Our understanding of psychology has improved as a result of new studies, and that includes new studies of homosexuals. For example, according to the website of Dr. Gregory Herek, a psychologist at the University of California, Davis:New evidence of what? That previous things thought to exist do not exist anymore? That sounds a little like quack science IMO. Psychology to me is a kind of valid philosophy. Not exactly obtained from “scientific method” though.
Today, a large body of published empirical research clearly refutes the notion that homosexuality per se is indicative of or correlated with psychopathology. One of the first and most famous published studies in this area was conducted by psychologist Evelyn Hooker.
Hooker’s (1957) study was innovative in several important respects. First, rather than simply accepting the predominant view of homosexuality as pathology, she posed the question of whether homosexuals and heterosexuals differed in their psychological adjustment. Second, rather than studying psychiatric patients, she recruited a sample of homosexual men who were functioning normally in society. Third, she employed a procedure that asked experts to rate the adjustment of men without prior knowledge of their sexual orientation. This method addressed an important source of bias that had vitiated so many previous studies of homosexuality.
Hooker administered three projective tests (the Rorschach, Thematic Apperception Test [TAT], and Make-A-Picture-Story [MAPS] Test) to 30 homosexual males and 30 heterosexual males recruited through community organizations. The two groups were matched for age, IQ, and education. None of the men were in therapy at the time of the study.
Unaware of each subject’s sexual orientation, two independent Rorschach experts evaluated the men’s overall adjustment using a 5-point scale. They classified two-thirds of the heterosexuals and two-thirds of the homosexuals in the three highest categories of adjustment. When asked to identify which Rorschach protocols were obtained from homosexuals, the experts could not distinguish respondents’ sexual orientation at a level better than chance.
A third expert used the TAT and MAPS protocols to evaluate the psychological adjustment of the men. As with the Rorschach responses, the adjustment ratings of the homosexuals and heterosexuals did not differ significantly.
Hooker concluded from her data that homosexuality is not a clinical entity and that homosexuality is not inherently associated with psychopathology.
psychology.ucdavis.edu/faculty_sites/rainbow/html/facts_mental_health.htmlHooker’s findings have since been replicated by many other investigators using a variety of research methods. Freedman (1971), for example, used Hooker’s basic design to study lesbian and heterosexual women. Instead of projective tests, he administered objectively-scored personality tests to the women. His conclusions were similar to those of Hooker.
Have you ever studied psychology in school? Like any other science, it uses the scientific method, including clinical psychology. Its parent disciplines were biology and philosophy, but like most adolescents, it strove to achieve some independence from these domains. In recent years, it has gone back to one of its parents, namely biology, in the form of cognitive neuroscience.New evidence of what? That previous things thought to exist do not exist anymore? That sounds a little like quack science IMO. Psychology to me is a kind of valid philosophy. Not exactly obtained from “scientific method” though.
Yes I have somewhat. I suppose in the years I have kind of doubted or been disappointed in the “progress” of psychology. It seems to me like they are getting lazy and have lost some zeal. Maybe that’s just me. Maybe I didn’t get into it enough. I know a lot of math is involved. It’s kind of hard to put everybody in a box and say. This output is from this and everyone is like that. I don’t think we’re that simplistic. But maybe that’s me.Have you ever studied psychology in school? Like any other science, it uses the scientific method, including clinical psychology. Its parent disciplines were biology and philosophy, but like most adolescents, it strove to achieve some independence from these domains. In recent years, it has gone back to one of its parents, namely biology, in the form of cognitive neuroscience.
Thank you for this information. Many people who are unfamiliar with the history of clinical psychology are not aware of the NON-POLITICAL, scientifically-based motivation involved in changing the DSM classification of homosexuality, which was previously considered a psychological disorder. That is not to say there is a TOTAL absence of politics involved either. The only remnant of disorder left has been what is called ego-dystonic homosexuality, which refers to the emotional disturbance and depression induced by society’s treatment of gay people. Evelyn Hooker, BTW, also changed her tune (but not her name!) with regard to the issue of homosexuality as a disorder. She herself freely admitted that, once upon a time, she had treated homosexual male patients by means of aversion therapy, in the mistaken belief she might scare them straight at the sight of gay pornographic material through the administration of nausea-eliciting drugs. She succeeded only in rendering several of the gay men asexual rather than heterosexual.Our understanding of psychology has improved as a result of new studies, and that includes new studies of homosexuals. For example, according to the website of Dr. Gregory Herek, a psychologist at the University of California, Davis:
psychology.ucdavis.edu/faculty_sites/rainbow/html/facts_mental_health.html
I agree with you. In fact, continua models are used in psychology today much more often than categorically-based type models which put people into rigidly-defined boxes.Yes I have somewhat. I suppose in the years I have kind of doubted or been disappointed in the “progress” of psychology. It seems to me like they are getting lazy and have lost some zeal. Maybe that’s just me. Maybe I didn’t get into it enough. I know a lot of math is involved. It’s kind of hard to put everybody in a box and say. This output is from this and everyone is like that. I don’t think we’re that simplistic. But maybe that’s me.
I know that remnants of Hellenistic era belief; much of which comes from what the church believes. Was said to see people open about their sexuality. Homosexuality, pederasty and so on seemed to be very much accepted. If not widespread some kind of acceptance anyway. Some like to say also there is homosexuality among animals. Animals have no sexuality at all. That is no sexual attraction as known to humans. People see animals through human eyes and when they see a male dog on another male dog. They seem to think sex. It’s an issue of dominance. Not sexual at all.Thank you for this information. Many people who are unfamiliar with the history of clinical psychology are not aware of the NON-POLITICAL, scientifically-based motivation involved in changing the DSM classification of homosexuality, which was previously considered a psychological disorder. That is not to say there is a TOTAL absence of politics involved either. The only remnant of disorder left has been what is called ego-dystonic homosexuality, which refers to the emotional disturbance and depression induced by society’s treatment of gay people. Evelyn Hooker, BTW, also changed her tune (but not her name!) with regard to the issue of homosexuality as a disorder. She herself freely admitted that, once upon a time, she had treated homosexual male patients by means of aversion therapy, in the mistaken belief she might scare them straight at the sight of gay pornographic material through the administration of nausea-eliciting drugs. She succeeded only in rendering several of the gay men asexual rather than heterosexual.
There’s the opposing professional view, that the removal of homosexuality from the DSM was not the result of scientific advancement but political will, the solidifying of disease status of minor psychiatric diagnoses and their biological basis are more the result of these same forces than scientific triumphalism.It’s true that the AMA does vote on things and as a result, the DSM does change based on new evidence. For example, in the new DSM V, Autistic Disorder, Asperger’s Disorder, and Pervasive Developmental Disorder Not Otherwise Specified (PDD-NOS) have all been reclassified as Autism Spectrum Disorder. Narcissistic Personality Disorder has been eliminated from the DSM V, etc. The decision to remove homosexuality from the DSM was not just political, it was also based on new empirical evidence.
,It was not until 1987 that homosexuality completely disappeared from the DSM, but the concept of ego-dystonic sexual orientation persists in the World Health Organization’s International Classification of Diseases. More recently we have seen a similar shift with transgendered individuals. It is interesting to note as homosexuality came out of the DSM, transsexualism was making its debut. This transformed into gender identity disorder, and most recently, to gender dysphoria in DSM-5.
here is your quote:How does being homosexual cause suffering? How did I judge? Good or bad? Did I say removing homosexuality was good or bad? I am confused as to your judgment.
Seems like you disagreed with the DSM considering being homosexual as “normal” rather you are more comfortable with them being considered abnormal and hence need to change.At one time homosexuality was considered abnormal. Now no. Hummmm I wonder why…
The DSM does not consider things “normal” but only abnormal. As far as sexual attractions go they are not important to me. Sexual activity is to be used in marriage for creation. Persons of the same sex can’t procreate. So there are a lot of heterosexual celibates out there. They should not be suffering. Why would homosexuals be suffering unless it’s their choice. The sex function after being used to procreate needs to be retired. It holds us back. The unused sex force is to rise into the brain opening us to the higher realms. Not constantly be pushed down for use in sexual activity. Heterosexuals IMO should be no more sexually active than homosexuals. As for suffering, that is one’s own choice.here is your quote:
Seems like you disagreed with the DSM considering being homosexual as “normal” rather you are more comfortable with them being considered abnormal and hence need to change.
The criticism of Dr. Evelyn Hooker’s research by Dr. Thomas Landess is itself subject to significant criticism. I have no doubt that Thomas Landess was an excellent English Professor and Academic Dean, nor that he apparently published in certain peer-reviewed psychological journals. However, some of the statements he makes about Evelyn Hooker’s work reveal either his ignorance of psychology or an intentional distortion based on his own Christian conservative agenda.No offense to the good posters who defend Ms. Hooker’s study, but here is a well laid out, not so baseless differing view on THE EVELYN HOOKER STUDY AND THE NORMALIZATION OF HOMOSEXUALITY.
,
Social Science is not a science in the way that mathematics, chemistry and physics are sciences. Gender is an empirical fact. Social science, however, introduces environmental variables into what are physical and biological realities. It questions not only the concept of gender but of race and other concepts as well. Most assuredly, we will see this play out in the current situation in Seattle. This is politics and not science.The criticism of Dr. Evelyn Hooker’s research by Dr. Thomas Landess is itself subject to significant criticism. I have no doubt that Thomas Landess was an excellent English Professor and Academic Dean, nor that he apparently published in certain peer-reviewed psychological journals. However, some of the statements he makes about Evelyn Hooker’s work reveal either his ignorance of psychology or an intentional distortion based on his own Christian conservative agenda.
For example, Landess flatly states that Hooker’s research is not in line with a dispassionate objective view of science and psychology. My response to this objection is whose research in the (social) sciences is totally dispassionate and objective? Research in the sciences is based on observation first, followed by the formulation of a hypothesis, and then taking what is observed into the laboratory (if possible) for further study by means of testing the hypothesis. Is Landess claiming that the scientist is, or should be, an entirely neutral human being with no prior worldview at all? Surely this is not, and cannot, be the case. The very choice of ANY topic of investigation in science reveals an interest in pursuing it based on one’s prior ideas about it as well as one’s real-world observation relative to the topic. The same no doubt holds true for Landess’ own research on the South and the literature of Southern writers. Further, if Hooker, who was both an experimental and a clinical psychologist, is nothing but a “so-called expert,” as Landess uses the term, how might he be described in relation to psychological research?
Second, Landess criticizes Hooker for being nothing more than a ‘rat runner,’ with insufficient knowledge to do clinical research since her education in psychology is confined to experimental (non-clinical) psychology. With regard to this criticism, I can only surmise that Landess must be unaware that one of Hooker’s mentors was the renowned clinical psychiatrist, Dr. Karl Muenzinger, and that she studied clinical psychology in the 1930’s at the Berlin Institute of Psychotherapy. Later in late, she herself became a psychotherapist.
Another criticism of Hooker’s research that Landess focuses on is her recruitment of gay participants from a strictly gay organization: the Mattachine Society. One of his arguments is that gay people who belong to such a group are, by necessity, more well-adjusted than gay people who are not members of a supportive group like this. Therefore, the sample Hooker selected for her study is skewed at the start rather than being a random sample. My response to Landess’ criticism on this point is to ask where else should Hooker have recruited her gay participants? Would a mental institution have been a better source, or perhaps from her personal gay friends? At least obtaining gay participants from such a group would ensure that they were in fact gay. Likewise, when I did research using children, I recruited them from schools rather than using the children of family or friends, let alone strangers. Researchers recruit participants from the most available sources. Further, the heterogeneity of the participants is not necessarily a requirement in doing research. The fact that all of Hooker’s gay participants came from the same source does not mean they all had the same family background; but even if they had, if homosexuality were correlated with psychopathological behavior in a global sense apart from the sexual behavior itself, the background of the participant would not be the determinant influence.
I have several other criticisms of Landess’ critique of Hooker’s study, but I think this will suffice for now.
Psychology is both a behavioral and cognitive science. It uses the same scientific method that is used in biology, chemistry, and physics. In a sense, all of the social sciences–including psychology, anthropology, and sociology–are more complex than biology, chemistry, and physics because of the number of environmental variables that interact with the individual. Environmental variables are part of the social sciences, but they are not the equivalent of politics. I think you are referring more to the political views of the social scientists themselves than the social sciences per se. The former may have a political agenda, but, as I pointed out in my previous post, EVERY scientist has a worldview prior to their research. It is indeed this worldview–not necessarily a politically motivated one–that guides their choice of research topics in the first place.Social Science is not a science in the way that mathematics, chemistry and physics are sciences. Gender is an empirical fact. Social science, however, introduces environmental variables into what are physical and biological realities. It questions not only the concept of gender but of race and other concepts as well. Most assuredly, we will see this play out in the current situation in Seattle. This is politics and not science.
Yes, I know. I have a degree in psychology and consider it more of a biological than a social science, though the discipline is vast, ranging from physiological to social psychology. As for politics, I limited that to a very specific scenario currently in the news and not to the social sciences generally. Nature/Nurture is of course a valid construction, and I really didn’t mean to imply that environmental factors are political.Psychology is both a behavioral and cognitive science. It uses the same scientific method that is used in biology, chemistry, and physics. In a sense, all of the social sciences–including psychology, anthropology, and sociology–are more complex than biology, chemistry, and physics because of the number of environmental variables that interact with the individual. Environmental variables are part of the social sciences, but they are not the equivalent of politics. I think you are referring more to the political views of the social scientists themselves than the social sciences per se. The former may have a political agenda, but, as I pointed out in my previous post, EVERY scientist has a worldview prior to their research. It is indeed this worldview–not necessarily a politically motivated one–that guides their choice of research topics in the first place.
This is completely at odds with Church teaching.The DSM does not consider things “normal” but only abnormal. As far as sexual attractions go they are not important to me. Sexual activity is to be used in marriage for creation. Persons of the same sex can’t procreate. So there are a lot of heterosexual celibates out there. They should not be suffering. Why would homosexuals be suffering unless it’s their choice. The sex function after being used to procreate needs to be retired. It holds us back. The unused sex force is to rise into the brain opening us to the higher realms. Not constantly be pushed down for use in sexual activity. Heterosexuals IMO should be no more sexually active than homosexuals. As for suffering, that is one’s own choice.
No I am not married. But Mary was. Did she and Joseph then have relations?This is completely at odds with Church teaching.
Are you married?
The sex act is not just procreative, it is procreative and unitive. That is Church teaching.
Of course it should only be used in its proper context, which is within a valid marriage.
The criticism made on Hooker’s study is that the researcher eliminated subjects who manifested considerable psychopathologal disturbance, therefore no real random sample was studied. The subjects were instigators of the study with a vested interest in the ultimate finding. It is not a surprise that such a non-random sample showed predictable Rorschach testing results. Hooker was only interested, to use her words, “in whether homosexuality is necessarily a symptom of pathology”, not testing if homosexuals and heterosexuals are equally likely to be normal and well adjusted.The criticism of Dr. Evelyn Hooker’s research by Dr. Thomas Landess is itself subject to significant criticism. I have no doubt that Thomas Landess was an excellent English Professor and Academic Dean, nor that he apparently published in certain peer-reviewed psychological journals. However, some of the statements he makes about Evelyn Hooker’s work reveal either his ignorance of psychology or an intentional distortion based on his own Christian conservative agenda. …
I’m happy for her, though I’m worried that this will negatively influence other transgender people. They will think that the change will be easy as pie; they’ll have a hair stylist, get a personalized wardrobe from the most expensive stores, and in a couple days they will be gorgeous, handsome, etc. Maybe it will encourage them to be brave, but it might just make them blind to the true hardships that come with the process.
Excuse me but what does it matter that she had no ability to find a more random sample? This is a caution to drawing sweeping conclusions from the research, not an attack on Hooker. Considering Hooker’s person or motives are not the subject of the criticism, I think it thoroughly illogical to claim “She had no other choice” as a response to a criticism about how true/false the results of her research are. That she may have had no other choice or more random available participants has nothing to do with the criticism that this fact may have eschewed her findings. What I’m interested in is how true or false her findings are, and how representative of objective reality and that this be accurately reflected in the claims of those psychologists basing their positions on her. Not in the struggles researchers face in their work. We all have those.Another criticism of Hooker’s research that Landess focuses on is her recruitment of gay participants from a strictly gay organization: the Mattachine Society. One of his arguments is that gay people who belong to such a group are, by necessity, more well-adjusted than gay people who are not members of a supportive group like this. Therefore, the sample Hooker selected for her study is skewed at the start rather than being a random sample. My response to Landess’ criticism on this point is to ask where else should Hooker have recruited her gay participants? Would a mental institution have been a better source, or perhaps from her personal gay friends?
.
Are you saying that if research on a truly random sample showed significantly greater numbers of pathologically affected individuals among homosexuals than the general population or heterosexuals, that this is insignificant in discussing correlations between homosexuality and pathology? I am genuinely confused here.Further, the heterogeneity of the participants is not necessarily a requirement in doing research. The fact that all of Hooker’s gay participants came from the same source does not mean they all had the same family background; but even if they had, if homosexuality were correlated with psychopathological behavior in a global sense apart from the sexual behavior itself, the background of the participant would not be the determinant influence.