GirlChat #733706

Start A New Topic!  Submit SRF  Thread Index  Date Index  

The stats aren't reliable evidence

Posted by girlzRprettiest on Sunday, March 15 2020 at 11:00:48PM
In reply to toys in the gattic posted by Eeyore on Monday, March 09 2020 at 04:26:23AM

Correct me if I am wrong, but don't the stats clearly show that some of these mental conditions definitely tend to be inherited through ancestry? Is that something you are trying to dispute?

I am aware that statistical research has been summoned in defense of the idea that specific psychological traits have some particular, consistent genetic basis. However, as I stated, and as qualified academic critics in a variety of fields (including psychology, sociology, philosophy, and even behavior genetics itself) have pointed out for decades, this research does not amount to reliable scientific evidence. For instance, the faulty twin studies used to produce heritability estimates suffer from such critical methodological flaws as:
  • Very few supposed monozygotic twins reared apart (MZAs) were actually separated at or soon after birth, with many twin pairs being separated as late as age 5 sent to live with close relatives.
  • Participants were not randomly selected, and samples were limited to twin pairs who each volunteered to partake in research, indicating a bias toward behaviorally similar twins.
  • There were monetary incentives to participate, including extended, all-expenses paid vacations to research locations where participants were permitted to invite guests along, as well as talk show and book deals.
  • The "twin method," which compares monozygotic twins reared together (MZTs) with their dizygotic counterparts (DZTs), relies on the false equal environment assumption (EEA), or the idea that the two experience roughly equal environments.
  • While most twin researchers acknowledge the EEA's falsehood, they nevertheless rely on logically fallacious arguments (e.g., circular reasoning, switching the burden of proof) to justify their continued reliance on it.

Clearly, any conclusions based on this error-laden research about the possible genetic basis of psychological traits are unwarranted. (Refer to psychologist Jay Joseph's The Trouble with Twin Studies: A Reassessment of Twin Research in the Social and Behavioral Sciences for a thorough elaboration on the matter.)

However, even if the available twin research were methodologically sound, the heritability estimates it produces would still not amount to valid scientific evidence in favor of the hereditarian position. Remember, heritability is a group statistic, not a measure of the genetic influence of traits in individuals. In Psychology: Themes and Variations (10th Edition), UNLV psychology professor Wayne Weiten examines and corrects this common misconception regarding "heritability":
it's important to understand that heritability estimates have certain limitations (Grigorenko, 2000; Johnson et al., 2009). First, a heritability estimate is a group statistic based on studies of trait variability within a specific group. A heritability estimate cannot be applied meaningfully to individuals. In other words, even if the heritability of intelligence is truly 60%, this does not mean that each individual's intelligence is 60% inherited. (p. 286, bold added)

Rather than measuring the causal magnitude of genetic factors vis-à-vis specific psychological traits in individuals, these estimates merely take a snapshot of trait variation that is attributable to genetic variation in a specific population, in a particular instance in time; it is important to consider that heritability is environmentally sensitive, meaning that it's subject to change pending modifications in the environment.

Variation, of course, is not the same thing as causation. To understand why these are distinct, consider the disease known as favism, which develops when genetically predisposed individuals consume fava beans. In a hypothetical population where everyone eats fava beans but only some carry the genetic predisposition to favism, the heritaiblity for the disease would be 100%, since all of its variation would be due to genetic factors. We would not, however, conclude from this that genes alone, despite being necessary for the disease, are sufficient to cause it to manifest. Conversely, favism's heritability in a population where everyone carries the gene but only some eat fava beans would be 0%, because its variation for the trait would be entirely due to environmental factors (namely, the consumption of the beans). Again, it would be absurd to claim that this indicates that favism, a disease that requires a particular genetic component, can develop from exposure to fava beans alone.

As you can see, there is no necessary connection between variation and causation. Heritability estimates tell us nothing about the latter. They are not a valid measure of the genetic influence of traits. Since the available statistical evidence summoned in favor of biological determinism (including the "genetic predisposition" hypothesis) consists of these estimates, this means no reliable evidence supports it. This applies as much to ordinary as it does to pathological psychological traits.




On psychosexual traits, aren't you opening an unintentional can of worms? What you are saying basically asserts that sexual preferences are always maleable and shifting, but then that also suggests that sexual preferences can be changed with targeted behavioral therapy, often used to turn gay people straight, or child lovers into normies. I see you tend to this later in your post, but I'm not so sure I follow the logic.

The problem with individualistic approaches to behavioral modification is that they fail to take into consideration human psychology's macro cultural origins. It is not easy to effect profound psychological changes in individuals when the broad, enduring sociocultural elements that produce specific psychological traits persist. Indeed, as human psychology is fundamentally cultural (as the evidence indicates), psychological change requires social change. You can't expect individuals to adopt particular ways of regarding themselves, feeling about events, or perceiving their environment without the social support necessary for taking on these traits.

That being said, your take here is an appeal to consequences. Even if it were the case that individualistic treatment approaches could effectively alter pedophilic sexuality, so what? This wouldn't, in itself, call for such an action. For example, the US has the power to commence nuclear assaults against undeveloped nations, but this doesn't mean it must do so. Just like the responsibility for a nuclear assault would be on the political factors designed to carry it out, with regard to pedophilic conversion therapy the responsibility lies on antiped ideology and its supporters, not the mere fact that such therapy may be efficacious.




I have some serious trouble seeing the hour-to-hour fluidity thing as anything more than a politically encouraged destabilizing narcissism. Wearing pants in the morning and a dress in the afternoon based on how you feel male or female through the day will always look like mental illness to me, so let the chips fall where they may on that one. No hate from me, but no assimilation for me.

This is a straw man. I did not claim or suggest such a psychological fluidity. Most psychological traits are fairly stable, despite being given to sociocultural influence. Actually, this stability is due to the relative stability of cultural systems itself. Given that psychology derives its specific features from culture, theoretically speaking, if macro cultural factors underwent changes on an hourly basis, we would see a corresponding change in people's psychology, too. In practice, though, this never happens.

Contemporary transgender ideology actually relies on biological determinist explanations of gender identity. It promotes the idea that gender identity has genetic and hormonal origins rather than simply being the product of socialization or personal agency. This may be a bit tangential, but that's one of the reasons the trans movement does not have my full support. Both its biological determinist leanings and its insistence on the usage of gendered nomenclature (including pronouns such as "him/her" and terms such as "man/woman" used in reference to people's genders rather than their biological sex), which bolsters the oppressive social construct of gender, demonstrate its thoroughly conservative function; the movement is quintessentially fauxgressive. However, despite opposing its more conservative elements, I have nothing against trans folk themselves. The norms they violate, being rooted in the gender construct, are oppressive, so more power to them.




I believe we have some differences in terms of just letting everyone interact with one another however they please and not realizing how many problematic things arise from that, when so many people today seem utterly incapable of self-governing their own behavior so that it's not to the detriment of those around them, kids included.

You misunderstand me. I do not advocate some kind of "cultural anarchy" where people lack shared meanings and close bonds. In fact, I recognize that a well-integrated society is necessary for psychological fulfillment. What I take issue with are non-democratically established or otherwise oppressive norms that are imposed upon the people sans their input or consent. This characterizes psychiatry as much as it does the stigma against pedophilia, which has its origins in a 13th century English royal edict and which has admitted of little reasonable, democratic, critical discussion since.




It pains me to say it, because I know I would be responsible myself, as would many others who tend to read or post at this place, but I think kids today would fall victim to gangs, prostitution, be tricked or forced into porn, as well as otherwise just be forcibly manipulated into things they didn't want to do just for the pleasure of people who were only looking out for number one.

Personally, I don't see a problem with prostitution or porn and am not sure why you grouped them in with things like gangs. Sex is a pleasurable activity, so in my view it is bizarre that so many have such negative views regarding it. Keep in mind that the stigma against pedophilia is intrinsically sex-negative. As pedos, I feel that we need to steadfastly reject sex-negativity in all its forms in order to make any progress as a movement. People need to learn to regard sex as no fundamentally different from any other enjoyable social activity, including sports, video games, board games, etc., and to jettison their toxic, traditionalist views of sex as this dirty, shameful thing that is completely set apart from everything else.

Sorry if I'm missing your point here, but I felt it was important to comment on this.




Now let me go reconsider my being reluctantly pushed from progressive to libertarian via this "fauxgressive" idea.

Unfortunately, there aren't many truly progressive spaces out there that acknowledge the extent of the fauxgressive problem. Even the most ardent anarchists are fully in support of the pedophilia stigma, as well as things like gendered pronouns. Mainstream leftism itself is in dire need of its own, internal progressive movement.




Follow ups:

Post a response :

Nickname Password
E-mail (optional)
Subject







Link URL (optional)
Link Title (optional)

Add your sigpic?