Sunday, October 17, 2010

Eugenics Redux: Sloppy Research Again Masquerading As Significant

I just read the following headline which made me go, "WTF!" followed by additional expletives: Study: Gay Parents More Likely to Have Gay Kids. Walter Schumm, a family studies professor at Kansas State University, has released a study proclaiming that gay parents are more likely to raise gay children than straight parents. His study appears to support the theory of right wing zealots that people can be taught to be gay.

I've done a great deal of research in my professional career, and I can tell you this, the questions that you ask have a direct correlation to the answers that you find. According to Schumm, he was looking for a connection between parenting and sexual orientation, "His study on sexual orientation, out next month, says that gay and lesbian parents are far more likely to have children who become gay. 'I'm trying to prove that it's not 100 percent genetic,' Schumm tells AOL News."

Schumm's research methodolgy consisted of reviewing other people's studies on gay parenting. In his meta-analysis of 10 such studies, Schumm extrapolated data that adult children of gay men and/or lesbians are statistically more likely to identify themselves as gay.

Whoop-di-do! This anecdotal evidence proves nothing except that children who grow up in a straight household may be far more reticent to self-identify as gay. In other words, a child who grows up in a home with two loving parents who are gay may feel more comfortable in acknowledging their own orientation. This so-called lighting bolt of insight is nothing more than the logical result of growing up in homes where sexual orientation is not a basis for disowning or ostracizing one's children.

Think about the number of people who are gay and stay in the closet for years, afraid of the reaction from their parents and other family members. That the adult children of gay parents are more likely to identify themselves as gay is not an indicator that sexual identity is determined by parenting; growing up in an accepting environment just means that you don't spend part of your life denying your authentic self.

I might actually read Schumm's study when it's released. I'd like to know if he addresses the conundrum that there have always been gay people. Who taught them how to be gay? What about gay children with straight parents? Did the straight indoctrination just not take?

This isn't research. This is a man who read a lot of books on gay parenting and then drew conclusions based on the answers collected by a variety of other studies. There is no control group, no methodology for isolating relevant data, or to account for variables because Schumm didn't interview any of the people on whose responses he bases his conclusions. Were the respondents in each of the ten different studies asked the identical questions, phrased in the same exact language, and under the same conditions? I doubt it; each of these studies produced its own independent report. Schumm just read them all.

Studies like this grab headlines. I find such studies to be the height of irresponsibility, feeding into the prejudice and hysteria of homophobia. Ultimately they are shown to be meaningless but the harm has already been done.

In the late 1960s and well into the 1970s, well credentialed researchers such as Arthur Jensen and William Shockley produced studies that proclaimed that intelligence was predetermined by genetics and that Black people were intellectually inferior to Whites. However, Jensen also concluded that Asians were intellectually superior to Whites. Although these studies were later largely discredited they still influenced policy makers in making decisions regarding public education.

Jensen and Shockley were not a one time anomaly. In 1994, Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray published a book in 1994 clearly directed at policy, just as Jensen and others had in the 1960s and 1970s,The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life. Herrnstein and Murray posited among many theories about IQ that Blacks were genetically inclined to have lower IQs than Whites. They also advised that the government "stop encouraging" poor women to have babies and contaminating the gene pool. In 2007, James D. Watson, 79, co-discoverer of the DNA helix and winner of the 1962 Nobel Prize in medicine, told the Sunday Times of London that he was "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours — whereas all the testing says not really."

Research can be used to support any position and its validity is only as good as the methodology of the researcher. The harm done by pseudo sociological research is like a tsunami; it hits the shore destroying everything in its path and then recedes but the damage it leaves behind is catastrophic. WTF were you thinking Mr. Schumm?

8 comments:

  1. What are you actually arguing for? Are you suggesting that homosexuality is 100 percent genetic? That's a crazy position. No human behavior is genetically determined to that extent. If that's actually your position, it's funny that you slam the research of Jensen, Murray, and others who made much more modest claims of genetic causation. Behavior genetic research suggests that the heritability of homosexuality is 50 percent or less; environmental influences are major factors contributing to homosexuality: http://www.gnxp.com/wp/uncategorized/sexual-orientation-%e2%80%93-in-the-genes. Schumm's research seems to be well in line with other evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Research is defined as: Any systematic investigation, including research development, testing and evaluation, designed to develop or
    contribute to generalizable knowledge. Activities which meet this definition constitute research for purposes of this policy, whether or not they are conducted or supported under a program which is considered research for other purposes. For example, some demonstration and service programs may include research
    activities. [32 CFR 219.102(d)]

    I can read a book (or 2) and make a lot of claims also. I read DaVinci Code, may I now claim that Jesus was married?

    People are going to claim what they want to claim and other people are going to believe what they want to believe. Me? I find women beautiful, but I am never going to have sex with one because that grosses me out. I assume that homosexuals feel the same way about having sex with the opposite sex. That is enough for me.

    ReplyDelete
  3. BTW: I do think that Jesus was probably married.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Another day, another bigoted moron.

    Funny, when I think of it, ALL OF MY GAY FRIENDS have straight parents.

    Frankly, I wouldn't care if it was proven that people DID chose to be gay, because WHO FREAKING CARES WHAT SOMEONE DOES IN THE PRIVACY OF HIS/HER OWN BEDROOM? Sorry about the caps... I'm getting a little incensed.

    Next please explain to me why people are so hateful. It's getting me down. But I love this blog!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Oh wait, I know why they care. Because if such morons can prove that people choose their sexuality, they can use it as an excuse to be even more hateful towards anyone different from their own narrow-minded, moronic selves. Yeesh.

    ReplyDelete
  6. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  7. What is the point of such a meta-study, and why would a news journalist be so keen to report on it?

    Virtually all Nature v. Nurture studies tend to be inconclusive, but journalists do have a tendency to seek stories for their sensational value, especially stories that put their bylines before the public.

    From what I read in the research Abstract, this meta-study appears to be heavily biased and suffers from faulty research methodologies. No need to elaborate here because what concerns me more is that we have been down this path before. Eventually, all schlock Shockleys end up discredited, and no doubt the crumb Schumm will end up there too.

    ReplyDelete
  8. @Anonymous, I thought that I was quite clear. I'm arguing that Schumm's research design is flawed, there are no control variables, and no evidence of peer review. It's sloppy and poorly done. His conclusion is invalid because his research is flawed.

    On a purely logical level, the notion that parents teach their children to be gay or that gay parents pass on a propensity to be gay to their children has no basis in science.

    I read the article that you cited and I'm not clear as to what your point is. The article concludes that the research supports that sexual orientation is largely genetic, akin to being right handed or left handed. It appears that the article supports my argument that sexual orientation is not taught to children whose parent's are gay.

    Certainly environmental factors may have some impact, particularly in influencing people to repress their sexual orientation which accounts for the number of people who marry opposite genders only to at some point come out of the closet and admit that they cannot maintain the masquerade. The following is verbatim from the article that you cite:

    The major conclusion from these studies corroborates previous findings: sexual orientation is strongly influenced by genetics. Whatever the underlying biological processes, they are likely different for males and females, as reflected in differences in reports of same-sex attraction and expression of sexual behaviour, with males showing a more bimodal distribution. The potential neurobiological processes involved will be the subject of a later post.

    Those are the scientific conclusions. My personal interpretation is that dispositional homosexuality is no more a choice than left or right-handedness. Most heterosexuals certainly can not point to the time when they “chose” to be straight no more than someone can say they chose to be right-handed. Natural left-handers can certainly learn to write right-handed but that will not change the inherent disposition, nor is there any good reason to try and change it. At the other extreme, these findings do not suggest that homosexuality is a biological “disorder”. Conditions are only defined as a disorder if they have a negative impact on someone’s life – by this definition, homosexuality is only a disorder if society’s reaction makes it one.


    As for Shockley, Jensen, et. al. their research is just plain stupid and racist. To conclude that any race is genetically inferior to others intellectually isn't supported by any real science, only by pseudo sciences such as Eugenics.

    BTW, we welcome comments here at Hen's teeth but I'm really not fond of anonymous commentary. If you have an opinion, have the character to express yourself openly.

    ReplyDelete

By all means!