1. Comment #298673 by Tezcatlipoca on December 8, 2008 at 11:30 am

Hmm, one of the podcasts that break up an otherwise dull commute for me...

Other Comments by Tezcatlipoca

2. Comment #298686 by the great teapot on December 8, 2008 at 12:10 pm

Buddhist wisdom
Oxymoron?
Lights touch paper and exits.

Other Comments by the great teapot

3. Comment #298692 by Colwyn Abernathy on December 8, 2008 at 12:27 pm

"A Demon Haunted World"...first choice on the reading list. Hells...yesh...everyone SHOULD read that book. Even Sagan said that we're greatly misusing the medium of television. (argument from authority....D'oh!) ;)

Other Comments by Colwyn Abernathy

4. Comment #298694 by Lil_Xunzian on December 8, 2008 at 12:29 pm

This kind of boring, basic Atheism 101 stuff has a place, I guess.

Other Comments by Lil_Xunzian

5. Comment #298697 by Colwyn Abernathy on December 8, 2008 at 12:35 pm

He's not a very good performer. His gags (whack-a-mole, connection to 9-11) were the 9th Level of Horrible. Made me want to scream. Doesn't mean he's WRONG tho. ;)

Other Comments by Colwyn Abernathy

6. Comment #298700 by skyhook on December 8, 2008 at 12:38 pm

He gets the point across, explains critical thinking clearly and the common errors that are made.
I applaud such efforts.

Other Comments by skyhook

7. Comment #298703 by brian_d_w on December 8, 2008 at 12:47 pm

There is quite a bit of scientific evidence to support taking omega-3 supplements. They lose creditability when they lump legit stuff in with the psychics. Nice intro though.

Other Comments by brian_d_w

8. Comment #298704 by beelzebub on December 8, 2008 at 12:48 pm

Lil_Xunzian wrote
"This kind of boring, basic Atheism 101 stuff has a place, I guess."

Uh... what has atheism got to do with any of this? Are you really trying to imply that anyone with a religious belief is a gullible fool? Belief in homeopathy, or astrology or whatever, is not predicated on one's religious outlook - I guess you are confusing Correlation with Causation? :-)

Other Comments by beelzebub

9. Comment #298705 by Caudimordax on December 8, 2008 at 12:51 pm

I thought he did a pretty good job. I still believed him about confirmation bias, even though he was wearing a white coat when he talked about it.

My only quibbles are:

1. What's his problem with organic? He didn't say, he just lumped it together with other things new-agers tend to believe in. Organic farming might not be practical on a large scale, but I'd like to know what he has against compost and integrated pest management.

2. Picture of Alli weight loss product with all the other nostrums. (Unfortunately) Alli is FDA approved.

Now if I could just get the people who really need to see this to watch the whole thing.

Other Comments by Caudimordax

10. Comment #298707 by Colwyn Abernathy on December 8, 2008 at 12:58 pm

Caudimordax,

I was surprised to see Alli in there as well. I honestly don't know much about it. Then again, I hadn't realized Zicam was homeopathic till my Mum gave me a box of the swabs.

Guess what? They don't work. ;)

Other Comments by Colwyn Abernathy

11. Comment #298708 by Cube on December 8, 2008 at 12:59 pm

What's his problem with organic?

This was addressed in one of his weekly podcasts. You can read/listen to it here:

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4019#

Other Comments by Cube

12. Comment #298709 by Caudimordax on December 8, 2008 at 12:59 pm

"Proof by Verbosity": I always wondered what to call that (other than "bury 'em with bullshit.") I think I've seen some of that on this site now and again. (I seem to remember some troll going on and on about holes - or maybe it was no holes - in the roofs of concentration camp buildings.)

Other Comments by Caudimordax

13. Comment #298710 by Chris Davis on December 8, 2008 at 12:59 pm

Charming stuff. But then it finishes, and we're back on this ghastly planet where nearly everything he says is anathema.

Other Comments by Chris Davis

14. Comment #298713 by Caudimordax on December 8, 2008 at 1:03 pm

I was surprised to see Alli in there as well. I honestly don't know much about it.

Alli essentially prevents the intestines from absorbing most fat content in your food which means - well, it's sort of disgusting. But it does work. As far as I'm concerned, so would a tape worm.

Other Comments by Caudimordax

15. Comment #298715 by Caudimordax on December 8, 2008 at 1:11 pm

11. Comment #298708 by Cube

I'm reading that episode about organic foods, and I was stopped cold when I saw the link to ConsumerFreedom.org, which is a front for agribusiness interests (I need to go back and check my facts, but I looked into them a long time ago) From their website:

Many of the companies and individuals who support the Center financially have indicated that they want anonymity as contributors. They are reasonably apprehensive about privacy and safety in light of the violence and other forms of aggression some activists have adopted as a "game plan" to impose their views, so we respect their wishes.

I'll finish reading though.

Edit: That "many of the companies and individuals" list includes:

Initial funding for the Guest Choice Network [original name of CCF]organization came from Philip Morris, with the initial donation of $600,000 followed by a $300,000 donation the following year. Philip Morris attorney Marty Barrington wrote in a 1996 internal company memorandum: "As of this writing, PM USA is still the only contributor, though Berman continues to promise others any day now." [27] By December, 1996, supporters included Alliance Gaming (slot machines), Anheuser-Busch (beer), Bruss Company (steaks and chops), Cargill Processed Meat Products, Davidoff (cigars), Harrah's (casinos), Overhill Farms (frozen foods), Philip Morris, and Standard Meat Company (steaks)...Other companies that have publicly acknowledged making donations to CCF include Coca-Cola; Wendy's; Tyson Foods; and Pilgrim's Pride.

Not exactly an unbiased source of information!

Other Comments by Caudimordax

16. Comment #298716 by Isherwood on December 8, 2008 at 1:12 pm

That was great. Thanks. I sent it to several family members, both of whom are smart people but lack a desire to examine their world critically.

Other Comments by Isherwood

17. Comment #298720 by Scotty B on December 8, 2008 at 1:23 pm

I have been enjoying the Skeptoid podcast almost since the beginning. I like the short, single-subject format.

For those who like the Here Be Dragons movie, I recommend going to the site (http://herebedragonsmovie.com/) and downloading the .iso image and burn a dvd for yourself and/or your friends/family.

Caudimordax, I was going to mention the episode on organic, but it looks like Cube beat me to it.

p.s. I have a special place in my heart for the Reflexology episode ;)
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4024

Other Comments by Scotty B

18. Comment #298730 by NewEnglandBob on December 8, 2008 at 2:22 pm

This is a poor presentation.

Other Comments by NewEnglandBob

19. Comment #298731 by Mark the Hiker on December 8, 2008 at 2:29 pm

Emerging from the land of the lurkers to ask if anyone here can point me to a video, with a similar point to make, but more accessible to kids? My daughter is 9, and is a smart kid, but some of the vocabulary is above her.

Her attention span would be broken by having to ask what 'quantify' means, etc.

Other Comments by Mark the Hiker

20. Comment #298733 by Stafford Gordon on December 8, 2008 at 2:30 pm

Wonderful!

Plus, I now have a Christmas reading list for our science student twin daughters.

Thank you the Richard Dawkins website.

Other Comments by Stafford Gordon

21. Comment #298760 by Rawhard Dickins on December 8, 2008 at 3:41 pm

What's wrong with fish oils and omega 3 ?

Other Comments by Rawhard Dickins

22. Comment #298763 by ukvillafan on December 8, 2008 at 3:47 pm

The issue about organics is that organic food contains no added pesticides etc rather than it's better for your health. It depends what you think organic food is for. The only legitimate claim for organic food is that there are no added bits of chemicals added.

Other Comments by ukvillafan

23. Comment #298769 by tvictor on December 8, 2008 at 3:56 pm

EXPELLED IS BETTER!(sarcasm)

Other Comments by tvictor

24. Comment #298782 by decius on December 8, 2008 at 4:05 pm

Comment #298731 by Mark the Hiker

Material on scientific scepticism and critical thinking for children is famously rare. Being childless, I've never really looked. However, just by googling, I've found this. They seem to address the issue from a wider, more abstract perspective, though.

You could contact Brian Dunning, the maker of this movie, and enquire further.

Other Comments by decius

25. Comment #298799 by Dhamma on December 8, 2008 at 4:38 pm

In the beginning they showed slides of fraudulent treatments and one was a yoga place. Isn't there a consensus that it's a proper "treatment" or training?

I do yoga, and find it remarkably well-working. It relaxes me and makes me feel better, like meditation. I have a very hard time believing it's placebo. At least meditation most scientists seem to find great effects from.

Other Comments by Dhamma

26. Comment #298813 by Skep on December 8, 2008 at 5:01 pm

Did ancient maps really say things like "Here Be Dragons" **often** as Brian Dunning claims? Or is he starting his so called introduction to critical thinking with a specious claim of his own?

Let's check the wiki:

"The earliest and only known use of this phrase is in the Latin form "HC SVNT DRACONES" (i.e. hic sunt dracones) on the Lenox Globe[2] (ca. 1503-07). The term appeared on the east coast of Asia. Earlier maps contain a variety of references to mythical and real creatures, but the Lenox Globe is the only known surviving map to bear this phrase."

If the wiki is true then Dunning is the very thing he claims to debunk, and manages to be so even in the title of his video. Awful. Just awful.

Sure, you can argue that Dunning gives himself an out when he claimed "In ancient times, unexplored regions on maps would often be given fearsome legends like 'here be dragons.'" But using an example that is atypical in the extreme (one known instance) as if it is representative is dishonest, especially when used as the founding premise for a video that is supposed to be about accuracy, intellectual honesty and the scientific process. You can't teach critical thinking if you don't use it yourself.

Brian Dunning has some talent, but his sloppiness is not good for proper science or skeptical inquiry, nor does it serve well for public outreach. Perhaps he can do better in future if his ego will let him acknowledge his shortcomings and work to improve on them--but I hold little hope that should be the case.

Other Comments by Skep

27. Comment #298841 by KRKBAB on December 8, 2008 at 5:29 pm

ukvillafan- That only addresses the quality of the food item, but what about the entire process of non-organic foods? Especially over fertilization of soil and the run-off. Concerning meat (I'm no vegetarian), the humane (I know, animals are not human) issues of that business are my main concern.

Other Comments by KRKBAB

28. Comment #298851 by King of NH on December 8, 2008 at 5:40 pm

Are you really trying to imply that anyone with a religious belief is a gullible fool?

I'll say it: YES! Every reason to believe in religion is based on the same reasons to believe in polarizing energy detox eye wear. Religion is a flat out failure to correctly judge fact from fiction. Religion is gullibility. Correlation does not mean causation, but it can imply it. Once implied, and probed more, it appears the actually is causation. Uncritical thinking and delusion enforced authority causes gullible and reckless behavior. Giving a 10% tithe to save your "mystical inner being (soul)" is EXACTLY like paying $19.99 for a braceless to balance your "mystical inner being (chi, booga booga, etc)."

Perhaps you think religion deserves more merit. I think it deserves the same as every other snake oil. It should, I feel, be required to admit, "Statements made by this church are unsupported by critical reason, and faith is not meant to be used to treat or diagnose disease, political affiliation, sexual relationships, money management, education, and personal responsibility. Faith is intended for entertainment purposes only."

Other Comments by King of NH

29. Comment #298867 by KRKBAB on December 8, 2008 at 6:14 pm

Right on King of NH. I like it when pseudoscience is put on the same page as religion. That's why the term Atheism just doesn't say enough because it doesn't address pseudoscience and woooooo.
BTW- what "Notch" are you hiking in your avatar?

Other Comments by KRKBAB

30. Comment #298881 by Eshto on December 8, 2008 at 6:47 pm

I have one little problem with this, where he says if there's a social or ideological movement around something, it's an indication that the claim is bogus. That's not always true. It has nothing to do with whether or not the claim is true, but it doesn't per se hurt it either, and can sometimes help it along.

What comes to mind immediately was the push to remove homosexuality from the APA's list of mental disorders. It was on there in the first place because of social and ideological biases and assumptions, and it was removed after a loud social outcry. Of course, the outcry itself didn't make it true that homosexuality isn't a mental disorder, it literally doesn't meet the criteria and that was true regardless of the social movement; but the movement did call attention to the problem.

Likewise if there is a large social activism movement to push for the teaching of evolution, it won't be an indication that evolution is a bogus claim either.

However I do like that he points out that "organic" doesn't mean safer or better for you. Growing up I had friends who insisted marijuana is totally safe because it's "natural, dude". Well I do think marijuana is relatively safe compared to tobacco or alcohol, but that has nothing to do with whether or not it's natural.

I liked to retort by saying "scorpions are natural". Coulda named a lot of things I guess, but I just think scorpions are cool.

EDIT: Oh yeah, I do yoga too. It's not placebo, you are actually doing stuff. Isometric toning, deep breathing and stretching. It doesn't need all the mystical mumbo jumbo a lot of people attach to it, but that's besides the point.

Other Comments by Eshto

31. Comment #298886 by Caudimordax on December 8, 2008 at 6:50 pm

22. Comment #298763 by ukvillafan
25. Comment #298799 by Dhamma
26. Comment #298813 by Skep

Skep, I especially liked what you said - Dunning's message was a good one, but I thought he blew it in a few places. There were several instances of sloppiness:

As I noted above, Alli, (which I think is a dreadful idea) is approved by the FDA, but he included it with a lot of un-proven nostrums before explaining the FDA approval process.

Yoga might not cure cancer, but many people do find it to be a beneficial form of exercise.

Omega 3 fatty acids - peer reviewed articles showing benefit.

And the organic farming thing: he's absolutely right that organic farming is not going to feed the world's starving millions, but I couldn't believe that he linked to ConsumerFreedom.org as his source for "real" information about organic foods, when this organization is a documented front for agribusiness and other interested industries. He recommends checking things on the internet, and particularly says to check the "criticism" section on any wikipedia article, but apparently he didn't do this himself for ConsumerFreedom.org

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ActivistCash#Criticism

Non-belief shouldn't become a religion! I began to think that he was not examining claims on their merits (which he says people should do) but was himself judging claims based on the sort of people who embraced them, i.e. new agers, Oprah and other celebrities, etc.

Edit: He didn't mention his reasons for disputing the merits of organic farming - it's back up there in another post (by Cube, I think) with a link to a podcast Dunning did on organic farming.

Other Comments by Caudimordax

32. Comment #298890 by Daniella on December 8, 2008 at 7:11 pm

Good idea - but really dry and corny.

Personally I prefer Penn & Teller's Bullshit approach.

Other Comments by Daniella

33. Comment #298894 by Skep on December 8, 2008 at 7:26 pm

Comment #298886 by Caudimordax on December 8, 2008 at 6:50 pm
avatar22. Comment #298763 by ukvillafan
25. Comment #298799 by Dhamma
26. Comment #298813 by Skep

Skep, I especially liked what you said - Dunning's message was a good one, but I thought he blew it in a few places. There were several instances of sloppiness:

And therein lies the problem. When you mix good data with bad data what do you have? Better data? No, what you have is worse data. More data, is not better data. Better data is better data.

When Dunning inserts poor claims into what should be an exemplar of critical thinking he creates a work that is sloppy and contaminated. It would (or should) be marked down even as a high school presentation. The correct fix is to apply the critical thinking he purports to espouse and edit out the unsupported claims, thus creating a sound presentation that not only discusses critical thinking but also exemplifies it. I have zero confidence that Dunning will perform such corrections because I do not think that Dunning has *objective* critical thinking skills at his disposal when it comes to his own work, but rather let's his considerable ego interfere with his objectivity and what should be rational self-criticism.

Other Comments by Skep

34. Comment #298895 by Skep on December 8, 2008 at 7:31 pm

EDIT: Oh yeah, I do yoga too. It's not placebo, you are actually doing stuff.

False. "Doing stuff" is not the criteria for whether something is a placebo or not.

Other Comments by Skep

35. Comment #298896 by Caudimordax on December 8, 2008 at 7:33 pm

33. Comment #298894 by Skep - Hear, hear! I don't know anything about Dunning's personality, but I would hope that if he is as passionate about his endeavor as he claims to be, he would fix things. (But since the organic foods thing is almost 2 years old, and there isn't any obvious correction on that web page, maybe you're right.) *sigh*

Other Comments by Caudimordax

36. Comment #298897 by Caudimordax on December 8, 2008 at 7:35 pm

34. Comment #298895 by Skep - Harsh! But I get you.

Edit: However, I forgot that he said: "Isometric toning, deep breathing and stretching." Which I would argue probably are worthwhile - whatever you call the class.

Other Comments by Caudimordax

37. Comment #298898 by Eshto on December 8, 2008 at 7:39 pm

It's weird this got posted here, because I was just introduced to his website today through somebody else. I listened to one of his podcasts today, again it was about homosexuality (obviously an issue I care deeply about, as you can tell).

The question was whether it was innate. Rather than answer it directly though, he launched into a tirade about how there is no gay gene. Now, he did throw in that scientists think it's probably a result of several things including genetics, biological and environmental factors, which as far as I know is correct.

But the overall tone sounded like he was debunking that homosexuality is innate, and not once did he point out that if homosexuality is going to be subjected to scientific scrutiny, so should heterosexuality, and sexual orientation in general. He also didn't elaborate on what he meant by "environmental" factors. Lay people tend to interpret this as meaning homosexuality can be caused by how a child is brought up, and homophobes claim all the time that it's the result of bad parenting or psychological trauma. He didn't point out that no evidence has ever supported the idea that parents can affect their children's sexual orientations by raising them a certain way.

Basically I thought his answer sucked, and having studied the so-called "ex-gay" movement, I could totally see them twisting his words to support their bullshit claims that they can "cure" homosexuality through prayer and quack therapy.

Other Comments by Eshto

38. Comment #298899 by Caudimordax on December 8, 2008 at 7:45 pm

37. Comment #298898 by Eshto - Ack - I'm feeling more and more that this guy (whom I so wanted to love) has his own set of prejudices. He seems to be the opposite end of the spectrum that starts with embracing anything labeled "ancient wisdom," and has settled at the end that dismisses anything a "certain" group of people (woo-woo liberals) embrace.

He is no more examining claims on their merits (in some instances) than are "new age" shamans (formerly Manhattan lawyers).

Edit: Sorry, Eshto. Reading that thing about gays' nurture, this was on almost every bathroom wall when I was in college:

My mother made me a homosexual!

Below, in a different handwriting:

If I get her the wool, will she make me one?

Other Comments by Caudimordax

39. Comment #298901 by Eshto on December 8, 2008 at 7:56 pm

So I'm made out of wool then. That must be why I'm so itchy.

EDIT: So in case it's not obvious, it worries me that someone reading his blog will feel better about voting against gay rights. "Why not? There's no gay gene!"

I've heard "there's no gay gene" many, many times, as an insult hurled at me or gays in general by homophobes trying to "prove" why I'm abnormal and unnatural and don't deserve the same rights.

Other Comments by Eshto

40. Comment #298903 by TalkyMeat on December 8, 2008 at 7:57 pm

I just found it really really distracting that his shirt changed every twenty seconds. Must be witchcraft.

Actually, I think he missed out on an absolutely indispensible aspect of critical thinking, which is the necessity of mercilessly rooting out poor arguments for things which happen also to be supported by good arguments. He's certainly not above straw-manning (the 2 2=5 analogy, his impersonation of 9-11 conspiracy theorist) or ad hominem insinuations against the "politically correct" "ideological agendas" behind bad arguments. Nor is he above using the authority conferred by being a robust advocate of critical thinking as a cudgel against anything he doesn't agree with (organic food? c'mon). Penn and Teller have occasionally pissed me off by doing that. Then he totally undermines himself with a plug for his book.

The big danger here is that of preferring a quick, easy and bad argument ("organic food is full of natural wholesome goodness", "scientists are smarter than you") over a good argument that takes time and not everyone may follow ("organic farming, by using companion planting and crop rotation to fix nitrogen in the soil, rather than chemical fertilisers, avoids nitrate runnoffs into local marine ecosystems, which produce toxic algal blooms, which concentrate neurotoxins in filter-feeders such as shellfish, which then finds its way out the food chain and damages marine biodiversity", "scientists constantly scrutinise and criticise each other's work; in the scientific community, massive prestige attaches to those who succeed in showing that another scientist's theory is wrong, that their data is flawed or better explained by a different theory. The theories that find their way into textbooks not published by the Discovery Institute are those that have survived years of mercilessly rigorous attack, from all sides, by people who are smarter than you"), even when a good argument exists and the proposition being argued for is in fact true. The result in the short term may be a gain for truth and goodness, but at the cost of a slip into intellectual laziness, and future openness to bad arguments, and, well, we all know where that leads.

The importance of critical thinking cannot be over-emphasised; but while it is always enjoyable to see homeopaths, creationists and spoon-benders publically spanked by smarter folk, the place critical thinking needs to be at its most stringent and uncompromising is your own beliefs, and the beliefs that tend to be found in the same places. Politically, I'd describe myself as a leftist of a fairly radical cut; but that means that the bullshit I need to learn to be most sensitive to, and most critical of, is lefty bullshit. Of which there is certainly no shortage.

Edit: typo.

Other Comments by TalkyMeat

41. Comment #298904 by Caudimordax on December 8, 2008 at 8:00 pm

39. Comment #298901 by Eshto - I need to go find that podcast. It really does make me nuts when somebody like this is 70% rational and 30% bogus (unlike the YECs who are 1% rational and 99% bogus - at least you can write them off.)

Other Comments by Caudimordax

42. Comment #298905 by Cartomancer on December 8, 2008 at 8:01 pm

By sheer coincidence I appear to be collecting gay men's lost knitwear at the moment. I already have Yoav's hat, Tim's gloves and James's scarf, all of which were carelessly left at my flat over the course of the last week. I suspect that the great god of the gays might reward me with a lovely boyfriend if I manage to collect enough...

Other Comments by Cartomancer

43. Comment #298906 by Caudimordax on December 8, 2008 at 8:07 pm

40. Comment #298903 by TalkyMeat - Nice! You said a lot of things better than I did. I felt but didn't articulate the need to be aware of lefty bullshit especially if you are a lefty. I felt he dismissed certain things not because they were untrue, but because they were "lefty."

Other Comments by Caudimordax

44. Comment #298907 by Eshto on December 8, 2008 at 8:08 pm

@Caudimordax:

It's right here: http://skeptoid.com/episode.php?id=4119#bottom

Actually I'm more pissed now, because I read it again, and the student definitely did NOT ask if it is genetic.

He also says it is a "commonly held belief" that homosexuality is innate. Really? What world does that guy live in? It's getting better, but plenty of people still think it is a "choice" or a "mental illness". Right wing organizations like Focus on the Family spend millions of dollars every year promoting the idea that heterosexuality is the only natural state, that homosexuals are "sexually broken" people, and that Jesus can "cure" gay people.

From the get-go, "homosexuality is innate" was framed as the bogus claim.

Yeah, really pisses me off. The so-called "Ex-gay" movement is right up there with intelligent design as a pseudoscience movement that seriously needs some debunking.

Other Comments by Eshto

45. Comment #298909 by Caudimordax on December 8, 2008 at 8:13 pm

44. Comment #298907 by Eshto

Thanks for that link - I was just over on his website looking for it. Typed in gay.....

Maybe SkepTOID says it all, i.e., not exactly a SkepTIC.

Other Comments by Caudimordax

46. Comment #298911 by Caudimordax on December 8, 2008 at 8:18 pm

Here's the quote from Skeptoid:

I'm Kevin Mellis, I'm 18, and I'm a student at the University of La Verne. My question is this: Homosexuality is popularly conceived as innate in a person's personality. Is there any scientific research regarding the veracity of this commonly held belief?

Yes there is. Despite Newsweek and the Wall Street Journal's best efforts to promote sensationalism through misleading headlines, one thing that is very clear to geneticists is that there is no "gay gene". The idea got its start in 1993 when Science published a study of homosexuality and genetic frequencies among familes. It was complicated, and was grossly and irresponsibly oversimplified into the "gay gene" by the media. New research is published pretty often, and about the only consensus that's displayed is that it seems likely that homosexuality has a combination of genetic, other biological, and environmental causes. If you read anything that claims to have found a single or clearly identified cause of homosexuality, you have very good reason to be skeptical of that source.

Other Comments by Caudimordax

47. Comment #298912 by Eshto on December 8, 2008 at 8:21 pm

By sheer coincidence I appear to be collecting gay men's lost knitwear at the moment. I already have Yoav's hat, Tim's gloves and James's scarf, all of which were carelessly left at my flat over the course of the last week. I suspect that the great god of the gays might reward me with a lovely boyfriend if I manage to collect enough...

That, or at least you've added to your wardrobe.

That reminds me, I was in a gay bookstore once and I saw a really funny gay marriage card, it just showed two pairs of boxer shorts on the front, and inside it said "Congratulations! Your wardrobe doubled!"

And at some point my partner and I stopped dividing our clothes, we don't even sort and fold the socks anymore, we just have one giant sock drawer for the house.

Other Comments by Eshto

48. Comment #298913 by Caudimordax on December 8, 2008 at 8:22 pm

Okay maybe not A gay gene, but it does look to me like he is seriously underplaying the genetic underpinnings of homosexuality. I'm beginning not to like this guy. A great many gay people tell of "knowing" they were gay early on, without some Hollywood style "sexual trauma" scene playing out.

Other Comments by Caudimordax

49. Comment #298914 by Caudimordax on December 8, 2008 at 8:24 pm

"we don't even sort and fold the socks anymore"

I don't know the official rules, but I'm not sure you can still be gay if you don't fold your socks ;-)

Other Comments by Caudimordax

50. Comment #298918 by Eshto on December 8, 2008 at 8:31 pm

Well that's what I'm saying, he is like 70% right, which in my mind is even more dangerous than being completely wrong, because it's even easier he will mislead people.

He did say you should be suspicious whenever anyone says there is a single cause, so I suppose technically if someone listens to this advice they should be just as skeptical if a fundie tries to tell them that homosexuality is caused by sin or trauma or bad parenting or some other idiotic thing. But since homophobia is so rampant in our culture I don't have any high hopes that that will be case.

He should be aware of the common misconceptions and stereotypes about homosexuality (or any minority he's writing about) and be able to anticipate what assumptions his readers will likely have, having been raised in a Christian dominated culture in which homophobia is pervasive and gay rights are punted around by politicians on all sides.

That's really the sign of a decent writer, being able to imagine what your reader will be thinking as they read what you wrote (it's what makes Richard's books so good).

And again, he completely left out heterosexuality as if it doesn't also merit a scientific explanation. His answer wasn't homophobic per se, but it was incredibly heterosexist.

EDIT:

I don't know the official rules, but I'm not sure you can still be gay if you don't fold your socks ;-)

Another ridiculous stereotype, and one that amuses anyone who has had to live with me, especially my mother.

My partner is much cleaner, he resisted the mingling of undergarments for the first couple years, but slowly my messiness took over the house.

Other Comments by Eshto