Library Idiocy

[SkepticThinker]

When you're given a logical argument such as contradiction then you're supposed to logically refute it and prove it's not contradition.
I'm sorry but "running you mouth" is not a logical argument.

What logical argument have you presented?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Do you hear yourself?
You just called APA definition "void of credibility and knowledge"

What you provided wasn't an "APA definition."

Please logically refute it in regard to homosexuality.

Logically refute what?

No sister, I do not promote Freud nor vouch that his practices should be used today, what I said about Freud was his work and genius in historical context.

Yes, you kinda did. You attributed "gay conversion therapy" to him and claimed a huge success rate.

Now you're being rude.

There's nothing rude about it. It was a Freudian reference to his strange ideas about "penis envy."
Since you've been touting Freudian theory, I think it was quite apt.

I think I was not rude so far and I payed attention to limit discussion to rational discourse and not to insult gay population in discriminate way.
But I do understand that this debate is seen as such due to it's controversial nature.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The article which you linked is from January 15, 1999

And is contradictory to the following research from 2000 which causes no harm:
Retrospective self-reports of changes in homosexual orientation: a consumer survey of conversion therapy clients - PubMed (nih.gov)

See also:
What We Know | What does the scholarly research say about whether conversion therapy can alter sexual orientation without causing harm? | What We Know (cornell.edu)

I give up from this debate, I'm really exhausted.
You guys believe what ever you wish, we live in a free world after all.

Do you even read the works that you link? They really do not help your case or even worse refute it. Your second paper was a meta-study. It was a comparison of quite a few papers on the topic. It said that only one study found some positive results. Guess which one that was? Your first paper. Over all your second paper says that such work is harmful.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The article which you linked is from January 15, 1999

And is contradictory to the following research from 2000 which causes no harm:
Retrospective self-reports of changes in homosexual orientation: a consumer survey of conversion therapy clients - PubMed (nih.gov)

See also:
What We Know | What does the scholarly research say about whether conversion therapy can alter sexual orientation without causing harm? | What We Know (cornell.edu)

I give up from this debate, I'm really exhausted.
You guys believe what ever you wish, we live in a free world after all.

You should have read beyond the headlines ...

"Overview: We identified 47 peer-reviewed studies that that met our criteria for adding to knowledge about whether conversion therapy (CT) can alter sexual orientation without causing harm. Thirteen of those studies included primary research. Of those, 12 concluded that CT is ineffective and/or harmful, finding links to depression, suicidality, anxiety, social isolation and decreased capacity for intimacy. Only one study concluded that sexual orientation change efforts could succeed—although only in a minority of its participants, and the study has several limitations: its entire sample self-identified as religious and it is based on self-reports, which can be biased and unreliable. The remaining 34 studies do not make an empirical determination about whether CT can alter sexual orientation but may offer useful observations to help guide practitioners who treat LGB patients.

However, after reviewing the research, we concluded that there is no credible evidence that sexual orientation can be changed through therapeutic intervention. Most accounts of such change are akin to instances of “faith healing.” There is also powerful evidence that trying to change a person’s sexual orientation can be extremely harmful. Taken together, the overwhelming consensus among psychologists and psychiatrists who have studied conversion therapy or treated patients who are struggling with their sexual orientation is that therapeutic intervention cannot change sexual orientation, a position echoed by all major professional organizations in the field, including the American Psychological Association whose substantial 2009 report is available here. Click here to view our methodology. Click here for a printer-friendly PDF of this overview report."

What does the scholarly research say about whether conversion therapy can alter sexual orientation without causing harm? | What We Know

This directly contradicts your claims.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

The article which you linked is from January 15, 1999

And is contradictory to the following research from 2000 which causes no harm:
Retrospective self-reports of changes in homosexual orientation: a consumer survey of conversion therapy clients - PubMed (nih.gov)

See also:
What We Know | What does the scholarly research say about whether conversion therapy can alter sexual orientation without causing harm? | What We Know (cornell.edu)

I give up from this debate, I'm really exhausted.
You guys believe what ever you wish, we live in a free world after all.

The link you provided references an abstract from a report from
The National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH)
Authored by Joseph Nicolosi

According to Wikipedia citing 31 independent resources:
The National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), also known as the NARTH Institute, was a US organization that promoted conversion therapy, a harmful and pseudoscientific practice used in attempts to change the sexual orientation of people with same-sex attraction. NARTH was founded in 1992 by Joseph Nicolosi, Benjamin Kaufman, and Charles Socarides. Its headquarters were in Encino, California, at its Thomas Aquinas Psychological Clinic. It had operated under the name Alliance for Therapeutic Choice and Scientific Integrity (ATCSI) since 2014.NARTH is not recognized by any major United States-based professional association.

NARTH's promotion of conversion therapy as a scientifically supported therapeutic method is contradicted by overwhelming scientific consensus.For example, the American Psychological Association (APA) states that homosexuality is a normal and positive variation of human sexual orientation, and is not a mental disorder.
No schools, universities or professional programs currently train counselors in reparative therapy.
NARTH had several connections to Evergreen International and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Claims that pathologize homosexuality and state that it can be changed through therapy have been denounced by almost every major US medical association, including the American Medical Association and the American Psychiatric Association. In 2006 the American Psychological Association declared that NARTH created "an environment in which prejudice and discrimination can flourish". The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) singled the group out as a main source of junk science used by hate groups to justify anti-gay rhetoric. NARTH was accused of employing abusive methods to attempt to change sexual orientation by the Human Rights Campaign and Truth Wins Out

In 2017, psychology professor Warren Throckmorton said that Nicolosi had earlier been offered the chance to assess the viability of his therapy by J. Michael Bailey, a professor of psychology best known for his sexual orientation research. Bailey informed Nicolosi that he could bring his patients to his lab at Northwestern University to test their automatic responses to erotic cues, i.e. men versus women. Throckmorton wrote that "Nicolosi never took him up on the offer"

In a prominent 2016 academic review, Bailey also critiqued Nicolosi's claims of success, noting that earlier research by Kurt Freund found that men's claims of sexual re-orientation were not supported by phallometric assessments, which measure penile blood-flow in response to imagery. Additionally Bailey notes that Conrad and Wincze found that physiological arousal measurements did not support the positive reports of men who had participated in sexual-reorientation therapy. They were still attracted to and aroused by men.

Did you read your other linked material?
Which includes:
“However, after reviewing the research, we concluded that there is no credible evidence that sexual orientation can be changed through therapeutic intervention. Most accounts of such change are akin to instances of “faith healing.” There is also powerful evidence that trying to change a person’s sexual orientation can be extremely harmful. Taken together, the overwhelming consensus among psychologists and psychiatrists who have studied conversion therapy or treated patients who are struggling with their sexual orientation is that therapeutic intervention cannot change sexual orientation, a position echoed by all major professional organizations in the field, including the American Psychological Association whose substantial 2009 report is available here.”

I give up from this debate, I'm really exhausted.
You guys believe what ever you wish, we live in a free world after all.

I imagine you may well be…..
It must be exhausting being patently wrong and having to expend the effort necessary to maintain your level of cognitive dissonance.

 

[paradox]

The fact that you can't find it should be your first clue.

It’s not used anymore.

What you’ve cited about “sociopathic personality disturbance” didn’t come from the APA Dictionary. Rather, it came from Psychologydictionary.org. And if you read it, you will see it is referring to a diagnosis from the very first edition of the DSM that was published in 1952, rather than a current diagnosis that is used. There’s your problem, I think.

OK, it no longer exists, but you sounded like the two are different and differentiated the two.

So what is an equivalent today for “sociopathic personality disturbance”, how is it called now?

I ask because all evidence provided for you thus far has indicated that it is not “politically motivated” and rather is, “evidence-based.”

Yes but I see this evidence to be politically motivated.

What language do you speak? Maybe I can find one for you.

Don't bother because I already gave up from this debate, I speak no other language beside my mother language, I was looking for research in 3rd world countries like israel, russia, china etc. but their letter is different which I can't read and googling out and translating everything is difficult and I don't have that much time, so I gave up.

What logical argument have you presented?

"sexual deviance" according to APA:

any sexual behavior, such as a paraphilia, that is regarded as significantly different from the standards established by a culture or subculture.
Deviant forms of sexual behavior may include voyeurism, fetishism, bestiality, necrophilia, transvestism, sadism, and exhibitionism. Also called sexual deviation.

APA Dictionary of Psychology

My argument is this:
How does homosexuality not fit into this definition?

What you provided wasn't an "APA definition."

Yes it it, see link above.

This directly contradicts your claims.

Fair enough, there is no strong proof for working conversion therapy.
Therefore no "cure" exists, but this a lone doesn't prove that it's not mental condition.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The link you provided references an abstract from a report from
The National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH)
Authored by Joseph Nicolosi

According to Wikipedia citing 31 independent resources:
The National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), also known as the NARTH Institute, was a US organization that promoted conversion therapy, a harmful and pseudoscientific practice used in attempts to change the sexual orientation of people with same-sex attraction. NARTH was founded in 1992 by Joseph Nicolosi, Benjamin Kaufman, and Charles Socarides. Its headquarters were in Encino, California, at its Thomas Aquinas Psychological Clinic. It had operated under the name Alliance for Therapeutic Choice and Scientific Integrity (ATCSI) since 2014.NARTH is not recognized by any major United States-based professional association.

NARTH's promotion of conversion therapy as a scientifically supported therapeutic method is contradicted by overwhelming scientific consensus.For example, the American Psychological Association (APA) states that homosexuality is a normal and positive variation of human sexual orientation, and is not a mental disorder.
No schools, universities or professional programs currently train counselors in reparative therapy.
NARTH had several connections to Evergreen International and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Claims that pathologize homosexuality and state that it can be changed through therapy have been denounced by almost every major US medical association, including the American Medical Association and the American Psychiatric Association. In 2006 the American Psychological Association declared that NARTH created "an environment in which prejudice and discrimination can flourish". The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) singled the group out as a main source of junk science used by hate groups to justify anti-gay rhetoric. NARTH was accused of employing abusive methods to attempt to change sexual orientation by the Human Rights Campaign and Truth Wins Out

In 2017, psychology professor Warren Throckmorton said that Nicolosi had earlier been offered the chance to assess the viability of his therapy by J. Michael Bailey, a professor of psychology best known for his sexual orientation research. Bailey informed Nicolosi that he could bring his patients to his lab at Northwestern University to test their automatic responses to erotic cues, i.e. men versus women. Throckmorton wrote that "Nicolosi never took him up on the offer"

In a prominent 2016 academic review, Bailey also critiqued Nicolosi's claims of success, noting that earlier research by Kurt Freund found that men's claims of sexual re-orientation were not supported by phallometric assessments, which measure penile blood-flow in response to imagery. Additionally Bailey notes that Conrad and Wincze found that physiological arousal measurements did not support the positive reports of men who had participated in sexual-reorientation therapy. They were still attracted to and aroused by men.

Did you read your other linked material?
Which includes:
“However, after reviewing the research, we concluded that there is no credible evidence that sexual orientation can be changed through therapeutic intervention. Most accounts of such change are akin to instances of “faith healing.” There is also powerful evidence that trying to change a person’s sexual orientation can be extremely harmful. Taken together, the overwhelming consensus among psychologists and psychiatrists who have studied conversion therapy or treated patients who are struggling with their sexual orientation is that therapeutic intervention cannot change sexual orientation, a position echoed by all major professional organizations in the field, including the American Psychological Association whose substantial 2009 report is available here.”




I imagine you may well be…..
It must be exhausting being patently wrong and having to expend the effort necessary to maintain your level of cognitive dissonance.

Excellent post!

 

[SkepticThinker]

OK, it no longer exists, but you sounded like the two are different and differentiated the two.

So what is an equivalent today for “sociopathic personality disturbance”, how is it called now?

There is no equivalent.

Antisocial personality disorder has some similar behaviors associated with the old classification, but “sociopathic personality disturbance” as it was used in 1952 was used to describe a group of personality disorders. It seems it was something of an umbrella term to include a collection of personality disorders.

Yes but I see this evidence to be politically motivated.

So in response to my claim where I pointed out that the change in the DSM was due to a thorough review and discussion of the EVIDENCE, you still claim it was politically motivated.

How so? Can you point out where?

Don't bother because I already gave up from this debate, I speak no other language beside my mother language, I was looking for research in 3rd world countries like israel, russia, china etc. but their letter is different which I can't read and googling out and translating everything is difficult and I don't have that much time, so I gave up.

What is your mother language?

I really wish you could find something academic to read on the subject, because your views on this are littered with confusion and I think that may help you sort this all out.

"sexual deviance" according to APA:

APA Dictionary of Psychology

My argument is this:

How does homosexuality not fit into this definition?

That’s not an argument. It’s a question.

Some history is required to understand how this has evolved in the psychiatric world and to help illustrate why homosexuality, in itself, is not considered a mental disorder. I’ll attach this article, but I’m guessing you won’t be able to read it.

DSM-5 and Paraphilias: What Psychiatrists Need to Know

Yes it it, see link above.

I’m talking about “sociopathic disturbance disorder” and the link you provided for that, which was not from the APA.

Fair enough, there is no strong proof for working conversion therapy.

Therefore no "cure" exists, but this a lone doesn't prove that it's not mental condition.

Except for the evidence I just presented which totally contradicts your claims.

All the evidence not only points against its efficacy in converting people away from their sexual orientation, but also points to psychological harm on the part of the person engaging in it.

There is no need for a “cure” for homosexuality any more than there is a need for a cure for heterosexuality. It’s not any more “mental” than heterosexuality is. That’s what the evidence tells us.

 

[paradox]

So in response to my claim where I pointed out that the change in the DSM was due to a thorough review and discussion of the EVIDENCE, you still claim it was politically motivated.

How so? Can you point out where?

No sorry I can't point out because for this I would need to read research done by other countries, for which I have no easy way of getting, so I gave up.

What is your mother language?

Sorry, I don't share these details anywhere online.

Some history is required to understand how this has evolved in the psychiatric world and to help illustrate why homosexuality, in itself, is not considered a mental disorder. I’ll attach this article, but I’m guessing you won’t be able to read it.

DSM-5 and Paraphilias: What Psychiatrists Need to Know

I did read and it's interesting how certain sexual deviations classify as paraphilia and are classified as "anomalous target preferences" and "anomalous activity preferences".
I don't fully understand these terms but however they may be defined I suppose homosexuality won't fit into because obviously it isn't paraphilia.

That’s not an argument. It’s a question.

Right, argument version would be:
Homosexuality qualifies for "sexual deviance" as per definition:

any sexual behavior, such as a paraphilia, that is regarded as significantly different from the standards established by a culture or subculture.
Deviant forms of sexual behavior may include voyeurism, fetishism, bestiality, necrophilia, transvestism, sadism, and exhibitionism. Also called sexual deviation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Right, argument version would be:
Homosexuality qualifies for "sexual deviance" as per definition:

How so? It is not on your list and it is widely practiced, even though it is admittedly a minority practice. Once again you do not seem to understand your own sources. Why do you have such strong homophobia? You really should ask yourself that and see if you can find an honest answer. Warning, you might not like that answer.

 

[SkepticThinker]

No sorry I can't point out because for this I would need to read research done by other countries, for which I have no easy way of getting, so I gave up.

Why would you need to do that?

Sorry, I don't share these details anywhere online.

I guess I can't help you then, if I don't know what language you speak.

I did read and it's interesting how certain sexual deviations classify as paraphilia and are classified as "anomalous target preferences" and "anomalous activity preferences".
I don't fully understand these terms but however they may be defined I suppose homosexuality won't fit into because obviously it isn't paraphilia.


Right, argument version would be:
Homosexuality qualifies for "sexual deviance" as per definition:

"any sexual behavior, such as a paraphilia, that is regarded as significantly different from the standards established by a culture or subculture.
Deviant forms of sexual behavior may include voyeurism, fetishism, bestiality, necrophilia, transvestism, sadism, and exhibitionism. Also called sexual deviation."

Except that "homosexuality" in and of itself, is not any of those things. So I guess you're conceding the argument?

 

[paradox]

How so? It is not on your list and it is widely practiced, even though it is admittedly a minority practice. Once again you do not seem to understand your own sources. Why do you have such strong homophobia? You really should ask yourself that and see if you can find an honest answer. Warning, you might not like that answer.

What is even more bizarre with this definition is that is says "that is regarded as significantly different from the standards established by a culture or subculture."
Which implies that it depends on country, ex. if one society (country) does not accept it as standard then it's mental condition, otherwise if it does it is not.

Don't you see?

 

[paradox]

Why would you need to do that?

I already told you, to compare research papers and see if there is any difference or disagreements between psychiatrists around the globe.
but I give up

"any sexual behavior, such as a paraphilia, that is regarded as significantly different from the standards established by a culture or subculture.
Deviant forms of sexual behavior may include voyeurism, fetishism, bestiality, necrophilia, transvestism, sadism, and exhibitionism. Also called sexual deviation."

Except that "homosexuality" in and of itself, is not any of those things. So I guess you're conceding the argument?

hm seriously?

I can accept to take for granted what you said so far on the subject, I believe you and admit that I'm not qualified to understand the problem,
because according to your words you don't seem to be trolling about your profession, but this APA definition in regard to homosexuality is such a funny example.

 

[fantome profane]

What is even more bizarre with this definition is that is says "that is regarded as significantly different from the standards established by a culture or subculture."
Which implies that it depends on country, ex. if one society (country) does not accept it as standard then it's mental condition, otherwise if it does it is not.

Don't you see?

Not the country, the culture or subculture. The LGBTQ+ community is by definition a subculture. Which means by the definition you constantly quote homosexuality is not deviant.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What is even more bizarre with this definition is that is says "that is regarded as significantly different from the standards established by a culture or subculture."
Which implies that it depends on country, ex. if one society (country) does not accept it as standard then it's mental condition, otherwise if it does it is not.

Don't you see?

Where? I did not see homosexuality on that list. Since homosexuals are a significant fraction of the populace they by definition cannot be "significantly different".

By the way, homosexuality appears all throughout the animal kingdom. Why do you think that humans would be any different?

 

[paradox]

Not the country, the culture or subculture. The LGBTQ+ community is by definition a subculture.

lol
therefore by definition heterosexuality is "culture"
therefore by definition it is free to be mental condition for heterosexuals.

 

[paradox]

Since homosexuals are a significant fraction of the populace

Dude, the definition says nothing about "significant fraction of the populace" but rather "significantly different from the standards established by a culture or subculture"

 

[Subduction Zone]

lol
therefore by definition heterosexuality is "culture"
therefore by definition it is free to be mental condition for heterosexuals.

No, it is only the majority. That does not make it "the culture".

 

[Subduction Zone]

Dude, the definition says nothing about "significant fraction of the populace" but rather "significantly different from the standards established by a culture or subculture"

And since the practice is a significant percentage it fits into the "subculture" realm.

 

[paradox]

No, it is only the majority. That does not make it "the culture".

That's right, that's why culture or subculture doesn't apply to heterosexuals or homosexuals but rather to society such as a country.

This is problem with your reasoning:
Neither heterosexual nor homosexuals qualify as "culture" or "subculture"
Because otherwise what are the "standards" of culture or subculture?
And if you insist otherwise then we're back to my point #316