846

is homophobia associated with homosexual arousal (lemmy.blahaj.zone)

submitted 3 weeks ago by not_IO to c/science_memes@mander.xyz

123 comments fedilink hide all child comments

doi: 10.1037//0021-843x.105.3.440

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] the_mighty_kracken@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago

If you disagree with the science, perhaps you should do your own study?

[-] zalgotext@sh.itjust.works 41 points 3 weeks ago

Nah, nope, nuh-uh, that's not how science works. A person's concerns about the methodology or conclusions of a particular study are not invalid just because they haven't run their own experiments.

It's pretty easy for even a layperson to question this particular study, for a few reasons:

The sample sizes are very small
Some men can get erections/aroused if the wind blows the wrong way, or even for no reason at all - putting porn in front of someone and expecting them not to become aroused is a dubious assumption at best
Using some external test to determine someone's sexuality, instead of using the person's self-identification, goes against the last 30 years of progress we've made in gender and sexuality studies
The conclusion of the study may indicate some level of homophobic or anti-homosexual bias

Don't gatekeep good critical thinking. Good critical thinking is the only thing you ever need to question any scientific study.

[-] zea_64 6 points 3 weeks ago

Point 2 is covered by having a control group and point 3 seems to be missing the point: well yeah, don't take the conclusion too far, but that doesn't mean measuring arousal is bad science.

Bigger issues are low sample size (as you mentioned) and the fact that it's a correlational study that hasn't done any work to causally link them.

[-] the_mighty_kracken@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks ago

Someone should repeat the study. That's all I'm saying. If the criticism is that the study was too small or done too long ago, or whatever. The anti-science crowd are the ones who reason away the results of science with no basis of fact. If you disagree with the facts, it is your responsibility to disprove them.

[-] zalgotext@sh.itjust.works 9 points 3 weeks ago

No, what you said was "if you disagree with the science, perhaps you should do your own study".

"Disagree with the science" is a disingenuous oversimplification bordering on nonsensical. People are calling into question the methods of the study, and the conclusions reached by the scientists interpreting the data. All of which can be accomplished with good critical thinking, and all of which is part of the scientific process. We're not "disagreeing with the science". We don't need to repeat this experiment or run our own to be able to point out that it looks like there are flaws in this study - we just need to have good critical thinking skills.

If you disagree with the facts, it is your responsibility to disprove them.

What facts? Are you implying that the content of a scientific study becomes "fact" simply because a scientist publishes it? Because that's wrong, and any published scientist will tell you as much.

[-] the_mighty_kracken@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago

Ah, thank you for quoting my words back to me. Now kindly fuck off.

[-] zalgotext@sh.itjust.works 7 points 3 weeks ago

No u

[-] rikudou@lemmings.world 3 points 3 weeks ago

I can think of multiple reasons a straight man could get aroused by seeing a dick.

First, erections don't occur only because of arousal, they can happen from adrenaline as well. I guess if you're a homophobe and are about to watch gay porn as part of research, you might get a bit of adrenaline.

Another reason I can think of is that most straight men see a dick when they watch porn, meaning their brain may make the association of "dick on screen = some hot nude lady is gonna show up".

[-] southsamurai@sh.itjust.works 26 points 3 weeks ago

Critique and analysis of a study or experiment is the default. It isn't a religion; science thrives on repeat analysis.

[-] the_mighty_kracken@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago

Which is why someone should repeat the study to confirm or contradict it.

[-] howrar@lemmy.ca 6 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

This whole discussion you see above is part of the process of repeating a study. You can't just do exactly what the previous study did and expect all the flaws to magically disappear. You need to first uncover the flaws, and more eyes and collaboration means a higher likelihood that the flaws get found, hence the importance of these discussions. Then you redesign the experiment to fix those flaws, and then you can run it again.

[-] the_mighty_kracken@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago

I agree with you.

[-] twice_hatch@midwest.social 11 points 3 weeks ago

Yeah gimme a bunch of money lol

[-] the_mighty_kracken@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago

Lemme just reach into my giant money bag ... Hey, who took my giant money bag!?

[-] absGeekNZ@lemmy.nz 5 points 3 weeks ago

You left it in the parlor

[-] the_mighty_kracken@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago

That explains why the butler was looking shifty when he announced brunch ...

[-] absGeekNZ@lemmy.nz 3 points 3 weeks ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dg1G5bZgKc4

[-] the_mighty_kracken@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago

I discovered Fly My Pretties when I was trying to come up with a name for my band. I thought of "Fly My Pretties," Googled it to see if it was taken, and up pops this wonderful band that has been active for years.