[cferneyh]

I condemned the act of making money from being gay.

Out of curiousity, do you condemn Howard Stern for the act of making money from being hetero?

[skippy the wonder dog]

80% is a strong percentage of people who choose. According to the logic of other posters, NONE OF US CHOOSE.

That's cherrypicking from the facts to support your position.

The fact is that the 80% don't choose, either. They are what they are.

A vanishingly small percentage of what you do day to day actually arises from rational "choice." Most of your behaviour is either hard-wired by your biology or the ingrained result of upbringing and culture.

[second_sight_kyle]

I condemned the act of making money from being gay. That doesn't mean I hate gay people but it doesn't mean I support them either. I guess I shouldn't single Amaechi out. 80% is a strong percentage of people who choose. According to the logic of other posters, NONE OF US CHOOSE.

Anyway, good luck with dinner. Thanks for the civil discussion.

I think you are out of your league entirely, and should just admit that your opinions on something as complex as human sexuality are as baseless as mine. I know research and public opinion regarding the silly "nature versus nurture" question occurs in cycles. It is my guess that the posters who (according to you) are saying "none of us choose", are just going with the ebb and flow of current genetic research. To put forth that we are born gay is a ludicrous argument. We do not even know the extent of the genome, and some people could argue that our current understanding of the structure of genes is flawed. We only use the term 'junk' DNA to take away from our ignorance concerning it. And research on epigenetic mechanisms of 'inheritance' is just beginning. So just like every other decision in life, the more information you have, the better it will be. That said, attributing sexuality to something genetic is very sketchy.

Of course, saying you "choose" your sexuality is just as ridiculous. I'm not sure about these statistics about 80% choosing. But whenever someone quotes the results from a public survey on an internet forum, I have my doubts. The whole point of inheritance and environment is that they interact in varying degrees at varying times in our lives. It is impossible to determine these contributions, now and probably forever.

My wish is that you completely refrain from using words such as "choose" and "born" in this thread. All you can say about Amaechi is that to the best of your knowledge (ie. what you have been told by the media), he is gay. You can not say anything about the mechanism of his sexuality, and doing so would be assuming you're the bottom line on something so complex. A bottom line that has not even been achieved among any of the world's top genetic researchers, I can guarantee you.

[skippy the wonder dog]

I'm not sure about these statistics about 80% choosing.

Only Tiger actually suggested such a thing. The original point he constructed his straw man upon was that human sexuality is not a matter of black and white but a continuum, and that 80% of people could be considered bisexual in varying degrees.

And for the record, the only person in this thread who has used the word "born" is, once again, Tiger. No one has used the word "genetic." So this is another straw man.

Those of us who are suggesting that people don't choose their sexuality -- or at least, this one of us, as I don't speak for Sam, who is probably still getting dinner on the table -- are simply saying that we are prisoners of our biology and of the cultures that construct our personalities.

For whatever reason, people who are gay are gay. They don't choose to be gay, any more than I choose to be straight.

[tigerthelion]

I condemned the act of making money from being gay.

Out of curiousity, do you condemn Howard Stern for the act of making money from being hetero?

Yes, I do. I don't condone the manner in which Stern exploits people just to make a buck.

[second_sight_kyle]

Those of us who are suggesting that people don't choose their sexuality -- or at least, this one of us, as I don't speak for Sam, who is probably still getting dinner on the table -- are simply saying that we are prisoners of our biology and of the cultures that construct our personalities.

For whatever reason, people who are gay are gay. They don't choose to be gay, any more than I choose to be straight.

I see. Along with this, such a choice is not necessarily indicative of an actual autonomous choice. It would be like me claiming that I chose to have brown eyes. At the same time, I can't imagine being 'prisoners' of our biology, much less being a prisoner of our culture. The fact that human variation within a culture is larger than the variation between cultures should attest to this. As I said above, we are still light years from understanding our actual biology in terms of the genome. Before we say we are prisoners of it, perhaps we should learn a bit more.

[skippy the wonder dog]

The fact that human variation within a culture is larger than the variation between cultures should attest to this.

I would be careful of "facts" like that. It depends what exactly you're measuring the variation of.

If you think humans are rational beings, that's up to you. But 20 minutes on the subway and a copy of the morning newspaper should be enough to put that idea into question.

And the idea that we are prisoners of our biology has jack-shit to do with the genome. There's an entire branch of biology dedicated to studying the evolution of behaviour, which is entirely independent of our latter-day fascination with genetic determinism.

Male convict cichlids flare their gill covers in dominance displays because that's what male convict cichlids do -- we don't need to map their genome to comprehend that this behaviour is inherited.

[second_sight_kyle]

The fact that human variation within a culture is larger than the variation between cultures should attest to this.

I would be careful of "facts" like that. It depends what exactly you're measuring the variation of.

If you think humans are rational beings, that's up to you. But 20 minutes on the subway and a copy of the morning newspaper should be enough to put that idea into question.

And the idea that we are prisoners of our biology has jack-shit to do with the genome. There's an entire branch of biology dedicated to studying the evolution of behaviour, which is entirely independent of our latter-day fascination with genetic determinism.

Male convict cichlids flare their gill covers in dominance displays because that's what male convict cichlids do -- we don't need to map their genome to comprehend that this behaviour is inherited.

Well I never said anything about humans and rationality. I'd kind of like to hear more. I think irrationality in any case would mirror variation, which would mirror complexity, which would put the 'prisoners of our biology' idea to rest.

Evolutionary biology has much to do with the genome. I think research into epigenetic modes of inheritance has even been on the heels of evolutionary biology. But you are going to have to explain better how all this is independent of any reference to or study of the genome? It is perfectly logical to study the evolution of "behaviour" in the context of the genome...in fact I think it would be silly not to.

So about this fish...you can make an inference that it is inherited (if the fish learns how to do it in the absence of other fish), but you wouldn't know the mode of inheritance. Which means you are right, we could comprehend that it is inherited. It could be in the genome, or it could be outside the genome in the cell.

There are a few things to consider though. First is that behaviours such as these can very conceivably be learned. You may still think that this makes the fish a prisoner of their biology, but I don't. Second is that humans aren't fish. So male cichlids display an inherited behaviour, and we can make an assumption that they are 'prisoners' of their biology. That's great, but in the human brain and in human development there's a lot more going on. And the more complex a behavior becomes, the less likely it will be due to these 'hard-wired' factors.

[second_sight_kyle]

Yes, I do. I don't condone the manner in which Stern exploits people just to make a buck.

Well, it's not too late to start a 'For shame, Howard Stern, for shame" thread.

[skippy the wonder dog]

Kyle, first you caution us not to drag the genome into this, then you insist that we must discuss it. That's not a particularly honest line of argument.

Nobody here has actually argued that homosexuality has a genetic basis, with the exception of Tiger. And I didn't argue that we are "prisoners of our biology." I argued that we are prisoners of our biology and of the cultures that construct our personalities. That argument has, I'm sorry to tell you, absolutely nothing to do with any hunt for a gay gene.

The behaviour I described in convicts is in fact hard-wired; there is no doubt on that count, as fish raised in isolation from the earliest fry stage will display the same behaviour. Point being -- and this is the entire point, so there is no need for you to dishonestly pretend that I have compared humans to fish -- that we can understand that behaviours are hard-wired without the need to point to a specific genetic basis for them. We can also observe that all members of a species may share the same hard-wired behaviours.

Humans are indeed more complex than fish. I will not even attempt to tackle the basis of homosexuality, which elements belong to hard-wired behaviour -- the state of being human, if you're still struggling with the concept -- and which elements belong to the cultures (national, familial, etc.) that shape an individual personality. None of us comprehends what goes on in that crucible.

However, what emerges -- and this is my whole point, so I will type it very slowly for you -- is the personality. Much of our day-to-day behaviour, even far above the basic level of such things as sexuality, is not the product of rational thought but is the ineluctable result of who we are, our personalities.

I'm sorry, but we don't need to know anything about the genome to understand that.

[second_sight_kyle]

Kyle, first you caution us not to drag the genome into this, then you insist that we must discuss it. That's not a particularly honest line of argument.

I feel I've been entirely consistent. I cautioned not to talk about the genome with regard to human sexuality, perhaps I should have read the entire thread. As far as I am concerned, I am talking about how much we don't know (which was my point in the first place). Don't worry, if I feel I am inconsistent I will point it out. Not that I mind, but my name isn't Kyle either haha, sorry for the confusion.

Nobody here has actually argued that homosexuality has a genetic basis, with the exception of Tiger. And I didn't argue that we are "prisoners of our biology." I argued that we are prisoners of our biology and of the cultures that construct our personalities. That argument has, I'm sorry to tell you, absolutely nothing to do with any hunt for a gay gene.

Well then, what I wrote can apply to Tiger. The term 'prisoners of our biology' does have genetic connotations. This argument alone, in the context of this thread, does have to do with attributing genes to behaviour. As for being prisoners of our culture, you will have to be more specific and describe a cultural script that actually shapes a personality trait. I could give you some heritability estimates of personality traits that are independent of culture. For the remaining variability, someone still needs to explain this mechanism of culture constructing a personality.

Humans are indeed more complex than fish. I will not even attempt to tackle the basis of homosexuality, which elements belong to hard-wired behaviour -- the state of being human, if you're still struggling with the concept -- and which elements belong to the cultures (national, familial, etc.) that shape an individual personality. None of us comprehends what goes on in that crucible.

None of us comprehend it completely, but it does not mean that we are void of any type of information about our behaviour and how it is shaped. There is actually a lot of information on many personality types and their bases. I am confused when you say you will not attempt to tackle the basis of homosexuality. That is what I want, but were you one of the persons saying that we are prisoners of our biology and culture, or were you reiterating someone else? If it's the former, then you very much were attempting to tackle homosexuality. Or is it the specificity of what contributes to what, that you were referring to?

However, what emerges -- and this is my whole point, so I will type it very slowly for you -- is the personality. Much of our day-to-day behaviour, even far above the basic level of such things as sexuality, is not the product of rational thought but is the ineluctable result of who we are, our personalities.

This is actually completely wrong. But it's a common belief, and is so popular that it's called the Fundamental Attribution Error. Our day-to-day behaviour is determined by the situation, and not our personalities. The error comes from people thinking their unique personalities are what determines their behavour.

Also, sexuality is not at the basic level. You may be thinking in terms of 'instinct,' whatever that is, but human sexuality incorporates many more behaviours than simply propagating the species. Because sexuality is outside the realm of every-day behaviour, it is more likely our personalities contribute a little more to how we act.

So now I have to try and put this together. What emerges is the personality, which doesn't determine our day-to-day behaviour, but may have some input into our sexuality. But my point is that being prisoners of our biology and culture do not determine that personality. And if biology does determine part of our personality, I am not convinced that this makes us prisoners of it (more evident in adulthood). You have not provided any mechanism for culture operating to construct our personalities? Of course it is conceivable that our culture influences us, but it is a huge stretch to say we are prisoners of it. Are you using culture as a blanket term to save yourself? Is culture referring to our parents, our siblings, how our home town affects us, how the provincial government affects us? In essence, how environment affect us?

[cferneyh]

Our day-to-day behaviour is determined by the situation, and not our personalities.

Well this thread has completely gone over my head, but I really don't understand the comment above, not-kyle.

If our day-to-day behaviour is determined by the situation and not our personalities, does that not imply that everyone would react the exact same way to any given situation? I mean when I'm sitting on the bus and an old lady with a crane gets on and I offer her my seat, does your statement not mean that everyone would offer her their seat? Because I can assure you that that is certainly not the case.

But perhaps I've misunderstood what you mean by "the situation".

[skippy the wonder dog]

I am confused when you say you will not attempt to tackle the basis of homosexuality. That is what I want, but were you one of the persons saying that we are prisoners of our biology and culture, or were you reiterating someone else? If it's the former, then you very much were attempting to tackle homosexuality. Or is it the specificity of what contributes to what, that you were referring to?

That's precisely what I'm referring to. To attempt to untangle what contributes to what is a fool's game, unless the subject happens to be one's area of research, in which case one wouldn't be discussing it here.

I don't see why you find that confusing. I've been entirely consistent on that point.

This is actually completely wrong. But it's a common belief, and is so popular that it's called the Fundamental Attribution Error. Our day-to-day behaviour is determined by the situation, and not our personalities. The error comes from people thinking their unique personalities are what determines their behavour.

I've been unclear. I do not mean to pretend that people's behaviour is not a response to an external situation, or that we aren't changed or governed by our circumstances. I tend to lean much more heavily on our common human nature, if you will, than on our unique personal traits in looking at why people do what they do in a given situation.

What I'm doing here is using "personality" vaguely, as a label to cover both the inherent and the learned. I'm doing that as a means of avoiding the demand to somehow divine the specific roots of homosexuality: lumping it all together and putting a label on it.

In any case, by using "personality" in that way I do lay myself open to the charge that I'm attributing human behaviour to our unique personal dispositions. You could easily see what I wrote as an expression of the fundamental attribution error, because by misusing "personality" I overemphasize personal disposition.

There's an interesting sidebar here when we're talking about homosexuality, in the way it can arise in same-sex populations. This would appear to have nothing to do with "personality" (although we might attribute variability in individual response to that) and much more to do with what humans are.

Which, although you may dislike the term "prisoners of our biology," tends to support my point of view. People behave as they do under such circumstances because that's what humans are. I would not expect "personality" (in a stricter, correct sense) to override that.

Are you using culture as a blanket term to save yourself? Is culture referring to our parents, our siblings, how our home town affects us, how the provincial government affects us? In essence, how environment affect us?

I am not using "culture" as a blanket term "to save myself," as there's nothing I need save myself from, but as a blanket term in the interest of brevity. A better word would have been "environment."

Let's see:
1. we agree that searching for the specific basis of homosexuality is a fool's game.
2. we agree that to say that homosexuality is a "choice" is foolish.
3. we agree that so say one is "born gay" is equally foolish.
4. we agree that we don't know what we don't know, which happens to be a lot.

So what exactly are we disagreeing about?

Oh, yes. That would be the part where, without having actually read what was written, you bought into Tiger's straw men, falsely attributed the notion that people are "born gay" to his opponents, and misrepresented other arguments -- and then, when called on these mistakes, refused to admit your error and chose instead to attempt to blind us with science.

Which all amounts to what I'd call the classic Internet dominance display of the human male. But I forgive you, "Kyle," because I understand that you're a "prisoner" of your biology.

And incidentally, my name's not really Skippy. Shh ... don't tell anyone.

[skippy the wonder dog]

I mean when I'm sitting on the bus and an old lady with a crane gets on and I offer her my seat, does your statement not mean that everyone would offer her their seat?

No, it means that only you have been taking powerful hallucinogens. Why else would you think the old lady is carrying a crane?

[opiated]

I mean when I'm sitting on the bus and an old lady with a crane gets on and I offer her my seat, does your statement not mean that everyone would offer her their seat?

No, it means that only you have been taking powerful hallucinogens. Why else would you think the old lady is carrying a crane?

damn..you beat me to it!! :thumb: