deltaonetwo
There has to be some degree of verification regardless of how complex the world is. At the very least he should read the paper. Because not doing so is hypocritical. Doctors treat patients as dimwitted idiots but suddenly the patient is smart because he has a paper? No, you can't make that judgement unless you read the paper.
I disagree. I feel this is true for over 50% of docs in my anecdotal experience. Of course in surveys 0% of docs will admit to this so we can't really prove it either way.
>You may be a researcher in the area but you are also a very pretentious one.
Yeah I dropped that bomb because people were calling me ignorant. I usually don't rely on my credentials or authority but the amount of "violence" and blood in the replies made it seem like it was necessary for people to even consider my points.
>Just like it's true that some researchers have a very myopic view of their own field.
Why don't you read all my responses in this thread. You will find I am promoting open consideration of SEVERAL hypothesis including my opponents, Meanwhile other people are promoting complete dismissal of the hypothesis that I introduced.
I would say by definition my view point is less myopic.
Yes but that does not mean you discount the straightforward answers either. A more complicated and creative answer does not make it more right then the simple answer. That is one aspect of the bias a lot of people have for the topic.
Anecdotally, and this is sort of a alternative guess. Within a population of equal size, much more humans will be homosexual than animals. I mean gay people are really abundant but I can't say the same for gay lions in Africa.
It's not rejected. Homosexuality is rejected as a medical "disorder" by the medical establishment. However that's entirely different from what the anthropological and biological community thinks about the origins of homosexuality. It may not be a "disorder" but no one is sure whether it's biologically "normal."
Right now the real conclusion is inconclusive as shown in the research study above. It is actually not an exhausted question to people in this area of research.
It is only exhaustive for people outside of academia trying to paint a picture of the biological world according to a social ideal rather then a scientific truth.
Let me reform it to fit with your logic: "Homosexuality as a trait is not selected for by evolution for humans."
There this statement is not definitively false. There is a realistic possibility that it's true.
Also please see my other reply in this thread for a more nuanced take on my point, which has nothing to do homosexuality (that was just an example).
Why don't you look at my other reply, there's more nuance there, and it might break you out of your own bias.
Think about it this way. Yes, Social groups can evolve with a percentage of homosexual genes passed on as recessive. This is a valid hypothesis.
But the OTHER hypothesis that states, if homosexuality was genetic it would have been filtered out by natural selection and is therefore a disorder, is an equally valid hypothesis. There is nothing that makes this less valid then the conjecture you presented to me.
Both are logical possibilities, but there is little evidence supporting one over the other as in there is roughly equal amounts of evidence supporting and against both conclusions. So in a sense the two hypothesizes are in equal standing.
The other thing to consider is that the social group hypothesis is the non-obvious hypothesis. People initially think of natural selection on the individual scale. It takes more abstract thinking to place it on a tribal scale, an ecological scale, an anthropological/cultural scale, or as a local phenomenon of entropy in a physical system.
This is the key: To be impartial is to consider both hypothesis's and acknowledge the lack of evidence to place one over the other. However, what is it that makes you (and every other person replying to me) pick, out of two hypothesis's of equal standing, the non-obvious hypothesis while utterly and completely dismissing the obvious hypothesis?
Anyway, the answer is clear, there is strong cultural bias that pulls people in the direction of a reality where equality among people who have different sexual preferences is real. People will unconsciously spend extra effort searching for the hypothesis that best fits there cultural bias and even deny the obvious one.
Hence the reason why the harder non-obvious hypothesis is picked. It better fits.
Literally in the replies there's a dude that's calling me misinformed and there's another dude that's hard lining a No. I am telling you none of these people have definitive evidence for anything (because NONE exists). They are simply observing two logical conjectures and picking the one that best fits their own cultural narrative/bias and they are hard lining a conclusion as a definitive answer when in academia this topic is not conclusive AT ALL.
This is the latest research on the topic: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/massive-study-fin...
Tell me what conclusion can you derive off of that? That homosexuality is for sure non-genetic and therefore a recent disorder? No. You can't derive that, you can't derive anything off this study. The study is just saying that nothing was found, it doesn't mean nothing exists. That's the state of academia on this topic today. Nothing.
Until we find a causative origin of homosexuality current opinion of academia on the two hypothesis's right now is inconclusive. However, outside of academia the current opinion is definitive and we all know, given the replies to my post, what that conclusion is.
Another thing to consider is, why did you address my example instead of addressing my main point? Again the urge to align reality with cultural bias is far stronger then the discussion at hand. If the urge is strong with you (and the other people who replied, as practically everyone chose to address the example rather then the main point) then it is equally strong with doctors who put much faith in what they're taught by the medical establishment. This further illustrates my point; and the point is:
Cultural biases by society and the medical establishment rule practically everyone's behavior (including you and everyone who replied to me) to a huge extent. Think of this thread as a social experiment meant to illustrate this point. The example was just an example, but cultural biases are so damn strong that it pulled everyone out of the frame of talking about doctors into talking about the example.
It's completely obvious that the doctor isn't going to really read the paper (he's too busy). You just present a paper and suddenly the doctor will trust you more. Literally it's deference to Authority being employed by the doctor here; nothing going on with rationality or logic.
Don't present a single logical argument to the doctor. If that argument, however logical, goes against traditional medical knowledge you will be dismissed. The key is to forget about logic and use an authoritative approach.
I'm betting the actual contents of those research papers don't even matter. You can print out a completely bogus study, just make sure it looks legit.
Think of it this way; in Europe it is far easier to become a doctor then in the US due to significantly less stringent requirements. However in Europe and other 1st world countries treatment and other quantitative measures on quality of medical care beat the US by a far margin.
It shows that the "unpleasantness" is pushing something to the right of the bell curve. However it is clearly not pushing "effective medical diagnosis and treatment" to the right of the curve as Europe is beating us on that front with far less stringent requirements.
What the mother did here was more rational and logical then every doctor in the department of UCLA. Think on that, then think about the amount of money UCLA charges patients and whether or not this sort of incompetency justifies this high level of monetary compensation.
I would say all people are irrational and biased. The issue is Doctors in general think they're better than everyone. They dismiss the fact that the biases and crazy ideas that effect all of humanity could effect them as well.