Posted: Apr 17, 2012 4:02 am
by Thomas Eshuis
Imagination Theory wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Shrunk wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
I am. There seems to be no other explanation for his publishing and endorsing of such a pseudo-scientific piece of crap.
But if I'm wrong I'll apologize.


My understanding is that he ran the study, these were the results that he got, and he published them. He's one of the biggest names in psychiatry, and there is little in his history to suggest an ideological bias. In fact, he was one of the key figures in having homosexuality as a diagnosis removed from the DSM.

Wiki biography

The issue, to my mind, is that the far right cited and promoted this study to a degree far out of proportion to its, at best modest, scientific merit. To be honest, I think this "retraction" is being puffed up to a bigger degree than it warrants, as well. This was an otherwise very minor paper that only vaguely hinted at findings that were not corroborated by any more rigorous study, and within the field has had negligible influence. As I said, its importance has only been as a political tool misused by extremist social conservatives.

I stand corrected, however he could have been far more active in rebutting the far right movements that abused his study so much.


How active is he suppose to be at 70-80?

When Dr. Robert Spitzer’s study of 200 gay men and women who reported a change in their sexual orientation appeared in the Archives of Sexual Behavior in 2003, anti-gay lobbyist seized on it as proof that homosexuality was, at its core, a choice that could be changed. ....

Dr. Spitzer consistently warned that his study should not be used as a part of political efforts to denying gays and lesbians, a warning which Focus on the Family, NARTH and Exodus have ignored with abandon. Now Truth Wins Out has released a video in which Dr. Spitzer registers his disappointment in no uncertain terms:

… of course, they [Focus on the Family] were delighted with that study. What they fail to mention — and it’s not, I guess, a big surprise — is that in the discussion I noted that it was so hard for me to find 200 subjects to participate in the study that I have to conclude that, although change is possible and does occur, it’s probably quite rare. And of course, they don’t want to mention that.”


http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2007/02/15/227

I don't think it is his reasonability to constantly rebuke everyone who misunderstands his study.


Ok, ok I apologize, I spoke to soon. I should have done me research! :oops: