As suspected, Stan Jones was mischaracterized by Lindsay Tanner’s article on genetic contributions to homosexuality. He wrote this explanation to me in an email earlier this evening and is reproduced with his permission.
Regarding Lindsay Tanner’s Associated Press story titled: Study Seeks Genetic Links to Being Gay and elsewhere:
It is unfortunate when through misunderstandings or miscommunications we do not recognize our own views in press reports. Such is the case here. Ms. Tanner describes my views about the genetic research going on in Chicago in the following way:
“Jones said [1] his results suggest biology plays only a minor role in sexual orientation, and [2] that researchers seeking genetic clues generally have a pro-gay agenda that will produce biased results.”
This is extremely disconcerting, as both clauses (my numbers added) in this sentence are misunderstandings of what I was trying to express to Ms. Tanner in my interview with her three weeks ago.
First [1], I did not say that our results from our recently released study of change in sexual orientation indicate low biological or genetic contribution to causation of homosexual orientation. I tried to express to her that the results of our study, in my opinion, say nothing about causation of homosexual orientation. In fact, my memory is that I complained about a conservative columnist who had, based on rumors about our study, declared (erroneously) that our study proved that homosexual orientation is a choice. Apart from our recently released study, however, my read of the scientific literature on causation, expressed in print in a number of places for the last 15 years, is that biology likely does play a role in causation, though less of a role than the man-on-the-street thinks (“it’s like eye color”). So I did make cautious comments about biological causation, but she seemed to draw the conclusion that I was speaking from the results of our study, which I was not.
Causation is likely multivariate and idiosyncratic, including biological factors. I actually applauded good research on the various factors that contribute to the etiology of sexual orientation, and expressed positive anticipation of hearing of the results of this genetic study. I expressed one particular concern about this particular genetic study based on accounts I had read in the media as follows:
That by this study concentrating on pre/self-selected subpopulations selected for higher probabilities of biological factors in causation, the importance of biological factors for the whole population of homosexual persons may be exaggerated because of the uncertain relationship of the study’s subpopulations to that broader population.
Second [2], I emphasized in my interview with Tanner that a lot of good science is done by gay and gay-affirming researchers, and that we hoped to be treated with the same respect that we hoped we demonstrated to good researchers regardless of their ideological leanings. Obviously, however, the values of the researcher interpreters influence where you go with the interpretations of the findings. My concern in this area is that implications of our research be drawn cautiously and with circumspection. Several of the comments in the article itself indicate the way people are willing to jump forward with interpretations of the implications of research.
In Dr. Sanders’s response in the article to my views as represented through Ms. Tanner, he said “We do not have a predetermined point we are trying to prove. . . . We are trying to pry some of nature’s secrets loose with respect to a fundamental human trait.” Anyone who reads our book will find that we also did not have a predetermined point we were trying to prove. We had met people who claimed to have changed, but were open to findings that this change was frequent or infrequent, and also that claimed change was transitory and unsatisfyingly complicated for the participants. Our commitment was and is to reporting straightforwardly what our research population reported to us. Good science can never result when people are trying to create sermon illustrations for pre-determined positions.
Information about the book in question, Ex-Gays? A Longitudinal Study of Religiously Mediated Sexual Orientation Change (InterVarsity Press), is available at the IVPress website. Click on the “AACC Address” link for a 13-page paper summary of the study.
Stanton L. Jones
Provost and Professor of Psychology
Wheaton College
Eddy,
Not everything is a conspiracy – the part I left out is there for anyone to read in the original, but it has nothing to do with the point. This statement:
Is absurd to me after reading the book. While the study may or may not have been reasonably objective, there is no way one can read the book and not see a strong point of view before getting to any data.
You may want to create some verbiage to qualify this statement and make it seem less absurd, but Jones did not.
As far as I know, neither Jones or Yarhouse have made any effort whatsoever to publicly correct Exodus, Focus, etc., when they distorted the Exodus study data to make it appear to prove large degrees of change. So, I find it someone hypocritical that Jones has decided to finally perk up over what the AP has reported.
One cannot honestly deny that everything surrounding this study, particularly the publishing and release, has been a comedy of errors. The authors have been unavailable and silent concerning important issues and requests for clarification, yet when Jones decides to speak he does so at the NARTH convention!
Couldn’t someone close to them have clued them in on how unwise an appearance at NARTH would be? This is not where you speak if truth and science are your priority.
This study is being hailed as a scientific study by its supporters yet it was printed by a Christian publishing company instead of a scientific journal that would have required a peer review on the study. Did you ever think this is why its not given the respect YOU think it deserves. Aside from the fact that the studies participants were form Exodus and paid by them as well. Also the authors have close affiliations with Regent University (founded by Robertson) and Yarhouse has a gender clinic funded by Regent, do you really think the results will contradict the belief of those who sign the researchers paycheck?
Lets not forget the lovely things Jones has said in the past that may lead some to believe he can’t render an unbiased opinion…Psychologist Stanton L. Jones of Wheaton, Ill., said those who support ordaining homosexuals are trying to “to normalize a pattern which is destructive and abnormal.”
Cornwell, George. “Debate Over Sexuality Fails To Resolve Issue Of Ordaining Homosexuals”. Associated Press. 15 July 1991.
MARK YARHOUSE
Indeed, a devout Christian can decide that “Christ, or God, has a pre-existing claim on their sexuality” that trumps same-sex attractions, Yarhouse said.
Vegh, Steven “Some groups offering gays opportunities for “recovery”. The Virginian-Pilot(Norfolk, VA.)14 September 2004.
I’m glad that Dr. Jones is attempting to police inaccurate media coverage of his study.
Just curious: Has Dr. Jones policed Exodus’ distortion of the study and its results yet?
David–
I agree…the way you put it, it IS almost laughable. I tried reading it both ways. Your way, with the …, did seem to make their statement self-contradictory. Then, there was that other way, the way they said it, where they explained what they meant:
“We had met people who claimed to have changed, but were open to findings that this change was frequent or infrequent, and also that claimed change was transitory and unsatisfyingly complicated for the participants. Our commitment was and is to reporting straightforwardly what our research population reported to us.”
Seems to me that if a religious point of view is the principle motivator for the claimed changes, a study would have to acknowledge this motivator and attempt to address its impact on the results–whatever they may be.
While they may or may not have been objective about the study itself (I have my own opinions on that), The Exodus Study book screams a particular point of view, and uses scripture to back it up. I agree with the second statement above, but find the first almost laughable. I doubt any casual reader would be in doubt at all as to Jones’ point of view on the subject.