patrick.net

curious2 says

Dan8267 says

I don't think that's what Patrick was attempting, but of course, I could be wrong.

Consider what Patrick wrote:

Patrick says

The Joy of Triggering

***

It's just so much fun to drive easily triggered fools to insanity (any beyond!) by calmly saying or implying something just over the edge of PC-acceptability.

What are the ingredients for world-class trolling? How can I make patrick.net a center for exchange of knowledge in this delicious technique and technology?

A few thoughts:

* The trolling has to be done with an entirely straight face. The victim has to think you're serious.


* The remark has to be somewhat ambiguous, so that you have plausible deniability and can claim the victim simply misunderstood.

That thread, and this one, have changed my opin...

Why do you think lolrape is the easiest troll ever?

If you ever want to drive the maximum people possible completely apeshit, just go to any message board and explain why rape is totally acceptable.

Dan8267 says

I don't think that's what Patrick was attempting, but of course, I could be wrong. In any case, I took his proposition "Just sayin that identical genes should produce identical outcomes, if genes really are the cause of gayness." to be a sincere, if incorrect, hypothesis that homosexuality is nurture rather than nature.

Dan is right. I am not trolling here.

It still seems obvious to me that you cannot say gayness is genetic if identical twins are not identically gay or straight. It's clearly not just a matter of having a "gay gene" because both twins would have the exact same gene. And the same womb at the same time for that matter.

So then you can go down the path of "well, there must be some other, more hidden biological reason why gayness is not social and not a choice" out of discomfort with the fact that mere possession of certain genes cannot possibly be the explanation. But you know that "there must be some other hidden biological reason" is a weak argument.

I'm not saying being gay is morally wrong, and I would not stop any consenting adults from doing whatever they want as long as they don't demand that everyone lie about it, or worse, actively oppress people (like getting professors fired) for calling out the lie. I just wish they would tell the truth and demand their rights on that basis alone, for example: "We like to fuck each other, what's it to you?"

rando says

But you know that's a weak argument.

Only one third of smokers die from smoking. Therefore, according to you, "you know" that evidence of the biological effects of smoking is "weak."

If you are being sincere, and merely obtuse instead of an asshole, then instead of wasting everyone's time with obviously false caricatures, take some of your own time to learn something. Watch 8: The Mormon Proposition, for example. The most obvious flaw in your pretend "theory" is its blatant failure to account for marriage. You seem instead to have a psychological motivation. You write repeatedly about status, perhaps because your choice to be a tenant rather than a homeowner has resulted in lower status for you. Maybe that causes problems at home, and maybe those problems make you feel guilty, and so you need to find others whose "choices" confer even lower status according to your pretend "theory." The fact is, ignorant assholes make life very difficult for gay kids, but if those kids manage to survive, many of them go on to achieve higher status than you. That includes a significant number who own their own houses and may therefore provide a more secure home for their children. Lance Bass and Neil Patrick Harris are only two examples, whom I list only because they are famous; they have obviously had many offers from females and males, so it was conspicuously absurd of you to insist on your misogynistic "theory" that they settled for their same-sex spouses due to women being (according to you) "more difficult." Also, you don't seem to understand love, only sex, and that seems very sad. You seem to be saying that if your wife is out of town, you could head on down to the Reseda truck stop and replace her with FortWhine. You insist that your caricature is sincere, so it must at least apply to your own experience. Trips to the truck stop for "easier" sex might be another reason for difficulty in your marriage. Either you have a seriously stunted life, or you are lying about your motivation for posting your phony "theory" (caricature).

The one area where we do in fact agree is that two people of the same sex pairing off together, for whatever reason(s), are harmless so the choice vs biology distinction shouldn't matter. That is an argument for equal rights and privacy. It doesn't explain though your obviously counterfactual caricature. As I said before, you presented at most a theory of prison rape, not a theory of marriage. If you don't see any problem with that, then I do hope things improve in your life.

curious2 says

The most obvious flaw in your pretend "theory" is its blatant failure to account for marriage.

Tell me more about this failure.

What am I supposed to account for? The fact that some gays get married?

curious2 says

Lance Bass and Neil Patrick Harris are only two examples, whom I list only because they are famous; they have obviously had many offers from females and males, so it was conspicuously absurd of you to insist on your misogynistic "theory" that they settled for their same-sex spouses due to women being (according to you) "more difficult." Also, you don't seem to understand love, only sex, and that seems very sad. You seem to be saying that if your wife is out of town, you could head on down to the Reseda truck stop and replace her with FortWhine. You insist that your caricature is sincere, so it must at least apply to your own experience. Trips to the truck stop for "easier" sex might be another reason for difficulty in your marriage. Either you have a seriously stunted life, or you are lying about your motivation for posting your phony "theory" (caricature).

Perhaps you have automated a chatbot to generate comments and page views by trolling with topics known to produce those. That would be technically less pathetic than the idea of an actual person believing your caricature.

And, lest ye protest at being called a liar, consider what you've written (directly or via bot) on the WWW about Lance and Neil and everyone else similarly situated. Your caricature claims they settled for men because women are "more difficult." Yet, the same WWW shows video of thousands of women expressing interest in either or both of them. So, you have accused all of those people, and everyone who has ever described their own experience growing up as a gay kid, of lying about their own lives. Either they are all lying, or you are.

All for a few comments and page views. How sad.

Daddy says gayness is triggered by inheritimolecular composition of chromosomal abnormalities caused by interspecieal consumation which confirms one of dans parents is/was/still is a goatfucker.

curious2 says

your misogynistic "theory" that they settled for their same-sex spouses due to women being (according to you) too difficult

Yes, women are in general far more difficult to get to agree to sex than men are. That is true. No, I'm not speaking from experience about men, just from statistics and personal observation working in San Francisco.

I didn't say gay men "settle" for same-sex spouses. I said the primary motivation for men to be gay to begin with is the extremely easy sex. Once gay, it makes sense to marry gay, if you are going to get married.

rando says

I didn't say....

You said "revulsion". Read your own comment, it's on the same page, instead of lying about it.

rando says

he primary motivation

Seriously, if you are not lying, and you imagine those kids' lives are so easy, you should watch 8: The Mormon Proposition. You seem to be in full backfire effect mode, and no amount of Internet commenting can stop you from making jackass of yourself on your own site.

Re: Ricky Gervais, I do think being gay is actually very much like being fat. Everyone likes to eat, just some people have a very hard time stopping themselves from eating too much.

Ricky just states without proof that you grow up gay or straight. How does he know that? He doesn't.

curious2 says

You said "revulsion". Read your own comment, it's on the same page, instead of lying about it.

What's the lie?

rando says

What's the lie?

You know what you wrote. Read it again, instead of lying about it again. You wrote those kids overcame "revulsion" to get easier sex, then you denied having said that. You also called them liars by denying their own descriptions of their own lives. You have your free speech, and you have chosen how to use it. I leave you to it.

curious2 says

you imagine those kids' lives are so easy

Did I say that? Where?

Once known to be gay in a conservative community, their lives are probably pretty hard. And they cannot undo their reputation there. It's with them forever. So they leave.

curious2 says

You wrote those kids overcame revulsion to get easier sex.

Yes, in general, or someone abused them and they decided they might like it. It's especially easy to make poor choices at a young age.

rando says

I didn't say gay men "settle" for same-sex spouses.

But you didn't quote that. You had to go put in ... and then go on to make up shit about what I really said:

curious2 says

rando says

I didn't say....

Dan8267 says

The most interesting question in the fields of genetics and evolutionary psychology, in my opinion, is what is the mechanism by which genetic code builds a brain. There's far too many bits of information in the brain's structure to be represented, even at great compression, in our genetic code.

The bits of information in the brain are mostly from learning. The brain learns from its environment.

It can learn what to like, and what not to like...

That's social/environmental/cultural etc. And it does shape the brain.

rando says

It still seems obvious to me that you cannot say gayness is genetic if identical twins are not identically gay or straight. It's clearly not just a matter of having a "gay gene" because both twins would have the exact same gene. And the same womb at the same time for that matter.

A trait can be partially genetic, influenced by one or more genes, and partially environmental including social. For example, the so-called god gene greatly increases a person's propensity to be religious, but upbringing also plays a role.

I don't think that any scientist believe that there is a single "gay gene" that if present makes a person homosexual 100% of the time and if absent heterosexual all the time. If there are genes that influence sexual orientation -- and there's a pretty good chance that some genes have some kind of effect on sexual orientation just like some genes have an effect on sexual promiscuity -- then that effect isn't going to be 100% of the time. For example, there's a gene that causes the production of a hormone, oxycontin, that makes men less promiscuous and more likely to commit, but it does not mean that men with that genes will never have one-night stands.

In the case of sexual orientation, there may be genes that make it more likely that a person will be homosexual or bisexual or more open to it, but such genes won't necessarily guarantee it. However, if these genes do make a particular person homosexual, it's probably a settled issue before that person enters puberty, and hence is no choice.

More importantly, biological does not equal genetic. The influence of testosterone in the womb is a biological factor and an environmental factor, but not a social factor. Likewise, testosterone levels can make it more probable that a male embryo's developing brain will develop into one with homosexual preferences before the embryo is born, but since chemistry can be complex and chaotic, it's not a 100% guarantee. So it's quite plausible that two identical twins, exposed to the same levels of testosterone can have different sexual orientations while the homosexual one would not have become homosexual if not for the high testosterone levels. This hypothesis can be tested by statistically analyzing the ratio of straight to gay male twins. If testosterone levels are at least partly responsible, then there will be more cases of same orientation twins than different orientation twins than there are for non-twin brothers.

In any case, if testosterone in the womb affects sexual orientation, then again, it's not a choice. It's nature, not nurture.

rando says

So then you can go down the path of "well, there must be some other, more hidden biological reason why gayness is not social and not a choice" out of discomfort

Not out of discomfort. I have no vested interest, political or otherwise, regarding the cause of sexual orientation as the cause is irrelevant to politics and policies. However, whatever the cause is, I'd like to know simply out of curiosity. I like understanding how nature works regardless of how it works.

It's perfectly valid for scientists to hypothesis about the causes of homosexuality and the role it plays in evolution. Heck, that's their job. Science is essentially making educated guesses and then testing those guesses to see which ones work and which do not. Science should influence politics, but politics should not influence science. The same goes for culture and social issues.

I would have no problem accepting that homosexuality was a conscious, deliberate choice, if the evidence supported that assertion, but it does not. Again, I could not choose to like sucking cock no matter how much I tried. It's just not going to happen. Similarly, I cannot choose to like the taste of broccoli, no matter how much I try. That's probably genetic. There's a gene that if you lack, you tend to like broccoli, but if you have one copy of the gene you dislike broccoli, and if you have two copies of the gene you absolutely detest broccoli. The gene alters taste buds in such a way as to make broccoli taste bitter because of a specific chemical in it.

I don't buy the argument that being gay is a choice because who chooses to be gay? What twelve-year-old is going to think, "hmmm, I'm going to be gay even though it's going to cause me to be a social outcast and all my peers will make fun of me."? No young adolescent would choose that especially given how anti-gay middle school and, at least when I was there, high school are. Nor can one change sexual orientations. Sure, with enough brainwashing you can get a gay man to suppress his feelings. Religious people do this all the time. But have you ever heard of a straight man choosing to become gay? I don't think it's something you can just will yourself into. And certainly no evidence has ever been presented to demonstrate that sexual orientation is a choice. Hell, I can't even bring myself to lust after fat chicks. How much control do you really have over what you find sexually attractive?

curious2 says

If you are being sincere, and merely obtuse instead of an asshole,

I think you are incorrectly reading motivation into Patrick's posts. Although his conjecture that sexual orientation is determined by social factors after a person is born is not supported by any known evidence at this point in time that I know of, it's a leap to jump to the conclusion that Patrick's conjecture is the result of bigotry or hostility. As Patrick has clearly stated, he does not consider the cause, whatever it is, to have political or social consequences.

If I'm reading Patrick correctly, he believes that sexual orientation is determined after birth and by the social interactions of the individual, and that the evidence for this is that genetic code cannot explain why two identical twins would have different orientations. Although there are some flaws in Patrick's reasoning, none of those flaws imply hostility or bigotry or even a value judgement. It's purely a scientific question, and a valid one.

As to the flaws in Patrick's reasoning, to reiterate...
1. Genes may or may not influence sexual orientation, making one orientation more probably, but not certain. So genetics could be a factor, but not a determining one. Identical twins could have different sexual orientation even though genes made it much more probably that each would turn out homosexual before birth.
2. Environmental factors like testosterone in the womb may influence sexual orientation, and this would constitute a biological cause, not a social one. Like item 1, this would make sexual orientation determined by birth.
3. Other factors like the epigenome could affect sexual orientation. Since the epigenome changes over a person's life, it's possible that this factor could affect sexual orientation after birth, but it still would not be a choice or a social cause.

In any case, the correct response to Patrick's challenge isn't an ad hominem attack. It's to attack his arguments with better counter-arguments that are supported by scientific evidence. Conversely, if Patrick were to be proven correct by science, then the correct response would be to accept his position. One's political and social preferences should not influence one's belief in facts. That should be determined by evidence.

Dan8267 says

it's a leap to jump to the conclusion that Patrick's conjecture is the result of bigotry or hostility

Thanks for assuming the best! I tried not to respond to any of the ad hominem attacks in kind. It's really just about being able to speak the truth.

Dan8267 says

1. Genes may or may not influence sexual orientation

Genes absolutely do influence sexual orientation! Men like women because they are genetically programmed to do so. How could it possibly be otherwise?

But clearly genes do not make men gay, because identical twins show that a man can be gay with the exact same genes as a heterosexual man.

Dan8267 says

2. Environmental factors like testosterone in the womb may influence sexual orientation

But identical twins share the same womb at the same time. Hell, they share the same placenta too, unlike fraternal twins. This seems to show that the womb is also not the factor that makes men gay.

So what is left? Could it be environment, culture, learning, experiences? Damn straight it could, pun intended. :-)

rando says

I didn't say gay men "settle" for same-sex spouses. I said the primary motivation for men to be gay to begin with is the extremely easy sex.

I don't think that's the case, but there is one situation that seems to support this assertion and I don't know enough about it to offer a counter-explanation. I'm talking about male on male prison rape, which is an epidemic in our terrible prison system. There does seem to be a propensity for men who are locked up and unable to mate with women to substitute sex with men often through rape. Does this make those men gay or desperate, or is it just a power game? I don't know. What happens when those men leave prison? Do they continue homosexual relations or revert to being homophobic heterosexuals? This is an area where I have no knowledge other than that prison rape happens a lot.

rando says

What's wrong with the theory that gay men have simply overcome an initial revulsion (as other men have done with sheep and goats)

First off, leave Call It Crazy out of this discussion. The last thing we need here is him.

rando says

I didn't say gay men "settle" for same-sex spouses. I said the primary motivation for men to be gay to begin with is the extremely easy sex.

curious2 says

You said "revulsion". Read your own comment, it's on the same page, instead of lying about it.

Clearly Patrick was stating that a man has to overcome his own repulsion to gay sex before he can enjoy said sex. I don't think this is actually true, but it's clearly not a statement that gay sex is inherently repulsive or disgusting. Nor is it a value judgement on whether or not gay sex should be considered revolting.

However, I think that Patrick is wrong on this one as well, but gay men could chime in. I suspect that some adolescent boys never feel a revulsion to sex with an attractive male peer, and so there is no hurdle to get over. I also suspect that in some cases any such hang ups may be the result of persistent conditioning by society and thus not indicative of a biological factor. Certainly many, if not all, heterosexual men find it unpleasant to imagine two men performing sexual acts on one another. Interestingly, there is a huge gender asymmetry in this matter. Heterosexual men find it very erotic for two women to perform sexual acts on one another. I believe that ties into the heterosexual male's biological drive to mate with as many fertile females as possible.

rando says

Re: Ricky Gervais, I do think being gay is actually very much like being fat.

Yes, I included that to demonstrate the point that gayness is not a choice, not to imply that anyone was arguing gayness and obesity were similar.

rando says

The bits of information in the brain are mostly from learning. The brain learns from its environment.

This is true. However, at birth, long before the brain has the chance to learn most things, there is hard-wired knowledge in the brain. For example, even babies know what is a good looking person and an ugly person. We know this because babies will look longer at attractive faces. This is not learned behavior, but rather hard-wired.

Another example is that the human brain is pre-wired for language learning. This requires significant information even before an actual language is learned. It is also a very non-trivial task, yet every toddler is capable of learning languages better than any adolescent or adult. So there most be a mechanism by which information is created in the building of the brain from instructions in genetic code. That mechanism remains a mystery for now. One of the interesting areas of research in genetics and anthropology is determining what genes were introduced into our ancestors that made language prevalent in our species while modern apes and our common ancestors with them do and did not possess a propensity for language. Apes can be taught sign language, but no non-human ape culture has ever developed a language on their own.

Dan8267 says

there is hard-wired knowledge in the brain. For example, even babies know what is a good looking person and an ugly person. We know this because babies will look longer at attractive faces. This is not learned behavior, but rather hard-wired.

Sure, I don't have any problem with that. In fact, I'm pretty sure the attraction men have for tits and ass is also hard-wired.

But I've also learned to like things which I really did not like at first, like coffee, blue cheese, and wine. And okra. Actually okra is still rather repulsive.

Dan8267 says

no non-human ape culture has ever developed a language on their own

They lack the critical genes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FOXP2

rando says

That's social/environmental/cultural etc. And it does shape the brain.

Yes, but not completely. Returning to the language example, human babies can learn any language with about the same ease. However, after a critical age the brain becomes good only at learning the group's language and foreign languages become more difficult to learn. So some things in learning languages are shaped by culture and the environment, but other things are not.

Humans and bonobo chimpanzees share about 98.8% of their genetic code. Yet there are mental tasks, especially after the age of three, that humans can do with ease that chimpanzees struggle with or cannot do. There was one famous case where two humans raised a chimp as a human, but it never behaved like a human. A mere 1.2% difference in genetic code can make a lot of difference in brain function.

You share over 99.9% of your genetic code with all other humans on this planet, including women. The difference between men and women in a society is basically just the Y chromosome, which itself is basically nothing but the SR-Y gene. Yet this single gene triggers a cascade of differences that make women's brains and minds significantly different from men's brains and minds. Even the brain structure is different with women possessing a greater percentage of white matter and men grey matter. All due to a single gene. Well, a single gene that causes many other genes to be expressed differently.

So clearly, the brain's structure is strongly influenced by genes. That's not to say that it's not also shaped by environment, but not every thing in the brain is shaped or influence by environmental factors. For example, our brains implement trichromatic vision, and that's something you can't change with upbringing.

Dan8267 says

You share over 99.9% of your genetic code with all other humans on this planet, including women.

Technically, that's not true, and technically correct is the best kind of correct!

There's a fun Ted talk where the speaker points out that men actually share a greater percentage of their genes with male chimpanzees than they share with human women. This is because of the difference in the sex chromosomes: X chromosomes have a lot of genes on them, and men have just one copy.

rando says

But clearly genes do not make men gay, because identical twins show that a man can be gay with the exact same genes as a heterosexual man.

This only demonstrates that genes do not act unilaterally in determining sexual orientation. The statement "genes have no influence on sexual orientation" is a lot stronger than the statement "genes alone do not determine sexual orientation". The former statement requires different evidence.

I don't know of any studies that deal with determining if there are genes that influence sexual orientation. However, based on my general knowledge of genetics and sexuality, I would be surprised if there weren't at least a couple of genes that had some influence on sexual orientation. After all, genetic code influences whether you find blue eyes sexy, thinner women sexier than those with broader hips, what complexions you like, etc.

There is a biological process called "sexual exaggeration" in which both a trait and the preference for that trait are passed down from generation to generation being amplified in the process. The entire reason why male humans like breasts on females and why women have breasts in the first place are due entirely to sexual exaggeration, as is the peacock's tail. It seems unlikely that there isn't a single gene that has any influence on sexual orientation, although this is certainly possible. In any case, it's all speculation. The fact that identical twins don't necessarily have the same sexual orientation does not prove that there is no genetic influence.

However, I don't think it's the primary influence. The study on testosterone in the womb makes me think that the epigenome has a greater influence. Of course, I could be wrong on that. The science is still very young. The epigenome was only discovered recently. I think sometime after 2000 if I remember correctly.

In any case, my point is that there is not sufficient evidence yet to rule out the possibility of genetic influence on sexual orientation. However, clearly genes, even if they do influence orientation, are not the only influence and may not be the primary influence. We'll just have to wait for more studies to be done to determine if there are any genes that affect orientation.

I don't think it's a big deal either way, since other factors would have to be understood to explain orientation. At best genes just add another piece of the puzzle. Although if genes do influence orientation, it would be interesting to know how exactly this plays out.

rando says

But I've also learned to like things which I really did not like at first, like coffee, blue cheese, and wine.

Ah, but can you learn to like broccoli or feces? The brain is plastic, but only to a limited extent. Finding out that extent is at the heart of this discussion.

men screwing men is "normal?" what's next?

sex with animals is normal?

sex with parents is also normal?

these are really sick that people need medical attention.

rando says

technically correct is the best kind of correct!

It's the only kind of correct. But to address the issue you brought up...

rando says

There's a fun Ted talk where the speaker points out that men actually share a greater percentage of their genes with male chimpanzees than they share with human women. This is because of the difference in the sex chromosomes: X chromosomes have a lot of genes on them, and men have just one copy.

I haven't seen that tech talk, but I think your counting wrong.

First, the statistic I quoted, 99.9%, is an accepted figure. However, I haven't read anything regarding there being a difference comparing males and females.

Second, and more importantly, I believe you are counting copies of genes rather than counting unique genes, i.e. identical base pair sequences. The figure I quoted deals with genes, not how many copies you have.

So it's true that men have a tiny bit of genetic material that women don't have because it's on the Y chromosome. It's also true that women have two X chromosomes and men usually only have one. It's further true that having two X chromosomes can make a difference for two reasons. First, the two X chromosomes aren't identical. You can have a mutated gene on one of them that malfunctions, but still have a good copy of the gene on the other. This is why men are more susceptible to some genetic diseases like color blindness. Second, having two copies of a gene can cause the gene to be more strongly expressed.

However, regardless of those points, the actual set of base pairs does not vary that much just by having a second X chromosome with pretty much all the same genes, maybe slightly different variations. So I would measure the differences by counting up base pair sequences that exist in only one of two individuals and dividing by the total number of base pairs in each individual. I believe that's where the 99.9% figure comes from. Having two copies of a gene is not the same thing as having two genes.

Another thought occurs. Genes can indirectly influence things. Let's say that subsequent sons are increasing likely to become gay due to testosterone increases in the womb. In that case, any gene that influences either men or women to want to have more children would tend to cause more sons to be born, and thus would trigger the situation in which a greater percentage of men would be gay. In contrast, any gene that makes men or women want to have a single child, would decrease second, third, and fourth sons and thus decrease the percentage of men who are gay.

So in this case, do you call that a genetic component? Certainly a gene is indirectly affecting the outcome, but it's not directly causing the sexual orientation. It's not a "gay gene" as much as a "have more babies gene" that has a side effect on orientation due to increasing the number of subsequent sons. In fact, it's the genetic code of the parent, not the child, that affects the child's orientation.

rando says

Actually okra is still rather repulsive

The boiled kind, okra in spit.

It seems like comments have numbers some days, but today they don't.

There are plenty of things that caused by a combination of genes and environment. Heart disease and cancer are examples. You can look at someones family health history and see if they are prone to heart disease or certain cancers. But, people can influence whether or not they get those diseases by their habits. Some diet doctors use the phrase, genes load the gun, but diet pulls the trigger.

A person might be genetically coded to get wood around people of the same sex. Their environment obviously affects whether or not the suppress that desire or act on it, and whether or not to do it in the open. Environment might also impact expression of genes in some way and help determine who the guy gets wood for in the first place. Homosexual behavior is all over the animal kingdom, so there is really no arguing that it goes against evolution. Evolution created homosexuality over and over again in many types of animals. The only question is understanding the mechanism for it.

P N Dr Lo R says

It seems like comments have numbers some days, but today they don't.

Are numbers important? I could put them back.

YesYNot says

A person might be genetically coded to get wood around people of the same sex.

Actually, that does not seem to be true in humans. If a man were "genetically coded" to be gay, then his identical twin would also be gay. But 93% of the time, the identical twin is not gay.

YesYNot says

Homosexual behavior is all over the animal kingdom, so there is really no arguing that it goes against evolution.

No, exclusive homosexuality is exceptionally rare in the animal kingdom. Lots of animals, especially males, will fuck basically anything they can. Your dog will hump your leg. You just get the impression gayness is common among animals because the exceptions are promoted so strongly in the press as the highly-desired "evidence" that gayness is in absolutely no way a choice.

rando says

P N Dr Lo R says

It seems like comments have numbers some days, but today they don't.

Are numbers important? I could put them back.

Helps when searching for a previous post.

OK, I'll put them back.

Strategist says

Helps when searching for a previous post.

rando says

OK, I'll put them back.

Thanks!

rando says

But 93% of the time, the identical twin is not gay.

There's a difference between being excited by someone of the same sex and admitting it. There's also a difference between what your genes make likely and what gets expressed. So your test whereby you expect 100% match is the wrong test. I'll ask you this. Is cancer caused by genes? Do some people get large muscles because of genes? The answer to both questions is mixed. Genes certainly help some people develop big muscles, but two identical twins separated at birth will not have the exact same size muscles. One might get cancer at 40 and the other might not develop it in his lifetime. If you your test for something being caused by genes is 100% equal results, then you will find that nothing is caused by genes.

If people find that the chance of being gay is affected by genes, then it is partially out of their control and not determined completely by nurture. Same goes for disease.

P N Dr Lo R says

Strategist says

Helps when searching for a previous post.

rando says

OK, I'll put them back.

Thanks!

@"P N Dr Lo R" The comment numbers are back now.

I guess they do add some useful info.