Race War

[Dak]

I know. It's unfortunate.

The guy was a one dimensional hack.

Edit: I came to that conclusion in spite of the fact that the only psychology professor I had was part of that devoted Freud fanbase.

 

[Einherjar86]

The guy was a one dimensional hack.

Edit: I came to that conclusion in spite of the fact that the only psychology professor I had was part of that devoted Freud fanbase.

He was one of the most important and intelligent thinkers of the modern era. To call him a one-dimensional hack is to forego truly understanding the depth of his assertions.

 

[Dak]

While Freud was a thinker, as his ideas have been continuously challenged and abandoned, his importance pales in the light of new knowledge and understanding.

On the other hand, his nephew Bernays was head and shoulders above him.

 

[skeptik]

EDIT: @InFlames

I didn't know you're a psych student. That's awesome.

And all of this is just my opinion; but I don't think the links you posted necessarily disprove what I was trying to say.

I acknowledged that familial transmission can certainly contribute to increased risk of alcoholism or alcohol dependency; what I don't believe is that there are "blank slate" genes out there (or whatever) that incline people toward alcoholism. Those studies seemed to suggest that certain families were at risk due to previous behavior of their ancestors (unless I read them too fast; I'm cooking and typing).

Sexuality, I personally feel, is an entirely socially determined phenomenon. All human beings possess sexual energy, yes; but I don't believe there's a "homosexual" gene (I'm drawing on Freud's Three Essays on Sexuality for this, by the way).

There are physical biological differences between heterosexual males and homosexual males. The hypothalamus in homosexual males is smaller I believe, for example, more similar to that of a woman's. I'd have to actually re-research the matter though if I was more invested in the argument.

 

[waif]

You're majoring in psychology WAIF?

Actually, I'm majoring in Econ, but last year I thought I would go for psych and I took a bunch of courses towards that end. Still considering a minor.

And all of this is just my opinion; but I don't think the links you posted necessarily disprove what I was trying to say.

I acknowledged that familial transmission can certainly contribute to increased risk of alcoholism or alcohol dependency; what I don't believe is that there are "blank slate" genes out there (or whatever) that incline people toward alcoholism. Those studies seemed to suggest that certain families were at risk due to previous behavior of their ancestors (unless I read them too fast; I'm cooking and typing).

Sexuality, I personally feel, is an entirely socially determined phenomenon. All human beings possess sexual energy, yes; but I don't believe there's a "homosexual" gene (I'm drawing on Freud's Three Essays on Sexuality for this, by the way).

The best way to think about it, as with all things, is in terms of Pokemon. If you're a water-type, electricity is super-effective against you. Just because you're a water-type doesn't mean you're going to go picking a fight with an electric-type, and even if you do you could win. If you have the genes for alcoholism, alcohol is super-effective (in terms of forming a dependence). Just because you have the genes doesn't mean you'll drink, and even if you do it doesn't mean you'll become an alcoholic. It is, however, a risk factor. And smoking is a risk factor for lung cancer.

By the way, most psychologists consider Freud's views on sexuality to be hilarious. He's actually not really taught anymore. His views on the subconscious are generally considered to have some merit, but that's about it. I can't imagine anything he has to say is much use with regards to genetics.

With sexuality, the research indicates that there are innate tendencies - not full-fledged orientations - and that environmental factors push us the rest of the way. It's also worth noting that sexual orientations are not discrete points but rather positions along a line.

 

[Dak]

With sexuality, the research indicates that there are innate tendencies - not full-fledged orientations - and that environmental factors push us the rest of the way. It's also worth noting that sexual orientations are not discrete points but rather positions along a line.

My general assertion is this is the case with all things, not just sexuality.

 

[Einherjar86]

The best way to think about it, as with all things, is in terms of Pokemon. If you're a water-type, electricity is super-effective against you. Just because you're a water-type doesn't mean you're going to go picking a fight with an electric-type, and even if you do you could win. If you have the genes for alcoholism, alcohol is super-effective (in terms of forming a dependence). Just because you have the genes doesn't mean you'll drink, and even if you do it doesn't mean you'll become an alcoholic. It is, however, a risk factor. And smoking is a risk factor for lung cancer.

I've never played Pokémon.

By the way, most psychologists consider Freud's views on sexuality to be hilarious. He's actually not really taught anymore. His views on the subconscious are generally considered to have some merit, but that's about it. I can't imagine anything he has to say is much use with regards to genetics.

I know that he's basically ignored in the field of psychology today, but I think the practice of psychology today is also somewhat flawed. Freud understood the relationship between analysts and analysands better than most psychologists today, in my opinion.

With sexuality, the research indicates that there are innate tendencies - not full-fledged orientations - and that environmental factors push us the rest of the way. It's also worth noting that sexual orientations are not discrete points but rather positions along a line.

That's a good way to describe it; but there's no reason why an individual's sexual orientation can't fluctuate.

 

[Dak]

That's a good way to describe it; but there's no reason why an individual's sexual orientation can't fluctuate.

Of course not, but that would have more to do with the environmental factors at play than tendencies though.

There's plenty of research to suggest that biochemical reactions can affect this as well. Unfermented soy and BPA, among other things, have been linked to decreased levels of testosterone and other similar effects(especially in prenatal development), which could effect effeminacy/homosexuality in males.

 

[Vimana]

One's sexuality can fluctuate through environmental factors, but there are biological factors in place. That's why the majority of animals that sexually reproduce sexually reproduce instead of just deciding what they want to fuck. It must be kept in mind that human behavior is more alterable by the conditions set by its peers than that of any other species, but that doesn't rule out orientation having a significant biological factor.

 

[waif]

My general assertion is this is the case with all things, not just sexuality.

Pretty much. Hand preference is another good example - that shit is actually incredibly environmental, and that's the main reason so many people identify as "right handed" despite having no genetic predisposition towards right-handedness - they grow up in a right-handed world, and they end up falling in line. A lot more people would be ambidextrous if not for this.

I've never played Pokémon.

I weep for your childhood.

I know that he's basically ignored in the field of psychology today, but I think the practice of psychology today is also somewhat flawed. Freud understood the relationship between analysts and analysands better than most psychologists today, in my opinion.

Psychoanalysis is very different from experimental psychology. Freud is certainly relevant to psychiatrists and clinical psychologists, but most of the stuff he says is impossible to test, and most of what is testable is not supported by experimental data, and a lot of it is absurd.

That's a good way to describe it; but there's no reason why an individual's sexual orientation can't fluctuate.

To be quite honest I've forgotten what we're arguing about. I just think it's extremely important that people understand that there is a genetic component to homosexuality because otherwise you end up with the lifestyle choice argument and I'm running out of places to hide the bodies.

 

[Einherjar86]

To be quite honest I've forgotten what we're arguing about. I just think it's extremely important that people understand that there is a genetic component to homosexuality because otherwise you end up with the lifestyle choice argument and I'm running out of places to hide the bodies.

Well, let me just say this: I don't think the idea of environmentally determined sexuality forces us into the "lifestyle choice" argument.

Even if human sexuality is non-oriented to begin with (i.e. neither homosexual, nor heterosexual, nor any kind of "-sexual"), as I'm arguing, the factors that influence eventual sexual orientation have nothing to do with conscious lifestyle choices. The process of object cathexis is deeply intertwined with human growth and development, and also random "accidents" of history, so to speak, in which perhaps a specific object happens to be available to the individual.

A rebuttal to this might be: "Well, obviously the parents did something wrong then in raising their child, and that mistake has caused him or her to be homosexual." The misconception lies in thinking that, if for some reason they had done absolutely nothing, the child would have naturally grown up to be a heterosexual, healthily reproducing member of society. I'll repeat the statement I made earlier: "If it's strange to be homosexual, then it's equally strange to be heterosexual." Reproduction is not inherently tied to libidinal energy; that's just one particular object cathexis that libidinal energy has taken, and it happens to serve an evolutionarily beneficial purpose.

Please keep in mind, all this is my opinion. I'm actually not stuck in this way of thinking, it's just something I find convincing. I'm actually in the process of reading Anti-Oedipus, by Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari, which I hope will provide an engaging critique of Freud's work. Furthermore, I'm sure you're more up to speed on current developments in the field, which I find interesting even while I attempt to argue against them.

 

[Dak]

And WAIF called me the contrarian.....

 

[Einherjar86]

Well, I actually do find it to be pretty convincing. You've called me out on this before though...

 

[Dak]

Race War: Page 1

DAMN GYPSIES

Race War: Page 7

Environmental vs genetic triggers of gayness

 

[Einherjar86]

Apologies for highjacking your thread, Onder.

 

[Onder]

It’s okay. I only had one gay friend and he seems to be lost. I tried to call him many times in november but his number doesn’t work. Messages don’t send. He used to be on facebook every day, but he hasn’t been online for the past month. Doesn’t reply to e-mails. He’s either in jail or someone killed him. I shoult visit him at home someday, but I don’t want to run into his girly boyfriend.

 

[Dak]

Probably in pieces in a freezer in Germany.

 

[Saparmurat_Niyazov]

 

[Dak]

 

[waif]

Well, let me just say this: I don't think the idea of environmentally determined sexuality forces us into the "lifestyle choice" argument.

Absolutely not. But people keep making that argument.

Most homosexuals seem to report becoming aware that they were attracted to the same gender around puberty (12-14) or a little before, some as young as 6-7, although I'm sure some take a lot longer to come to terms with it as a result of their upbringing and social environment.

My overall point is that genetic influences should not be ignored.