We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Reasoning is primarily used by human beings not to determine the truth, but to convince the audience or one's opponent that one's beliefs are the correct belief. In this context, it does not matter whether the facts or news being used to justify one's conclusion are accurate, but only that they are convincing enough to the audience.
I have a spouse that does this sort of thing all the time. After almost 50 years I just take what they claim with a grain of salt and do my own research.
I saw a lot of this in the public sector. It's the basis of a lot of public policy, with predictably expensive and counter productive results. I've taken to calling the phenomenon premeditated self-deception .
While I have no doubt that there is some truth to this, I would posit that just as often the truth is somewhere between what the common man thinks it is and what the media and experts are trying to convince you that it is. In the last three years I do not believe that any Democrat, left leaning MSM or never Trumper has uttered a true statement.
Also, IMHO whenever someone does a study like this they and their study are highly suspect.
I have the same suspicion" "All you other people out there are believing wrong things. Me, just a little."
There are some doing it legitimately and facing their own shortcomings, however. What tends to happen is that the research is okay, but the reporting of it is slanted. It will be oversensationalised and the journalist's favorite outgroup will be especially skewered. Which rather proves the premise of the article, doesn't it? I would be cautious but not immediately dismissive. If you read closely, you can usually see what's real.
Assistant Village Idiot
1. If you believe in any significant biological cause for homosexuality or transexuality - you demonstrate this phenomenon (among others).
2. Humans brains are wired to process experiences and anectodes. Statistics are often abstruse and counterintuitive. And they have no emotional charge to make them "stick" in the human brain.
3. The modern world has dressed all kinds of sh*t in the mantle of science. Almost none of the "social sciences" are in fact scientific.
Have you ever heard of recessive genes? I suspect there are different reasons for different people, some may be environmental, but some are likely to be genetic. And i don't think we have nearly complete understanding of the human genome to say one way or the other just yet
(At this point lefties and other fools go off on various tangents like mitochondrial DNA and birth order - all of which phenomena disappear in large-scale studies.)
2. Twin studies are the gold-standard first step to establish correlation before exploring causation - and studies of identical twins have asked about sexual orientation. Nada. Nothing. Abysmally low correlations, lower than coin-flipping, which drop even lower when twins raised separately are studied (= total separation of nature and nurture).
You might be interested in Greg Cochran's writing over at West Hunter. He acknowledges that there might be some heritable predisposition to homosexuality, but doesn't see it showing up strongly in the numbers. Very controversially, he thinks it's a virus, and even that is dependent on expression tied to action. Needless to say, the idea is not popular with LGBT activists.
I have read there is an increase in homosexuality from a prenatal stress POV, but don't stand by that, because I have not subjected it to any research or critical approach. It might be so.
Assistant Village Idiot
I've known a lot of gay/queer people in my life, both sexes, and been close friends with some. By a lot, I mean a few dozen, because I grew up immersed in the arts and have always been a bit of a free spirit myself. I don't know a single one that didn't have some kind of child abuse in their history, usually from a parent, usually a male. Not saying it's always that way, just my direct experience as a hetero observer. I also have a young acquaintance that I've known since birth, and am 99% sure there was no abuse involved, that grew up so much a tomboy that I was pretty sure she would discover she was lesbian eventually - but it turns out she's very happily married now. I think our biology is so wired toward reproductive sex that there are multiple things that can be turn-ons, including homosexuality in the right circumstances. But I also think that it takes other behavioral motivators, including trauma, to make homosexuality a preference. Not an expert.
I think homosexuality is typically genetic or determined at/before birth and not a result of trauma or environment. The exception is many lesbians have chosen their sexuality, not all, but many. If you actually "know" a homosexual male you "know" they are very, very different from a heterosexual male. With lesbians it kind of depends; the "husband" is typically very different from heterosexual females but the "wife" is typically indistinguishable in her actions and mannerisms from a heterosexual woman.