Skip to comments.NEA Cautioned Not to Accept American Psychological Association's "Just the Facts"
Posted on 07/21/2004 2:15:51 PM PDT by EdReform
July 16, 2004 - Dr. Warren Throckmorton, in association with Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays, distributed a paper on sexual orientation at the recent National Education Association (NEA) conference.
Dr. Throckmorton and associates Zoe Gutierrez, Jeralee Smith, and Chad Thompson, produced "A White Paper in Reaction to 'Just the Facts About Sexual Orientation and Youth,'" a document jointly published by the NEA and several mental health organizations, including the American Psychological Association.
In the introduction to this paper, Dr. Throckmorton states: "This white paper reviews the essential claims found in 'Just the Facts,' suggesting a need for caution in the presenting of dogmatic claims about sexual orientation to school children."
He notes four problematic areas in "Just the Facts":
- There's no consensus in current research to show that sexual orientation is fixed or inborn;
- there is credible research showing that sexual orientation can be changed;
- no credible research is available that shows that attempts to change sexual orientation are harmful;
- and the research on sexual orientation has become entangled with the issue of safety in schools for children who experience same-sex attractions.
"We favor both a zero tolerance policy toward harassment and the presentation of accurate information," said Throckmorton.
In the conclusion of this paper, the author says: "Without consensus [on the nature of sexual orientation], it becomes necessary to inform students of the varied opinions on the subject with ample opportunity for equal presentation. For instance, if a proponent of the essentialist position speaks to school students, we believe that someone who has found change in sexuality should be invited to present the constructionist/developmental viewpoint."
NARTH has also published a rebuttal to the "Just the Facts" paper. "NARTH's Response to 'Just the Facts about Sexual Orientation and Youth'" is available for downloading from the NARTH web site.
Copyright © NARTH. All Rights Reserved.
Updated: 19 July 2004
See post #54--Confessions of a LUG.
However, I would say that Hooker's research was far more fair and scientifically sound than any other work of its kind...
Balderdash. Hooker's research is not scientifically sound and you know it. Very serious questions have been raised about Hooker's research methodology as documented here :
"Evelyn Hooker has been among the most influential figures in the highly successful movement to convince the American people that homosexuality is a "normal variant" of human sexual behavior. Her 1957 study, "The Adjustment of the Male Overt Homosexual" (Journal of Projective Techniques, 1957, 21, 18-31) is the most frequently cited scientific source for the argument that homosexuality is not a pathology, that homosexuals are as free from mental disorder as heterosexuals.
Such assertions have not only found their way into standard psychology textbooks but have also provided a scientific basis for decisions in major court cases involving the legality of state sodomy laws and prohibitions against homosexual employment in certain state and local agencies (e.g., schools, police departments). Indeed, when the American Psychiatric Association debated the issue of homosexuality in 1973, Evelyn Hooker's work was Exhibit A for those who wanted to remove homosexuality from the group's list of mental disorders.
For many commentators and activists, the Hooker study effectively ended the debate over whether or not homosexuals were in any way abnormal in their relationships with each other and with the community at large. Today many Americans have accepted the idea that homosexuality is "normal" and "healthy" without realizing that such an opinion is derived in large measure from a single study -- one conducted by a UCLA professor whose previous laboratory subjects had been rats.
In all this extravagant homage to Hooker and her study, several points have escaped her admirers, to say nothing of the federal courts:
1. In her 1957 report, Evelyn Hooker did not use a random sample to test the stability of homosexuals, but allowed gay rights activists to recruit those homosexuals most likely to illustrate her thesis that homosexuality is not a pathology. Individuals who proved unstable were deleted from the final sample.
2. Hooker's published account of how she recruited heterosexual subjects is not consistent with a more detailed later account.
3. Six subjects in her study, three from each group, had engaged in both homosexual and heterosexual behavior beyond adolescence.
4. Hooker made several errors in her mathematical calculations that raise doubts about her care and competence as a researcher.
5. Hooker did not attempt to prove that homosexuals were normal in every way, nor does her study support the idea that homosexuals as a group are just as stable as heterosexuals.
6. Hooker was relatively inexperienced in administering the Rorschach test, and this inexperience may have led to mistakes in the administration and evaluation of the Rorschach.
7. On the Thematic Apperception Test and the Make-A-Picture-Story test -- which require subjects to make up fictional narratives about depicted scenes -- the homosexuals could not refrain from including homosexual fantasies in their imaginary accounts. For that reason, Hooker altered the nature of the study by no longer asking the judges to use the TAT and MAPS in an attempt to determine the sexual orientation of each of the 60 subjects, since the differences were apparent from the narratives...
CITATIONS AND USES OF THE HOOKER STUDY
Perhaps as important as the Hooker 1957 research itself is the use that others have made of her findings. Not only has this single study with only 60 subjects been cited repeatedly by prominent psychiatrists, social critics, and gay activists; but such summaries have also been accepted as part of the expert testimony in high-profile court cases nationwide.
Curiously, many of those who cite the study not only incorrectly summarize its content but do so in remarkably similar fashion. It's as if one commentator misread Hooker and all the rest derived their knowledge from that single erroneous commentary..."
An excerpt from "When Wish Replaces Thought: Why so Much of What You Believe Is False" by Professor Steven Goldberg, Chairman of the Sociology Department at City College of New York, Prometheus Books, January 1992:
"...Virtually every homosexual spokesman who has argued that homosexuals demonstrate no greater pathology has rested his case on an article by Evelyn Hooker without noting that Professor Hooker selected for individuals who did not manifest any of a number of signs of pathology...to invoke this study as demonstrating that homosexuals demonstrate no greater pathology than heterosexuals is like selecting a sample of 30 six-foot-tall women and six-foot-tall men and concluding that women are as tall as men..."
Everything you've said here - flawed methodology, unreliable and inaccurate results, activist subjects, and a motivation to skew results - does not describe Hooker's work.
Flawed methodology, unreliable and inaccurate results, activist subjects, and a motivation to skew results are all indicative of Hooker's study. Hooker's research is rightfully criticized because she went out of her way to stack the deck in favor homosexuals by selecting only those who showed very little psychologic pathology. It's been documented that Hooker actually used a homosexual activist group to carefully select participants for her study:
SELECTION OF SUBJECTS
First, to find her homosexual subjects, she enlisted the early gay rights group Mattachine Society, which, as she put it in her published report, "has as its stated purpose the development of a homosexual ethic...." Members of the Mattachine Society volunteered for the study and also recruited their friends. Hooker, herself, created a "control group" of heterosexuals for the experiment, despite the fact that on the standardized tests she intended to use, norms had already been established.
And not only is Hooker's research rightfully criticized, but several other pro-homosexual researchers as well:
"Hooker, Spitzer, Schidlo and Schroeder: Convenience Samples Differentially Treated
Without being critical of the Hooker research , Friedman and Downey describe the non-representative, convenience samples used in her studies of homosexual men: "Through word of mouth, Hooker recruited highly functional, socially well-integrated homosexual men." (P. 235).
In spite of the non-representative nature of the samples, the authors uncritically accept Hooker's research as being scientifically valid.
Yet they are very critical of Spitzer's similar use of "convenience samples." And they completely ignore the use of convenience samples by Schidlo and Schroeder. For example, Schidlo and Schroeder's solicitation of those who were "harmed by reparative therapy" was a blatant example of bias. (P. 270-271).
Consider the following advertisement for participants in the Schidlo study:
"Help Us Document the Damage of Homophobic Therapies: In association with the National Lesbian and Gay Health Association, we are conducting research on the outcome of treatments that claim to 'cure' homosexuality.
"Our purpose is to document the damage that we believe occurs when a lesbian, gay or bisexual client receives psychological help from a provider who promises to change a person's sexual orientation. We are looking for individuals who have experienced such a program and who are willing to talk about it confidentially by telephone, email or by filling out a written survey."
It is interesting that Schidlo and Schroeder changed the title of their study from "Homophobic Therapies: Documenting the Damage" to "Changing Sexual Orientation: Does Counseling Work?" because some of their study participants actually reported that there were benefits--and, in some instances, change in sexual orientation..."
Very well said!
[Hooker's research]... its soundness is demonstrated by how it has held up to scrutiny of peer, it's replicability...
Please provide citations that support your contention. And when you post your citations, please include an excerpt.
Here's an example:
Same-Sex Sexual Behavior and Psychiatric Disorders
Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2001;58:85-91
Background It has been suggested that homosexuality is associated with psychiatric morbidity. This study examined differences between heterosexually and homosexually active subjects in 12-month and lifetime prevalence of DSM-III-R mood, anxiety, and substance use disorders in a representative sample of the Dutch population (N = 7076; aged 18-64 years).
Results Psychiatric disorders were more prevalent among homosexually active people compared with heterosexually active people. Homosexual men had a higher 12-month prevalence of mood disorders (odds ratio [OR] = 2.93; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.54-5.57) and anxiety disorders (OR = 2.61; 95% CI = 1.44-4.74) than heterosexual men. Homosexual women had a higher 12-month prevalence of substance use disorders (OR = 4.05; 95% CI = 1.56-10.47) than heterosexual women...
Conclusion The findings support the assumption that people with same-sex sexual behavior are at greater risk for psychiatric disorders.
Bump. EdR - Proved his points, conclusively.
td - lost another one, as usual.
You wish. More self delusion on your part. Enjoy your folly. No one with any intelligence or reason is buying it.
Ping ( #82 )