.

Cheers and no need for thanks ...I'm always grateful for the opportunity to update Aunty's Mensa Moments - http://www.sawatdee-gay-thailand.com/fo ... .php?e=376 (http://www.sawatdee-gay-thailand.com/forum/weblog_entry.php?e=376) even though it does mean a temporary suspension of {Ignore}

Surely, by now, everyone knows (or suspects) that sexual orientation is pretty much fixed at birth.

So who cares what all these crazy farang Ph.D.'s are up to? The last time I looked, they were in denial about bisexuality, which is just about as crazy as believing in unicorns.

There will be a special show at Free Guy on July 25th. (Relevance: none!)

[Wesley]

I think homitern would not know a gay guy if it was him, its a stupid question, everyone is persuaded they were made gay at birth and some parental problems may have caused it to surface earlier or later for some. Or, some just hide in the closet forever fearing they will not be accepted by family and friends if they admit its any more than a teen age experimentation.

My cousin taught me how to suck dick now condemns me for being gay. y what a looser. He probably has wet dreams about the times we were playing with each other in bed on sleep overs.

Wes

[Wesley]

The last time I looked, they were in denial about bisexuality, which is just about as crazy as believing in unicorns.

Well said,

Wee

The last time I looked, they were in denial about bisexuality, which is just about as crazy as believing in unicorns.

Lots of people are in denial - Iran, for instance, is second only to Thailand for the number of reported legal sex change operations but some people still think that there are no gays there - including Mahmoud Ahmadinejad!