Posted: May 15, 2017 11:58 am
Keep It Real wrote:Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Keep It Real wrote: The criteria are detailed in the study.
Finally, several people, including myself, have already pointed out the flaws in that particular claim:
1. Being self-reportive and biased.
2. Abstaining from gay sex not being the same as changing one's sexuality.
3. The failure to test on those who do not view their sexuality as a problem, adding to the bias and unreliable results of this study.
The study was biased against SOCE by design - the authors state that they are affiliated with LGB acceptance groups,
That would be a lie.
Keep It Real wrote:so this is hardly surprising.
What's surprising and disappointing, is that you once again ignore the points being made in favour of your own fantastical narrative.
The people tested in these studies want to get rid of their homosexuality, ergo the sample is incredibly biased.
Keep It Real wrote: Nevertheless they found a 42% success rate for psychotherapeutic SOCE.
They did not KIR.
Given that you've been corrected on that several times already, I fail to see why you keep mindlessly regurgitating that nonsense.
Keep It Real wrote: The real success rate could be much higher.
No success has ever been demonstrated.
Keep It Real wrote: Abstaining from gay sex was not a reported measure, so your second claim is clearly pulled out of your arse.
False. You kept referring to it.
Keep It Real wrote: Self-reporting is the only practical way to ascertain sexual orientation, and any other bias skews the study away from endorsing SOCE;
You do realise how science works right? Studies are based on factual findings, not desired results.
Keep It Real wrote:
not the other way around. Why would somebody who doesn't view their sexuality as a problem engage in SOCE?
You're still missing the point that this demonstrates the study to be inherently biased.
If you're going to test whether a therapy works, and only test it on people who want to change, you're likely get a high succes rate. Just by virtue of people hoping to change trying to view everything through that lens.
Keep It Real wrote: Your third point is therefore baseless gibberish too. In short, you are wrong.
All you've demonstrated is that you've either not read the actual arguments I made and/or failed to understand them.
Keep It Real wrote: As for me missing the point, it's not my fault if your incapable of making a coherent point
You have not demonstrated this to be the case. The fact that people like my posts demonstrate that they are perfectly coherent, if not correct.
Keep It Real wrote:
- your revised explanation
There's nothing revised about it, stop making shit up KIR, it only demonstrates dishonesty on your part.
Keep It Real wrote:for dismissing the cancer treatment analogy bears very little resemblance to what you originally wrote,
Blind counterfactual assertion.
You need to actually demonstrate that, not just blindly assert.
Keep It Real wrote:so you're mockery is entirely misplaced and indicative of you being disingenuous.
Hello pot, have you met kettle?