The page you linked to doesn’t exactly present evidence of a strong genetic component (or much of a consensus for that matter).
Of the studies in question, the only one which showed a weak correlation listed is Bearman and Brückner, which still showed a 7.7% concordance rate for male homosexuality. The female rate is lower, which shouldn’t be that surprising, given that the other studies included also showed lower concordance rates for females, and that there’s other evidence for female sexuality being more malleable than male sexuality. Moreover, the largest study in question, the Sweden study, used literally every single pair of twins born in the country, which makes for a much larger study and handles the selection bias problems. And that study agreed with the results of the other studies excepting Bearman and Bruckner.
The brain evidence is interesting, but it goes more to a lack of choice, rather than a genetic aspect.
Except it’s not evidence of lack of choice (unless you adopt a very specific kind of Cartesian dualism) either.
What does this have to do with Cartesian dualism at all? For that matter, how is this at all relevant, since as I stated earlier, the matter under discussion is what is descriptively thought of as a choice or not by members of society. The entire point was discussing why someone would have a different reaction to the homosexuality discrimination issue than the atheism discrimination issue. In that context, colloquial intuitive notions of choice are relevant.
Your reasoning was basically “everyone lies thus some political group lying isn’t evidence against their other claims”. Not a particularly strong argument at the best of times, certainly not here were the situation is extremely analogous to the lie under discussion (just substitute “transgender” for “homosexuality”).
That’ isn’t what the argument is. Please reread that discussion.
It wasn’t just presenting selective evidence, it was getting BS or outright lies declared part of the scientific consensus.
Really? Did you see any evidence in that discussion that any aspect of this has had any influence on the scientific studies in question? Have they somehow managed to fake data and get it through? Do you think they’ve had papers get rejected? The only plausible sort of situation is selective granting, which requires specific aspects of the LGBTQE movement (not even generically but people who would agree with this lying idea, which the vast majority would not) to have somehow gotten positions in grant giving institutions. Do you have any evidence for that?
which still showed a 7.7% concordance rate for male homosexuality
In isolation, this number tells us nothing. What is important is the gap between concordance rates for MZ, DZ, and siblings. There are several popular hypotheses that predict a large effect of prenatal environment. In fact, the particular paper give 7.7% MZ, 4.2% DZ, and 4.5% siblings, so it detects no effect of prenatal environment and does suggest genetics.
The brain evidence is interesting, but it goes more to a lack of choice, rather than a genetic aspect.
Except it’s not evidence of lack of choice (unless you adopt a very specific kind of Cartesian dualism) either.
What does this have to do with Cartesian dualism at all?
Unless you accept some form of Cartesian dualism you should expect every aspect of the mind to show up on sufficiently advanced brain scans, whether or not it is a choice. Thus, the brain evidence isn’t particularly interesting.
For that matter, how is this at all relevant, since as I stated earlier, the matter under discussion is what is descriptively thought of as a choice or not by members of society.
And my point is that this perception isn’t grounded in anything objective and thus itself needs an explanation.
Your reasoning was basically “everyone lies thus some political group lying isn’t evidence against their other claims”. Not a particularly strong argument at the best of times, certainly not here were the situation is extremely analogous to the lie under discussion (just substitute “transgender” for “homosexuality”).
That’ isn’t what the argument is. Please reread that discussion.
I have, twice in the last few days in fact. Why don’t you try rereading it?
I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume I misunderstood your argument there, if so could you state it more explicitly.
Really? Did you see any evidence in that discussion that any aspect of this has had any influence on the scientific studies in question?
Well Julian practically admitted it.
Have they somehow managed to fake data and get it through? Do you think they’ve had papers get rejected?
Sometimes, generally pressure is applied to people who produce politically incorrect results. Look what happened to Mark Regnerus or Jason Richwine, or to use a more famous example James Watson.
Eugine, within 2 minutes of your comment above, I received a block downvote to all my recent comments regardless of subject. Given this thread, which I presume you must have already seen, my interest in whether this was your action should be clear. If you are attempting to simply ignore the issues, you may want to be aware that this is causing serious concerns and problems within the community, and at least one LW user has considered implementing a response of block downvoting all your comments and those of people with views similar to your own. This situation is creating a mindkilling political mindfield and it is in your and everyone else’s best interest for it to be headed off before the situation deteriorates. Therefore a straight answer from you as to whether you are involved in this would be both appreciated and in the best interest of the community.
If you think you can get away with ignoring ialdabaoth’s requests because of the user’s relatively low status, you should be aware that my own status on LW, while not very high, is likely not so low that simply ignoring me will be a remotely productive response.
You have made some valid points above, but I cannot given recent events discuss them or any other issue with you, until you address the community’s concerns here.
I would like to loudly add that I am very interested in the norms of polite discourse being followed on LW, and am throwing whatever status I have behind this request. Furthermore, if this turns out to be the sort of thing that is best resolved in PMs rather than comments, I am willing to facilitate conversations that way.
Attempted to reverse the effects of the block downvote. Note that any permanent solution to this problem cannot rely on the co-operation of possible defectors. If there is not a method for detecting such defections and preferably determing the source, it continues to be a viable method of asymmetric warfare.
Also might be a decent idea for someone to take formal responsibility for moderating the website. Several people have moderator powers, but I do not know of anyone who is actually responsible for such moderation. (It seems that this would fall to Eliezer by default, but this does not seem to be Eliezer’s comparative advantage.)
ETA: A designated moderator is necessary even with a system such as I described in place since the automated detection can screw up. A human overseer spending, say, an hour on this each week, may be greatly productive if thy have the appropriate tools available.
Of the studies in question, the only one which showed a weak correlation listed is Bearman and Brückner, which still showed a 7.7% concordance rate for male homosexuality. The female rate is lower, which shouldn’t be that surprising, given that the other studies included also showed lower concordance rates for females, and that there’s other evidence for female sexuality being more malleable than male sexuality. Moreover, the largest study in question, the Sweden study, used literally every single pair of twins born in the country, which makes for a much larger study and handles the selection bias problems. And that study agreed with the results of the other studies excepting Bearman and Bruckner.
What does this have to do with Cartesian dualism at all? For that matter, how is this at all relevant, since as I stated earlier, the matter under discussion is what is descriptively thought of as a choice or not by members of society. The entire point was discussing why someone would have a different reaction to the homosexuality discrimination issue than the atheism discrimination issue. In that context, colloquial intuitive notions of choice are relevant.
That’ isn’t what the argument is. Please reread that discussion.
Really? Did you see any evidence in that discussion that any aspect of this has had any influence on the scientific studies in question? Have they somehow managed to fake data and get it through? Do you think they’ve had papers get rejected? The only plausible sort of situation is selective granting, which requires specific aspects of the LGBTQE movement (not even generically but people who would agree with this lying idea, which the vast majority would not) to have somehow gotten positions in grant giving institutions. Do you have any evidence for that?
In isolation, this number tells us nothing. What is important is the gap between concordance rates for MZ, DZ, and siblings. There are several popular hypotheses that predict a large effect of prenatal environment. In fact, the particular paper give 7.7% MZ, 4.2% DZ, and 4.5% siblings, so it detects no effect of prenatal environment and does suggest genetics.
Unless you accept some form of Cartesian dualism you should expect every aspect of the mind to show up on sufficiently advanced brain scans, whether or not it is a choice. Thus, the brain evidence isn’t particularly interesting.
And my point is that this perception isn’t grounded in anything objective and thus itself needs an explanation.
I have, twice in the last few days in fact. Why don’t you try rereading it?
I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume I misunderstood your argument there, if so could you state it more explicitly.
Well Julian practically admitted it.
Sometimes, generally pressure is applied to people who produce politically incorrect results. Look what happened to Mark Regnerus or Jason Richwine, or to use a more famous example James Watson.
Eugine, within 2 minutes of your comment above, I received a block downvote to all my recent comments regardless of subject. Given this thread, which I presume you must have already seen, my interest in whether this was your action should be clear. If you are attempting to simply ignore the issues, you may want to be aware that this is causing serious concerns and problems within the community, and at least one LW user has considered implementing a response of block downvoting all your comments and those of people with views similar to your own. This situation is creating a mindkilling political mindfield and it is in your and everyone else’s best interest for it to be headed off before the situation deteriorates. Therefore a straight answer from you as to whether you are involved in this would be both appreciated and in the best interest of the community.
If you think you can get away with ignoring ialdabaoth’s requests because of the user’s relatively low status, you should be aware that my own status on LW, while not very high, is likely not so low that simply ignoring me will be a remotely productive response.
You have made some valid points above, but I cannot given recent events discuss them or any other issue with you, until you address the community’s concerns here.
I would like to loudly add that I am very interested in the norms of polite discourse being followed on LW, and am throwing whatever status I have behind this request. Furthermore, if this turns out to be the sort of thing that is best resolved in PMs rather than comments, I am willing to facilitate conversations that way.
Attempted to reverse the effects of the block downvote. Note that any permanent solution to this problem cannot rely on the co-operation of possible defectors. If there is not a method for detecting such defections and preferably determing the source, it continues to be a viable method of asymmetric warfare.
Also might be a decent idea for someone to take formal responsibility for moderating the website. Several people have moderator powers, but I do not know of anyone who is actually responsible for such moderation. (It seems that this would fall to Eliezer by default, but this does not seem to be Eliezer’s comparative advantage.)
ETA: A designated moderator is necessary even with a system such as I described in place since the automated detection can screw up. A human overseer spending, say, an hour on this each week, may be greatly productive if thy have the appropriate tools available.