= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Azathoth123 comments on "NRx" vs. "Prog" Assumptions: Locating the Sources of Disagreement Between Neoreactionaries and Progressives (Part 1) - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
Comments (340)
So your argument amounts to since there is no scientific consensus we should assume its 100% genetic.
But the number of gays is significantly smaller.
You:
Me:
No, I'm arguing for agnosticism on the issue due to lack of data. I know arguments like this are generally rhetorical, but on LW it is possible that people mean exactly what they say.
The number of people who publicly identify as gay is smaller.
It is possible that homosexuality is 100% genetic (or epigenetic), its also possible that its partially due to environment. [edit: In retrospect I wasn't communicating very clearly, because epigenetic effects are caused by environmental factors. See my next comment]
So denormalising homosexuality would result in the expected number of gays decreasing, using 'expected' in the probability theory scene.
So do you agree that denormalizing homosexuality would decrease the number of gays?
Um, why are you assigning the "100% genetic" comparable probability to the "not 100% genetic hypothesis"? I could equally well say its possible its 100% due to environment.
Time to look at the evidence (I've read it before, but this time I'll actually quote it). Via wikipedia:
Schooling is a shared environment, so my estimate is that denormalizing homosexuality would have barely any effect upon male gays and might decrease lesbians by at most 16%.
Of course, if all Swedish people are tolerant of homosexuality, then the study would not have had a chance to detect the effect of de-normalisation.
When I said this:
In retrospect I wasn't communicating very clearly, because epigenetic effects are caused by environmental factors.
So to be more precise, its 34-39% genetic and some percent epigenetic.
So did the study contain twins where one of them didn't go to school.
I'm not sure about all, but Sweden is probably a rather uniform environment these days.
Good point! I dunno much about Swedish schooling, but a brief search seems to indicate that there are religious schools, which presumably do not normalise homosexuality to the same extent as the prog schools. Its also possible maybe some of them are homeschooled?
Your turn, do you have any evidence that de-normalisation would decrease the prevalence of gays?
Given how progressive the Church of Sweden is, they probably do.
For starters the fact that there are a lot more gays among the younger generation, i.e., the people who grew up while it was being normalized.
Will the two of you taboo “gays”? Do you mean men who are attracted to men, or men who have sex with men? Some of the former don't act upon their attraction.
(And I have a pet hypothesis that these men have historically made up a sizeable fraction of Catholic priests, but that's another story.)
I assume Sweden also has Catholics/Jews/Muslims.
It's also true that sperm counts are dropping, and I would guess that there is a common cause. Maybe because plastics leak estrogen-mimicking chemicals?
According to Wikipedia 5% Muslim, 2% Catholic and fewer Jews. Well the Muslims are poorly assimilated to quite possible didn't participate in the study at all, in any case I doubt the study contains a case of two twins one of whom was raised Muslim and the other wasn't. And I doubt there are many Catholic schools there.
That's one theory. I'm more inclined to suspect memetic causes, as Jim puts it here:
Ok. I didn't think it would be as low as 2%, which does lower the utility of that study.
Since testosterone levels change due to danger, dominance, talking to attractive women etc, I would say there is some theoretical justification for this.
We need more than an inclination, we need empirical data. For instance, if women are being more dominant and this is causing homosexuality, then a testable hypothesis is that socially dominant groups ought to be less gay. Do people from working class backgrounds have higher rates of homosexuality than elites?
Yeah, because no gay men are manly and tough.
Would you also point that out about twin studies on traits other than homosexuality?
Yes, as it happens.
A better counter-argument to this just occurred to me: if Sweden's attitude to homosexuality was entirely uniform, then there would not be a shared environment effect upon the prevalence of lesbianism, which there is.