Re: POLITICS: Disturbing article

[Guest guest]

:

>Heidi,

>

>You are mixing biology, psychology and sociology all into one field - they are

not the same. Psychology and sociology are not really sciences in the sense the

basic sciences are. Normal does not have the same connotative meaning in

biology as it does in psych or sociology. When the guy was using the word, he

was not meaning it like you are thinking.

In the past the three were very much separate. However, they are merging ...

pschiatrists used to

just talk to patients, now they prescribe drugs ... because they have accepted

that

the brain has *chemistry* and that chemistry can be tweaked to make people feel

better.

Schizophrenia and autism used to be considered a product of bad mothering (is

that sociology or psychology?) but now are recognized as biologically based.

>Biology by definition (please check in a dictionary) is the science of living

organisms and their processes. ALL living organisms reproduce by particular

processes for each species. Some are asexual, reproduction can occur by cell

division. Others such as plants have processes with pollination I am sure you

are familiar with. Most birds sit on eggs, some species give live birth. Innate

drives are within the organism as part of the process affecting his behavior so

he achieves the end result of reproduction. There are biophysical factors that

can influence behavior such as temperature or light, many species reproduction

is seasonal.

However, if you change the hormonal balance of a rat mother, she will give birth

to male

rats that prefer other male rats as mates ... whether or not they can reproduce.

From

a Darwinian standpoint, this doesn't make sense for the procreation of

rat-genes,

but IT HAPPENS and biologists recognize it. Fact is, it happens sometimes even

if you

leave the mama rats alone.

These biologists are not sociologists or psychiatrists, they are studying the

biology

of brain development. The brain is really, really complex, and I don't think

anyone

claims to understand it all. But clearly who you happen to be attracted to

sexually, and other features of who you are, are encoded in brain chemistry.

> In due respect to 's wishes and not to further antagonize, I won't

elaborate anymore than to say that normal to a biologist would be the

physiological way nature (or whoever) designed each species to achieve that end

process of reproduction. Percentages and bell curves just don't have relevance

to this stuff. They would from a psychological or sociological perspective when

looking at behavior from a collective point of view and defining normal by

percentages or rates of occurrence of certain behaviors but that becomes

subjective.

" Percentages " aren't subjective, that is the point to measuring them.

It is true that the majority of any species has

a sort of reproductive behavior that makes the individual reproduce itself. Not

always though.

In a wolf pack, only the alpha pair reproduces, and in herds, only the alpha

male (usually) gets

to mate. The other males sneak around, in some species, and grab females if they

can get

away with it. This is also " normal " behavior (though frowned upon by the alpha

male, and

also not a behavior that is recommended in human society). It is " normal " to

find

pairs of male mallards, or female mallards ... it's something that " commonly

happens " ,

if you observe mallards.

> To understand his use of the word and why logically the loop exists that I

stated, you have to comprehend the different perspective and meaning of the word

as he is using it. Biologists just do not look at behavior in the way

psychologists do at all. It is very nonpersonal, it has nothing to do with

morals, or God, or any of that. It actually would not fit with free will or

choice anyway. It is all a matter of electro-biochemical reactions to these

guys. Those are going to be affected by what you eat as that is where the

chemicals come, genes are another factor. Biologists are actually taking over in

the area of behavior, many consider psychology a dead field, too much conjecture

and too little science killed it.

I agree with most of that, though I would say the fields are " merging " rather

than " being taken over " . The biologists are beginning to realize the

importance of attitude and social status -- the immune system goes to pot

for some non-alpha males, for instance, because of stress.

I don't see how this relates though. Most of what I've read

about homosexuality was written by biologists (I don't live in San Francisco)

and it mostly has to do with brain biology and how it affects sexuality.

If you mean that the average biologist would say that most guys prefer

women, sure, I'd agree with that (and most guys, straight and otherwise

would agree, I think). If you mean that the average biologist would say

that it is abnormal to find gay guys, because it doesn't fit with " biology " ,

then I sure haven't seen any indication of that at all.

-- Heidi