Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ubc-vision.CDN Path: utzoo!utcsrgv!ubc-vision!manis From: manis@ubc-vision.CDN (Vincent Manis) Newsgroups: net.motss,net.med Subject: Re: Hormone markers for homosexuality? Message-ID: <626@ubc-vision.CDN> Date: Wed, 10-Oct-84 21:30:49 EDT Article-I.D.: ubc-visi.626 Posted: Wed Oct 10 21:30:49 1984 Date-Received: Thu, 11-Oct-84 03:58:49 EDT References: <982@bbncca.ARPA> Lines: 21 This is another example of silly science: a correlative study using Organization: UBC Vision, Vancouver, B.C., Canada Lines: 19 ill-defined metrics. First, I'm not clear why anybody would care about differential hormone response for people of different sexual orientations; second, the sample group was small and there was apparently some sort of systemic sampling bias. Result? A ``significant'' result which although unconfirmed suggests the need for further research and certainly further funding. Reminds me all too much of Cyril Burt's IQ measurements, which (in the studies which weren't faked) purported to prove that identical twins had the same IQ, regardless of environmental differences. Turns out that Burt's IQ metric was so vague that one has no way of validating it. As I believe that sexual preference has both environmental and congenital components (as do most behaviours), I have little or no patience with studies that attempt to find causes. Why not attempt to correlate hormone response with socioeconomic status, political views, or favourite programming language? I have my own theories about Cobol programming.