.

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. To me that is how the all important balance is being maintained. When one side is made to shut up and feel they no longer have a voice their voice becomes much louder and necessary.

The other part is hubris, bias, a rescuing complex blended with passive disgust of SSA.

Splitting defenses, whether used to destroy an enemy, or to bolster ourselves; inevitably oversimplify and deceive…harming ourselves and others.

Worse yet, Michael, he’s saying a group of Chrisitan psychologists cannot band together and discover new facts because of professional and social pressures.

That description of my argument is truncated, simplistic and distorted…nothing new.

I think Warren, Yarhouse and Jones have disproved that…

Political advocacy begets political advocacy begets political advocacy.

Bad for Scientific Organizations.

Everything happens in a context…the character we choose in the context reveals a lot about us…APA revealed theirs and so did NARTH.

On the point, no NARTH without the APA bias, I partially disagree. NARTH was started by three psychoanalysts who would not give up on their theory. Even as evidence came forward (Bell & Weinberg; Fisher and Greenberg) that the classic triad was not so classic, they stuck to it and still do. Some, like you (David) and me, were attracted to NARTH initially because we saw that APA was co-opted by gay politics. However, NARTH actually played the foil for the APA. It took overcoming NARTH and moving away from it to get anywhere.

What NARTH could have been attracted us but what it is has put us back. The framework was written in late 2005 and sent to NARTH in early 2006. They sat on it and ignored it. They did not want an ethical framework which respected client autonomy. Rather, they seem to want a return to the day when just being/having SSA is a signal for treatment.

By the way, you can e-mail me (that goes for anybody) at debbie@theformers.com. You wanted to connect.

The APA response seems very biased to me but that it is accurate in stating that there are problems with the models, populations, outsomes etc… for any sufficient conclusion to be drawn that says SOCE works and is not harmful.

I have personal stories and my very own experience to draw on to conclude that SOCE is effective and not harmful. But that is not enough. And that is fair from a scientific stance.

Worse yet, Michael, he’s saying a group of Chrisitan psychologists cannot band together and discover new facts because of professional and social pressures.

That was my take, too. They have been saying this same thing for years. NARTH can’t get respect because of it own bad science and unwise affiliations. They have only themselves to blame for that. And only they can fix that.

Whining that the APA makes them do it makes NARTH look even worse. If they want professional and social respect, they need to clean their own house first.