I worked with sex offenders in the late 70s through the 80s at a state psychiatric hospital, and the plethysmograph was part of the arsenal of the evaluators who were trying to determine if the convicted offenders were still attracted to children, male and female. Only later did I find that many of the SO's at least believed they could game the test, and laughed about it. I also learned that the evidence base for its results being meaningful were quite poor. It was used because they had to have something measurable or no one would believe it was science. They also had questionnaires of dubious value and projective tests.
Of course, that was many years ago and I have not kept up on the research on that. When I worked with offenders at all after about 1987, it was in building in accountability for where they were and what they were doing when they were out in the community. Very different area.
I never read any statistics about this point, but I 'got it' when I started *talking* with some of the really worst homophobes. Basically, the kind of strong homophobia that someone of a very conservative mindset can reason themselves into, is often about the temptation-leads-to-sin narrative where people who choose to engage in homosexual acts will not be able to have traditional families, or in some cases any families at all. This presupposes that homosexuality *is* a temptation, which I believe it is likely to be for the speaker, and they are typical-minding other people. Every person I have ever met with a loud concrete argument against homosexuality makes this assumption and no followup conversation has made it seem rhetorical. However, most homophobia is just general 'PDAs are gross and the less I am attracted to either person the more gross it is', which doesn't require any beliefs about the world and indicates the exact opposite of temptation by homosexuality. I would be really interested in a study that attempted to measure secret homosexuality, and asked participants beforehand what their primary reason for being homophobic was and included that in the correlations.
Surprised you didn't mention selection bias as a huge problem with this kind of study. Straight men who sign up to watch gay porn in a study are likely a pretty weird subgroup; homophobic straight men even more so.
As a statistician, when I read studies like this, I do not want means or other group statistics.
I prefer counts. For the study of penile responsiveness, HOW MANY responded to gay porn? That's really the important thing. The notion that we see today, over and over, is that means tell us stuff. IF WE HAVE A HOMOGENEOUS (no pun intended there) WORLD, a mean is good. But we do not - we have homophobes who are secret gays and homophobes who are not secret gays. It's key to know HOW MANY ARE SECRET GAYS.
I participated in studies at the University of Georgia, smoked a generic laboratory cigarette in one and drank some generic laboratory vodka in another. I was gone before they did penis measuring, but I'm sure I would've signed up for that just to see the apparatus.
For the studies who cited to the idea that homophobes are repressing their own homosexuality, what do they draw from that? That there is thus no rational justification for homophobia? Doesn't everyone agree that all of sexual attraction/repulsion is non-rational?
I worked with sex offenders in the late 70s through the 80s at a state psychiatric hospital, and the plethysmograph was part of the arsenal of the evaluators who were trying to determine if the convicted offenders were still attracted to children, male and female. Only later did I find that many of the SO's at least believed they could game the test, and laughed about it. I also learned that the evidence base for its results being meaningful were quite poor. It was used because they had to have something measurable or no one would believe it was science. They also had questionnaires of dubious value and projective tests.
Of course, that was many years ago and I have not kept up on the research on that. When I worked with offenders at all after about 1987, it was in building in accountability for where they were and what they were doing when they were out in the community. Very different area.
I never read any statistics about this point, but I 'got it' when I started *talking* with some of the really worst homophobes. Basically, the kind of strong homophobia that someone of a very conservative mindset can reason themselves into, is often about the temptation-leads-to-sin narrative where people who choose to engage in homosexual acts will not be able to have traditional families, or in some cases any families at all. This presupposes that homosexuality *is* a temptation, which I believe it is likely to be for the speaker, and they are typical-minding other people. Every person I have ever met with a loud concrete argument against homosexuality makes this assumption and no followup conversation has made it seem rhetorical. However, most homophobia is just general 'PDAs are gross and the less I am attracted to either person the more gross it is', which doesn't require any beliefs about the world and indicates the exact opposite of temptation by homosexuality. I would be really interested in a study that attempted to measure secret homosexuality, and asked participants beforehand what their primary reason for being homophobic was and included that in the correlations.
Surprised you didn't mention selection bias as a huge problem with this kind of study. Straight men who sign up to watch gay porn in a study are likely a pretty weird subgroup; homophobic straight men even more so.
Paid subscribers deserve audio of you reading that Hitchens quote. ;-)
Great read and I completely agree with your thoughts and writing.
I was taught the concept that homophobes are latent homosexuals.
As a statistician, when I read studies like this, I do not want means or other group statistics.
I prefer counts. For the study of penile responsiveness, HOW MANY responded to gay porn? That's really the important thing. The notion that we see today, over and over, is that means tell us stuff. IF WE HAVE A HOMOGENEOUS (no pun intended there) WORLD, a mean is good. But we do not - we have homophobes who are secret gays and homophobes who are not secret gays. It's key to know HOW MANY ARE SECRET GAYS.
I participated in studies at the University of Georgia, smoked a generic laboratory cigarette in one and drank some generic laboratory vodka in another. I was gone before they did penis measuring, but I'm sure I would've signed up for that just to see the apparatus.
For the studies who cited to the idea that homophobes are repressing their own homosexuality, what do they draw from that? That there is thus no rational justification for homophobia? Doesn't everyone agree that all of sexual attraction/repulsion is non-rational?