Interesting article on homosexuality

[vol_scouter]

Over the years I have been to many professional meetings in medicine, physics, and nuclear engineering. It is my experience that only legitimate members of the professional organization are allowed in the scientific sessions. The meeting has a press area where selected research in presented to the press. The selection is based upon criteria made by the professional organization. So the 'studies' featured would likely have been the ones selected by the professional organization. Since we still have freedom of speech, attendees could be interviewed but from what I have seen that is frowned upon. I have no experience with the APA but merely providing what I know from many other professional meetings.

 

 

[Nachamawat]

DanKroh sais:

 

>>"AIDS research is not my specialty, either. Did I every say there was *not* promiscuity in the gay community? Nope. But an *average* of 110 partners? Nah, until I see it in a legitimate scientific study, not gonna bite on that one. What's the *average* number of partners among heterosexuals, btw, just for comparison?"

[DanKroh]

"Males 30-44 report an average of 6-8 female sexual partners in their lifetime (Mosher, Chandra, & Jones, 2005)."

 

Yep, that jives with the numbers I have heard, including the report that I cited that said 7.3 partners for heterosexual men.

 

However, if you look at the other report I cited, it said that gay men have an average of 4-5 partners over their lifetime, which is actually lower than the heterosexual average. However, the number from that one report is not definitive, and I do believe the average is probably similar to the 7-8 partners that heterosexual men average. But definitely NOT 110!

[packsaddle]

vol_scouter, what were the specific organizations that excluded non-members from scientific presentations? I've attended many national meetings including: AAAS, AIBS, ESA, NALMS, L&O, BES, ASZ, AMS, and others and for all of them anyone with the price of registration was welcome. The only thing that would have been unwelcome would be disruptive behavior that might inhibit the communication from the speaker. The whole POINT of giving a presentation at one of those meetings is to tell people what you have to say. It is usually interesting only to colleagues but who knows, a reporter might find a nugget there somewhere to make news. So specifics please? Perhaps the medical types are different and I could conceive of an industry-based meeting that was closed to public. But I've never attended one. The only closed meetings I've attended were ones in which attendees were involved in ongoing litigation.

[Trevorum]

I agree with Pack. While I've never been to a conference in the field of nuclear engineering (which could concievably be closed to the public for national security reasons), every single scientific conference I have ever been to has been open to anyone willing to pay the registration fee.

[qwazse]

Went to and presented at an APA meeting once. Mostly serious stuff goes on about dealing with primary mental health issues and the best way to deliver the best care. But there are thousands of presentations. The book of abstracts alone is overwhelming. So, yeah. If you're looking for something to prove your point, it'll be in there. In fact much of my talk was replying to comments about what could and could not be gotten from the data presented. Fortunately, my topic was not headline material, because in those 30 minutes there was plenty of room for misquoting.

 

Love the Kinsey reports, but I'm sticking to one wife -- even if by nature I'm a polygamist. My religion, pocketbook, and Mrs. #1 all indicate that it'll be nothing but trouble otherwise.

[Beavah]

every single scientific conference I have ever been to has been open to anyone willing to pay the registration fee.

 

Yah, but da registration fees for non-members are often enough to buy a cheap used car, eh? There are certainly all kinds of conferences that are open only to members in my field. And da other ones require the title to your car, as described.

 

I don't want to pick on da psychologists more than they deserve, eh? But vol's right - an open-to-da-media talk at a conference is almost always a choice by the organization to present its policy positions or most significant work. And if that's not how they use 'em, they really are pretty unprofessional and clueless about PR & Communications.

 

Beavah

 

[Horizon]

Re: The Media. My wife is a research psychologist. She very begrudgingly talks to media, because of their propensity to misquote or misapply her research. She ONLY publishes in the top journals, and will not even submit to anything lesser after a rejection. The APA takes the list of talks and puts something out to garner attention, and the APA is not a pure research organization (that would probably be APS). Because of the membership that is focused on clinical and therapy, you have a subsection of scientific researchers, a section of practitioners, and a section of people who try to bridge the two.

[DanKroh]

"Yah, but da registration fees for non-members are often enough to buy a cheap used car, eh? There are certainly all kinds of conferences that are open only to members in my field. And da other ones require the title to your car, as described."

 

Except most press memberships are usually paid for by the publications the reporters work for. I guess they feel it is worth it. And yes, press are free to attend any session, in my experience.

 

"I don't want to pick on da psychologists more than they deserve, eh?"

 

I guess you don't *want* to, but you will continue doing it anyway, huh?

 

The press spun the research to make splashy headlines that sell newspapers and get hits on websites. Some people are going to fall for the spin.

 

It is an unfortunate burden that psychologists have to bear that people who have no training in the field whatsoever feel free to malign our work because they think they know better. I don't feel qualified to interpret the legalese of judicial proceedings. I don't feel qualified to critique the design of a building or bridge or airplane that various engineers might design. And yet, many people feel they are qualified to be amateur psychologists. Now THAT would be an interesting research topic...

[Eagledad]

>>And yet, many people feel they are qualified to be amateur psychologists. Now THAT would be an interesting research topic...

[Beavah]

It is an unfortunate burden that psychologists have to bear that people who have no training in the field whatsoever feel free to malign our work because they think they know better.

 

Aw, poor Dan. Surely you're not going to tell me yeh never criticized a lawyer or a public policy decision. I reckon there are a lot more lawyer jokes, and even more engineer jokes, than psychologist jokes.

 

But tell me... if someone is making a comparative conclusion like "modern superheroes are worse than former superheroes", isn't it necessary that da research methodology incorporate a comparison?

 

Now, it could be I'm just a silly overly legalistic furry critter, eh? Perhaps as a professional psychologist yeh could explain to us how that works.

 

B

 

[DanKroh]

"Aw, poor Dan. Surely you're not going to tell me yeh never criticized a lawyer or a public policy decision. I reckon there are a lot more lawyer jokes, and even more engineer jokes, than psychologist jokes."

 

Sure, I have criticized the decision of A lawyer or A judge. However, I didn't put that criticism on a public forum, and then use it as an excuse to mock the entire profession.

 

Psychologist jokes? I know some good ones. But my favorite ones are a little too risque for this venue, since they involve pointing out that psychologists' clients are usually laying on a couch and paying a lot of money per session (similar to another, older profession).

 

"But tell me... if someone is making a comparative conclusion like "modern superheroes are worse than former superheroes", isn't it necessary that da research methodology incorporate a comparison? Now, it could be I'm just a silly overly legalistic furry critter, eh? Perhaps as a professional psychologist yeh could explain to us how that works."

 

I don't know if that is what Dr. Lamb's conclusion was (because I wasn't at the talk, and I haven't read her original reports), and honestly, don't care enough to go looking. I wouldn't want to comment on the validity of her research methodology just from what was published in the popular press. And I think I'm really done with this hijack.(This message has been edited by DanKroh)

[Trevorum]

oooh, oooh! Are we gonna tell lawyer jokes??

 

Me first! Me first!

[packsaddle]

At least psychology has 'the truth' as its primary goal. But I do agree with Beavah on one thing...my professional organizations are definitely "unprofessional and clueless about PR & Communications."

Nevertheless, the registration fees are never (even for the vendors) enough to buy a used car unless it's already been stripped at the junk yard. The point is that if the public really wants to attend, the meetings are open to them.

[vol_scouter]

Pack,

 

The societies are the American Physical Society (APS), American Nuclear Society (ANS), Wilderness Medical Society (WMS), and the American College of Physicians (ACP). Some had vendor displays but none had direct vendor involvement. I have not been to a vendor sponsored scientific meeting. Beevah is most correct, the cost for non-members is steep and I have never encountered anyone who did not appear to have the proper credentials to attend the meeting (it is obvious as it would be for other professional meetings). The large meetings all have areas set up for press announcements.

 

Dan,

I encounter people who do not have any training in my fields who say silly things all of the time. Beevah and I had a lively discussion on just such issues a few months ago. As a physician, I do have some training in psychology and psychiatry. So while not a professional, I do possess some understanding. The issue with homosexuals (most concern being with male homosexuals) is whether there is a risk to youth that it is out of proportion to their prevalence in the population. I have been generous by saying that it has not been scientifically proven which appears to be true. Since the prevalence of homosexuality in the population is low, showing a positive relationship is difficult statistically unless sexual molestation of minors is very prevalent in that community and there is no evidence that is true. Also, it is difficult to clearly determine sexual orientation by questions when the person is going to be tried taints the answers. Also, parsing into bisexual and other groups makes the study even more difficult. So it boils down to the issue of: when an adult of any sexual orientation, religion, or whatever set of descriptive terms are appropriate wishes to supervise youth, how do we risk stratify that person. If homosexuals commit less than 2% of all child molestation, then sexual orientation is not a valid concern. If the prevalence is 10% when they are