Comments on: Marketing the Bieber Study: Cornelia Wilbur’s Other Scandal

By: Warren

Warren — Wed, 30 May 2018 22:36:24 +0000

In reply to mark. Mark - No, my plain words were that it is reasonable to question the study due to the methodology of relying on analysts to characterize their patients history and attitudes. Given that one of them clearly collaborated with a journalist to fabricate a story, I think this calls into question the method as well as her contribution. I am not saying Bieber knew anything or that he engaged in any wrong doing. I don't know how many cases she submitted, but she was more than simply a contributor. She was a co-author with some involvement via Shirley in getting the manuscript to print. Please stick to what I actually wrote.

By: mark

mark — Wed, 30 May 2018 18:23:54 +0000

Warrren,
are you accusing Irving Bieber of out and out lying and misrepresentation? Just because one or any of of his associates fabricated a story for Cosmo or anything else doesn’t necessarily mean that Bieber should be discredited. If so, then someone who studied or consulted with you could be accused or guilty of something and by implication because of association, you should be discredited also? I don’t think it is that simple, is it? Is there a witch hunt going on here?
Mark

By: David Blakeslee

David Blakeslee — Wed, 30 May 2018 18:23:53 +0000

Mark,
It is not a witch hunt…but if you have been around lately you would see that Warren is doing a good job discovering fundamental flaws in the original research which fuel the development of reparative drive theory.
These are important facts to face with courage, compassion and humility.
Stick around and collect the facts and come to your own conclusions.
Our gay and lesbian friends deserve an open airing of the “facts” which have driven a debate that has so misled and mischaracterized them.

By: Frank

Frank — Wed, 30 May 2018 18:23:53 +0000

David Blakeslee writes:
“Frank, no one at this site is reprehensible…take it easy.”
I call someone’s words reprehensible, not the person writing them.
“Bieber did not introduce the idea of homosexuality as mental illness…it was a well established assumption at the time.”
It was a cultural assumption- not a scientific assumption. Ten years earlier Freud wrote his letter to an American mother which denounced the idea that homosexuality is a mental illness. Moreover, he strongly condemned attempts to “fix” it.
“To be fair, this was the nature of analytical research at the time, statistics generally had not been applied to the profession in any of its assertions.”
C. Evelyn Hooker published a statistically based study four years before Bieber et. al., proving that experts like Bieber were no better than a random classifier when it came to detecting sexual orientation or its effects on personality.
Bieber et al. were hacks at best and unscrupulous careerists victimizing their own patients at worst.

By: Frank

Frank — Wed, 30 May 2018 18:23:53 +0000

Mark, given that Bieber introduced the enormous bias caused by selecting a population of patients under treatment and the bias caused by interviewing only their therapists, ,I as a statistician, can
only conclude that the man was either incompetent or a fraud. What he did was indefensible and was tolerated because of the non- existent counseling standards of the day which allowed mental health professionals to commit nothing less than crimes against humanity (torture, psychosurgery, etc) which should have earned the practitioners a trial in the Hague.
For you to complain about a witch hunt is absolutely reprehensible.

By: Chris

Chris — Sun, 18 Dec 2011 17:03:47 +0000

This discussion is going in a differenct direction. The point is that you cannot trust many people. You have a psychotherapist who to advantage of a patient(s) for financial gain. That is reprehensible. My heart goes out the physcially and most importantly emotionally abused children as well as, the gay individuals that have been oppressed. I hope that humanity finds a better path and we can all live peacefully without the greed and distruction of others for self -fufillment.

By: Chris

Chris — Sun, 18 Dec 2011 12:03:47 +0000

By: David Blakeslee

David Blakeslee — Tue, 25 Oct 2011 18:29:11 +0000

Ken,
I think statistical bias was a difficult thing to control for generally in psychological research prior to the 70’s.
This went all the way down to intelligence test sampling; and is highlighted by much of psychological research which is based upon samples gleaned from college campuses.
Much of the research on gay promiscuity was based upon research samples gleaned from bath houses and gay bars. Christians did not select these samples…usually they were convenience samples. The results were alarming…but could not be generalized due to the problems with the sample. No Christian bias or plot here; except if a Christian professional makes assertions about the general population of gays (today) based upon this flawed research.
There have been an amalgam of factors leading to the situation we have today; getting the facts on the table helps us all see each other more accurately

By: David Blakeslee

David Blakeslee — Tue, 25 Oct 2011 14:29:11 +0000

By: ken

ken — Mon, 24 Oct 2011 18:57:36 +0000

Frank# ~ Oct 23, 2011 at 4:13 pm
“C. Evelyn Hooker published a statistically based study four years before Bieber”
I’m not sure what study you are referring to, but it would be virtually impossible to be able to get a statistically unbiased sample of gays in the 50s & 60s. Much of her initial work was in demonstrating that homosexuality was not a disorder, but that wasn’t based on statistical sampling.