Forums | MacLife

I asked you to read the work of Dr. Evelyn Hooker.

Your source talks about someone named Karen Hooker.

First, in this thread, you merely said "Dr. Hooker."

Second, it appears that the source I cited is talking about Evelyn Hooker.  It simply got the first name wrong.  I did a search for "Karen Hooker" and only got that site.  I then did a search for "Evelyn Hooker" and got sites talking about an experiment she conducted regarding homosexuality in 1957--undoubtedly the same as the one mentioned by my source.

I'm surprised you didn't recognize the remarkable similarities between the "different" Doctors Hooker.

So, now, what was Hooker supposed to teach me?  That environment plays no role in determining sexual orientation?  Because her research doesn't show that, and I am skeptical that she even claimed that.

Regardless of who she is, it doesn't change the fact that these tests can't tell you if sexual orientation or personality is organic or learned.

The reason I raised the possibility of anyone being an idiot is because we're talking about adminstering a test which can't talk about etiology to make determinations about etiology. upon examination, this seems to be a case of my having 'shot from the hip' given that the context in this conversation is whether sexuality is organic or learned.

the article to which you link, charon, may have just gotten the name wrong, did a bit o' lookin for Evelyn Hooker, seems both teste were conducted in 1957 so maybe both articles are talking about the same person. the first article, to which charon links is quoted first. The second article, quoted second, talks a bit about the design of the experiment.

The experiment was designed to shed light on whether or not homosexuality was considerable as a disorder for inclusion in the DSM.

Karen Hooker executed the first psychological test done to test for biological determinism in 1957, on a grant from the National Institute of Mental Health [2].  The study was meant to explore the relationship between homosexuality and psychological development and illness

Evelyn Hooker has been among the most influential figures in the highly successful movement to convince the American people that homosexuality is a "normal variant" of human sexual behavior. Her 1957 study, "The Adjustment of the Male Overt Homosexual" (Journal of Projective Techniques, 1957, 21, 18-31) is the most frequently cited scientific source for the argument that homosexuality is not a pathology, that homosexuals are as free from mental disorder as heterosexuals.

1. In her 1957 report, Evelyn Hooker did not use a random sample to test the stability of homosexuals, but allowed gay rights activists to recruit those homosexuals most likely to illustrate her thesis that homosexuality is not a pathology. Individuals who proved unstable were deleted from the final sample.

2. Hooker's published account of how she recruited heterosexual subjects is not consistent with a more detailed later account.

3. Six subjects in her study, three from each group, had engaged in both homosexual and heterosexual behavior beyond adolescence.

4. Hooker made several errors in her mathematical calculations that raise doubts about her care and competence as a researcher.

5. Hooker did not attempt to prove that homosexuals were normal in every way, nor does her study support the idea that homosexuals as a group are just as stable as heterosexuals.

6. Hooker was relatively inexperienced in administering the Rorschach test, and this inexperience may have led to mistakes in the administration and evaluation of the Rorschach.

7. On the Thematic Apperception Test and the Make-A-Picture-Story test -- which require subjects to make up fictional narratives about depicted scenes -- the homosexuals could not refrain from including homosexual fantasies in their imaginary accounts. For that reason, Hooker altered the nature of the study by no longer asking the judges to use the TAT and MAPS in an attempt to determine the sexual orientation of each of the 60 subjects, since the differences were apparent from the narratives.

In order to understand fully the nature of the controversy over Hooker's study, it is helpful to review its history.

Just so we're clear, isaly, I'm in agreement with what you've said in this thread.

Yeah, I just wanted to clarify because I did shoot from the hip.

here is an interesting link, a pastoral counselor, Ph.D who is a psychotherapist. If you follow this link, which I recommend you do, he explains the idea of sexual 'orientation' as opposed to 'preference'. Orientation is the way your body is, much like left handedness. There are people who are left handed but learn to do things right handed, such as play musical instruments. Preference, he defines as a concious choice.  Orientation, according to Dr. McGloshen, is innate.

http://home.earthlink.net/~valewis/mcgloshen.html

When incorporation of Presbyterians who are homosexual into the full life and ministry of the church has not been outright forbidden, it has often been conditional. One of the conditions has been that of getting the person into psychotherapy so that he or she can get rid of their sexual desire or learn how not to express it. Speaking to you as a long-time member of the psychotherapeutic community, please hear me say that homosexuality is not a sickness, not a psychological disorder, not pathological. It is one sexual orientation toward life.

As a psychotherapist, I have seen only two persons who were homosexual in orientation but preferring to become heterosexual. These are persons who would fit the 1980 diagnosis of "Ego-distonic Homosexuality," meaning that it was not the homosexuality that was the problem, but their discomfort with it. One man ran from his homosexuality into a pathological marriage; the other committed suicide. Neither found they could change their sexual orientation and were unable to accommodate the prejudices of an unsympathetic public. They were in check mate. They could make no move. Each of them checked out in his own tragic way.

At the same time, there are Presbyterians who prefer their homosexual orientation. It is who they are-without apology or contrition or reform. That does not mean that they do not have trouble with a society or a church which does not understand what it does not tolerate. What it does mean is that they are comfortable with who they are and choose not to fight a battle that does not belong to them.

Alfred Gross, writes:

It is time to stop talking about homosexuals and commence to think about people. Homosexuals are people. They are people with a certain set of problems, to be sure; but all sorts of people have all sorts of problems. And the sooner we set about trying to find some workable solutions the better off we will be. Thus far all we have done has been to ostracize, reject and condemn those stigmatized as undesirable. The shortcomings of this method of dealing with a perplexing problem are obvious.

My dad was a minister/pastoral coulselor. He was a member of the Sixth Presbyterian Church which, under the direction of Rev. John McCall who quite recently retired, became a More Light church. . . which actively seeks to minister to homosexuals. My father believed, as did Rev. McCall and others, that there is no reason that homosexuals cannot be ordained and that their sexual orientation, being not voluntary as some believe, doesn't keep them from realizing God's plan for salvation.

My atheistic leanings do not place any sort of fly in any ointment, either. It's a belief, one whicn I cannot confirm any more than the theists can confirm theirs. The idea about left-handedness, however, hits home and cuts across all belief systems and social groups.

Attempting to change one's sexual orientation is like trying to change a person's left handedness. . . one may be able to walk the walk, but at a price which is neither predictable or similar across a sample.

Clearly, Gross's exortation means that the solution is acceptance, not trying to change them.

Attempting to change one's sexual orientation is like trying to change a person's left handedness. . . one may be able to walk the walk, but at a price which is neither predictable or similar across a sample.

Good point.

[my mother was forced to use her right hand instead of her left as a child in Italy...]

I think it's a matter of semantics, but I agree that the word 'preference' is probably not the most accurate to describe one's orientation towards one sex or the other.

First, there's tolerance, then acceptance, and finally... appreciation.

Those are the steps away from prejudice.

I repeat--did Hooker actually conclude that homo/heterosexuality is innate?  What sort of research did she do?  Can you cite any study that shows it's innate, and how that study was done?

You keep implying you know about the research--so inform me.

First, there's tolerance, then acceptance, and finally... appreciation.

Those are the steps away from prejudice.

I repeat--did Hooker actually conclude that homo/heterosexuality is innate?  What sort of research did she do?  Can you cite any study that shows it's innate, and how that study was done?

You keep implying you know about the research--so inform me.

Hooker's research was the first objective research that showed that homosexuality isn't a disorder - that homosexual sexual orientation does not itself have anything to do with a person's psychological well-being. Rather, prejudice in society (heterosexism/homophobia) is the problem.

The stuff about appreciation is from Dr. Dorothy Riddle.

You can go to a library and check out Hooker.

The point is that you are opining that there is something, somewhere between hard wiring and learned response; between orientation and preference. You are kind of indicating in a round about way, or at least I read you as doing so, that a good bit of human sexuality exists or takes place in this area.

I'd just like some qualification from you. What, specifically, in your opinion leads you to this conclusion and why?

Wait a minute now...first you define preference as "conscious choice," now you call it "learned response."  I see a bit of a difference.  When I pick heads instead of tails, I call that a conscious choice.  Learned response sounds a bit less voluntary.

That's what I have in mind when I talk about my personal sexual preferences.  What makes me think that they're "in between" hard-wiring and conscious choice?  Simple...things I find sexually attractive now I did not before.  Some I even found repulsive before.  My reaction changed as I was exposed more to these things.  So my preferences weren't hard-wired, nor did I simply say to myself "I'm going to like it, now."

Research by Hamer and Copeland showed homosexuals have different genes (chromosomes?) than heterosexuals. Females with this particular genes are more of carriers (the gene is hereditary through maternal lines) while males will express it through their sexual identity.

That's what I have in mind when I talk about my personal sexual preferences.  What makes me think that they're "in between" hard-wiring and conscious choice?  Simple...things I find sexually attractive now I did not before.  Some I even found repulsive before.  My reaction changed as I was exposed more to these things.  So my preferences weren't hard-wired, nor did I simply say to myself "I'm going to like it, now."

...and you wouldn't allow for the idea that they could have been hard-wired and yet were being affected by either preconceived notions or from what society has taught you is 'right' or 'wrong?'