Natural Rights

[beyelzu]

Originally Posted by 1Samuel8

So, I will repeat: the only thing that an outsider can verify is what a person does. Even though I truly believe that sexual orientation means more than what a person does, there is nothing that can scientifically observe that.

Bullshit. We can verify all sorts of interesting things that aren't actions. Brain chemistry changes, other physiological changes. Even if one argues that what a person thinks they feel is somehow not what they actually feel. The self reporting should at least be able to get at what they think they feel.

[Farren]

An entirely behavioural approach to evidence produced a lot of warped ideas about the human psyche and went out the door in the seventies. You can gain a lot of valuable insights from self-reporting. Absent some compelling motivation for misreporting, there's not much reason to treat the consistent testimony of large numbers of people as suspect.

ETA: Widespread fear of stigma is not a compelling motivation for deceit in anonymous studies in societies with reasonable protections for human rights. Religious fundamentalism may be because its an internalised motive for deceit, but simple fear of stigma isn't.

And Doctor X I still find your vague allusions to historical evidence unconvincing. Citing societies in which unusual (by today's standards) levels of bisexuality existed among a minority (aristocracy, scholars) or took a form that was clearly asymmetrical in the actual form it took and still showed heterosexual bias, doesn't illustrate an exceptional amount of malleability of sexual identity.

[1Samuel8]

Originally Posted by Farren

You can gain a lot of valuable insights from self-reporting.

Like what? and what makes it valuable?

Sure, you can get something valuable but in the end, are you just producing a more persuasive argument that will convince people? or are you actually producing proof?

Originally Posted by Farren

Absent some compelling motivation for misreporting, there's not much reason to treat the consistent testimony of large numbers of people as suspect.

Wrong. You are making a very grave methodological mistake here. Such a motivation does not matter.

First of all, unless you can prove that people are NOT misreporting, you have not advanced your study very far. Granted, you might be able to convince people to believe your hypothesis is true but I do not think that is saying much. Lots of people are convinced of a lot of different things by simple suasion. Heck, some people are still convinced that Obama is a secret crypto-Islamo infiltrating spy.

Second, you have to be able to demonstrate that a person can objectively be self-aware. In other words, you have to consider the possibility that an individual may simply not have the ability to observe himself objectively.

As an example, you can ask a blind person: What color is your skin? but he will only be telling you what other people have told him and what other people have convinced him to be true. It would not be scientific if you mark his answer down as "the color of his skin" on your chart.

Originally Posted by Farren

And Doctor X I still find your vague allusions to historical evidence unconvincing. Citing societies in which unusual (by today's standards) levels of bisexuality existed among a minority (aristocracy, scholars) or took a form that was clearly asymmetrical in the actual form it took and still showed heterosexual bias, doesn't illustrate an exceptional amount of malleability of sexual identity.

Then, what does it illustrate?

Originally Posted by beyelzu

Bullshit. We can verify all sorts of interesting things that aren't actions. Brain chemistry changes, other physiological changes.

From a observational point of view, those two things are actions. So, do not worry, from an outsider's perspective, they are not being excluded.

Originally Posted by beyelzu

Even if one argues that what a person thinks they feel is somehow not what they actually feel. The self reporting should at least be able to get at what they think they feel.

You are going to have to produce a connection between "what a person feels/thinks" and the observational data.

You are also going to have to demonstrate that such a connection is the same for every single member of the human race, past, present and future.



--------

Frankly, I think we are just juggling around with a completely undefinable concept: sexual orientation. Nobody holds an objective monopoly over its definition. I do not see why the observation of "sexual orientation" should be any more rigorous than "favorite ice cream" in my opinion. If a person says "I am gay." or "I am straight." that is good enough for me knowing that if I need to make a decision based on that information, I do not feel like I deserve to know the truth and any such risks that decision entails are my own.

I realize that flies in the face of what I argued up above in this post. However, I think that is the way it should be. A person's sexual orientation should not have to withstand rigors of logic or science. I think it is a mistake to expect them to do so.

[Farren]

Originally Posted by 1Samuel8

Sure, you can get something valuable but in the end, are you just producing a more persuasive argument that will convince people? or are you actually producing proof?

Wrong. You are making a very grave methodological mistake here. Such a motivation does not matter.

First of all, unless you can prove that people are NOT misreporting, you have not advanced your study very far. Second, you have to be able to demonstrate that a person can objectively be self-aware. In other words, you have to consider the possibility that an individual may simply not have the ability to observe himself objectively.

As an example, you can ask a blind person: What color is your skin? but he will only be telling you what other people have told him and what other people have convinced him to be true. It would not be scientific if you mark his answer down as observational data.

I'm tired of arguing about settled methodological principles so I'm just going to say hundreds of thousands of clinical psychologists would disagree with you and leave it at that. Its not considered conclusive evidence. But in the absence of evidence to the contrary it is considered the most compelling evidence.

[1Samuel8]

Originally Posted by Farren

I'm tired of arguing about settled methodological principles

In that case, do not talk about principles. All you have can be summed up by saying: "Enough people tell me what I believe is true."

[Farren]

Originally Posted by 1Samuel8

In that case, do not talk about principles. All you have can be summed up by saying: "Enough people tell me what I believe is true."

mkay

[seebs]

Originally Posted by sanctimonious

If sexual orientation is about emotional relationships

Not emotional relationships, romance.

There's a noticeable difference.

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by Farren

And Doctor X I still find your vague allusions to historical evidence unconvincing.

Gave you rather specific and substantial examples which, for some reason, you still cannot address.

When you have done your homework on that, which an unkind man would suggest will require you dropping your biases, do get back to me. Otherwise, you are merely making claims contrary to observation and without solid evidence as demonstrated previously.

--J.D.