Quote Originally Posted by Gone Fishing
Quote Originally Posted by 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.