Tuesday, May 09, 2006

According to USA Today, lesbians' brains respond differently from those of heterosexual women:
    Heterosexual women found the male and female pheromones about equally pleasant, while straight men and lesbians liked the female pheromone more than the male one. Men and lesbians also found the male hormone more irritating than the female one, while straight women were more likely to be irritated by the female hormone than the male one.

    All three groups rated the male hormone more familiar than the female one. Straight women found both hormones about equal in intensity, while lesbians and straight men found the male hormone more intense than the female one.

    The brains of all three groups were scanned when sniffing male and female hormones and a set of four ordinary odors. Ordinary odors were processed in the brain circuits associated with smell in all the volunteers.

    In heterosexual males the male hormone was processed in the scent area but the female hormone was processed in the hypothalamus, which is related to sexual stimulation. In straight women the sexual area of the brain responded to the male hormone while the female hormone was perceived by the scent area.

    In lesbians, both male and female hormones were processed the same, in the basic odor processing circuits, Savic and her team reported.

    Each of the three groups of subjects included 12 healthy, unmedicated, right-handed and HIV-negative individuals.
Okay, kids, let's play Spot The Bad Science!

First of all, 36 subjects? Color me unimpressed. It's a nice bit of preliminary research, sure, but hardly conclusive with that small a subject pool.

Second, we don't even know that human beings respond to sex pheromones in the first place. It is entirely possible that the differences in processing of these scents has absolutely nothing to do with sex or sexual orientation.

Third, stop making shit up:
    In both cases the findings add weight to the idea that homosexuality has a physical basis and is not learned behavior.
This makes it sound as though learned behavior does not influence brain activity or individual responses to stimulation. This is part of a popular trend these days, wherein "physical basis" means "genetically determined and fixed by time of birth," and "learned behavior" means "you choose to be a fag." Learn 2 science, noobs.

Watch, I'll show you how easy it is:
    "Our study can't answer questions of cause and effect," cautions lead researcher Ivanka Savic at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden. "We can't say whether the differences are because of pre-existing differences in their brains, or if past sexual experiences have conditioned their brains to respond differently."(link)

See how that works?

Look, they scanned the brains of a small group of adults and discovered some differences in how those adults responded to a particular stimulus. That tells you precisely nothing about what led to any differences in how their brains are responding. Sure, it's possible that gay people are born with some gay wiring that changes how they respond to smells. Or maybe people who are attracted to women learn to associate woman-smells with the joyful experience of being intimate with a woman, and thus have a different response to said smells than a gay man or straight woman might have. Or maybe lesbians emit invisible fields of gay radiation that mutate the olfactory receptors of their partners.

I'm delighted to see that research is being done in this area, and especially delighted to see that FEMALE homosexuals are actually getting some bloody notice for a change. I'm all for the scanning of brains and the exploration of physiological processes involved in complex human behaviors. That shit is cool. What I'm not delighted about is the media's chronic inability to report scientific findings accurately.

And just to be very clear, I'm not trying to argue that homosexuality is a choice, or that biological factors aren't involved, or that genetic elements aren't involved, or any of that. I'm just sick of the media completely missing the point whenever they try to report on scientific research. Either do your homework and learn the fundamentals, or get a transfer to the sports page.

3 Comments:

At 12:46 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Unfortunately not everyone regards such articles as shrewdly you i.e. questions the facts on which the article bases itself upon as canily as you do(if at all), thereby spotting their shortcomings and exposing the conclusions being drawn as actually quite flimsy.

Most people just read and believe, and take for granted the facts. If the media chose to report scientific findings accurately, and properly the articles would be long winded and boring(to the non scientific reader), and with a healthy dose of skepticism, thereby making any conclusions drawn have less of a wow factor(sells less = less profit for paper). That kind of proper hard airtight science you'll mainly find in a scientific journal, like SciAm (well even then I could probably spot a few articles that have vague factual backing, but I digress(and sound arrogant at the same time)). Not USA today - what kind of person reads USA today - the masses, not saying they are stupid, but, that this kind of reporting will wash with the mainly unscientific thinking general public, and so it will continue to exist in the main current affairs style papers, as it sells.

Good blog by the way, you are a good arguer. My arguement is about to get pwned I know it. Wait I shouldn't be so arrogant as to even suppose you would even bother to waste your time counterarguing some unkown person on a comment section of a blog post that that person may not even read again (but they will now having said that).

 
At 1:15 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, Steel, I think your argument is that the mainstream media is tailoring their coverage to accomodate the ignorance of the unwashed masses. I can't pwn that, since I think you're probably right.

However, I also think that the great unwashed will remain ignorant and unwashed a whole lot longer if we continue to spoon-feed them a bunch of unscientific drivel.

I also think they're more likely to pop up with stupid theories about what causes Teh Gay if we keep giving them warped views of the scientific data on the subject.

You're right that most people don't read with as bitchy an eye for scientific detail as I do...but I think that's a damn good reason why the articles need to be written accurately in the first place!

 
At 4:30 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

They're already talking about homosexuality and genes. That alienates 51% of the population (as of the last election, current polls suggest that people may have learned a lesson about how cool being stupid and willfully ignorant really is). Then you want the media (THE MEDIA?) to report complexity and real ambiguity rather than "he said this, he said that." Go back to Europe, and take "your boy" Howard Dean.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home