Hacker News Reader

I am not offended, but I am not convinced that your logic holds. Humans are not solitary animals. We live in groups and are subject to evolutionary pressures that favor traits advantageous to survival of groups.

Perhaps having a certain percentage of gay or asexual people helps the entire group survive better. Maybe it is an archaic form of division of labor? Some individuals will specialize on breeding, others on guard duties, hunting etc.

This wasn't the point. The example was a device to throw people off guard and pull them back for the purpose of promoting self awareness. Personally, I have no stance on the causative origins of homosexuality; But judging from the replies I'm afraid it might have been too successful and pulled people too deep into that cancel culture frame.

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.

"Another thing to consider is, why did you address my example instead of addressing my main point? "

Because I felt like it, that is all. I am interested in similar topics.

I think people generally underestimate how non-straightforward natural selection is, especially when epigenetics is taken into account. Living beings carry around a lot of dormant genes that can spring to life under specific conditions.

>I think people generally underestimate how non-straightforward natural selection is, especially when epigenetics is taken into account. Living beings carry around a lot of dormant genes that can spring to life under specific conditions.

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.

This kind of misinformed thinking is why doctors often don’t take their patients seriously.

I'm actually a researcher in academia in this area. I'm more well informed then medical professionals on this topic. I am sorry to say that you, like everyone else jumped to a conclusion here.

Why don't you look at my other reply, there's more nuance there, and it might break you out of your own bias.

You may be a researcher in the area but you are also a very pretentious one. This statement that docs consider their patients dimwits is wrong. It may be true for some docs. Just like it's true that some researchers have a very myopic view of their own field.

> This statement that docs consider their patients dimwits is wrong. It may be true for some docs

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.

I did read all of your answers. From them, I was at least able to understand that you've got a personal problem with docs. No shame in that, many people are the same. That must be part of a bias such as those that you talk about so often.

Now, you associated "I am a researcher in that field" with "docs think their patients are inferior beings". So, how about a reference supporting your statement? Or were those statements accidentally associated?

>I did read all of your answers. From them, I was at least able to understand that you've got a personal problem with docs. No shame in that, many people are the same. That must be part of a bias such as those that you talk about so often.

Could be true. I don't think it's personal though. I think doctors have a real problem. But then again that could be just my bias. Hard to determine it either way. You can't prove it's bias any more than I can prove it's not.

I will say my thoughts apply exclusively to US doctors as my experience has solely been with them. Additionally the exorbitant costs and comparative worse quality of care then their European counterparts could exacerbating my bias if bias is what's going on here.

>Now, you associated "I am a researcher in that field" with "docs think their patients are inferior beings". So, how about a reference supporting your statement? Or were those statements accidentally associated?

I didn't make this association at all. I stated I'm a researcher in the field to give more credibility to an example I made that was used to illustrate a point.

This association was accidentally invented by you.

I do think that subconsciously US docs think of their patients as less intelligent and they tend to dismiss the opinions of the patients and just solely rely on their training to arrive at a predetermined conclusion. This has nothing to do with my background at all.

Also can we get off of my background? My background should have nothing to do with what I'm talking about here.

> My background should have nothing to do with what I'm talking about here.

You say: "I am a researcher in the field, so I'm more informed than most..." and then your background has nothing to with what we're talking about? Yeah sure, whatever...

> The point is to see that there is certain logic behind my statement that is worth discussion

Not really, no, given that it's based on a premise ("traits that harm a specific individual's chances of reproduction can't be selected for by evolution") that's obviously false as soon as you take half a second to look at eusocial animals.

The point was to consider the validity of such a statement as something worth considering. What you say is technically true but you made it kind of pedantic here and steered away from the heart of my point.

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).

The context, though, is that the assertion you are saying is worth consideration (homosexuality cannot be selected for and is therefore a disorder) was the orthodox scientific position not too long ago, was then thoroughly debated, debunked, and only now is summarily rejected.

This does not reflect a bias, but instead reflects that there is very little value in revisiting an exhausted question without bringing more information to the table.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/massive-study-fin...

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.

> It may not be a "disorder" but no one is sure whether it's biologically "normal."

This is not a legitimate question to be answered and therefore has no scientific or research merit, so stop dragging biologists into it. How do you define “normal”? Once you have picked a suitable definition, what do you intend do to with that information?

Your linked article asks the questions about the genetic origins of homosexuality, which has fuckall to do with your own invented concept of “normal” or “disorder”.

Your whole premise is bollocks. You’re convinced that you have some enlightened thought exercise here but you really need to get your head out of your own ass. We get what you’re trying to say - but it’s too stupid to argue against.

>This is not a legitimate question to be answered and therefore has no scientific or research merit, so stop dragging biologists into it.

Stop dragging biologists when a biologist was attached to the research study I sent you? Makes no sense.

>Your linked article asks the questions about the genetic origins of homosexuality, which has fuckall to do with your own invented concept of “normal” or “disorder”.

All conceptions of the terms "disorder" and "normal" are invented concepts and highly opinionated. Humanity at one point called Homosexuality a disease and at another time they called it normal. That is simply a choice of definition.

Regardless of the semantic pedantry you're trying to bring up here, you know what I fuckall mean by the terms. If homosexuality is proven to have no genetic basis and is only a recent phenomenon, then it is not biologically normal. Simple.

>Your whole premise is bollocks. You’re convinced that you have some enlightened thought exercise here but you really need to get your head out of your own ass. We get what you’re trying to say - but it’s too stupid to argue against.

You know it's actually not MY premise. It's well established that this is inconclusive in academia.

Why the hell do you think the genetic origins of homosexuality was researched at all if it was definitively considered to be normal and genetic? The problem is INCONCLUSIVE hence the research study.

You need to realize you are not arguing with me. You are arguing with established opinions in academia.

The fact that you're a doctor makes me question the scientific neutrality of doctors in the field. Are all of them as biased and emotional as you?

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27524853.

uh, homosexual behavior is found in a wide variety of animal species. if it were a "disorder," it would have already been selected against. your analysis is just overly simplistic - there are a lot of traits that confer advantage to a group while reducing reproduction by an individual.

Sure, that's a valid point. But another valid point is the causative agent for homosexuality in humans is the same causative agent for homosexuality in animals and this would invalidate your point if it were true.

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.

> Thus homosexuality must be an recent anomaly as an evolutionary trait as it would have naturally selected itself out eons ago if it was a natural trait.

All this wall of text proved is that your verbal skills are tedious and you’re bad at math.

"Don't feed egregious comments by replying; flag them instead."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Personal attacks and name-calling will get you banned on HN, regardless of how wrong someone else is or you feel they are. If you'd please read the rules and stick to them from now on, we'd appreciate it.