Someone recently reminded me that I said I would do a post on this topic. As it happens, there was an interesting kerfluffle recently that discussed this topic.
Comrade PhysioProf discusses the appearance of a few sexist comments in the responses to a bog post welcoming a new female scientist to discover blogs, and why the "compliments" are still inappropriate. Now, grown men and women are certainly capable of slapping this sort of nonsense down independently. Teenagers are not as experienced, knowledgeable, nor independent. It is much harder for a teenager to speak out against a community of peers than it is for adults. Also, language guides thought, and teenagers are still learning their thought-patterns. Teaching them not to say such things will mean they all be less inclined to think these things.
A second type of case is when the legislature of a state/nation chooses a symbol that is deeply offensive to a large selection of the populace, when there are many other non-offensive ways to proclaim the same message. An example would be when South Carolina flew the Confederate flag over their statehouse. Many of those same sentiments would have been expressed by flying the "Live free or die" flag, or any one of dozens of other possible flags. It is inappropriate to choose a symbol for black South Carolinians that they hate. Note,that this is different from groups that hate the flag chosen by South Carolina because it is South Carolina.
I agree that many of the reactions of people get overblown (such as the response to "niggardly"), and that no one has a right to keep adults from saying offensive things. However,in the two situations of trying to educate people, and of government speech, I think that considerations teaching what/how to think and of being a government for all the people do make it important keep speech and symbols inoffensive.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
49 comments:
"However,in the two situations of trying to educate people, and of government speech, I think that considerations teaching what/how to think and of being a government for all the people do make it important keep speech and symbols inoffensive."
Eric, I git kinda scared when I hear peoples talkin bout teachin "what and how" to think, eh? Inoffensiveness is fine, and disapproval of bores (or is is it "boars") is to be expected. Trying to teach your own kids your own values is to be expected and is admirable too. That aint really what I mean by PC.
You and I (and others) had a talk a while back about Herbert Marcuse's doctrine of "repressive tolerance." It's one thing to disapprove of the opinions of others, it quite another to "punish" them for not sharing your values, if and when you have the power to do so.
Let's take a concrete case to start with: Don Imus was fired after great uproar about his comments. Many were DEMANDING that he be fired. Same with the ball-player, John Rocker, a few years back.
I don't think anyone should be fired for their opinions. Firing a "shock jock" for "shocking" people seems like an oxymoron.
It's the DEMAND that people conform in thought or be punished that I find disturbing. What if "homophobes" like Hitler or Castro held power and made it MANDATORY to condemn and punish anyone who believed homosexuality was acceptable? Would you think that to be proper? After all, any homophilic attitude would then be offensive to the powers that be (and hence to the majority).
Know what I'm sayin?
Another problem is that the frantic demands for "politically correct" speech/thought seems to come from the most fanatical, doctrinaire quarters--zealots who make a life cause out of a single issue or two and who have lost all perspective.
In my mind, Comrade PhysioProf makes a bigger fool out of him(her)self than anyone he/she is criticizing. In response to a mundane comment like this: "I’ll be the first to say that Sheril is quite fetching," we are notified by Comrade in the comments section that "“Mmmmmm…woman” (and the other “compliments”) oppresses women as a class of human beings, dehumanizes them, and interferes with their right to personal and professional autonomy." Heh.
In response to an intelligent, relevant counterpoint made by Michael Hawkins, Comrade's insightful response is: "Thanks for the subnumeraled list, holmes. You’re a fucking misogynist wacko."
Such people obviously take themselves quite seriously, but I can't. This kind of extreme rhetoric and insult in lieu of reason just makes me all the more sure that I don't want the thought processes and tactics of the would-be enforcers of political correctness to prevail. Leave the extremism to the extremists and quit trying to "radicalize" every decent human being on the planet via "repressive tolerance," eh?
It probably aint PC to make cross-posts in unrelated threads because...well, because it just aint fittin, that's why.
Even so, I thought I would mention that I made a brief comment in your (3rd) Nagel post. I figure ya might not never see it otherwise, ya know?
As an introduction, take a look at this brief video clip of a molecular biologist talkin bout random mutation, eh?:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGaUEAkqhMY
Eric, I git kinda scared when I hear peoples talkin bout teachin "what and how" to think, eh?
That's pretty much what school is for.
I don't think anyone should be fired for their opinions. Firing a "shock jock" for "shocking" people seems like an oxymoron.
I agree. Don Imus was not in an educational institution, and was not a government official. I htink the whole thing was overblown.
However, it was also a case of the free market in action. I don't recall Imus facing any threats from the FCC. People threatened boycotts, etc., and the private business acceeded to the desires of it's listeners. Free speech still means you have to accept the consequences of that speech.
What if "homophobes" like Hitler or Castro held power and made it MANDATORY to condemn and punish anyone who believed homosexuality was acceptable?
Homophobes do hold power at places like Liberty University and BYU, and making such public pronouncements at these instituitons is punishable. However, as private universities, I support their right to conduct themselves in this fashion.
That said, I hope you are not conmfusing the actions of tyrants with that of a free market.
In my mind, Comrade PhysioProf makes a bigger fool out of him(her)self than anyone he/she is criticizing.
I disagree. I think there is a valid point to be made about men using sexual attractiveness to circumvent the ideas presented by women. Science, especially, prides itself as being a realm where the ideas are paramount, personalities are secondary at best.
Still, are you saying ComradePhysioProf needs to change the way they think or speak? That sounds awfully PC. :)
One Brow said: "People threatened boycotts, etc., and the private business acceeded to the desires of it's listeners."
THE desires? Of IT'S listeners? Which listeners, exactly, I wonder? Who was makin such demands, and what were their motives? One (black) man's opinion on the subject:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5ZQXaXmCW4
And, no, this guy aint no right-winger or no oreo, eh?
In response to this: "Eric, I git kinda scared when I hear peoples talkin bout teachin "what and how" to think, eh?"...
One Brow said: "That's pretty much what school is for."
Ya think, Eric!? If by "how" to think, you mean using critical analysis to assess things, then I agree. But "what" to think? In terms of what opinions one should (must) hold? I don't think so! Homey don't play dat. Independent thought is the sine qua non of progress and any system of learnin which does not engender it fails as a system of "education" (I concede that it could nonetheless be very successful as a means of indoctrination, but that aint what I call education, ya know?).
As an introduction, take a look at this brief video clip of a molecular biologist talkin bout random mutation, eh?
Sorry, you must have posted the wrong link. That was David Berlinski, a mathematician full of bad ID arguemnts, and he is no more amolecular biologist than you or I. There've been plenty of responses to the "point" he proposes, you could probaly name a half-dozen.
THE desires? Of IT'S listeners? Which listeners, exactly, I wonder? Who was makin such demands, and what were their motives? One (black) man's opinion on the subject
Last I checked, neither Sharpton nor Jackson were Imuis' superiors, nor are they government figures. The only power they weild is market power, the power to command protests and boycotts. Regardless if you think of them as defenders or terrorists, it is pure market forces at work.
But "what" to think? In terms of what opinions one should (must) hold? I don't think so! Homey don't play dat. Independent thought is the sine qua non of progress and any system of learnin which does not engender it fails as a system of "education" (I concede that it could nonetheless be very successful as a means of indoctrination, but that aint what I call education, ya know?).
Well, if my only choices are absolutely no training of what to think and complete indoctrination, I'll choose to shut the colleges down entirely.
There are some things that are just wrong, and it's perfectly appropriate to teach them as such. There is no difference in people of various skin colors that necessitates creating a different classof citizenship. You can in fact predict the mean outcome for large groups of people in certain cercumstances, even if you can't predict it for one person (that is, poverty does cause crime). People are apes. Unfettered capitalism does not result in benefit for the poor in society.
I don't hink it's indoctrination to state what's true, especially since one good teachign method is to show why by exporing the opposite concepts.
"That was David Berlinski, a mathematician full of bad ID arguemnts, and he is no more amolecular biologist than you or I."
Well, Eric, aint knowwin bout you, but I wuzzn't no post-doc in molecular biology at Columbia, eh? Berlinski is an avowed atheist, and claims he aint no advocate of ID--he mainly is just highly critical of the neo-darwinistic theory.
" He received his Ph.D. in philosophy from Princeton University[4] and was later a postdoctoral fellow in mathematics and molecular biology at Columbia University....Berlinski shares the [ID] movement's disbelief in the evidence for evolution, but does not openly avow intelligent design and describes his relationship with the idea as: "warm but distant. It's the same attitude that I display in public toward my ex-wives."[2] Berlinski is a scathing critic of "Darwinism", yet, "Unlike his colleagues at the Discovery Institute, [he] refuses to theorize about the origin of life."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Berlinski
"There are some things that are just wrong, and it's perfectly appropriate to teach them as such....Unfettered capitalism does not result in benefit for the poor in society. I don't think it's indoctrination to state what's true..."
Well, Eric, you certainly have no problems concluding what is (presumably absolutely) "wrong" and "true." This is of course typical of most who advocate teachin PC concepts. Is the best test of an economic system, generally, whether or not it "benefits the poor." The poor in this country get plenty of "benefits" due to our capitalistic system (which aint unfettered, I spoze). Is meritocracy a worthwhile alternate, even if such a system does is not specifically designed to "benefit the poor?"
It really strikes me that you want to present your political views as right and true, and advocate the indoctrination of those views. The very kinda thang I object to most. I guess we just see things different, eh?
I kinda know what you're sayin though. I think it's extremely wrong that the NBA does not benefit poor players like me and that they have standards of play which exclude me from the realization my fondest dreams.
Ya know, Eric, there are probably billions of people on the planet who are much, much poorer than most people in this country who are "below the poverty line."
Are they all victims of unfettered capitalism, ya figure? Does ANY economic system eliminate "poor" people, ya figure? If so, what is it? Commieism? I wonder why it is that our capitalistically-generated standard of living is higher than the vast majority of the countries in the world? Mebbe the world is just "wrong," ever think of that?
Ya know, Eric, it seems to me that you are very quick to turn what starts out as a discussion about normative standards into a mere observation of a descriptive standard.
For one who seems to have distinct complaints about "unfettered capitalism," you seem to be rather quick to "justify" events on the basis of a presumed trust in the propriety of "market forces," eh?
More broadly speakin, your response to objections to improprieties of those you support often seems to be sumthin along the lines of: "The people doin this are imperfect, I'm not naive enough to think otherwise." That may well be an accurate observation, but it does NOT respond to the normative issues that were the original topic of the discussion.
Well, Eric, aint knowwin bout you, but I wuzzn't no post-doc in molecular biology at Columbia, eh?Actually, it was "mathematics and molecular biology". In the time since (non-ID) writings have all been about philosphy and mathematics. He is nomore molecular biologist than either of us. He's also an agnostic, not an atheist.
Well, Eric, you certainly have no problems concluding what is (presumably absolutely) "wrong" and "true." There is plenty of history to demonstrated the effects of not having government to reign in the free market. Not once did it benefit the poor.
Is the best test of an economic system, generally, whether or not it "benefits the poor." That is an interesting discussion, and any answers to it should not be taught as truth, but as an examination of the values of individuals and that of the community as a whole. Regardless, the discussion needs to be based on accurate information.
However, reading my statement as inherently proscriptive, rather than descriptive, misses the point. You will find many proponents of unfttered capitalism makingthe claim that everyone benefits from it, even though the claim is false. Ther is no reason to teach that this particular point is uncertain.
Excerpts from current commentary from NARTH, eh, Eric?:
"March 6, 2008 - In 1998, the American Psychological Association (APA) published a brochure titled "Answers to Your Questions about Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality."
This particular document was ostensibly published to provide definitive answers about homosexuality. However, few of the assertions made in the brochure could find any basis in psychological science. Clearly a document anchored more in activism than in empiricism, the brochure was simply a demonstration of how far APA had strayed from science, and how much it had capitulated to activism.
The newest APA brochure, which appears to be an update of the older one, is titled, "Answers to Your Questions for a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality....
In his book, Destructive Trends in Mental Health, former APA president Nicholas Cummings notes that he and his co-author lived through the abominable McCarthy era and the Hollywood witch hunts; still he notes, there was "not the insidious sense of intellectual intimidation that currently exists under political correctness." He says, "Now, misguided political correctness tethers our intellects."
Consider the following statement made by a prominent member of the American Psychological Association and published by the Harvard University Press: "...it may be that for now, the safest way to advocate for lesbian/gay/bisexual rights is to keep propagating a deterministic model: sexual minorities are born that way and can never be otherwise. If this is an easier route to acceptance (which may in fact be the case), is it really so bad that it is inaccurate?"
Is there an ethical violation when a self-identified psychologist and a member of APA supports activism masqueraded as science, and states that it is not so bad?Political correctness would suggest that there will be no response from the APA.
http://www.narth.com/docs/deemphasizes.html
Nobody brings in the stupid better than NARTH. Why you continually quote from them is a mystery.
For example, they see
"There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles..."
as somehow bering a step back from
"There is considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality."
Even when the quote, they can't help but shoot themselves in the foot. Playing a significant role is essential for being part of a set of complex factor. The would not be in the set of complex facotrs if the role was insignificant.
Is there an ethical violation when a self-identified psychologist and a member of APA supports activism masqueraded as science, and states that it is not so bad?Political correctness would suggest that there will be no response from the APA.
I did a Google search on the quote, and found the source. Can you guess what the authors' response to the rhethorical question was, and the reasoning behind it? Let me know after you either find the quote or make your guess, and we can discuss what the author, and NARTH, are saying further.
Oh, while you are at it, guess how much the study of this author had to do with reparative "therapy" such as that practiced at NARTH, or even homosexuals in general.
With respect to this revision: "Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors," it seems to me to contradict the hard line you were takin when we first discussed this, even if you don't want to read the APA as trying to promote the "genetically determined" line more than was warranted in its first edition. As I recall, you seemed willing to propogate the impression that you that many studies had "shown" that homosexuality was genetically determined.
With respect to your other comments, Ya coulda just gimme the site you want to discuss, rather than make it some mystery, eh, Eric. I will run a google check, but, why ya go and do that, eh?
My google search takes me to page 257 of a book by Diamond, where page 256 is missin and page 257 is a continutation of a sentence which begins on page 256. Again, Eric, rather than playin games, is there a site you've visited which contains pertinent information which you'd like to discuss? If so, just gimme the URL, eh?
In the meantime, back to NARTH (NARTH, it ROCKS, eh!?):
On the question of whether or not therapy can change sexual orientation, the former document offered a resounding "no." However, the current document is much more nuanced and contains the following statement: "To date, there has been no scientifically adequate research to show that therapy (sometimes called reparative or conversion therapy) is safe or effective."
Of course, no mention is made of the Spitzer research, the Karten research, or the recent longitudinal research conducted by Jones and Yarhouse -- all of which support the conclusion that some people can and do change.
I wonder what happened to the "resounding no," and how such an absolute statement got incorporated into the original brochure in the first place, eh? Any guesses?
With respect to this revision: "Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors," it seems to me to contradict the hard line you were takin when we first discussed this, even if you don't want to read the APA as trying to promote the "genetically determined" line more than was warranted in its first edition. As I recall, you seemed willing to propogate the impression that you that many studies had "shown" that homosexuality was genetically determined.So, you think that even after including notions like birth order influence the non-unitary correlaiton in identical twin studies, I at some point proposed "genetically determined" as opposed to "born that way". I presume you can see the difference. Even then, my recollection of the conversation is that I acknowledged "born that way" might be an overstatement, because people would not really remember their "orientation" at the age of two. No, I'm fairly sure that I would have argued for genetic influence, but not determination.
With respect to your other comments, Ya coulda just gimme the site you want to discuss, rather than make it some mystery, eh, Eric. I will run a google check, but, why ya go and do that, eh?I suppose I was just looking to discern how much credit you put in a NARTH article. You didn't answer my questions, though. Let me break them down, before we discuss NARTH further.
1. You characterized the NARTH quote from "Sexual Fluidity" by asking if there was an ethical violation when a self-identified psychologist and a member of APA supported activism masqueraded as science, and stated that it [the masquerade] is not so bad.
a) Did you read page 257?
b) After reading the pagte, does your question reflect the authors position well?
c) Do you believe the intention you assigned to the author was the same intention that the article from NARTH assigned to the author?
d) Did the article from NARTH give you a fair representation of the author's meaning?
2. Answer only if 1d) is generally negative.
a) Do you think the NARTHians had trouble understanding page 257?
b) If not, to what motive would you credit their interpretation?
c) Do you think their claim that "political corectness" will prevent a response is the real reason the APA would not agree with NARTH in thier critique of "Sexual Fluidity"?
3. Relevance of the topic of "Sexual Fluidity" to the work of NARTH (will require at least a decent skim of a couple of chapters).
a) Is the book about reparative therapy, such as the type NARTH engages in?
b) Did the study look at homosexuals?
c) What is the significance of this study to NARTH?
After you answer these questions (yes, you first, you brought them up), I'll be happy to supply my own answers, and we can discuss how we might agree or disagree on the ability to rely on this NARTH article for fair information. Then we can talk about the article itself.
Eric, like I said, I don't even have the benefit of the full sentence. I can perhaps speculate about what the full context is, but I don't know. I therefore don't feel I can answer your questions, based on the information I have. I will offer these comments based on what I do see, though....
The question is posed as to what it is best to do FOR NOW. Without knowing exactly what the author is responding to, the next sentence is "Over the LONG TERM, yes, because...."
I have trouble relating anything that comes after the "because" part to anything posed in the question--it seems to address the issue of general bias against women (with the standard for men supposedly being "normative") without respect to any issue of homosexuality or anything relevant to genetic determinism. One can read this as somehow sayin that, "yes" it is wrong, even though the stated "reasons" seem irrelevant. Still, I'm not sure that the "yes" is even in response to the latter part of the last sentence of the preceding paragraph (which is all I have). It is possible that the "no" is in response to some other issue previously posed.
On the other hand, a response about what is bad over the lONG TERM does not necessarily say anything about what is bad "for now," (i.e, as a temporary, necessary fix to a pressing problem).
I gather, without reading much (and with large chunks bein unavailable) that this author may be suggesting that homesexuality is NOT determined and that is counter-productive to represent it as such, at least to individuals honestly asking such questions as they pertain to themselves.
Has the NARTH guy misrepresented this position? Mebbe. Has he done so deliberately? Mebbe. Again, I don't see anything totally unambiguous in what I can read.
It does seem that the NARTH guy has, at a minimum, ignored the overall context of this author's statement. This is sloppy, at best, deliberately dishonest and misleading, at worst.
Another thing...The statement quoted does not even ask it it is bad to do the expedient thing. The fragment I have suggest that it is best (or may be). The specific question (which we can presume is answered "yes, in the long term) is simply "....is it really so bad that it is inaccurate?"
Of course it's bad that it's inaccurate. That doesn't even address the question of whether is useful to pretend, short term, that it is NOT inaccurate.
Reading a little further, Eric, although it is a separate point, Ms. Diamond seems to be objecting the the PC demands of the gay/lesbians activists herself, eh?
She claims that "many subsets" of the gay/lesbian community write off people with changing sexual prefences as "inauthentic." She claims that the gay-lesbian rights movement has imposed a "silencing effect" on individual expression and that there marginalization has made some women feel there was "something wrong" with them.
Chalk up yet another "victory" for the PC crew, eh?
One Brow asked: "So, you think that even after including notions like birth order influence the non-unitary correlaiton in identical twin studies, I at some point proposed "genetically determined" as opposed to "born that way". I presume you can see the difference. Even then, my recollection of the conversation is that I acknowledged "born that way" might be an overstatement, because people would not really remember their "orientation" at the age of two. No, I'm fairly sure that I would have argued for genetic influence, but not determination."
Well, innate, genetically determined, whatever, eh, Eric? Again, I don't care to indulge in fine semantical nuances.
I'm skimming a little more of this Diamond Babe's work, and I kinda like it, ya know? She doesn't seem to have a lot of sympathy for your view, even if it is some brand of watered-down determinism, eh? I can't cut and paste from this source (dammit) but on page 239-240 she claims that even "scientific models" which emphasize factors other than biological determinism are ultimately "just as reductionistic as genetic determinism." She proposes a "dynamic systems model" for analyizing and understanding sexual fluidity, which sounds kinda kewl, too.
One last comment on the "is it so bad" question....
I now have a better feel for the context of Diamond's response, and I take it to be sumthin like this:
1. Standard scientific models of genetic determinism do not apply to women with alternating sexual attractions.
2. Such women don't fit the propogated model and they are therefore written off as atypical and inauthentic.
3. This leads those particular women to feel as though there is something wrong with them, and it reinforces the negative feelings that others have about them (inauthentic).
4. Therefore it is bad to propogate the standard deterministic notions, at least over the long term.
At the same time, Diamond appears to agree that, "it may well be that, for now, the safest way to advocate for lesbian/gay/bisexual rights is to keep propogating a deterministic model: sexual minorities are born that way and can never be otherwise."
To the extent she believes that it is "bad" that this is inaccurate, it seems to be because of the adverse practical effects on a special set of women.
I don't see anywhere she says it is wrong because it is it a false representation of science, though.
Thank you for taking the time to examine "Sexual Fluidity" with the care you have.
I di want to add one further point: none of the women being studied were undergoing reparative theriapy, and none of them were homosexuals. Diamond studied bisexuals and uncategorized women and noted that they later in life tended to settle on one side of the spectrum or the other. So, these women don't have anything in common with NARTH clients.
Also, one point of disagreement:
I don't see anywhere she says it is wrong because it is it a false representation of science, though.
On the contrary, she offers the specific objection of producing bad science (as well as bad public policy) to the notion of pretending that women's sexuality follows the same (unchanging) pattern as men's.
At the same time, Diamond appears to agree that, "it may well be that, for now, the safest way to advocate for lesbian/gay/bisexual rights is to keep propogating a deterministic model: sexual minorities are born that way and can never be otherwise."
I read tht as a concession of a possible tactical efectiveness, not moral support, espcially when followed so closely by saying it is a bad idea in the long run.
She doesn't seem to have a lot of sympathy for your view, even if it is some brand of watered-down determinism, eh?She doesn't? This is some view I have that says bisexuals can't choose, or come to prefer through habit, one sex over the other?
Well, innate, genetically determined, whatever, eh, Eric? Again, I don't care to indulge in fine semantical nuances.
I was not aware that the this was a fine semantical nuance. Would you agree a skin cell is not a brain cell? That this difference is significant? That it is innate? That it is not genetically determined?
In the meantime, back to NARTH (NARTH, it ROCKS, eh!?):
Well, in the sence that any organization that regularly publishes work that is "sloppy, at best, deliberately dishonest and misleading, at worst" rocks, sure. Yes, this was just one example. I see it as one among many, even if you do not.
I wonder what happened to the "resounding no," and how such an absolute statement got incorporated into the original brochure in the first place, eh? Any guesses?
My guess is that the "no" was not nearly as resounding as NARTH claims it was.
From what I recall of the Spitzer study, the typical change of people after completing five years of therapy was about 10 points on a scale of 0 to 100, with the highest being 20 or so. That is a measurable change, but it will hardly mkae a dent for homosexuals at the extremem end of the spectrum. The Jones and Yarhouse "longitudinal" study was done over t4h course of a handful of years, and relied on participants memories for their condition on entering the program.
I think the NARTH link you offered, like so many NARTH links, is fulls of standard denialist tactics.
She doesn't? This is some view I have that says bisexuals can't choose, or come to prefer through habit, one sex over the other?
No, Eric. She seems to deny the validity of the platonic/essentialist/innate/immutable/deterministic view of sexuality in general.
We both know that is was not carelessness that led you to confine your question to "bisexuals" as opposed to TRUE gays/lesbians, eh? Authentic, unremittin homos, ya know? The kind who were "born that way" and all. She doesn't seem to share that view.
"I read tht as a concession of a possible tactical efectiveness, not moral support, espcially when followed so closely by saying it is a bad idea in the long run."
Well, I agree that Diamond's viewpoint, whatever it is, was not fully and fairly presented by the NARTH guy. On the other hand, as I have already noted, I don't think the statements contained in this excerpt are sufficient to totally invalidate his interpretation, either. I base this on the explicit distinction which the author herself makes between "for now" and "the long term." That seems to qualify any "answer" made by the author, and it is by no means clear that she is disapproving of the misrepresentation of science "for now."
No, Eric. She seems to deny the validity of the platonic/essentialist/innate/immutable/deterministic view of sexuality in general.Good. It's important in every generation to have scientists that quesiton even the most "obvious" truths. However, the subjects of the study in question were bisexual and/or uncatergorized women.
We both know that is was not carelessness that led you to confine your question to "bisexuals" as opposed to TRUE gays/lesbians, eh?
No, it was not carelessness. It was based on the fact that these are the people Diamond studied.
Authentic, unremittin homos, ya know?
Also the authentic, unremittin heteros, ya know?
The kind who were "born that way" and all. She doesn't seem to share that view.I realize the study is not all there, and I'm not going to make pronouncements on her beliefs. However, the results of the study pertain to women who feel attraction to both sexes, let's say they are 40 to 60, or 35 to 65 if you like, on the Spitzer scale.
Again, I accept Spitzer's results that you can change by some 0-20 points at most with reparative therapy in highly committed individuals. However, if you start at a 5, that means that if you are both very lucky and very determined, you can work your way up to a 25 (and 15 is much more typical). The ones who start at 40 can have reasonable success. The ones who start at 5, probably not. Again, not my personal opinion, but the results of the very same Spitzer study NARTH is promoting.
Well, Eric, the issue of "reparative therapy" seems to have somehow gotten mixed up with that of genetic determinism, which is all I'm talkin about. Changing established habits is always difficult, especially when those habits give big "pay-offs" and/or the party in question has desire to alter his habits for any other reason(s).
Despite the addictive qualities of nicotine, it is generally belived that people "can" quit smoking, if sufficiently motivated. Many have no such motivation though, and no amount of "encouragement" will change their habits. Either way, that has nothing to do with, nor does it lend any support for, some wild hypothesis that they were innately determined to be a habitual smoker for the rest of their life, ya know?
Not particularly relevant, but for some reason a statement attributed to the actor John Malkovich comes to mind. It wuz sumthin like this (he wuz attackin some mutual acquaintance of his and the person(s) he wuz addressin): "That little bitch is even gay. He's bisexual, for christ's sake!"
The ultimate put-down, from a PC perspective, I spoze.
Isn't even gay, I meant. I left out the negative in the previous post too, were I intended to say that the party in question has [no] desire....
Despite the addictive qualities of nicotine, it is generally belived that people "can" quit smoking, if sufficiently motivated. Many have no such motivation though, and no amount of "encouragement" will change their habits.
Smoking or not smoking is a behavior. If you want to make this even remotely parallel, the behavioral equivalent is having homosexual sex or not having homosexual sex.
My understanding of NARTH is that the are making the claim they can end the equivalent of the nicotine cravings. I think that claimis irresponsible. If the National Association of Research for Tobacco Cessationn (NARTC) is only claiming they can help you stop smoking, then I have no issue. When smoking is punishable by death, oppression, loss of job, loss of property, and/or shunning by your family, lots of people will quit smoking even without the help of NARTC, and I'm sure NARTC will help others. My problem is when NARTC claims, against all evidence, that they can end tobacco cravings even in the most highly addicted people. The cravings don't end after a year or ten years (my father has had non-metaphorical tobacco cravings for a decade or so). Telling people you will end their tobacco cravings, because tobacco cravings are just the result of habits, is wrong. It can work with the mildly addicted, but the seriously addicted will always have the cravings (true non-metaphorically as well).
Believe it or not, this is not how I think it should be. In my ideal world, everyone is bisexual and finds themselves attracted to all genders, and those who are religiously motivated to choose one gender only can do so successfully. However, my preferences don't change reality.
"The cravings don't end after a year or ten years (my father has had non-metaphorical tobacco cravings for a decade or so)."
Well, that could be true, I dunno. Again, my onliest point was that I wouldn't say that your Pappy would always have tobacco cravins because he was innately predetermined to have them. It's possible, I spoze, but....
Again, my onliest point was that I wouldn't say that your Pappy would always have tobacco cravins because he was innately predetermined to have them. It's possible, I spoze, but....
My mother smoked for a couple of decades, quit, and never had a craving. You think that might be an innate difference?
Could it be? Well, it's possible, but it seems unlikely. If anything, I think most humans are born with an innate aversion to smoking tobacco.
For anyone I've ever known, my own damn self included, the natural bodily response is to utterly reject smoke, at first. Excessive coughing, to the point of choking, stomach sickness, dizziness, etc. are typical initial reactions to inhaling smoke, and these natural reactions don't go away quickly.
It's, like, an acquired trait to begin with, I figure, and it aint exactly easy to acquire. If a human "craves" cigarettes, it seems doubtful that he was "born that way."
Human psychology is full of mystery that strikes me as completely independent of anything "innate." You had a post about eatin crap. There are actually people who do this routinely, and derive some kind of sexual arousal/satisfaction from it. It seems virtually impossible that anyone would be "born" to desire such unnatural and unhealthy practices. The suggestion that someone is "born" with the innate sexual identity of a crap-eaters strikes me as absurd.
Of course, for those who approach every issue with the presupposition of strict genetic determinism, it could ONLY be that. In one sense. the "genes makes me do it" argument can appear to be the only conceivable explanation, I spoze. Why would anyone ever do that, unless "forced" to do so by factors beyond their control, eh?
Could it be? Well, it's possible, but it seems unlikely. If anything, I think most humans are born with an innate aversion to smoking tobacco.
That actually enhances the example, rather than disputes it. The innate trait is not addiction to tobacco, but becoming addicted or not addicted after prolonged tobacco use. Just as the APA says there is a complex set of factors in homosexuality. Perhaps some genetic switches allow other factors to be turn on or off. Being determined does not require having a simple method of determination.
It seems virtually impossible that anyone would be "born" to desire such unnatural and unhealthy practices. The suggestion that someone is "born" with the innate sexual identity of a crap-eaters strikes me as absurd.
I don't know about that particular fetish. I have heard that, in the human brain, the places that receive/control our feet are close to those that control sexual perceptions and behaviors, and that foot fetishes may often be a case of bad wiring, so to speak.
The left-wing Berkeley professor of history, Martin Jay, summarizes the history of "political correctness" in this here video, eh, Eric?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8630135369495797236
One Brow said: "You don't have the only book on the planet. If you want to be part of a social group, you have to understand their book, as well." [That quote is from a post in another thread where we were discussin issues of "political correctness."}
You say this so glibly, Eric, with no analysis and a ton of presupposition. One premise seems to be that one should be ostracized from a "social group" if he does not "understand their book."
But what's it boil down to? According to you, "some" posters at Jazzfanz misinterpreted the meaning and intent of my posts, and I should have done sumthin to prevent that from happenin (by learning, understanding, and conforming to "their book," I guess).
Of course, a lot of people didn't misinterpret me, as far as I know, but naturally they don't count as part of the "social group" in question. It is only those with the inability to comprehend who "count," and it is only those who must be satisfied if one desires to remain a part of the "social group."
As if anyone could ever make anything statement to a mass audience which was not subject to bein misunderstood by someone, eh?
You also not that: "Of course, since you're not even sure you want to go back to JazzFanz, I suppose that point is moot." Any "social group" which demands conformity to their particular brand of "groupthink" to allow you as a member is indeed a group that I don't care to belong to. The same is true, even more so, if they don't demand any particular "thought," but simply disallow ANY expression which might "offend" even one out of a thousand of their members.
Eric, in that other post, you also referred to prominent blacks defending Cosell as a non-racist (which, of course, was obvious to anyone who knew anything about him and/or his history). You're making my point, actually. People who know nothing decide that they know everything from a few words. I could never conclude that Cosell was "racist" on the basis of that one utterance, even if I had never seen or heard of the guy before. That doesn't stop others from doin the opposite, even if the face of easily known facts and explanations.
Here's a excerpt from a current blog:
"As many of you remember, this was Howard Cosell's career-ending quote.
Having been well overexposed to the Imus debacle, I'd reckon it's fair to say that it's a tossup between Cosell and Imus; they're both insensitive, racist fuckups.
UPDATE Some say that Cosell didn't make racist remarks before this. I will certaintly NOT dispute this, Cosell seemed like a standup guy before that...I was as shocked as anyone. Nonetheless, he really fucked up. {end update}
What really sucks today is that it developed into some so-called "issue." Thirty years ago there was no issue. There was no discussion. Cosell was fired shamed into resignation, no ifs, ands, buts, or controversy.
That's right! No controversy! You're Thirty years ago there was no issue. There was no discussion. Cosell was fired shamed into resignation. Bye."
Does it strike you as at all significant that some are so certain of the (erroneous) facts and interpretations, and of the mandatory "punishment" which should follow. Does it tell you anything about the underlying mentality at work?
Out of 106 votes on the poll at this blog, 72% said Imus should be fired, "just like Cosell."
Meant to post the source, eh?:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/4/9/221939/3448/89/321293
It all kinda reminds me of another discussion we had once, eh, Eric? The Duke Lacrosse players, ya know?
The accused students were expelled the lacrosse coach was immediately fired, and the whole lacrosse schedule cancelled (to make sure the all the associates of defendants were punished too).
The PC "judges" came out in a hurry, Nancy Grace on CNN said: ""I'm so glad they didn't miss a lacrosse game over a little thing like gang rape!" Almost 100 professors collectively ran an ad citing anonymous sources about the "sexism" and "racism" at Duke, and thanking the students who were demonstrating. Not surprising that over 70% of both the African American and Womens Studies departments signed on to this (none of the law professors did, of course). Only one ever apologized for prejuding the case. "Wanted posters" for all 40 members of the lacrosse team were widely circulated by students, and one black professor claimed that Duke had "veritably given license to rape, maraud, deploy hate speech, and feel proud of themselves in the bargain."
Kinda ironic how those who constantly scream about how "prejudiced" others are toward them can be so abolutely and blindly prejudiced themselves when it comes to an issue which involves their "cause," eh?
As I said before..UTTER WEAKNESS.
My first response before recomposure was "...oh golly, yet another site that claims some wide ratiocentric reasoning girth on behalf of leftism.
But what the hell:
Given the sad state of the public schools in this nation (yet another reason we don't need 20 million+ ignorant illegal aliens to trim hedges and clean golf courses in this nation--the schools can aready handle that particular economic argument), it is no suprise the the demogoguery of the Civil War as "freein' the slaves" lives on, when in fact that is the result, however favorable, of something not quite what we hear. I suggest you find a chipper chap named Thomas DiLorenzo on this matter.
Yes, Virginia, there REALLY IS such a beast as States' Rights. NOW: In no way, shape, format, or form does this excuse the 3000 year history of slavery, but by the same token provides the context that not only did it start in the South, it did not even start in America, but among the tribal chieftans of Africa who in turn introduced it to the sons of Arabia and later to Europe. Also, the context of some other little things Lincoln had going on, up to and including what the Left would call war crimes if we had a reincarnation of W.T. Sherman today.
Be careful of that moral catbird seat. It can be kinda top heavy and tipsy.
And on the issue of PC codes on politically correct speech?
We need only the correct part.
The lie comes in, in the politics part. Rarely are the two notions (political) (truth) co-joined at the spine. As Barney Frank and Paul Krugman illustrate, not to mention a governance now over the economy from men who've never had the pioneering ways with so much as a lemonade stand.
Which is precisly the problem, or one of the many, rather--and the main issue with pious PC nonsense.
--Tolbert the High Brow, Multi-Brow.
(or at least hailing from middlebrow America)
Ya read this here post too, eh, Tolbert? http://lifetheuniverseandonebrow.blogspot.com/2008/12/confederacy-denialism.html#comments
Seein as how yo talkin bout States rights, I'm guessin ya did.
You say this so glibly, Eric, with no analysis and a ton of presupposition. One premise seems to be that one should be ostracized from a "social group" if he does not "understand their book."
You habitually seem to imply imperatives into what are intended to be statements of fact. Regardless of whether one "should be" ostracized, one will be.
Of course, a lot of people didn't misinterpret me, as far as I know, but naturally they don't count as part of the "social group" in question.
Why not? Or if you are intending sarcasm, it’s really coming off as bitterness.
I could never conclude that Cosell was "racist" on the basis of that one utterance, even if I had never seen or heard of the guy before. "
You seem to be assuming that anyone prominently involved in the situation on either genuinely thought of Cosell as a racist. Cosell did not describe it that way.
Here's a excerpt from a current blog:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/4/9/221939/3448/89/321293.
I don’t see the point, other than some guy posting on a situation he doesn’t know anything about (Cosell’s) and comparing it to Imus.
It all kinda reminds me of another discussion we had once, eh, Eric? The Duke Lacrosse players, ya know?
. . .
Kinda ironic how those who constantly scream about how "prejudiced" others are toward them can be so abolutely and blindly prejudiced themselves when it comes to an issue which involves their "cause," eh?
Much more typical than ironic.
As I said before..UTTER WEAKNESS.
That’s your interpretation. Usually, things seem more complicated to me.
Welcome to the blog, Wakefield Tolbert. Do come by often.
My first response before recomposure was "...oh golly, yet another site that claims some wide ratiocentric reasoning girth on behalf of leftism.
Leftism? Really?
No, there are many very rational (i.e., logically valid) justifications for a variety of positions associated with rightism. I do happen to think there is reasonability gap (i.e., of logical soundness).
Given the sad state of the public schools in this nation (yet another reason we don't need 20 million+ ignorant illegal aliens to trim hedges and clean golf courses in this nation--the schools can aready handle that particular economic argument), it is no suprise the the demogoguery of the Civil War as "freein' the slaves" lives on, when in fact that is the result, however favorable, of something not quite what we hear.
I agree this is an unfortunate trend. I’m not sure why you’d bother to bring it up in a comment here. Certainly I made no claim as to the motives of the union being about freeing slaves. I have long known that Lincoln would have committed to preserving slavery in order to preserve the union.
I suggest you find a chipper chap named Thomas DiLorenzo on this matter. .
I didn’t see anything particulary noteworthy there.
Yes, Virginia, there REALLY IS such a beast as States' Rights. .
One of the particular concerns of the South were the enforcement of the Fugitive Slave provisions, as interpreted by Dred Scott. It’s curious how you want to portray secession as being about states rights, when the Confederate States would so vocal about other states not acceding to their demands.
And on the issue of PC codes on politically correct speech?
We need only the correct part.
I would agree to that, with only a couple of provisos as already discussed in this blog post.
Leftism? Really? Well, some things might trend that way, as they can over on "Science" Blogs, where the agenda can quickly move to some ditties certainly more about ideology than science.
As to DiLorenzo, check again.
He's an historian as well as economist.
I don't agree with much of what he says but it is a refreshing break to move away from the "official" lines of things we got taught in school.
I agree this is an unfortunate trend. I’m not sure why you’d bother to bring it up in a comment here.I realize that I should have posted that under the other posting you had about "Confederacy Denialism". Or so to speak. Whoops.
Oh well.
But, in any case, it IS interesting that an event over 150 years in the past is now routinely used as yet another PCism that gives a start rebuke (so we are told) to notions of the 10th Amendment needing boostering beingn some kind of icky, redneckish argument.
When, with those....shades of grey, and seeing that the angels and demons didn't line up on Blue and Grey either, we see things are not quite that simple.
Nothing in history ever is.
Well, some things might trend that way, as they can over on "Science" Blogs, where the agenda can quickly move to some ditties certainly more about ideology than science.
Definately. After all, when a blog is titled "Dispatches from the Culture Wars", it's a fairly safe bet there will be a lot of political content. Some of the blogs, Like Respectful Influence, stay politically neutral, many do not.
As to DiLorenzo, check again.
He's an historian as well as economist.
I saw that he has made some detailed study, and read one of his on-line debates. I just didn't see anything particularly noteworthy.
I realize that I should have posted that under the other posting you had about "Confederacy Denialism". Or so to speak. Whoops.
No, that's not what I meant. I was not sure why you were bring up the complaints concerning how we teach the motivations of the North in response to complaints/analysis about the false protrayal by politically motivated individuals of the motives of the South. It didn't seem very on-point.
But, in any case, it IS interesting that an event over 150 years in the past is now routinely used as yet another PCism that gives a start rebuke (so we are told) to notions of the 10th Amendment needing boostering beingn some kind of icky, redneckish argument.
One man's simplification is another man's PC.
when I was in high school, it was clearly presented that the Northern motivations/propaganda regarding the Civil War did not include slavery until 1863. I don't remember what I was taught about it in third grade.
... we see things are not quite that simple.
Agreed.
Post a Comment