Jump to content

Recommended Posts

They found that for men, genetic effects explained about 35% of the variance in sexual orientation, while individual-specific environment accounted for the other two-thirds of the variance. In women, only 20% of the variance was explained by genetic factors. I think its pretty clear now that the prevailing view of homosexuality as a characteristic fixed at birth is incorrect. From what I have read about the legal issues surrounding gay marriage, this kind of data is not irrelevant.
It's been a few years and I didn't pay a ton of attention to my statistics class, but if I remember correctly, accounting for 35% of all possible variance is huge.. Like...really huge. At least in psychology.I know it's been a while, and I can't find anything on google to backup/refute my claims, but I think you're reading that completely wrong. I think this sentence shows that genetic factors play a significant role in sexual orientation.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 302
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Objection. Please don't speculate on Mr. Shabadoo's mental state. Now then, will you clarify your statement as to your knowledge of the meaning and proper use of the phrase in question. We have evide

I let my attorney do the heavy lifting.

so many fallen brothers.

It's been a few years and I didn't pay a ton of attention to my statistics class, but if I remember correctly, accounting for 35% of all possible variance is huge.. Like...really huge. At least in psychology.I know it's been a while, and I can't find anything on google to backup/refute my claims, but I think you're reading that completely wrong.
This is VB:beaker-muppet-lrg.pngHe's a scientist.
Link to post
Share on other sites
It's been a few years and I didn't pay a ton of attention to my statistics class, but if I remember correctly, accounting for 35% of all possible variance is huge.. Like...really huge. At least in psychology.I know it's been a while, and I can't find anything on google to backup/refute my claims, but I think you're reading that completely wrong. I think this sentence shows that genetic factors play a significant role in sexual orientation.
We're talking about the relative roles of genetic versus environmental factors. 35% is not trivial. But it's much smaller than the 65% which is due to environmental factors.This effectively refutes the idea that sexual orientation is "determined" by genetics. I am not saying there is no genetic contribution. Also, you guys have misunderstood the roles a little bit. THIS is me: bunsen.jpg
Link to post
Share on other sites
We're talking about the relative roles of genetic versus environmental factors. 35% is not trivial. But it's much smaller than the 65% which is due to environmental factors.
When they say that they've accounted for 35% of the variance biologically, they don't mean the 65% remaining is environmental. Just that they haven't accounted for it. Most psychological studies only account for 15% of the variance of a problem. And those are studies that are considered pretty convincing.What the study is saying is that they know, for sure, that at least 35% of the gay twin phenomenon is biological. This is an astoundingly high number.
Link to post
Share on other sites
http://www.thepersonalitysystem.org/PFA%20...20Criterion.htmThat link explains the concept of variance in studies. Variance here is the standard deviation from the mean. It says that most studies find that r= (-0.40) to (+0.40). In other words, they can explain 20% of the variance. Anything above that is a pretty dramatic result. If the study says that they've explained 35% of the variance, that means that r=0.70, which is far out of the normal range and a significant result that corroborates the theory that sexual orientation may in fact be genetic.
Link to post
Share on other sites
When they say that they've accounted for 35% of the variance biologically, they don't mean the 65% remaining is environmental. Just that they haven't accounted for it. Most psychological studies only account for 15% of the variance of a problem. And those are studies that are considered pretty convincing.What the study is saying is that they know, for sure, that at least 35% of the gay twin phenomenon is biological. This is an astoundingly high number.
No, that's incorrect.Read the study I linked to. Biometric modeling revealed that, in men, genetic effects explained .34–.39 of the variance, the shared environment .00, and the individual- specific environment .61–.66 of the variance. Corresponding estimates among women were .18–.19 for genetic factors, .16–.17 for shared environmental, and 64–.66 for unique environmental factors.
Link to post
Share on other sites
No, that's incorrect.Read the study I linked to. Biometric modeling revealed that, in men, genetic effects explained .34–.39 of the variance, the shared environment .00, and the individual- specific environment .61–.66 of the variance. Corresponding estimates among women were .18–.19 for genetic factors, .16–.17 for shared environmental, and 64–.66 for unique environmental factors.
They're saying they accounted for all of the variance? Or are they using a different system?If it's the former, they're full of crap. If it's the latter, I'd like to read about this system.Even if it were true, that's still 35% genetic. Doesn't that mean that, even in "ideal" environmental heterosexual conditions, there's over a 1/3 chance of them being gay?
Link to post
Share on other sites
They're saying they accounted for all of the variance? Or are they using a different system?If it's the former, they're full of crap. If it's the latter, I'd like to read about this system.Even if it were true, that's still 35% genetic. Doesn't that mean that, even in "ideal" environmental heterosexual conditions, there's over a 1/3 chance of them being gay?
All I know is that sharing gives you a 16-17% higher chance of being gay.So no more free cigars form me on FCP Vegas trips!!!!
Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't believe you.
I don't know the guy. I don't know if he's wrong or not, and I'm not even sure if 'pwned' is even the right word to use there. I think I would have to actually know whether or not custom was wrong before I declare him to be 'pwned'.You probably understood this.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't believe you.
I don't know the guy. I don't know if he's wrong or not, and I'm not even sure if 'pwned' is even the right word to use there. I think I would have to actually know whether or not custom was wrong before I declare him to be 'pwned'.You probably understood this.
pwnned!
Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know the guy. I don't know if he's wrong or not, and I'm not even sure if 'pwned' is even the right word to use there. I think I would have to actually know whether or not custom was wrong before I declare him to be 'pwned'.You probably understood this.
Objection. Please don't speculate on Mr. Shabadoo's mental state. Now then, will you clarify your statement as to your knowledge of the meaning and proper use of the phrase in question. We have evidence that not only are you aware of said phrase's meaning but that you have, in fact, and without regard to context, used said phrase on numerous occassions.
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
They're saying they accounted for all of the variance? Or are they using a different system?If it's the former, they're full of crap. If it's the latter, I'd like to read about this system.
You'd like to... but you didn't. I think you are missing the point. It's a twin study. The pairs of twins can either be concordant for sexual orientation or discordant. If they are discordant we know that non-genetic factors are the reason because they share 100% of their genes. If you'd like to read about this "system", feel free to click on the link that provides an electronic transfer mechanism for the words in the article to reach your eyes. It was on the last page I think. Once you're done, then come back and tell us how the study is full of crap.
Even if it were true, that's still 35% genetic. Doesn't that mean that, even in "ideal" environmental heterosexual conditions, there's over a 1/3 chance of them being gay?
No. What? Of who being gay?
Link to post
Share on other sites
You'd like to... but you didn't. I think you are missing the point. It's a twin study. The pairs of twins can either be concordant for sexual orientation or discordant. If they are discordant we know that non-genetic factors are the reason because they share 100% of their genes. If you'd like to read about this "system", feel free to click on the link that provides an electronic transfer mechanism for the words in the article to reach your eyes. It was on the last page I think. Once you're done, then come back and tell us how the study is full of crap. No. What? Of who being gay?
I will look tomorrow, for sure. I wasn't aware there were different ways of accounting for variance. Or that this was a study that outlined their own method of accounting for variance. It was an honest question.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks. An article once written by Camille Paglia (feminist / lesbian / democrat) that discussed this subject at length. It talked about the so-called "holy grail" of the gay community: evidence proving they are predestined to be gay (via genetics). While she is for gay rights, she said there were major problems with this concept -- the two biggest of which were:1) A genetic disposition could demonstrate an illness or defect rather than a simple difference. This would mean that gays need a cure, not acceptance. 2) According to Paglia, there are thousands of studies that demonstrate there is no genetic relationship and only a few that show a correlation -- and that those few typically had questionable science and a small sample size.Concerning the study using twins ... I have always found twin studies to be fascinating, particularly when focused on twins separated at birth without their knowledge (and better yet, without their adoptive parents' knowledge). The problem with these studies is that they are more useful in proving something is uncorrelated than proving that something is correlated. In other words, this study you are citing could accurately state that 65% or more of same-sex behavior is not genetic; but it would not be accurate to state that 35% is genetic. This is because it is impossible to filter out all non-genetic factors.For example, it could be that identical are more likely to be gay simply because they are twins (perhaps because they have grown up with a tighter relationship than normal with their same-sex sibling). So, this possibility is isolated by studying only twins separated at birth.But, it could be that kids who are adopted are more likely to be gay. So, this possibility can be eliminated by only comparing adopted twins with adopted non-twins.But, it could be that twins who were separated & adopted and knew they had a twin out there somewhere were more likely to be gay. So, this possibility can be eliminated by only using twins who did not know they had a twin.But, it could be that the parents treated them slightly differently because the parents knew there was a twin (perhaps they felt guilty for separating them and gave them a different level of attention & comfort). So, this possibility can be eliminated by only using twins whose adoptive parents didn't know they were twins.But, it could be that gay magazines typically show models of blonde men, resulting in gay men seeking blonde men, resulting in blonde men more likely becoming gay ... and if we are studying identical twins, if one has blonde hair so does the other. This would give the illusion of a correlation, when it is simply the result of the environment. Of course, this could be isolated by only comparing blonde identical twins separated at birth without their knowledge or their parents' knowledge with only blonde non-twin adoptees.But, it could be that ...The problem is ... how do you possibly know or even account for all of these possibilities. It's impossible. Twin studies are great for demonstrating what does not correlate ... they are not as good at demonstrating what does not correlate. So, the right way to summarize this study is to say ... 65-100% of same-sex behavior is non-genetic and 0-35% is genetic.Thoughts?
Link to post
Share on other sites
Given the complexity of sexual behavior there have to be influences of both. I just think its clear that the prevailing view that people are almost always born gay is demonstrably wrong.
What about people born in Miami?
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 months later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...