"Proof" that homophobia is associated with homosexual arousal.

[Cain]

I still find it somewhat suspect, as a finding.

While I'm sure many, many homophobes are repressing homosexual feelings of some sort, it is somewhat of a stretch to correlate it definitively with it.  For one thing, I'm fairly sure there are many religious individuals who disapprove of homosexuality for "moral" reasons, and social conservative types who may not be necessarily religious but also decry it for reasons of tradition and undermining the idealised form of family living.

Of course, it depends how homophobia is being strictly defined as well.  If someone does spend every day fuming over gays, then, sure, it's probably not some kind of religious objection going on, and they doth protest too much.  At the same time, I'm not entirely sure those who we would normally define as homophobic think in those terms.

[Phox]

 

I still find it somewhat suspect, as a finding.

While I'm sure many, many homophobes are repressing homosexual feelings of some sort, it is somewhat of a stretch to correlate it definitively with it.  For one thing, I'm fairly sure there are many religious individuals who disapprove of homosexuality for "moral" reasons, and social conservative types who may not be necessarily religious but also decry it for reasons of tradition and undermining the idealised form of family living.

Of course, it depends how homophobia is being strictly defined as well.  If someone does spend every day fuming over gays, then, sure, it's probably not some kind of religious objection going on, and they doth protest too much.  At the same time, I'm not entirely sure those who we would normally define as homophobic think in those terms.

Phox,
Just used the motorcycle emote. Awww yeahhh.

[Cain]

I think we've gotten so used to a conspiratorial mindset in the Western world that we have to look for dark and hidden reasons for everything.  Sometimes, a religious bigot is just a religious bigot, ya know?  No deep psychological reasons for their actions, they're just (sincere) arseholes.

[Phox]

I think we've gotten so used to a conspiratorial mindset in the Western world that we have to look for dark and hidden reasons for everything.  Sometimes, a religious bigot is just a religious bigot, ya know?  No deep psychological reasons for their actions, they're just (sincere) arseholes.

Yes, I completely agree. As far as throwing this in their faces, or what have you, I suspect that most of them are fairly well inoculated against this sort of thing by now, I am not sure that this would give you any ammunition, except perhaps confirmation bias? I am not sure that's the term I'm looking for, but.. .eh. it'll do, I guess.

[Triple Zero]

(btw before anyone mistakes, this post is not about the erection research, which I agree is probably bullshit and/or flawed, but about Iptuous' belief that a psychometric test to score for homophobia is impossible)

Good points.

...IMO it's really kinda obvious they meant...

That, i think, is the crux of the matter.
this test if chock full of the above, and i'd be pretty darned impressed if a test were able to be constructed that wasn't, given the subject matter.
too vague, too charged, too politicized, too personal.
seems anathema to real science to me.

"Good points, but I choose to ignore what they mean" ?

  i expected this a bit sooner.

What the fuuuuuuuck man. So you were just trolling before?

Because right up to before you made the above "good points but I still choose to believe you cannot construct a psychometric test to score for homophobia" bullshit post, I really thought we were having a discussion and I was just brushing you up (and myself because I had to look most of that shit up or ask my dad) on the theory of psychometric test.

Thing is I'm seriously wondering about your "sooner" remark. Because if you were just being contrary, agreeing "yeaah good point yeah yes uhuh" while in your own head going "LALALALALA WHATEVER YOU SAY I MADE UP MY MIND", I wasn't really expecting that up until I read the above two things.

I was already a bit pissed off by the "good points but I'm going to stick with my belief regardless" remark above, but I decided to just not reply because 1. it was late and maybe I read it wrong (nope) and 2. arguing with people like that just gets me angry and leads to nothing (yup).

To address your points (even though it'll just get me angry and lead to nothing)

That, i think, is the crux of the matter.
this test if chock full of the above, and i'd be pretty darned impressed if a test were able to be constructed that wasn't, given the subject matter.
too vague, too charged, too politicized, too personal.
seems anathema to real science to me.

"too vague" -- The statements and scores in this particular test can be worded much better. However, you might have noticed in other psychometric tests that vagueness can never be gotten rid of entirely (when I take one, there's usually one or two that make me go wtf as well). This is perfectly okay, it's better if it's minimized, but as I said above proper normalization of the test scores models it as a Normal distribution, which takes into account both the mean and the standard deviation, so if some questions get fuzzed by apparent ambiguity, that'll work itself into the standard deviation of the total score, thereby into the normalized distance from the norm groups, and finally into the p-value for the accuracy of your conclusions. The only requirement is that it has a positive correlation with the thing you're trying to measure, even if it's small, as long as it's not negatively correlated.

"too politicized, too personal" -- Well, yes, of course. Don't forget "cultural" too! What do you expect? When you're measuring homophobia in a population, of course you're also measuring the homophobia in the population's politics, culture and personality. Both affect eachother. What the hell do you expect, if we're doing psychometric tests on homophobia in Mecca, Amsterda, New York, the Vatican, San Francisco and Texas, we should be making adjustments for local politics and culture? Ha!

"anathema to real science" -- Where I'm from, we don't really buy into the retarded debate of what is "real science" and what is not, because the real important distinction lies between what is bullshit and what is not. It's a red herring, a con, just like your two-party system, our leftwing/rightwing system, and the true/false Scotsmen lurk in the shadows on either side.

please spell out the uncomfortable truths for me?

ok spelling it out

FACT: You see the ambiguity in the statement "I would feel disappointed if I learned that my child was queer" and realize that it could mean
1. "I would feel disappointed in my child if they turned out to be gay"
2. "I would feel disappointed for my child's life which might be harder if they were gay"
3. "I would feel disappointed if my child turned out to be gay because they would be less likely to pass on my Y chromosome"

FACT: Within the context of a psychometric test to score for homophobia you choose to believe that these interpretations are somehow equally valid.

FACT: With these interpretations in mind, you do not "disagree" with the statement.

Interpretation 1, negative feelings towards gays: Straightforward, disappointment in someone for being gay is a negative feeling.

Interpretation 2, negative feelings towards gays: "Empathy", "support", but if you think a statement about "disappointment" is agreeable when it's about your kids life, then yes that counts as a negative feeling. Not as in hatred, but as if it's a disability, like they were deaf or have Aspergers. Or imagine this, your wife has a black mother white father but is almost Caucasian in appearance herself, when you get a kid there is a small chance they'd be almost as black as their grandmother. Now their life is going to be harder because racism is still very real. Would you say you'd be disappointed? Really?

Interpretation 3, negative feelings towards gays: Again, "disappointment" in this case pretty much counts as a negative feeling. Assume your son's infertile. "Hey son, yeah you know I love you, but you can imagine how disappointed I was when we found out you were infertile" how's that for radiating positive cheerfulness into your family life?

UNCOMFORTABLE TRUTH (spelled out): You have some negative feelings towards gays.

Are you homophobic? Hell if I know! This is just one question out of 25 of a psychometric test that we already agreed upon is methodologically flawed.

And sure I can imagine how you can argue for all these feelings and interpretations how perfectly reasonable and "realistic" they are. So don't do that, you don't need to do that, I can come up with all those reasons myself, and imagine how perfectly reasonable they must seem to a person that chooses not to pause and ask themselves whether it's right to feel that way.

Fortunately, unlike homosexuality, having negative feelings towards gays is a choice. You're a good person Iptuous but don't believe that your worldview and life vision is ever "done" or set in stone.

[East Coast Hustle]

Gonna have to side with Ippy on this one. That test is crap and no amount of psychobabble terms or attempted rationalization can make it not be crap. The questions are so horribly worded and (seemingly intentionally) vague that I am driven to the conclusion that the researchers had already decided what conclusions they wanted to reach before they wrote the test.

That said, it still makes me giggle that homophobes pop boners to gay porn.

[Elder Iptuous]

Trip,
please allow me to reword, then.  i certainly wasn't trolling and intend all civility in my responses.

interesting points.
your comments about the normalized testing procedures and details are beyond the scope of my experience, and i have learned from you.  i also appreciate the impact that they have on the context here.

given that, i'm still not convinced.  and i don't believe that i'm simply being recalcitrant here. 

i can see how the normalizing process may fuzz out some ambiguity in a test, but only up to a point.  beyond that, shitty test is shitty.  i won't pretend to declare where this test falls on the spectrum of 'explicit and complete meaning' vs. 'meaningless nonsense', but it smells enough of the latter that i'm calling bullshit, and i've seen no reason not to think this a healthy and rational skepticism.

you ask what i expect in regards to my accusation that it is too politicized and too personal?  well, i expect that it renders any such test suspect at best and a deceitful weapon at worst.  it'll be about as clear as mud, when the basic definitions we're working with aren't going to be agreed upon by the participants, and the landscape is so strongly emotional.

'real' was an unnecessary qualifier of science then, i guess.  i'll just use your preferred distinction, and call bullshit, however.


My response that 'i expected it earlier' to Net's declaration of uncomfortable truths was simply a quip because, at some point, "yer ghey" always seems to come up in this conversation, and i was smiling at the arrival.  no ill will meant.

but you did bring up a truth that is, perhaps, uncomfortable for me in the PD setting.  In that I do see homosexuality as an aberration.  not quite a disability in the same way as deafness, or aspergers as it doesn't inherently detract from the quality of your life in any way (were it not for society's reaction to it), but it does seem like a 'condition' to me in some sense.  I imagine this upsets some people.  perhaps it is wrong headed of me, and perhaps i will change my mind on it at some point, however I don't see how that is a 'negative feeling' in any way that would put me in the position of being either afraid of homosexuals, or having any antipathy towards them.

regarding interpretation three.... yes. yes, i would be disappointed if i found out that my son was infertile.  wouldn't you?!  again, it's not a disappointment in the child, as if it were their fault, but it is certainly something that negatively impacts something that i want.  namely the continuation of the line.   i'm not going to talk to my kid like a dick like you put it there, though.

I don't see how these count as negative feelings towards homosexuals.  but you say not to think in terms of reason, but rather in terms of whether it is 'right' to think those thoughts. wait, what?  what does that mean?
that's a dismissal.... you're saying that my views are morally wrong regardless of their reasoning and regardless of the fact that i hold no malevolence toward any?

That said, it still makes me giggle that homophobes pop boners to gay porn.

Despite the enjoyable banter, this does remain the most important take away from this whole thing.   

[Triple Zero]

Gonna have to side with Ippy on this one. That test is crap and no amount of psychobabble terms or attempted rationalization can make it not be crap. The questions are so horribly worded and (seemingly intentionally) vague that I am driven to the conclusion that the researchers had already decided what conclusions they wanted to reach before they wrote the test.

Nobody that posted ITT disagrees with that, I certainly don't. The test is crap and I pointed out more than several flaws in it right from the start.

However, I do hope that "psychobabble" does not refer to my attempted explanation of the proper methodology in psychometric tests.

"Ippy's side", what I'm arguing against, is that according to him, it is flat out impossible to even construct a psychometric test to score for homophobia, even if it is properly done. But he seems to be perfectly happy continuing to conflate those two opinions as well.

i can see how the normalizing process may fuzz out some ambiguity in a test, but only up to a point.  beyond that, shitty test is shitty.  i won't pretend to declare where this test falls on the spectrum of 'explicit and complete meaning' vs. 'meaningless nonsense', but it smells enough of the latter that i'm calling bullshit, and i've seen no reason not to think this a healthy and rational skepticism.

Yes, this particular test is shitty. Extremely shitty. And I'm fairly sure they didn't do any normalizing at all.

It doesn't mean, however, that if you do follow a proper methodology, that you can never end up with a proper test.

you ask what i expect in regards to my accusation that it is too politicized and too personal?  well, i expect that it renders any such test suspect at best and a deceitful weapon at worst.  it'll be about as clear as mud, when the basic definitions we're working with aren't going to be agreed upon by the participants, and the landscape is so strongly emotional.

Well, if it's done properly, that's what the methodology is for, even in the face of emotional and political topics.

'real' was an unnecessary qualifier of science then, i guess.  i'll just use your preferred distinction, and call bullshit, however.

If it's meaningless, the statistics will point it out.

The thing is, you just gotta be real careful about what it is you think those statistics actually prove and show. And when you do, it means sometimes you will come up empty-handed. You can call that "clear as mud", but at least you'll know for sure that it is.

Unlike this particular test, which does not only have a couple of vague question-statements, but also, as far as I can tell, grabs the method for scoring and determining the "outcome" completely out of thin air.

My response that 'i expected it earlier' to Net's declaration of uncomfortable truths was simply a quip because, at some point, "yer ghey" always seems to come up in this conversation, and i was smiling at the arrival.  no ill will meant.

Um. I don't think Net was trying to say the "uncomfortable truth" was "you're gay" at all. Net should correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure he too was hinting at some negative feelings towards gays that you are perhaps (or not) uncomfortable with in yourself.

but you did bring up a truth that is, perhaps, uncomfortable for me in the PD setting.  In that I do see homosexuality as an aberration.  not quite a disability in the same way as deafness, or aspergers as it doesn't inherently detract from the quality of your life in any way (were it not for society's reaction to it), but it does seem like a 'condition' to me in some sense.  I imagine this upsets some people.

Well, that is a negative feeling towards gays, in some sense.

I don't see how that is a 'negative feeling' in any way that would put me in the position of being either afraid of homosexuals, or having any antipathy towards them.

Um yeah. That's what I said at the end of my last post, right? While it is a negative feeling, just that one thing doesn't make you a homophobe or -hater.

It's also not exactly a positive quality or anything.

regarding interpretation three.... yes. yes, i would be disappointed if i found out that my son was infertile.  wouldn't you?!  again, it's not a disappointment in the child, as if it were their fault, but it is certainly something that negatively impacts something that i want.  namely the continuation of the line.   i'm not going to talk to my kid like a dick like you put it there, though.

No I wouldn't? I might feel a whole lot of different things about it, but "disappointment" would not be one of them.

And talk like a dick? Well how would you word it then? You feel something about or towards your son. He is your son. But you never speak it aloud. You feel this, very strongly in fact. You don't say it. He is your son. How the fuck does that work? Either you feel something strongly and you have the balls to say it to your sons face because you are his father and he has the right to know what his father really thinks of him OR you realize that these are hurtful feelings your son would be hurt if he came to know what you really think and you might want to sit down and ponder good and hard about what you think is right, here. (which may be different than what I think, because I'm me and not you) Well, that's what I would do in such a situation, cause hiding my true feelings about my son for my whole life also doesn't really seem like a workable option.

[East Coast Hustle]

Actually, I think I do agree with Ippy that it's basically impossible to construct one of these test in a manner that renders it "non-bullshit", for lack of a better term.

If, indeed, that was Ippy's thought on the matter. But it is mine.

I also think that I object to your attempt to place a moral value judgment on someone's feelings about something like being disappointed that their child is infertile. It's not wrong OR right, it's just how someone feels. And there's also nothing inherently wrong with that person keeping those feelings to themself if those feelings are directed at a circumstance rather than at the person who finds themselves in that circumstance, especially if they care about that person and know that their disappointment towards an uncontrollable circumstance would hurt that person's feelings unnecessarily.

[hooplala]

I still find it somewhat suspect, as a finding.

While I'm sure many, many homophobes are repressing homosexual feelings of some sort, it is somewhat of a stretch to correlate it definitively with it.  For one thing, I'm fairly sure there are many religious individuals who disapprove of homosexuality for "moral" reasons, and social conservative types who may not be necessarily religious but also decry it for reasons of tradition and undermining the idealised form of family living.

Of course, it depends how homophobia is being strictly defined as well.  If someone does spend every day fuming over gays, then, sure, it's probably not some kind of religious objection going on, and they doth protest too much.  At the same time, I'm not entirely sure those who we would normally define as homophobic think in those terms.

Agree wholeheartedly... and the whole idea of "we found THE cause" of anything seems antiquated.  I would imagine a lot of factors come into play with something like this.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I still find it somewhat suspect, as a finding.

While I'm sure many, many homophobes are repressing homosexual feelings of some sort, it is somewhat of a stretch to correlate it definitively with it.  For one thing, I'm fairly sure there are many religious individuals who disapprove of homosexuality for "moral" reasons, and social conservative types who may not be necessarily religious but also decry it for reasons of tradition and undermining the idealised form of family living.

Of course, it depends how homophobia is being strictly defined as well.  If someone does spend every day fuming over gays, then, sure, it's probably not some kind of religious objection going on, and they doth protest too much.  At the same time, I'm not entirely sure those who we would normally define as homophobic think in those terms.

I think that I would prefer to define it according to its formal definition.

ho·mo·pho·bi·a/ˌhōməˈfōbēə/
Noun:   
An extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people.

Homophobia is an emotional reaction, like arachnophobia. People often use the word to refer to people who are anti-gay for any reason, but strictly speaking it only applies to people who experience an irrational negative emotional reaction to homosexuality. I would VERY MUCH HOPE that scientific researchers are using the formal and proper definition.

[LMNO]

an irrational negative emotional reaction to homosexuality

I would posit that any negative emotional reaction to homosexuality would necessarily be irrational.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

an irrational negative emotional reaction to homosexuality

I would posit that any negative emotional reaction to homosexuality would necessarily be irrational.

Technically, any emotional reaction is irrational, due to being emotional.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I don't know about "proof", but I will say that every homophobe I've ever met has set my gaydar off.

[Cramulus]

Increase in penis circumference is a nice, unbiased estimator of arousal.

I just want to chime in on this methodology --- changes in penis circumference are the best methods we've got right now, but it's not universally accepted as a valid measure.

When I was in college, we read a bunch of arousal studies like this. My professors were collectively skeptical that people have genuine arousal responses when they're sitting in a lab, have a little band wrapped around their johnson, and are aware that their responses are being recorded by scientists.

And you can only do these sort of measurements with men, it's hard to say that this is a general human principle and not just some bizarre artifact of male psychology.


/pedantry