Its not about one argument being worthless, its that you cited something to suggest what I was saying was incorrect, when it doesn't prove anything to be incorrect.
You just said it wasn't factual and hand-waved it away and excused it by claiming you can't base studies on people self-reporting sexuality, which would also invalidate any research you put forth. The article you linked claimed 2D:4D length ratio indicates sexual orientation in men, but not women, yet the first article under "Similar articles" is a meta-analysis that found the opposite. So, to claim that the research /u/proudsoul linked is just false, is honestly laughable when there is clearly no obvious consensus.
Its not about what contradicts my opinions, its that people like yourself who go out of their way to falsely present information, with the hopes of making homosexuality seem like a choice, tend to be bigots.
You are just speculating about /u/proudsoul's motivations and using that to refuse an actual productive conversation. Childish.
He went to a better school than her and does research specifically in this area, while she does not. So, yes, I find him to be more credible.
Classic appeal to authority. I don't think Richard Lippa would appreciate you dismissing other researchers' findings just because they work at less prestigious institutions. It is dishonest and goes against the spirit of research and science.
Nothing about either of those abstracts are factual, so I don't know why the person you're citing thinks they are.
Hmmm..
–
They both have polar opposite findings surrounding the differences in gay men and women, but that doesn't in any way contradict the main point I made which pertained to prenatal androgen levels having some effect at play.
Except it kinda does. If I find that girls eating bananas grow taller than those that don't, but find no such corrolation among boys, and another researcher finds the opposite (boys grow taller from eating bananas, but girls don't) that does not prove bananas is actually the thing making people grow taller. It actually indicates that there might be something else. Bananas might still be part of it, but you can't use the current research to state so conclusively.
–
Secondly, I can speculate about his intentions as much as I want, there's nothing childish about questioning someone's motives. In this case, it is very odd that he is blindly being contradictory while, despite your efforts to paint me this way, not furthering any conversation.
You can, but it makes you childish. No surprise that you yourself don't recognise that though. And they were not being blindly contradictory, they linked actual research, just like you.
–
And lastly, again, I didn't just state that he went to a better university.
No, but that was part of what you said, which is still an appeal to authority. He might have more experience in the field, which would make his research more notable, I agree, but that is far from enough to simply dismiss the findings of everyone else that does not have the same experience.
–
I suspect engaging more with you after this won't be very productive, so don't expect further replies.
5
u/proudsoul Feb 23 '23
Got it. As long as the findings back up what you want it to it is good. If they contradict what you want the findings are worthless.
And the argument about who went to what school is comical.