Comments on: Taiwanese study links parenting and adult homosexuality

By: Jim Burroway

Jim Burroway — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 17:26:59 +0000

I might could, you think?

By: Warren

Warren — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 04:29:44 +0000

Jim – If you write the right kind of paper, you might could have a right good chance of getting that paper published.

By: Jim Burroway

Jim Burroway — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 04:18:32 +0000

write write write! Darn it

By: Jim Burroway

Jim Burroway — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 04:18:16 +0000

You know, sometimes I think I ought to right a paper and get myself published.

By: Warren

Warren — Thu, 15 Feb 2007 21:00:58 +0000

See the update in the body of the post. Without controlling for neuroticism, and with no non-clinical homosexual group, this study offers almost nothing.

By: Drowssap

Drowssap — Wed, 14 Feb 2007 03:27:02 +0000

It appears that the Taiwanese are trying to go over ground that many of us have given up on. Michael Bussee is correct when he states that you can’t seperate the reaction from the cause. Even the world’s fastest super computer can’t seperate that one.

It isn’t that socialization might not be a factor but it is so complex that the whole thing becomes impossible to measure.

The recent Danish study “Childhood Correlates…” is the best scientific attempt I have ever seen. However even with that study the results can be interpreted in many different ways.

By: Timothy Kincaid

Timothy Kincaid — Wed, 14 Feb 2007 00:35:27 +0000

I’ve not yet read the study… but here’s a thought:

What was measured may not be reality but rather perception or recollection of reality. There may have been no real overprotection but in hindsight it may seem that way. Did they attempt to compare perceptions with sibling memories or any other external factors?

Similar to the “I knew I was gay when I was two” studies, this needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

By: Warren

Warren — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 22:30:45 +0000

Ken – I think they still use the DSM-III which has ego-dystonic homosexuality. I may write a research review on this one. I do not think it is a very good design in many respects.

By: Michael Bussee

Michael Bussee — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 21:48:08 +0000

As always, the primary problem with these studies is our old friend “post hoc ergo propter hoc”, Latin for “after this, therefore because of this”.

It is a logical fallacy (of the questionable cause variety) which assumes or asserts that if one event happens after another, then the first must be the cause of the second. It is often shortened to simply “post hoc” and is also sometimes referred to as false cause, multicollinearity, or coincidental correlation (wikipedia)

The difference in “parental overprotection (undefined) and parental concern” may be a REACTION not a CAUSE. Perhaps the parents sense that THIS child is somehow different. The perceived difference in the (gay) child may elicit a different response by the parents. They may pull away or they may overprotect.

We need to always keep in mind that correlation does not equal cause. I believe that “post hoc” thinking is THE most common logical fallacy amongst those who look for the “causes” and “cures” of gayness.

By: ken

ken — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 21:29:21 +0000

It might be helpful if you post the questions you’ve already come up with. A question I have is:

Is homosexuality considered an adjustment disorder in Taiwan?

From that paper it seems it is.