Auditor on "Gay Parenting" Research: "It's BS."

SDN Members don't see this ad. (About Ads)

Of possibile interest for those studying families, parenting, LGBTQ issues. From The Chronicle of Higher Education:

http://chronicle.com/blogs/percolato...it-finds/30255

I doubt it will stop those opposed to LGBT families from pushing this junk study. We'll be hearing this citation for years, but at least a smackdown is on the books.

Agreed with roubs here. I still have students citing old research they overheard "somewhere" about effects of x, y, or z, even though it's been proven bunk many, many decades later.

Don't get me wrong, obviously the study was flawed and the peer review process was not properly implemented. However, it sounds like the auditor they selected had pre-existing biases against the article in question. Was he really the appropriate person for that job?

Originally Posted by cara susanna

Don't get me wrong, obviously the study was flawed and the peer review process was not properly implemented. However, it sounds like the auditor they selected had pre-existing biases against the article in question. Was he really the appropriate person for that job?

I didn't catch that, cara. Sherkat is a member of the journal's editorial board. How was he biased?

He said that he had already found the study flawed and disagreed with its results before he did the audit.

Originally Posted by cara susanna

Don't get me wrong, obviously the study was flawed and the peer review process was not properly implemented. However, it sounds like the auditor they selected had pre-existing biases against the article in question. Was he really the appropriate person for that job?

I wondered about that myself, cara. He criticizes the other folks for being biased in the authors' favor, but it seems that he may have been biased against them from the beginning.

Of course, had the entire process been anonymous from the get-go, then perhaps there would have been fewer questions re: who was scratching who's back and who didn't do a proper job of reviewing, so on & so forth.

Originally Posted by cara susanna

He said that he had already found the study flawed and disagreed with its results before he did the audit.

Okay, thanks. I guess reading helps!

But does that really constitute "bias," or a good editorial eye which caught the flaws ignored by peer review?

He can't be wrong! He looks so adorable in that little biking outfit!

Originally Posted by wigflip

Okay, thanks. I guess reading helps!

But does that really constitute "bias," or a good editorial eye which caught the flaws ignored by peer review?

He can't be wrong! He looks so adorable in that little biking outfit!

I think the bias is in reference to the following:

Sherkat was an early critic of the paper, even before he was chosen to conduct the audit. He also said in an interview that he had “little respect for conservative religiosity” and believes that Regnerus and some other socially conservative scholars push a political agenda in their academic work. In a paper published last year, he wrote about how religion and political affiliation affects support for same-sex marriage.

So he was a critic of the paper and its contents before he was ever selected to audit it--or at least this is the way I interpreted the article?

What a dunce I are. I read the article on Friday, then put it aside and posted it yesterday. I guess we can see what kind of retention I'm working with here.

I guess I don't know what journal "editorial board members" do exactly (i.e. does each member read each and every article prior to publication?). It seems that there could be circumstances under which he could have read the article prior to the audit and developed an opinion at that time. And I don't think his previous paper constitutes a form of bias, rather, it's an empirical study of bias.

As for rejecting "conservative religiosity," I guess that's my bias too...

I completely agree that the original article is seriously methodologically flawed (that said, you can say that for a lot of journal articles) and deserves some strong dose of criticism. I am surprised it was published giving the huge methodological flaws.

That being said, I did have to seriously side-eye this comment made about a review article published in the journal.

He also had harsh words for an accompanying paper in the same issue by Loren D. Marks, an associate professor of family, child, and consumer sciences at Louisiana State University at Baton Rouge. Marks wrote a review of papers that had been published on the children of same-sex parents, taking the authors of those papers to task for using “small convenience samples” that are not generalizable, among other failings.

Sherkat writes that the Marks paper is “a lowbrow meta-analysis of studies” that was “inappropriate for a journal that publishes original quantitative research.” Sherkat, in an interview, said that Marks didn’t perform a true meta-analysis of the studies and instead simply wrote summaries of the results. Marks could not be reached for comment.

That's a systematic review. They are a) pretty common and b) often quite useful (I may be biased as an author of a couple, but they do help synthesize research, especially if the body of research doesn't yet lend itself well to statistical meta-analysis). Pointing out the limitations of small convenience samples in a body of research is also a perfectly justified criticism and again a common one in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. (Of course, the authors shouldn't have billed it as a meta if they didn't actually do statistical meta-analysis).

ETA: Upon looking over the review in question, I see that it a) is never billed as a meta-analysis and b) isn't a great systematic review by my standards for systematic reviews, although it's not totally awful (IMO, of course).

Originally Posted by futureapppsy2

That's a systematic review. They are a) pretty common and b) often quite useful (I may be biased as an author of a couple, but they do help synthesize research, especially if the body of research doesn't yet lend itself well to statistical meta-analysis). Pointing out the limitations of small convenience samples in a body of research is also a perfectly justified criticism and again a common one in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. (Of course, the authors shouldn't have billed it as a meta if they didn't actually do statistical meta-analysis).

ETA: Upon looking over the review in question, I see that it a) is never billed as a meta-analysis and b) isn't a great systematic review by my standards for systematic reviews, although it's not totally awful (IMO, of course).

Yeah, I didn't have time to check the other article, but I wondered about it, as meta-analyses can indeed be quite helpful. The way I interpreted the comments were that the authors of it were criticized because they simply "discussed" their selected articles, without any analyses or real synthesis occurring... But as I've not reviewed it, not sure.

Originally Posted by paramour

Agreed with roubs here. I still have students citing old research they overheard "somewhere" about effects of x, y, or z, even though it's been proven bunk many, many decades later.

Its like the whole vaccination debacle. I still hear people talking about it too even though there was huge media surrounding its debunking.

Here's a response by the original study's author to the audit. It also notes the findings of the UT investigation, namely that there was no academic fraud or misconduct involved in the study (which isn't an endorsement of its methodological soundness or lack thereof). FYI, for those interested.

http://chronicle.com/blogs/percolato...ew-paper/30644

I don't understand how his study got IRB approval unless someone was just skimming. The potential for "group harm" should have been very obvious.

Originally Posted by futureapppsy2

Here's a response by the original study's author to the audit. It also notes the findings of UT investigation, namely that there was no academic fraud or misconduct involved in the study (which isn't an endorsement of its methodological soundness or lack thereof). FYI, for those interested.

http://chronicle.com/blogs/percolato...ew-paper/30644

Thanks for posting this follow-up, future.

Well like I was saying, it's still unethical because that research is harmful to gay people, which I think is a vulnerable population. For example, the results are being used by anti-gay activists to stigmatize and discriminate against gay people. This is "group harm" and it's unethical and also against federal regulations. The IRB should have caught that in its review of the study. Most universities require all employees and staff to train on this information as a part of CITI, so even UT should know it's unethical.

Originally Posted by crim84

Well like I was saying, it's still unethical because that research is harmful to gay people, which I think is a vulnerable population.

That's silly. Should we not do HIV prevalence research then?

Anyway, an underlying issue is that this kind of research is really an odd way to go about the entire political discussion. Straight parents don't have to pass a test to have kids, and half of them are below average in skill. Analogously, there are systemic problems with single-parent homes (due primarily to other factors, like income etc, that have nothing to do with the actual makeup of of the parental units) but no one says we should take kids away from single-parent homes, and we all see why that would be a stupid idea. So, why is an analysis of the comparison even important, either way? Clearly, both sides are trying to prove a political/moral/ideological point that completely misses another essential component.

Originally Posted by MCParent

That's silly. Should we not do HIV prevalence research then?

Yeah, because everyone in Africa with HIV is gay? Oh yeah! Because everyone who's gay has AIDS.

1) IRBs approve protocols, not outcomes. If it reaches a point where they start trying to approve the outcomes of a study before publishing, expect violent rioting.
2) A case might be made for COI but this growing assumption that a COI inherently means bias is also dangerous thinking. It makes it a concern, yes. It does not mean research should not be done/published, nor should it mean any research with a COI should just be discounted. People need to read the literature and be smart about it, and the process should be open and facilitate it.
3) Lots of research "could" be used to stigmatize and discriminate. The fact that it demonstrates something bad about a group is an awful reason not to publish something. For one, the whole disparities literature goes away. Women don't do as well in math courses? Well too bad, we can't research it or try to come up with ways to stop it because someone might use it to discriminate against women when hiring for technical jobs....

I'm a staunch advocate for gay marriage/gay rights/etc. The article was terrible and should not have made it through peer-review on methodological grounds. It should have been relegated to some 12th tier newsletter never to be heard from again (if published at all). Extraordinary claims (which, in the face of existing literature, this was) require extraordinary evidence and this article doesn't provide anything approaching on that. Saying we can't publish anything that "might" be used for political gain is a far, far, far more dangerous form of bias than what is suggested here. For one - it just means any moderately intelligent person would just conclude that no matter how much research is out there showing gay parents are equal or better than others, that research should not be taken seriously (because any negative findings are "required" to be suppressed).

Perhaps I'm just restating what others have already said:

I think that the study's lack of rigor, when coupled with the overt political agenda of its funding source, contributes to a perception that an outcome disfavorable to gays was a goal of conducting the research.

On another note:

Here's a gay family documentary, which may or may not be screening in a town near you:
http://www.R2Lmovie.com/

Originally Posted by wigflip

Perhaps I'm just restating what others have already said:

I think that the study's lack of rigor, when coupled with the overt political agenda of its funding source, contributes to a perception that an outcome disfavorable to gays was a goal of conducting the research.

I wouldn't even characterize it as a lack of rigor- that implies sloppiness and unforeseen errors. In the case of this study, the author- who one can presume knows better- took what should be a continuous variable (let's call it "gayness of parents") and treated it as categorical variable, and a dichotomous one at that. It's seems to be an intentional trade-off on the authors part- ease of study in exchange for validity of conclusions. Treating the independent variable as dichotomous obscured different effects at different levels of the variable, if they exist at all. If the decision to treat the independent variable in that manner was made after the data had been analyzed, then that is just sleazy.

While I think it is unrealistic to think that any researcher is truly disinterested and objective in regards to the desired results, if you're studying politically charged issues, it's probably wise to have someone from the other side provide some feedback on your methodology. If your going to publish research in these areas, It's probably wise to publish a review/critique/counterpoint in the same issue.

Originally Posted by crim84

it's still unethical because that research is harmful to gay people, which I think is a vulnerable population.

This is a slippery slope. While I don't think it's the case, and this study does not show it to be the case, what if there really was some harmful effect of same-sex parenting? If there was an empirically sound, scientifically rigorous study designed to identify this effect, would you not want it to be done? The truth is the truth, and as empiricists we should want it to be discovered. The fact that my observations and desires are that same-sex parenting is not harmful (and may be beneficial in some cases) does not trump my position that we need to get as close to the objective truth as possible through empirical study. Turn your position around- if I wanted to do the same study because I was certain children raised by same-sex parents turned out better, should I not be able to do that study? If I did that study, and found the opposite to be true, should I ignore those results?

Originally Posted by ClinicalABA

I wouldn't even characterize it as a lack of rigor- that implies sloppiness and unforeseen errors...Treating the independent variable as binary obscured different effects at different levels of the variable, if they exist at all. If the decision to treat the independent variable in that manner was made after the data had been analyzed, then that is just sleazy.

I don't disagree.

Originally Posted by ClinicalABA

While I think it is unrealistic to think that any researcher is truly disinterested and objective in regards to the desired results, if you're studying politically charged issues, it's probably wise to have someone from the other side provide some feedback on your methodology.

I'm less certain about this. I think that's what a good literature review is supposed to achieve. I know you're not suggesting that such a thing be "mandated," but I wouldn't want to have to (knowingly) consult with someone who doesn't believe that LGBT folks should be afforded full citizenship under the law, thinks they're "immoral" or pathological, etc. It's bad enough having to read their work.

Edit: Arg. Proofreading errors a-go-go.

Originally Posted by wigflip

I don't disagree.
I'm less certain about this. I think that's what a good literature review is supposed to achieve. I know you're not suggesting that such a thing be "mandated," but I wouldn't want to have to (knowingly) consult with someone who doesn't believe that LGBT folks should be afforded full citizenship under the law, thinks they're "immoral" or pathological, etc. It's bad enough having to read their work.

I see your point here (I don't really want to associate with those guys/gals either). I was being a little pollyannish there, but wouldn't it be cool to have researchers of different ideologies agree on the methodology ahead of time? It really isn't that uncommon to pass along a manuscript to a colleague for review. Why not email the proposal to researcher on the "other side" for some feedback? The documents presumably already exist (e.g. HSRB application). I think your product would be better if you could say that "someone who doesn't believe that LGBT folks should be afforded full citizenship under the law, thinks they're "immoral" or pathological, etc" endorsed your methods before you did the study. At the very least, you could mention any of the concerns in the discussion section. In uber-phantasy land, you could run the study with both methodologies and compare the results.

Originally Posted by ClinicalABA

I see your point here (I don't really want to associate with those guys/gals either). I was being a little pollyannish there, but wouldn't it be cool to have researchers of different ideologies agree on the methodology ahead of time?

I'm thinking of a very particular subfield here (one that uses a specific methodology, and has nothing to do with the topic of this thread), but I can't imagine that researchers in what I'll call "Subfield X" would see any benefit to such a methodological collaboration because they've already summarily discounted "Topically-related But Methodologically Disparate Subfield Y." The only point would be to clobber Y. Which they already think they're doing.

Originally Posted by ClinicalABA

It really isn't that uncommon to pass along a manuscript to a colleague for review. Why not email the proposal to researcher on the "other side" for some feedback? The documents presumably already exist (e.g. HSRB application). I think your product would be better if you could say that "someone who doesn't believe that LGBT folks should be afforded full citizenship under the law, thinks they're "immoral" or pathological, etc" endorsed your methods before you did the study. At the very least, you could mention any of the concerns in the discussion section. In uber-phantasy land, you could run the study with both methodologies and compare the results.

I think this would make for a really interesting methodological paper.

Originally Posted by ClinicalABA

This is a slippery slope. While I don't think it's the case, and this study does not show it to be the case, what if there really was some harmful effect of same-sex parenting? If there was an empirically sound, scientifically rigorous study designed to identify this effect, would you not want it to be done? The truth is the truth, and as empiricists we should want it to be discovered. The fact that my observations and desires are that same-sex parenting is not harmful (and may be beneficial in some cases) does not trump my position that we need to get as close to the objective truth as possible through empirical study. Turn your position around- if I wanted to do the same study because I was certain children raised by same-sex parents turned out better, should I not be able to do that study? If I did that study, and found the opposite to be true, should I ignore those results?

I agree with you, I want research to be sound and objective and, above all, truthful. But you ask if results should be ignored if they can easily be used as tools of discrimination? Maybe not ignored. But when we write these articles up, we have to make conclusions and consider how our conclusions can be used once released into the world. We are talking about research that marginalizes vulnerable groups. Every gay parent didn't participate in this study, nor did every gay parent consent to the release of information about their group. Yet, even though they did not participate, they are being harmed from it. This is my point--research that is likely to be used to harm certain vulnerable groups is unethical to publish, even if it's true.

Originally Posted by crim84

I agree with you, I want research to be sound and objective and, above all, truthful. But you ask if results should be ignored if they can easily be used as tools of discrimination? Maybe not ignored. But when we write these articles up, we have to make conclusions and consider how our conclusions can be used once released into the world. We are talking about research that marginalizes vulnerable groups. Every gay parent didn't participate in this study, nor did every gay parent consent to the release of information about their group. Yet, even though they did not participate, they are being harmed from it. This is my point--research that is likely to be used to harm certain vulnerable groups is unethical to publish, even if it's true.

I think the bolded statement above is going to provoke a s***storm, so I'd like to head that off by first asking (rhetorically):

What discretion do reputable journal editors already use when deciding:

a) Which manuscripts to reject outright and which to pass along for peer-review
b) Who to choose for review (i.e. friend or foe of PI? I've seen it done)
c) How to respond to those reviews and the authors' changes
d) Whether to overrule/ignore reviewers' recommendations outright

I just want to acknowledge that there are many subjective areas when it comes to publication.

Originally Posted by roubs

I doubt it will stop those opposed to LGBT families from pushing this junk study. We'll be hearing this citation for years, but at least a smackdown is on the books.

I think this is one of the best comments on this thread. And a convincing argument for why academics who turn down their noses on interacting with the popular media are really doing a disservice to their areas of expertise and the populations they study.

S***storm indeed.

I've said much of my piece, so I will leave it at this.
1) If we are going to suppress all negative outcomes on a topic, we are no longer a legitimate source of information. Thus, anyone publishing a paper showing gay individuals make fine parents cannot be taken seriously.
2) Many fields will be virtually shut down and any disparities that exist can no longer be studied under such a system. So forget about trying to alleviate education gaps, etc.

I maintain a collective agreement among scientists to entirely forego even an attempt at objectivity and just embrace the most extreme form of bias is utterly insane and a recipe for disaster. Wigflip is correct in pointing out that the scientific review process is inherently subjective. We should be trying to minimize those things rather than telling editors "It is now official, you can only publish papers that support x point of view". Even the pharmaceutical industry we love to call out for its bias does not take such an extreme view. Individuals doing legitimate research on gay parenting then become the new pharmaceutical companies. Everything they say would need to be viewed with suspicion.

Originally Posted by Ollie123

S***storm indeed.

I've said much of my piece, so I will leave it at this.
1) If we are going to suppress all negative outcomes on a topic, we are no longer a legitimate source of information. Thus, anyone publishing a paper showing gay individuals make fine parents cannot be taken seriously.
2) Many fields will be virtually shut down and any disparities that exist can no longer be studied under such a system. So forget about trying to alleviate education gaps, etc.

I maintain a collective agreement among scientists to entirely forego even an attempt at objectivity and just embrace the most extreme form of bias is utterly insane and a recipe for disaster. Wigflip is correct in pointing out that the scientific review process is inherently subjective. We should be trying to minimize those things rather than telling editors "It is now official, you can only publish papers that support x point of view". Even the pharmaceutical industry we love to call out for its bias does not take such an extreme view. Individuals doing legitimate research on gay parenting then become the new pharmaceutical companies. Everything they say would need to be viewed with suspicion.

So we just leave it as-is, and let people publish studies that justify discrimination against gay parents and their children, as well as research that shows African Americans have the lowest IQ scores? How do you address these kinds of horrible research? Just let them continue to be published?

If its methodologically sound, than absolutely we let it be published. Though I have never seen any research with those outcomes that was not enormously flawed. Until then, we just focus on plugging holes in the peer-review process that lets garbage like this slip through, and call it out for the junk that it is on the occasions that it does get through.

To do anything else means we aren't scientists. It means we are Fox News.

Originally Posted by crim84

So we just leave it as-is, and let people publish studies that justify discrimination against gay parents and their children, as well as research that shows African Americans have the lowest IQ scores? How do you address these kinds of horrible research? Just let them continue to be published?

If the research is conducted in a rigorous manner with sound methodology, then yes, we need to allow it to be published. If these studies never get published, then important issues don't get addressed. Without access to the research on disparities in IQ, how would people ever know to reformat intelligence tests to correct for cultural biases? How would we ever recognize the role stereotype threat plays in performance?

Originally Posted by Ollie123

If its methodologically sound, than absolutely we let it be published. Though I have never seen any research with those outcomes that was not enormously flawed. Until then, we just focus on plugging holes in the peer-review process that lets garbage like this slip through, and call it out for the junk that it is on the occasions that it does get through.

To do anything else means we aren't scientists. It means we are Fox News.

I'm just so confused. Have you read the Belmont Report or taken CITI training? Research that has a high risk of group harm is unethical to publish. There are limitations to what science can do, and ethics guides these limitations. As a prime example, here's an article from Elsevier Science about the risk of group harm in genetics research:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...77953612004480

Limitations are now placed on genetics research because it's being used by eugenicists to prove that some ethnicities are biologically superior to other groups.

Was this the wrong decision because it limits science and the search for truth? I think it's the only ethical decision because the research was being used as a weapon. This is common sense for non-scientists. We can't have zero limitations and just go crazy and researching whatever topic we want under the sun because some topics will be used by bad people to harm good people. As ethical scientists we are obligated to be aware of that and withhold research to protect vulnerable populations at risk, and to continue monitoring societal reactions to our findings.

I don't think we're going to agree here. I've certainly read the Belmont Report and taken CITI training, I have no idea why you are so focused on that - this isn't an undergrad research methods class! I've never met anyone who felt these issues are as black and white as you seem to believe - including IRB members, and a friend who specializes in bioethics. I just read (well..skimmed) the article you posted and even that doesn't come anywhere near concluding "Its unethical to even start a research project that could possibly lead to a conclusion that a stigmatized group might have lower (worse) scores on some relevant outcome measure".The basic message seems to be that we need to be very cautious in doing so, be sure to frame it appropriately, and it raises questions about informed consent. I agree with everything in it. Its also FAR removed from what you have said in this thread. I've also never seen anything in the CITI training or Belmont Report that comes remotely close to what you have said. Those also basically say we need to be careful and responsible and consider the broader context. Such documents are vague for a reason and certainly at no point do they say "You cannot publish anything that doesn't support x view".

I maintain that in your world: 1) Disparities get worse over time, not better. Mostly because we can't do legitimate work to figure out how to resolve them. 2) Scientists publishing the good work on these issues will not be respected or trusted. For perfectly understandable reasons.

I'm certainly not saying go buckwild, run a garbage study, and conclude your paper with "Hitler was right". I am saying that banning any and all research on certain topics because it "might" be used to hurt someone is far, far, far more dangerous and in no way what the Belmont Report or anything else I've seen is saying.

I'm certainly not saying go buckwild, run a garbage study, and conclude your paper with "Hitler was right". I am saying that banning any and all research on certain topics because it "might" be used to hurt someone is far, far, far more dangerous and in no way what the Belmont Report or anything else I've seen is saying.

I see where you're coming from now. I mentioned the Belmont Report because its raison d'être is to keep science ethical by maximizing benefits and minimizing harms. You're right, it doesn't say "you can't research questions about x topic." I stretched the connection there. You have a good point that restricting research can be just as dangerous as letting garbage science run free. Maybe it makes the most sense to focus on improving objectivity in peer-review, but at the same time monitoring the effects of our findings for detrimental effects. In cases like the studies here, we should recognize that their existence is harmful and work to remove them.

Originally Posted by ariannehowell

I have a lot of gay friends and some of them are taking good care of their adopted children. They treat their child as their own and they give their whole life and attention. I am happy that they are a good parent eventhough they are not the real family.

Just a quick aside--I'd personally be cautious about using phrases such as "not the real family" in this context, as it could be seen as disparaging, and depends entirely on how the individuals involved define and view "family." You could perhaps more accurately convey the message by saying "biological parents" instead of "real family," as I'm sure many adopted individuals would indeed consider their adopting parents to be their real families.

Originally Posted by ariannehowell

I am happy that they are a good parent eventhough they are not the real family.

hahahahhahahahaha

Originally Posted by ClinicalABA

I wouldn't even characterize it as a lack of rigor- that implies sloppiness and unforeseen errors. In the case of this study, the author- who one can presume knows better- took what should be a continuous variable (let's call it "gayness of parents") and treated it as categorical variable, and a dichotomous one at that. It's seems to be an intentional trade-off on the authors part- ease of study in exchange for validity of conclusions.

This is the part that I found most distressing. The original author lumped (for example) parents who had ever dated someone of the same sex in with parents who were in committed, long-term relationships with a same-sex partner, which is problematic. But in doing so, they also overlooked the fact that a parent who's dating a new partner (male or female) every few months may be providing very different parenting structure than a parent who's in a stable, consistent relationship with someone (male or female) for a long period of time - regardless of whether that partner is is the child's bio parent.

That's like comparing children of bitterly divorced parents to children of happily married parents and saying "see, divorce is always bad!" You're ignoring the existence of a) married parents who hate each other and make their kids miserable, b) parents who divorced amicably and still co-parent effectively, and c) parents who divorced and moved on to happy remarriages, thus setting a better example for their kids.

I feel like an intro Research Methods student could have spotted those methodological flaws. On the first day of class. While still reviewing the syllabus.

Originally Posted by psychRA

This is the part that I found most distressing. The original author lumped (for example) parents who had ever dated someone of the same sex in with parents who were in committed, long-term relationships with a same-sex partner, which is problematic. But in doing so, they also overlooked the fact that a parent who's dating a new partner (male or female) every few months may be providing very different parenting structure than a parent who's in a stable, consistent relationship with someone (male or female) for a long period of time - regardless of whether that partner is is the child's bio parent.

That's like comparing children of bitterly divorced parents to children of happily married parents and saying "see, divorce is always bad!" You're ignoring the existence of a) married parents who hate each other and make their kids miserable, b) parents who divorced amicably and still co-parent effectively, and c) parents who divorced and moved on to happy remarriages, thus setting a better example for their kids.

Agreed. I can't imagine anyone reputable who studies sexualities and/or close relationships making this mistake.

Originally Posted by wigflip

Agreed. I can't imagine anyone reputable who studies sexualities and/or close relationships making this mistake.

Another study from one of those imbeciles who "left the APA" (I read got ostracized for being intellectual frauds) after the APA embraced homosexuality as a normal sexual expression tried to link pedophilia and homosexuality by listing all people who molested a same-sex child (and I believe also those who later had homosexual relations in prison) as homosexual.

I think the ones behind that one were from the family research counsel who should probably be beaten to death by true researchers for soiling the name.

This thread goes a long way in supporting my theory that a lot of psychologists simply need to read more philosophy. You lads and lasses debate the littoral zone to death.

Originally Posted by sinuous sausage

This thread goes a long way in supporting my theory that a lot of psychologists simply need to read more philosophy. You lads and lasses debate the littoral zone to death.

To clarify...

'Littoral' is also a geographical term meaning the inter-tidal zone, an ever-changing interface in which land, sea and airare in flux, and where new life forms evolve. These we see as analogous to the new intellectual, ethical, aesthetic and philosophical areas of inquiry accompanying environmental, economic, cultural and social change. Often regarded as intractable 'wild zones' (Urry) these littoral areas may be characterised by their dynamic complexity, political instability, economic chaos, cultural disenfranchisement, social marginality, and environmental degradation; they tend to be resistant to professional problem solving strategies.

http://www.littoral.org.uk/philosophy.html

With that in mind, yes social scientists also often debate issues that sway in public opinion. We do so as a means of finding what the ultimate objective truth of a matter is. While philosophers may be satisfied with reasonable arguments, scientists seek proof. Once it was reasonable to say that the earth was flat and the earth was the center of the universe, and it was controversial to say otherwise.

Although I probably should have just warned everyone not to feed the troll.

Originally Posted by MBellows

Although I probably should have just warned everyone not to feed the troll.

I don't think it's trolling..more like smugly dipping in a vague toe, then standing back, as if to imply "i just blew your mind"

Originally Posted by wigflip

Sorry, I was what the frat stars might call "buzzed" when I posted that last night. Come to think of it, I dunno how I even drifted into this thread.

I was struck by the vitriol spewed at the original study--like people are "scientists" only if they subscribe to certain cultural norms (in this case, being gay-parent-friendly). For a psychologist to act like such a setup is undeniably beneficial and only rubes would think otherwise strikes me as non-scientific and, on a more profound level, non-philosophical, the latter case being much more egregious an error, IMO. I haven't read either the original paper or the rebuttal or the rebuttal's rebuttal, but there's a lot more at play here than critiquing a methodology. Everyone has their dogma, the pro- and anti-gay-parenting alike, and I noticed a lot of hand-wringing about what "should" be done on sensitive topics like this without much explanation as to whether there is a "should," whether we can know what this "should" is, or how to go about doing it. The whole notion of gay-parenting is a pretty recent phenomenon when considering the ~100,000 years of our species' existence, so I don't think it tragic by any stretch for people to investigate its effects or hold some skepticism about it. Nothing is sacred in science, provided the methodology is kosher. As to what that methodology is...well...that's a whole other discussion. I can confirm it involves philosophy!

Originally Posted by MBellows

To clarify...

http://www.littoral.org.uk/philosophy.html

With that in mind, yes social scientists also often debate issues that sway in public opinion. We do so as a means of finding what the ultimate objective truth of a matter is. While philosophers may be satisfied with reasonable arguments, scientists seek proof. Once it was reasonable to say that the earth was flat and the earth was the center of the universe, and it was controversial to say otherwise.

What is "proof"?

Originally Posted by sinuous sausage

Sorry, I was what the frat stars might call "buzzed" when I posted that last night. Come to think of it, I dunno how I even drifted into this thread.

I was struck by the vitriol spewed at the original study--like people are "scientists" only if they subscribe to certain cultural norms (in this case, being gay-parent-friendly). For a psychologist to act like such a setup is undeniably beneficial and only rubes would think otherwise strikes me as non-scientific and, on a more profound level, non-philosophical, the latter case being much more egregious an error, IMO. I haven't read either the original paper or the rebuttal or the rebuttal's rebuttal, but there's a lot more at play here than critiquing a methodology. Everyone has their dogma, the pro- and anti-gay-parenting alike, and I noticed a lot of hand-wringing about what "should" be done on sensitive topics like this without much explanation as to whether there is a "should," whether we can know what this "should" is, or how to go about doing it. The whole notion of gay-parenting is a pretty recent phenomenon when considering the ~100,000 years of our species' existence, so I don't think it tragic by any stretch for people to investigate its effects or hold some skepticism about it. Nothing is sacred in science, provided the methodology is kosher. As to what that methodology is...well...that's a whole other discussion. I can confirm it involves philosophy!

This is, in my opinion, the exact reason why such "vitriol" has been directed toward the original study--it seemingly sought to support a particular viewpoint (i.e., that gay parenting is harmful) via flawed scientific methodology. I would imagine most people here would agree with the viewpoint that in science, there isn't necessarily a way things "should" be, and there certainly aren't any sacred topics. Although social science is fairly unique in that respect in that as psychologists, we often are tasked with determining exactly what is abnormal or detrimental behavior. To do so, we need science to inform us as to which behaviors have negative/adverse outcomes.