The Psychology/Psychiatry Fields and Homosexuality Mythology

[BlueHen86]

You must like vitriol since you court it at every opportunity.

Actually, that seems to sum you up quite nicely, 86. At least JSO is trying to logically work to a conclusion. You are just trying to be funny...as in, "needing attention".

In the meantime, JSO, even if the study took out some folks who have mental disorders, that would still leave some butt pirates who have no disorder. In other words, some normal people who enjoy having sex with men...probably more so than some women...at least with certain men.

So, even if you toss out the study...how do you explain the non-mentally ill gays?

No. I'm just trying to be funny. I don't care if anyone reads my posts or not.

[Screamin_Eagle174]

I knew it. A long rambling post. You're like the long winded guy who spoke before Lincoln at Gettysburg. Nobody remembers what he said, and nobody will remember your crap either.

Ok here is the short version:

She stated up front that she wanted to include only subjects who appeared to be of average adjustment. And she designed her study to accomplish that. Then she tested the adjustment level of the two groups and, lo and behold, she didn't see a difference in average adjustment levels. Your pal said she was controlling the independent variables. But she was controlling the dependent variable (adjustment level). Your pal is wrong, in spite of the fact that he made a nice, long, detailed argument that you had no problem with.

And here is the short version that you failed to grasp:

Just because individuals appear to be normally adjusted, does not mean that they are. There were still 15/60 (Judge A) and 19/70 (Judge B) who were rated to be on the maladjusted end of the spectrum. If you choose only individuals that are poorly adjusted, 100% of both homo and heterosexuals subjects will be poorly adjusted. The key is the difference in adjustment between the homo and heterosexual subjects, which she showed was not significant.

It seems to me that for the present investigation the question is whether homosexuality is necessarily a symptom of pathology. All we need is a single case in which the answer is negative.

Once again JSO, you're wrong, a bigot, and an imbecile.

[JohnStOnge]

In the meantime, JSO, even if the study took out some folks who have mental disorders, that would still leave some butt pirates who have no disorder. In other words, some normal people who enjoy having sex with men...probably more so than some women...at least with certain men.

So, even if you toss out the study...how do you explain the non-mentally ill gays?

Well, I would say that a man who prefers sex with men over sex with women has a disorder. And Hooker alluded to that when she wrote:

unless one insists that homosexuality itself is a sign of pathology)

And that brings up a whole 'nuther area of discussion. The premise behind studies such as Hooker's is that, in order for homosexuality to be considered a disorder, it has to be associated with other disorders. I don't accept that premise. You may or may not.

[YoUDeeMan]

No. I'm just trying to be funny. I don't care if anyone reads my posts or not.

Are you sure? Because it seems you're posting responses and engaging in conversation with a lot of people. It would be really odd if you didn't care if they read your posts...otherwise, you could just sit in a room and talk to yourself.

Either way, you're not going to out uncare me because I can easily care even less than you.

[JohnStOnge]

And here is the short version that you failed to grasp:

Just because individuals appear to be normally adjusted, does not mean that they are. There were still 15/60 (Judge A) and 19/70 (Judge B) who were rated to be on the maladjusted end of the spectrum. If you choose only individuals that are poorly adjusted, 100% of both homo and heterosexuals subjects will be poorly adjusted. The key is the difference in adjustment between the homo and heterosexual subjects, which she showed was not significant.

You need to look at the precision of the "measurement" instrument, which Hooker discusses. And any time you take steps to diminish variation in the dependent variable, you reduce the odds of seeing an association.

If you start off by attempting to eliminate subjects who are poorly adjusted, you distort the result. Again: You are not "controlling" an independent variable by doing that. You are minimizing variation in the dependent variable.

She showed that when you make an effort to exclude poorly adjusted homosexuals for one group and make an effort to exlcude poorly adjusted heterosexuals for the other group she did not get a "significant" difference between the two groups. That's all.

That was an observational study. If you were really going to try to do an observational study to compare the two groups you would try to get something akin to a random sample of each group then mathematically "control" for the independent variables that are known to be associated with adjustment levels. You would not throw out subjects with "poor" adjustment levels because you would be losing valuable information with respect to the dependent variable ( adjustment level) by doing that.

Excluding people who did not show obvious evidence of maladjustment was NOT controlling the independent variables. Again, it was controlling the dependent variable. You are wrong. Sorry. But you are.

[BlueHen86]

No. I'm just trying to be funny. I don't care if anyone reads my posts or not.

Are you sure? Because it seems you're posting responses and engaging in conversation with a lot of people. It would be really odd if you didn't care if they read your posts...otherwise, you could just sit in a room and talk to yourself.

Either way, you're not going to out uncare me because I can easily care even less than you.

That's what I usually do. I post on here when I get tired of listening to myself.

[Screamin_Eagle174]

Well, I would say that a man who prefers sex with men over sex with women has a disorder. And Hooker alluded to that when she wrote:

unless one insists that homosexuality itself is a sign of pathology)

And that brings up a whole 'nuther area of discussion. The premise behind studies such as Hooker's is that, in order for homosexuality to be considered a disorder, it has to be associated with other disorders. I don't accept that premise. You may or may not.

JFC you're an idiot. NO she did not allude to that. What she alluded to is that a large number of mental health professionals at the time believed that homosexuality was a symptom of mental disorders, because the vast majority of homosexuals they had studied came from populations of people with a high incidence of mental illness. Obviously she does not believe that homosexuality is a symptom of illness or an illness, and her study shows evidence to back that up. Fucking imbecile.

[Screamin_Eagle174]

And here is the short version that you failed to grasp:

Just because individuals appear to be normally adjusted, does not mean that they are. There were still 15/60 (Judge A) and 19/70 (Judge B) who were rated to be on the maladjusted end of the spectrum. If you choose only individuals that are poorly adjusted, 100% of both homo and heterosexuals subjects will be poorly adjusted. The key is the difference in adjustment between the homo and heterosexual subjects, which she showed was not significant.

You need to look at the precision of the "measurement" instrument, which Hooker discusses. And any time you take steps to diminish variation in the dependent variable, you reduce the odds of seeing an association.

If you start off by attempting to eliminate subjects who are poorly adjusted, you distort the result. Again: You are not "controlling" an independent variable by doing that. You are minimizing variation in the dependent variable.

She showed that when you make an effort to exclude poorly adjusted homosexuals for one group and make an effort to exlcude poorly adjusted heterosexuals for the other group she did not get a "significant" difference between the two groups. That's all.

That was an observational study. If you were really going to try to do an observational study to compare the two groups you would try to get something akin to a random sample of each group then mathematically "control" for the independent variables that are known to be associated with adjustment levels. You would not throw out subjects with "poor" adjustment levels because you would be losing valuable information with respect to the dependent variable ( adjustment level) by doing that.

Excluding people who did not show obvious evidence of maladjustment was NOT controlling the independent variables. Again, it was controlling the dependent variable. You are wrong. Sorry. But you are.

Retard, she didn't take ANY steps diminish the variation of mental adjustment. She didn't just exclude just gays who were extremely maladjusted. She excluded both gays and heteros who were extremely maladjusted. The results showed that there was about 25-33% who were maladjusted, 40-50% who were well adjusted, with the remainder average. The KEY is that there was no significant variation between gay men and straight men.

[YoUDeeMan]

In the meantime, JSO, even if the study took out some folks who have mental disorders, that would still leave some butt pirates who have no disorder. In other words, some normal people who enjoy having sex with men...probably more so than some women...at least with certain men.

So, even if you toss out the study...how do you explain the non-mentally ill gays?

Well, I would say that a man who prefers sex with men over sex with women has a disorder. And Hooker alluded to that when she wrote:

unless one insists that homosexuality itself is a sign of pathology)

And that brings up a whole 'nuther area of discussion. The premise behind studies such as Hooker's is that, in order for homosexuality to be considered a disorder, it has to be associated with other disorders. I don't accept that premise. You may or may not.

Actually, I don't care (and I have oodles of uncaring posts to prove it) if a gay person is mentally ill or not. If they are, who cares? Hell, if they take other men out of the hunt for women, that should be a benefit for those of us who swing for the home (notice the "e" at the end of that word...let's not get confused) team. However since I am off the market, that benefit goes to someone else.

And I'm not sure why you are so set on protecting the word, "marriage". It's a word...and a lot of people get divorced, so marriage doesn't have the same zing as in the olden days when the Catholic Church would threaten Hell and damnation when people would break the covenant they made before God. Or shame...can't have those unvirginous women screwing and loving a second man.

OK, I drifted. But seriously, marriage is just a word...do you want some sort of copyright on it? I mean, if a couple of fags want to say they are married, what damage does that do to your marriage? Cripes, there's probably some married couple down your street that give marriage a worse name...go pick on them.

[YoUDeeMan]

Are you sure? Because it seems you're posting responses and engaging in conversation with a lot of people. It would be really odd if you didn't care if they read your posts...otherwise, you could just sit in a room and talk to yourself.

Either way, you're not going to out uncare me because I can easily care even less than you.

That's what I usually do. I post on here when I get tired of listening to myself.

I don't care.

[BlueHen86]

That's what I usually do. I post on here when I get tired of listening to myself.

I don't care.

Me neither.

[Screamin_Eagle174]

Here's some JSO logic:

Studies show that drivers who are under the influence of alcohol are much more likely to be involved in an accident due to impaired reaction time and judgment. JSO concludes that driving under the influence is equally as safe or dangerous as sober driving.

Studies show that homosexuals are afflicted with mental illness at the same rate as heterosexuals and therefore homosexuality is not a symptom of mental illness. JSO concludes that homosexuals must have a higher rate of mental incidence and therefore it is a symptom of mental illness.

[JohnStOnge]

Well, I would say that a man who prefers sex with men over sex with women has a disorder. And Hooker alluded to that when she wrote:



And that brings up a whole 'nuther area of discussion. The premise behind studies such as Hooker's is that, in order for homosexuality to be considered a disorder, it has to be associated with other disorders. I don't accept that premise. You may or may not.

JFC you're an idiot. NO she did not allude to that.

What I meant to say is that Hooker alluded to the question of whether or not homosexuality is in itself a disorder. I should have worded the statement correctly by writing something like, "And Hooker alluded to the issue of whether or not homosexuality is in itself a disorder..."

[JohnStOnge]

Retard, she didn't take ANY steps diminish the variation of mental adjustment. She didn't just exclude just gays who were extremely maladjusted. She excluded both gays and heteros who were extremely maladjusted. The results showed that there was about 25-33% who were maladjusted, 40-50% who were well adjusted, with the remainder average. The KEY is that there was no significant variation between gay men and straight men.

The first statement in the paragraph above is just objectively incorrect. Near the beginning of the paper, she wrote:

when I set out to investigate the adjustment of the homosexual, to obtain a sample of overt homosexuals who did not come from these sources; that is, who had a chance of being individuals who, on the surface at least, seemed to have an average adjustment,

I don't see how you can possibly think that isn't going to reduce variation in the independent variable (adjustment level). And I don't know why you think having comparable percentages of various adjustment levels in the two samples is meaningful. It could simply mean that the intiial screen worked about as well for each group. Those who would like to see an illustration of that kind of scenario can red the language in italics below. Those who don't like long posts can stop at the end of the standard text. It'll still be kind of long but you can stop right here too. Main thing is that it's obviously incorrect to say that what she did not diminish variation in mental adjustment to below what it actually was in the two populations of interest.

So she didn't get a "significant difference" in adjustment level after she screened to exclude lower adjustment levels. That tells you nothing about whether or not homosexuality in and of itself can be associated with higher likelihood of maladjustment. Since an experiment is not possible (the "treatment" is being homosexual and you can't control or randomly assign that) you would first have to either get probability samples of both populations or at the very least get samples that you can arguably say can be reasonably assumed to be equivalent to probability samples. Then you would have to identify every independent variable other than homosexuality you can think of that is associated with adjustment level. Finally you would construct a model and attempt to mathematically control for all the other independent variables and see if homosexuality remains a "significant" factor once you do that. You most certainly would NOT start off by excluding elements because they have a lower than average adjustment level. When you restrict the range of the independent variable, you reduce the likelihood of showing a significant effect so any statement you might want to make about it not having a "significant" effect would be compromised. Also you would need a very large sample because a small sample also compromises such a statement.

You still wouldn't be out of the woods if you did all of that because there are limitations to observational study and, also, it's fairly easy to get the results you want by making certain decisions about the model...PARTICULARLY when the result you want is "no 'significant' effect." But at least you WERE intellecutally honest you could come up with something reasonable.

Let's say I own a store and I want to only sell a certain species of fish that is greater than or equal to a certain weight. But I don't have time to weigh every fish I buy. So I have a consultant make me a model that estimates weight based on length. Here length is the independent variable and weight is the dependent variable. And he makes a little stick of the critical length so I can just quickly hold the stick next to a fish and decide whether or not to buy it. I accept that it's going to miss sometimes.

But at the beginning I'm going to weigh all the fish I buy when I get back to my store to check the model. The second time I go I can see that there are a lot of small fish. No doubt that proportion of fish below my threshold is much higher. And variation in the sizes (length and weight) is much greater.

After I'm done I find that proportions of fish I bought that are below my threshold weight among my two purchase lots are similar. Should I be surprised at that? Should I think that means the proportions below the threshold among the two lots I purchased from are similar? Now it could be that I'd find some substantial differences between the weight distributions. Like maybe there were also more really BIG fish avaiable during the first week and I went for those. But not necessarily. It could very well be that the distributions of fish above the threshold weight were similar even though the proportion of fish below the threshold week was much greater upon the second week.

The moral is that you can't make any kind of inference about whether or not there are substantial differences between the two populations when you have selected in order to control the weight distribution you acquire. Hopefully if anybody doesn't have a dog in the fight sees this common sense will tell them that.

[JohnStOnge]

This one is relatively short and directed at those who don't have a dog in the fight. Note that we are having a debate related to the "normalization of homosexuality" mindset. Take note of which side is more characterized by vitriol. And think about that when you watch manifestations of the cultural conflict in the media and around you. Then ask yourself which side, if the word "hate" is going to be used, is associated with the preponderance of the hate.

[kalm]

This one is relatively short and directed at those who don't have a dog in the fight. Note that we are having a debate related to the "normalization of homosexuality" mindset. Take note of which side is more characterized by vitriol. And think about that when you watch manifestations of the cultural conflict in the media and around you. Then ask yourself which side, if the word "hate" is going to be used, is associated with the preponderance of the hate.

"There are only two things I hate in this world...people who are intolerant of other people's cultures...and the Dutch."

[Bison Fan in NW MN]

This one is relatively short and directed at those who don't have a dog in the fight. Note that we are having a debate related to the "normalization of homosexuality" mindset. Take note of which side is more characterized by vitriol. And think about that when you watch manifestations of the cultural conflict in the media and around you. Then ask yourself which side, if the word "hate" is going to be used, is associated with the preponderance of the hate.

IMO, there is just as much "hate" or more on the pro-gay side compared to the anti-gay side. It is interesting to see people labeled "bigots or haters" if they do not agree or accept the pro-gay agenda.

Now, I'm sure I will be labeled a homophobe on here because I do not believe in this agenda or lifestyle. If someone is gay, I could care less but don't call me a bigot just because I do not agree with it. And do not throw it in my face saying this is normal just as my relationship is with my wife.

Everyone deserves the same rights here in the US, including gays. Everyone deserves to live their own life. I might not agree with it but I can only live my life.

Having said all this, I believe in God and we all will be judged by him someday.

[houndawg]

This one is relatively short and directed at those who don't have a dog in the fight. Note that we are having a debate related to the "normalization of homosexuality" mindset. Take note of which side is more characterized by vitriol. And think about that when you watch manifestations of the cultural conflict in the media and around you. Then ask yourself which side, if the word "hate" is going to be used, is associated with the preponderance of the hate.

IMO, there is just as much "hate" or more on the pro-gay side compared to the anti-gay side. It is interesting to see people labeled "bigots or haters" if they do not agree or accept the pro-gay agenda.

Now, I'm sure I will be labeled a homophobe on here because I do not believe in this agenda or lifestyle. If someone is gay, I could care less but don't call me a bigot just because I do not agree with it. And do not throw it in my face saying this is normal just as my relationship is with my wife.

Everyone deserves the same rights here in the US, including gays. Everyone deserves to live their own life. I might not agree with it but I can only live my life.

Having said all this, I believe in God and we all will be judged by him someday.

When they put you in the ground, that's where you stay.

[JohnStOnge]

I do have to correct myself on something. When I really thought about it, I saw that it is possible to have circumstance in which you can select from only a restricted range of a population and end up with data characterized by greater variation (variance) than that of the parent population. For example if you have the population 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 20 and restrict the range to only elements >4, you'll select 5 and 20. If you calculate the variance for just those two numbers it'll be higher than that for the overall population.

But I think that in the overwhelming majority of cases involving real world populations, if you select in a way that includes a substantial proportion of the population, the variance will decrease. If I were betting I would bet that Dr. Hooker produced a sample variance lower than the population variance by doing what she did, but I must admit that I can't know for sure.

In any case, you still can't make any kind of inference about the overall population when you intentionally sample so as to increase the chances of excluding certain members of it. Also by doing what she did she certainly created a situation in which the possibility of error associated with potentially decreasing variation in the independent variable was introduced.

[Bison Fan in NW MN]

IMO, there is just as much "hate" or more on the pro-gay side compared to the anti-gay side. It is interesting to see people labeled "bigots or haters" if they do not agree or accept the pro-gay agenda.

Now, I'm sure I will be labeled a homophobe on here because I do not believe in this agenda or lifestyle. If someone is gay, I could care less but don't call me a bigot just because I do not agree with it. And do not throw it in my face saying this is normal just as my relationship is with my wife.

Everyone deserves the same rights here in the US, including gays. Everyone deserves to live their own life. I might not agree with it but I can only live my life.

Having said all this, I believe in God and we all will be judged by him someday.

When they put you in the ground, that's where you stay.

If that is what you believe, that's is OK with me. You are entitled to your opinion just like me.

[houndawg]

When they put you in the ground, that's where you stay.

If that is what you believe, that's is OK with me. You are entitled to your opinion just like me.

[D1B]

This one is relatively short and directed at those who don't have a dog in the fight. Note that we are having a debate related to the "normalization of homosexuality" mindset. Take note of which side is more characterized by vitriol. And think about that when you watch manifestations of the cultural conflict in the media and around you. Then ask yourself which side, if the word "hate" is going to be used, is associated with the preponderance of the hate.

IMO, there is just as much "hate" or more on the pro-gay side compared to the anti-gay side. It is interesting to see people labeled "bigots or haters" if they do not agree or accept the pro-gay agenda.

Now, I'm sure I will be labeled a homophobe on here because I do not believe in this agenda or lifestyle. If someone is gay, I could care less but don't call me a bigot just because I do not agree with it. And do not throw it in my face saying this is normal just as my relationship is with my wife.

Everyone deserves the same rights here in the US, including gays. Everyone deserves to live their own life. I might not agree with it but I can only live my life.

Having said all this, I believe in God and we all will be judged by him someday.

Which god will judge us? There are thousands of em...

Osiris, lord of the dead. His green skin symbolizes re-birth
Ancient Near East
Ancient Egyptian deities
Mesopotamian deities
Kassite deities
Semitic gods: see El, Elohim
Assyro-Babylonian pantheon (see also Family tree of the Babylonian gods)
Canaanite deities
Anatolia
Hittite deities
Hurrian deities
Lydian deities
Caucasus
Armenian deities
Ossetian deities
Persia: see Yazata, see also Proto-Indo-Iranian religion
North Africa: Berber mythology
Pre-Islamic Arabian deities
Central / Northern Asia
Siberian
Raven God of Kamchatka and Chukotka
Turco-Mongol
Tengri
East Asia
Chinese deities
Japanese deities
Korean deities
List of bodhisattvas
India / South Asia
Hindu deities
Rigvedic deities (see also Proto-Indo-Iranian religion)
Southeast Asia
Deities of Philippine mythology
Malaysian Chinese Gods
Europe
Baltic deities
Celtic deities
Irish deities
Etruscan deities
Finnic deities
Germanic deities
Anglo-Saxon deities
Hungarian deities
List of Roman deities
Lusitani deities
Paleo-Balkanic deities (Thracian/Dacian/Illyrian)
Sami deities
Slavic deities
African deities
Alusi
Guanche deities
Yoruba deities
Afro-American religion
Loa
Orisha
Americas
Mesoamerica
Aztec deities
Maya deities
North America
Inuit deities
Native American deities
South America
Incan deities
Guarani
Mapuche

Australia-Oceania
Australian Aboriginal deities
Māori deities
Polynesian deities
Rapa Nui deities (Easter Island)

[Screamin_Eagle174]

Retard, she didn't take ANY steps diminish the variation of mental adjustment. She didn't just exclude just gays who were extremely maladjusted. She excluded both gays and heteros who were extremely maladjusted. The results showed that there was about 25-33% who were maladjusted, 40-50% who were well adjusted, with the remainder average. The KEY is that there was no significant variation between gay men and straight men.

The first statement in the paragraph above is just objectively incorrect. Near the beginning of the paper, she wrote:

when I set out to investigate the adjustment of the homosexual, to obtain a sample of overt homosexuals who did not come from these sources; that is, who had a chance of being individuals who, on the surface at least, seemed to have an average adjustment,

[/i]

I didn't read anything you wrote past that initial statement, because it's blatantly wrong.

It therefore seemed important, when I set out to investigate the adjustment of the homosexual, to obtain a sample of overt homosexuals who did not come from these sources; that is, who had a chance of being individuals who, on the surface at least, seemed to have an average adjustment, provided that (for the purpose of the investigation) homosexuality is not considered to be a symptom of maladjustment. It also seemed important to obtain a comparable control group of heterosexuals.

I'm done trying to explain to you why you're wrong. You refuse to accept fact, simply to continue your intolerance of homosexuality.

[Bison Fan in NW MN]

To D1B: God of Abraham

[Screamin_Eagle174]

This one is relatively short and directed at those who don't have a dog in the fight. Note that we are having a debate related to the "normalization of homosexuality" mindset. Take note of which side is more characterized by vitriol. And think about that when you watch manifestations of the cultural conflict in the media and around you. Then ask yourself which side, if the word "hate" is going to be used, is associated with the preponderance of the hate.

IMO, there is just as much "hate" or more on the pro-gay side compared to the anti-gay side. It is interesting to see people labeled "bigots or haters" if they do not agree or accept the pro-gay agenda.

Now, I'm sure I will be labeled a homophobe on here because I do not believe in this agenda or lifestyle. If someone is gay, I could care less but don't call me a bigot just because I do not agree with it. And do not throw it in my face saying this is normal just as my relationship is with my wife.

Everyone deserves the same rights here in the US, including gays. Everyone deserves to live their own life. I might not agree with it but I can only live my life.

Having said all this, I believe in God and we all will be judged by him someday.

Exactly. You're nowhere close to a homophobe or a bigot. It's okay to disagree with it. What makes JSO a bigot is his belief that gays are lesser beings who don't deserve the rights and opportunities that heterosexuals do.

Bigotry is the state of mind of a bigot, defined by Merriam-Webster as "a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance".