Skip to main content

View Diary: Dear Bigot, I get it. You hate me. Now get on with your life. (224 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  maybe they just don't want to be bothered (27+ / 0-)

    in my neighborhood, i'm that person.

    and please, if we're going to play the anecdote game, I lived for 4 years in Harrisburg city, home to the most cliquish, close-minded, insular and provincial gay men that exist in the state of Pennsylvania, so your anecdote is irrelevant as to how people are.

    Sometimes people don't want to be bothered with other people. Extroverts have never gotten this. We introverts really wish they would.

    pseudoscience can kill

    by terrypinder on Sun Sep 02, 2012 at 06:56:52 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Science on the gay-man thing. (4+ / 0-)
      For several years, studies led by Andrea Camperio Ciani at the University of Padova in Italy and others have found that mothers and maternal aunts of gay men tend to have significantly more offspring than the maternal relatives of straight men....

      Turns out, the moms and aunts of gay men have an advantage over the moms and aunts of straight men for several reasons: They are more fertile, displaying fewer gynecological disorders or complications during pregnancy; they are more extroverted, as well as funnier, happier and more relaxed; and they have fewer family problems and social anxieties. "In other words, compared to the others, [they are] perfect for a male," Camperio Ciani said. Attracting and choosing from the best males enables these women to produce more offspring, he noted.

      The new study will appear in an upcoming issue of the Journal of Sexual Medicine.

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

      So basically, their theory is that the personality traits associated with the gay male stereotype run in their families because they confer an evolutionary advantage on the females of the family.

      I have no idea of any science on personality traits typical of lesbians. But FWIW I have a genderqueer (her term) daughter, and she's hilarious.

      "The true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals." - Barack Obama

      by HeyMikey on Sun Sep 02, 2012 at 08:45:22 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Interesting. Can't stand Huffpo so will wait (6+ / 0-)

        for the upcoming Journal of Sexual Medicine to be discussed somewhere. Of course, they did the study on guys, not women. Just like a lot of medical research....

        "People, even more than things, have to be restored, renewed, revived, reclaimed and redeemed; never throw out anyone. " Audrey Hepburn "A Beautiful Woman"

        by Ginny in CO on Sun Sep 02, 2012 at 09:59:23 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Oh c'mon. "Science" isn't the word for that. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Yamara, FishOutofWater

        All of those criteria are highly subjective. For one, it's pretty bullshit to say that extroverts are superior to introverts. Secondly, they've assumed that the number of children a woman has reflects biology rather than choice, which is completely disingenuous. Finally, you can't make any meaningful conclusions about a whole category of people based on looking at 161 of their relatives.

        Some researcher saw what they wanted to see. News at 11.

        •  maybe, maybe not (0+ / 0-)
          All of those criteria are highly subjective.
          Not really. Psychologists have highly reliable, statistically-valid measures of personality traits. Whether those were used in this study, I dunno, but they're routinely used in the psychological profession, so it would be somewhat shocking if they weren't.

          There's also reliable science showing personality traits are heavily influenced (not totally determined) by genetic inheritance.

          it's pretty bullshit to say that extroverts are superior to introverts.
          "Superior" is your value judgment that you're imposing on the measured traits. The fact that X makes a woman more attractive to the average male (not, I hope obviously, to all males) does not mean X is superior.
          they've assumed that the number of children a woman has reflects biology rather than choice
          (a) How do you know they are assuming that, and not accounting for it? (b) Given a large enough statistical sample, choice could be relatively equal across people with otherwise disparate traits.
          you can't make any meaningful conclusions about a whole category of people based on looking at 161 of their relatives.
          I dunno. I'm not a statistician. Certainly the larger the sample, the less random variation is a factor. The Journal of Sexual Medicine is peer-reviewed (according to Wikipedia); I presume if there were some basic error like using too small a sample, the editors would've caught it.

          Certainly this is just one study, and some studies turn out to be wrong or at least miss important parts of the picture. But I'm more inclined to take seriously a study in a peer-reviewed journal than your (or my own) personal opinion.

          "The true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals." - Barack Obama

          by HeyMikey on Mon Sep 03, 2012 at 10:45:48 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  I typically reject (0+ / 0-)

        evolutionary psychology, as this appears to be that, as so much of it is crap. I have questions.

        pseudoscience can kill

        by terrypinder on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 09:25:48 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site