The Psychology/Psychiatry Fields and Homosexuality Mythology

[BlueHen86]

Why is this thread in two forums? Or fora, for the classically correct. Wondering about the psychological implication of putting it in the "Locker Room" as well as Politics.

It's in the Politics forum. JSO had made it in the Locker Room and I moved it.

In other words, you outed JSO from the locker.

[BlueHen86]

Why is this thread in two forums? Or fora, for the classically correct. Wondering about the psychological implication of putting it in the "Locker Room" as well as Politics.

I'm wondering about the psychological implication of starting this thread in the first place.

[Screamin_Eagle174]

The only one with an agenda is you, JSO.

* Ignorant, agenda-filled tirade of intolerance *

After reading the study, I'm not surprised in the least to find that your understanding of the purpose of the study, and thus your conclusion of methodological incompetence, is not only inaccurate, but the direct result of your own biases and incompetence. Sufficed to say, your analogy is similarly fucking retarded.

The purpose of the study wasn't to prove or disprove homosexuality as a mental disorder, it was to more objectively analyze (ha!, get it!?) the commonly held belief (in 1957) that homosexuality was often a symptom of severe emotional disorder. The reason I emphasized objectively, was because

few clinicians have ever had the opportunity to examine homosexual subjects who neither came for psychological help nor were found in mental hospitals, disciplinary barracks in the Armed Services, or in prison populations.

It's a methodological fallacy to conclude that homosexuality is a symptom of severe emotional disorder, or that homosexuals are "inherently less mentally healthy than heterosexuals" when you only sample from populations that have a high incidence of emotional and psychological disorders, not to mention a multitude of confounding independent variables. (I suppose then by those same standards, that all the straight individuals from those populations are only straight because they mentally unhealthy?) Hooker therefore reverse-worked the alleged relationship between mental illness and homosexuality by isolating sexual preference as the only independent variable, and making emotional adjustment the dependent variable with everything else controlled (known mental/emotional illness, age, sex, intelligence, and education). What you also fail to recognize and that I have to point out to you, is that there are mentally and emotionally unhealthy people out there, both gay and straight, that exist outside of those population groups that Hooker excluded. Just because all of the subjects outwardly appeared to be normal and well-adjusted, doesn't mean that they were.

It's also no surprise that you would relate homosexuality with lung cancer. Or that you would completely fuck up the relationship of the variables of the study in your analogy. Smoking (independent variable) is a cause of (but not the only cause of) lung cancer (dependent variable). At no point was Hooker or anyone else assuming or implying that homosexuality causes mental illness, or even that there was a causal relationship. Further, in your fucked up example, it would be actually be akin to examining the relationship between smoking and any cancer, because there are a bunch of different kinds, with a bunch of different causes. I won't even get into the fact that even if someone is gay (does smoke), and has an emotional or mental disorder (cancer), in no way can we assume that that homosexuality is the cause. Perhaps years of sexual, physical, or emotional abuse from others (exposure to radiation or chemicals) because of their sexual preference led to their poor mental health.

The one thing that we can all be sure of, is that engaging in consensual sexual relations with whichever sex you're attracted to is in no way harmful to one's self or to others, but treating others as lesser human beings because of their sexual preference is harmful, bigoted, and wrong.

In conclusion, JSO... you're one dumb piece of shit.

[BlueHen86]

* Ignorant, agenda-filled tirade of intolerance *

After reading the study, I'm not surprised in the least to find that your understanding of the purpose of the study, and thus your conclusion of methodological incompetence, is not only inaccurate, but the direct result of your own biases and incompetence. Sufficed to say, your analogy is similarly fucking retarded.

The purpose of the study wasn't to prove or disprove homosexuality as a mental disorder, it was to more objectively analyze (ha!, get it!?) the commonly held belief (in 1957) that homosexuality was often a symptom of severe emotional disorder. The reason I emphasized objectively, was because

few clinicians have ever had the opportunity to examine homosexual subjects who neither came for psychological help nor were found in mental hospitals, disciplinary barracks in the Armed Services, or in prison populations.

It's a methodological fallacy to conclude that homosexuality is a symptom of severe emotional disorder, or that homosexuals are "inherently less mentally healthy than heterosexuals" when you only sample from populations that have a high incidence of emotional and psychological disorders, not to mention a multitude of confounding independent variables. (I suppose then by those same standards, that all the straight individuals from those populations are only straight because they mentally unhealthy?) Hooker therefore reverse-worked the alleged relationship between mental illness and homosexuality by isolating sexual preference as the only independent variable, and making emotional adjustment the dependent variable with everything else controlled (known mental/emotional illness, age, sex, intelligence, and education). What you also fail to recognize and that I have to point out to you, is that there are mentally and emotionally unhealthy people out there, both gay and straight, that exist outside of those population groups that Hooker excluded. Just because all of the subjects outwardly appeared to be normal and well-adjusted, doesn't mean that they were.

It's also no surprise that you would relate homosexuality with lung cancer. Or that you would completely fuck up the relationship of the variables of the study in your analogy. Smoking (independent variable) is a cause of (but not the only cause of) lung cancer (dependent variable). At no point was Hooker or anyone else assuming or implying that homosexuality causes mental illness, or even that there was a causal relationship. Further, in your fucked up example, it would be actually be akin to examining the relationship between smoking and any cancer, because there are a bunch of different kinds, with a bunch of different causes. I won't even get into the fact that even if someone is gay (does smoke), and has an emotional or mental disorder (cancer), in no way can we assume that that homosexuality is the cause. Perhaps years of sexual, physical, or emotional abuse from others (exposure to radiation or chemicals) because of their sexual preference led to their poor mental health.

The one thing that we can all be sure of, is that engaging in consensual sexual relations with whichever sex you're attracted to is in no way harmful to one's self or to others, but treating others as lesser human beings because of their sexual preference is harmful, bigoted, and wrong.

In conclusion, JSO... you're one dumb piece of shit.

Oh boy, now you did it. We're going to be bombarded with several long, boring threads by JSO telling us how right he is.

But I strongly agree, he is one dumb piece of shit.

[Screamin_Eagle174]

Oh boy, now you did it. We're going to be bombarded with several long, boring threads by JSO telling us how right he is.

But I strongly agree, he is one dumb piece of shit.

Enjoy... I don't browse the Poli forum very long or often.

But occasionally I do enjoy and the shit out of , , and just to and , then .

[bench]

But I do have an agenda of sorts. I'm just doing my small part in trying to combat the corruption of science and the general quest for knowledge by egalitarianism.

"People who are smarter than me have reached different conclusions, and my ignorance ought to be just as valid as their knowledge."

[Screamin_Eagle174]

But I do have an agenda of sorts. I'm just doing my small part in trying to combat the corruption of science and the general quest for knowledge by egalitarianism.

"People who are smarter than me have reached different conclusions, and my ignorance ought to be just as valid as their knowledge."

[BlueHen86]

But I do have an agenda of sorts. I'm just doing my small part in trying to combat the corruption of science and the general quest for knowledge by egalitarianism.

"People who are smarter than me have reached different conclusions, and my ignorance ought to be just as valid as their knowledge."

[death dealer]

Why is it that JSO posts all the gay threads?

Latent forbidden desires.

Ding, ding, ding!! And what has our contestant won Charlie?

[JohnStOnge]

Hooker therefore reverse-worked the alleged relationship between mental illness and homosexuality by isolating sexual preference as the only independent variable, and making emotional adjustment the dependent variable with everything else controlled (known mental/emotional illness, age, sex, intelligence, and education).

I appreciate someone finally addressing the substance, but if homosexuality was the independent variable, what do you think the dependent variable was? It was mental adjustment level. So how is it that you think that one can make an inference about whether or not the independent variable is associated with variation in the dependent variable when you have eliminated mental disturbance through the subject selection procedure? You have carefully selected subjects so that variation in the dependent variable is minimized.

Suppose the statement Dr. Hooker quoted is not universally true but that it is true in a disproportionately large number of cases. I'm talking about the Statement "When such homosexual behavior persists in an adult, it is then a symptom of a severe emotional disorder."

Well, if you eliminate all subjects who have severe emotional disorders you eliminate any potential cases for which the statement is true.

As far as the objective of her study, there is something to your argument on that. I think her objective could be interpreted as showing that there are at least some cases in which homosexuals are not maladjusted. But look again at the statement by the American Psychological Association. The title of the statement is, "Being Gay Is Just as Healthy as Being Straight." And the Hooker study does not show that. And her study does NOT show that there is not an increased likelihood of maladjustment and being homosexual because, again, she minimized potential for maladjustment through her selection process.

Look at this quote from her report:

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.

How can you possibly say that makes sense? You're going to look at the average adjustment score but you explicitly say you're going to start off by selecting only subjects who seem to have an average adjustment. By controlling adjustment level you're not controlling independent variables, you're controlling the dependent variable. C'mon man.

[BlueHen86]

Hooker therefore reverse-worked the alleged relationship between mental illness and homosexuality by isolating sexual preference as the only independent variable, and making emotional adjustment the dependent variable with everything else controlled (known mental/emotional illness, age, sex, intelligence, and education).

I appreciate someone finally addressing the substance, but if homosexuality was the independent variable, what do you think the dependent variable was? It was mental adjustment level. So how is it that you think that one can make an inference about whether or not the independent variable is associated with variation in the dependent variable when you have eliminated mental disturbance through the subject selection procedure? You have carefully selected subjects so that variation in the dependent variable is minimized.

Suppose the statement Dr. Hooker quoted is not universally true but that it is true in a disproportionately large number of cases. I'm talking about the Statement "When such homosexual behavior persists in an adult, it is then a symptom of a severe emotional disorder."

Well, if you eliminate all subjects who have severe emotional disorders you eliminate any potential cases for which the statement is true.

As far as the objective of her study, there is something to your argument on that. I think her objective could be interpreted as showing that there are at least some cases in which homosexuals are not maladjusted. But look again at the statement by the American Psychological Association. The title of the statement is, "Being Gay Is Just as Healthy as Being Straight." And the Hooker study does not show that. And her study does NOT show that there is not an increased likelihood of maladjustment and being homosexual because, again, she minimized potential for maladjustment through her selection process.

Look at this quote from her report:

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.

How can you possibly say that makes sense? You're going to look at the frequency of maladjustment but your going to start off by selecting only subjects who seem to have an average adjustment. C'mon man.

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.

[death dealer]

If you would just treat them as equals they would stop complaining and you wouldn't even know they were there.

You bring the problem on yourself.

I'd agree with you 100%, if it weren't for manpris. They creep me out. I can't explain why, they're just wrong.

[BlueHen86]

I realize the immediate reaction of some will be "How DARE you question the wisdom of highly educated practitioners in a field!" But I am hoping that common sense will allow some of you to see how absurd the basis for the statement that "science" has established that homosexuality is not a disorder is.

The seminal study leading to that conclusion and the removal of homosexuality from the American Psychiatric Association Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders is Evelyn Hooker's, "The adjustment of the male overt homosexual," Journal of Projective Techniques, vol. 21 (1957), pp. 18-31. You can verify the role played by that study by reading articles such as the American Psychological Association discussion at http://www.apa.org/research/action/gay.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. Or you can just do a Google search on "Hooker The Adjustment of the Overt Male Homosexual." The approach described in the paper is the cornerstone of the "homosexuality is not a disorder" position. In referring to "other empirical results," the article at the American Psychological Association site linked above is, as far as I can tell, referring to other studies employing the Hooker approach. Basically repeating the study in order to see if the results are consistent.

With that in mind, let's move on to the study. It can be found at http://www.well.com/~aquarius/hooker.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. There are many methological flaws. But there is one obvious problem that common sense should allow anyone to see. Go to the first full paragraph following Table 1. It begins with "In both groups subjects were eliminated...."

Dr. Hooker carefully selected the subjects of her study to ensure that none of them were characterized by any evidence of mental problems. People who were in therapy were excluded up front. Then those who were selected as potential subjects were screened and, if they showed any evidence of "considerable disturbance," they were excluded as well.

Then she compared the two groups and, shockingly, there was no "significant" difference in the average mental adjustment scores between the them. No association between being homosexual and mental adjustment problems.

This is like if I took the following approach to investigating an association between smoking and lung cancer: I select a group of people who have smoked for at least 20 years and another group of people who have never smoked. But then I exclude any subjects who have been diagnosed with lung cancer. After that, I have the subjects examined and if examinations show that any of THEM have lung cancer I throw them out too.

Then I compare the two groups and say there's no "significant" difference in the incidence of lung cancer between smokers and non smokers. No association between smoking and lung cancer.

Again, common sense should allow you to see that reaching such a conclusion on the basis of such an approach is absolute nonsense. But the news media and those who blindly trust "scientific consensus" under the assumption that there is no philosophical bias among scienTISTS think "science" has established that homosexuality is not a disorder immediately dismiss those who say otherwise.

There's also the problem of saying something is not a disorder because it's not associated with other disorders. But that is another area of discussion.

Fire away.

[JohnStOnge]

Oh boy, now you did it. We're going to be bombarded with several long, boring threads by JSO telling us how right he is.

So it's OK for him to make a long, detailed argument as to why he thinks I'm wrong but there's something wrong with me making a long, detailed argument to rebut him.

[JohnStOnge]

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.

[BlueHen86]

Oh boy, now you did it. We're going to be bombarded with several long, boring threads by JSO telling us how right he is.

So it's OK for him to make a long, detailed argument as to why he thinks I'm wrong but there's something wrong with me making a long, detailed argument to rebut him.

Yes.

[BlueHen86]

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.

[JohnStOnge]

Yes.

Well, thank you for at least admitting that you are not the least bit interested in the substance of the issue.

[JohnStOnge]

All you have to do to see that that is obviously not true is look at the vitriol directed against me in this thread.

[JohnStOnge]

In other words, you outed JSO from the locker.

Actually, I made the initial post after having made another post in the Locker Room and forgot to switch rooms first. In my second post, I requested that this discussion be moved to the Politics board.

[YoUDeeMan]

I honestly just don't give a flying fuck what causes gays to be gay. Why don't you put this much time and effort into analyzing groups who actually do harm others, like pre-teen fuckers, or animal abusers?

Who are the animal abusers hurting?

[BlueHen86]

All you have to do to see that that is obviously not true is look at the vitriol directed against me in this thread.

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

[JohnStOnge]

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

And here we have more vitriol.

My purpose is not to garner attention to myself. It's to garner attention to the arguments. Unfortunately, the response is often directed at me rather than at the arguments. At least your pal did make some effort to address the arguments. But he still could not resist a personal attack against me. Which is fine from my standpoint. I can take it. But it really is better to focus on the arguments instead of engaging in personal attacks against the person or persons making them.

[BlueHen86]

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

And here we have more vitriol.

My purpose is not to garner attention to myself. It's to garner attention to the arguments. Unfortunately, the response is often directed at me rather than at the arguments. At least your pal did make some effort to address the arguments. But he still could not resist a personal attack against me. Which is fine from my standpoint. I can take it. But it really is better to focus on the arguments instead of engaging in personal attacks against the person or persons making them.

There would be not argument if you would just shut the fuck up. The problem is you.

[YoUDeeMan]

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?