Your mother really did make you a homosexual

[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/per....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=Gone Fishing]

: "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 ....