Much correspondence has gone on regarding this study and the way it has been reported by the Associated Press. I can say this: the Associated Press writer, Randolph Schmid, has been made aware that the new study says nothing about whether sexual behavior is learned. Here is a quote from a recent email from Dr. Savic: “The easiest way to clarify the situation is to go to the original data. I do therefore refer to the manuscript in PNAS. The study does not give answer to the cause-effect issue. Sincerely, Ivanka Savic”
She also pointed out other flaws in the AP report. For instance, this section is misleading:
“Heterosexual women found the male and female pheromones about equally pleasant, while straight men and lesbians liked the female pheromone more than the male one. Men and lesbians also found the male hormone more irritating than the female one, while straight women were more likely to be irritated by the female hormone than the male one.All three groups rated the male hormone more familiar than the female one. Straight women found both hormones about equal in intensity, while lesbians and straight men found the male hormone more intense than the female one.”
To this, Dr. Savic said: “…the perception of these compounds was similar in ALL the subjects and all statements [in the AP article] about the pleasantness, irritability etc. are erroneous.”
In fairness to Mr. Schmid, the graph in the article gives the impression of differences but in statistical terms, the differences were small enough that they cannot be considered signficant. The AP report gives the impression that there were more sexual preference related differences than were actually found.
So we have this situation: the AP writer knows the study author has found significant errors in the story. She even asked if they could be corrected and to date there has been no correction. Perhaps one is in the works. Corrections are issued all the time, I wonder why this story is different.
I do not take interest in this just to be difficult. I think the media have a great responsibility in this climate to report accurately. And saying that “the findings add weight to the idea that homosexuality…is not learned behavior” is not accurate reporting. The other factual errors just add weight to the idea that a correction is in order.
9 thoughts on “Lesbian and putative pheromone study, Part 4”
Thanks for that Colleen, I had not heard. I will make a new post about this.
Yes, wrong deity. It gets confusing, I admit.
And that would have to one of the funniest Simpson episodes — everyone gets a rightly deserved (IMO) splattering, but all in the best possible taste!
Clue: for those who DON’T get BBC humour on a regular diet: run down the end, to the quotes. Then imagine the visual, before looking at who, just thinking, was that plastic tacky Hollywood woman once married to the be-wigged Burt Reynolds?… 🙂
3) altered, so you didn’t have a conservative burn you at the stake or bring down The Lord’s wrath (snakes and plague variety) on your head for using same self’s name in vain. As always, the all knowing and all powerful appears to operate as if utterly corrupted by the power (as per common, but often misquoted, proverb). Even the slightest straying sees one crushed like an ant (which we all are, BTW, if you need reminding).
cf: Holy Bejebus
cf: reason for writing “Xmas” or “Xian”
useage: very NOT considered polite language in Salvation Army circles (with the type that continue to refer inclusively to “Our Lord” even when they know you are not of same mind)
origin: Baptist, mainly, but has entered common vernacular.
Happy now??? 🙂
Speaking of which…
Any update on the PFOX brochure co-authored by yourself that contains those unwarranted claims?
Bejesus is the title held by the holiest Gibb brother. It gets passed around.
I suppose since the study didn’t ask that question it would be presumptuous of the reporter to address it. You can’t answer a question the study didn’t ask. The fifth graders will have to read something else.
Guess the bejesus is in the eye of the beholder. What is a bejesus, by the way?
5 blog entries in 3 days. If I didn’t know better I’d say it almost looks like something’s scared the bejeesus out of you.
All the more reason to update the article for future reference. Say, “hey, well, there weren’t any subjective differences and well, this doesn’t say anything about learning and actually it mainly says the brains of one small group of lesbians reacted differently than straight women when they inhaled some odorless chemicals we think might be pheromones.” Should take about a paragraph.
Comments are closed.