Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why Do Gay Men Sound Gay?
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 121 of 165 (779607)
03-06-2016 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by Faith
03-06-2016 4:38 AM


Re: explaining things
You pick out things I say and make them mean something else.
No, I did not do that. I quoted you exactly.
...does not imply I didn't know a lot about psychology, family pscyholgoy, the development of sexual identity and all that, from reading, and from practical experience among psychologists as a "paraprofessional."
Are you now making the claim to have read up on all of that and done all that? Are you claiming to be a paraprofessional in psychology? Given your unfamiliarity with writings in the field, I know you don't have the experience you are hinting at but are so far not actually claiming to have. You just think, you know what you are talking about in a way similar to the way you claim to have a 'B' knowledge in geology.
Although it is easy to find people, like Pat Robertson, who opine on how sexual identities are developed, there isn't any evidence that the factors you think cause gayness or camp gay speech actually do. So I know you did not pick up the idea because you are familiar with the literature or from any practical experience. It as as you said. What you think. Mere assertion.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Faith, posted 03-06-2016 4:38 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Faith, posted 03-06-2016 4:21 PM NoNukes has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 122 of 165 (779612)
03-06-2016 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by Faith
03-05-2016 5:20 PM


Re: explaining things
Hi, Faith.
Faith writes:
Blue Jay writes:
And this is certainly a criticism of Faith that's fully justified. She doesn't finish the investigative process: she just reasons to a comfortable conclusion, then digs in her heels.
People psychoanalyzing or otherwise explaining me around here are something I just have to shrug off all the time as it is.
While I was writing that post, I had this nagging feeling in the back of my mind that I have been too psychoanalytical recently, and your comments just confirmed that for me.
I had originally included an "I think" in that sentence, but I thought it made me sound to wishy-washy, so I deleted it. In retrospect, it would have been more appropriate, because it was a tentative hypothesis, not a conclusion.
Faith writes:
I have NOT said anything I treat as fixed in concrete, you are reading anything like that into very brief remarks I've made.
Well, technically, I'm reading that conclusion into your 23 posts from this thread, 171 posts from Oh No, The New Awesome Primary Thread, and 43 posts from our old Great Debate thread, Reduction of Alleles by Natural Selection (Faith and ZenMonkey Only); as examples that are particularly prominent in my mind.
I felt comfortable presenting my hypothesis for your behavior because I feel like I've seen enough data over the years. I suppose it's up to everybody else to decide whether or not they think I'm right.
But, as for myself, I think you tend to transition too quickly to the "conclusion" step and don't spend enough time at the "careful consideration" step.
Faith writes:
And where are you getting "comfortable conclusion?" "Comfortable?" Do you impute that motive to everybody who tries to understand something, or just me? I may offer my reasoning in general terms because it makes sense to me.
It's a very normal, pragmatic human process of thinking: people tend to think about something until they come up with a solution that satisfies them, and then stop looking for solutions. My argument is that your criterion for "satisfaction" with an argument is less rigorous than I think it should be.
You usually start out with what I believe is an honest and sincere question ("Why do gay men sound gay?" or "Why do people think Trump is racist?"), you listen to what other people say for a couple pages, you consider it for awhile, then you make a decision that almost inevitably goes completely against what everybody else is saying, and defend it against all comers, which attracts a dog-pile.
That said, I don't think I want to keep pushing this, because it's not really on topic.
I think gay men sound gay for a variety of reasons, and that there's a very wide bell curve around the average "gayness" of a gay man's voice, such that it's really hard to see clear patterns. That's why people there's such a wide range of opinions on the topic.

-Blue Jay, Ph.D.*
*Yeah, it's real
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Faith, posted 03-05-2016 5:20 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Faith, posted 03-06-2016 3:45 PM Blue Jay has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


(2)
Message 123 of 165 (779622)
03-06-2016 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Theodoric
03-04-2016 3:42 PM


Re: The harm of stereotypes
Hi, Theo.
My institution has access to the actual study your source referred to and Modulous linked to, so I took some time to read it this weekend. Here's the abstract.
In a nutshell, the authors recorded 25 men reading several passages (a technical passage, a dramatic passage, and a personal anecdote), and tried to see how accurately people could rate how "gay" the men's voices sounded.
Here are some snippets:
quote:
The main effect of Speaker’s Sexual Orientation (.55 for the gay speakers and
.28 for the straight speakers) was also significant: F(1,43)5165.42, P , .0001.
For people who don't speak statistics, this means the sexual orientation of the man speaking had a real effect on whether or not listeners thought he "sounded gay," even though the listeners did not know the man's sexual orientation. In other words, men who were actually gay were more likely to have voices that listeners identified as "sounding gay" than men who were actually straight.
That said, it also appears that it's uncommon for somebody of any sexual orientation to "sound gay": only 10 of the 25 voices were classified as "sounding gay" by more than half of the listeners. Interestingly, 9 of those 10 men actually were gay.
Now, putting the snippet into context, here's the entire paragraph:
quote:
The main effect of Speaker’s Sexual Orientation (.55 for the gay speakers and
.28 for the straight speakers) was also significant: F(1,43)5165.42, P , .0001.
This is hardly surprising given that the speakers were not randomly selected. Some
of the men were invited to be recorded precisely because we hoped that they would
be judged to have gay-sounding voices.
This recruitment strategy was successful,
as we now have a varied sample for our database, including a sufficient number
of gay-sounding voices for future acoustic analysis. It is likely that a random
sample would have yielded a much smaller proportion of gay men, which in turn
would have resulted in an even smaller proportion of gay-sounding voices.
So, the study sample is not representative of the gay community: it was specifically chosen to allow an analysis of the acoustic properties of the "gay voice," and not to allow an analysis of whether gay men actually talk that way.
There's also another section called "Gaydar Analysis" (awesome, isn't it?). Here's an interesting quote:
quote:
The main effect of Speaker’s Sexual Orientation was highly significant
(F(1,43) 5 28.75, P , .00001): the straight talkers were more accurately identified
than the gay talkers (.72 vs. .55).
Modulous's source said this:
quote:
In 62 per cent of the cases, the listeners correctly identified the speakers as gay.
...which isn't accurate. The 62% was the percentage of men whose sexual orientation was accurately identified by their voice. Identification was more accurate for straight men than for gay men: the listener only correctly identified a gay man by his voice in 55% of trials, which is not much better than coin-flipping.
Note, I didn't say "not much better than random guessing," because randomness is defined by a preconceived hypothesis, not necessarily a 50-50 choice. Most people's preconceived hypothesis is probably that gay men are comparatively less common than straight men (so, not 50-50), so they are more likely to guess "straight" than "gay" if they aren't sure. So, 55% accuracy is probably considerably better than random guessing. Of course, also note that the sample was intentionally biased toward men who would likely "sound gay," so it's hard to make that judgment.
In my mind, perhaps it would be more accurate to argue from this data set that there's an identifiable "straight voice," and that gay men are less likely to conform to it than are straight men.

-Blue Jay, Ph.D.*
*Yeah, it's real
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Theodoric, posted 03-04-2016 3:42 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 124 of 165 (779624)
03-06-2016 1:52 PM


I wonder if it's possible to type gay on the Internet?

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by Jon, posted 03-07-2016 6:16 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied
 Message 134 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-08-2016 9:38 AM ringo has seen this message but not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 125 of 165 (779634)
03-06-2016 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by Blue Jay
03-06-2016 1:13 PM


Re: explaining things
Well, technically, I'm reading that conclusion into your 23 posts from this thread, 171 posts from Oh No, The New Awesome Primary Thread, and 43 posts from our old Great Debate thread, Reduction of Alleles by Natural Selection (Faith and ZenMonkey Only); as examples that are particularly prominent in my mind.
I felt comfortable presenting my hypothesis for your behavior because I feel like I've seen enough data over the years. I suppose it's up to everybody else to decide whether or not they think I'm right.
But, as for myself, I think you tend to transition too quickly to the "conclusion" step and don't spend enough time at the "careful consideration" step.
Yes there's a pattern there isn't there? From my point of view what it reflects is the fact that hardly anyone ever gives the slightest credence to anything I say, even when I knock myself out coming up with evidence. I've sometimes barely had a chance to think through the position I just came to before I'm barraged with a million objections of varying degrees of validity, most of them just wild shots against "the creationist." So I am determined to find a way to show all the objections wrong and I may sometimes overshoot the mark. Nevertheless the objections are in fact open to criticism. When they are really on target I think I'm pretty good at acknowledging it.
The very few times someone recognizes a good point in my arguments are so rare I feel like framing them and hanging them on the wall. But it never lasts long. I know I'm right at least half of the times I'm treated like this. Why don't you point out THAT pattern?
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Blue Jay, posted 03-06-2016 1:13 PM Blue Jay has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by nwr, posted 03-06-2016 8:00 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 126 of 165 (779639)
03-06-2016 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by NoNukes
03-06-2016 11:40 AM


Re: explaining things
Amazing. You did it again.
You pick out things I say and make them mean something else.
No, I did not do that. I quoted you exactly.
But what you quoted was not relevant to the point I was making, which is one of the things you do that drive me crazy. The quote was about KNOWING gays, now I'm talking about kowledge of psychology. I gave a little list of things you do that drive me crazy by somehow misreading my posts. This is one of them.
...does not imply I didn't know a lot about psychology, family pscyholgoy, the development of sexual identity and all that, from reading, and from practical experience among psychologists as a "paraprofessional."
Are you now making the claim to have read up on all of that and done all that?
I'm claiming to have read a LOT and worked with a group of pscyhologists for many years.
Are you claiming to be a paraprofessional in psychology?
I'm claiming I used to be. You DO have trouble reading, don't you?
When I became a Christian I gave up most of my old life. Well, all of it really. But I still think psychologically where it fits.
You haven't given any research whatever to prove your claim that I'm wrong about my thoughts. And actually, my thoughts are so general your objections are ridiculous anyway.
ABE: You know what makes me hold onto my general thoughts against your research claim? The fact that my thoughts seem to be considered INSULTING to gays. Insults and offense are a red flag that we're losing touch with reality and entering PC territory. That suggests that there's a strong PC drift to deny any psychological element at all in the formation of gay identity, and PC drift certainly can occur in research. All you have to do is define your terms so that they couldn't apply to any known reality, then declare their failure to fit the experience of gays to prove they're irrelevant.
So, if you want me to take current research seriously, you're going to have to present it in a serious fashion.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by NoNukes, posted 03-06-2016 11:40 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by NoNukes, posted 03-06-2016 11:10 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 129 by Pressie, posted 03-07-2016 6:32 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 130 by NoNukes, posted 03-07-2016 1:50 PM Faith has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


(1)
Message 127 of 165 (779654)
03-06-2016 8:00 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by Faith
03-06-2016 3:45 PM


Re: explaining things
From my point of view what it reflects is the fact that hardly anyone ever gives the slightest credence to anything I say, even when I knock myself out coming up with evidence.
I don't doubt that you knock yourself out. I give credence to that.
I might not give credence to what you present as evidence. But that's a different issue entirely. That you said it does not make it evidence. What makes it evidence has to be found in what is presented. If I find it wanting, this is not a matter of giving you credence. If I consider what you present, that is already giving you all of the credence that is appropriate. But whether I find the presentation persuasive has to come from the content, not from the fact that you presented it.

Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Faith, posted 03-06-2016 3:45 PM Faith has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 128 of 165 (779674)
03-06-2016 11:10 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by Faith
03-06-2016 4:21 PM


Re: explaining things
But what you quoted was not relevant to the point I was making
Yes it was relevant. It revealed that your personal experience with gays was extremely limited based on your own words.
I'm claiming to have read a LOT and worked with a group of pscyhologists for many years.
You claimed something like 'parapsychologist' or something like that. I know what people who are paralegals do, and it is not practice law. Surely you are not going to tell me that your experience allowed you to observe patients and reach conclusions. And you did not deal with gay people other than distantly.
Are you now claiming that you've read material that supports the propositions that I questioned in this thread? Because your carefully worded statements never get around to actually saying that or to telling me why you have a basis for knowing where the gay voice comes from.
You know what makes me hold onto my general thoughts against your research claim? The fact that my thoughts seem to be considered INSULTING to gays.
Thanks. Now I no longer have to guess about the purity of your motivation. Thanks for also confirming the actual meaning of PC.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Faith, posted 03-06-2016 4:21 PM Faith has not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 129 of 165 (779693)
03-07-2016 6:32 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by Faith
03-06-2016 4:21 PM


Re: explaining things
Faith writes:
I'm claiming I used to be.
So, Faith, were you quite an easy person for carnal gratitude?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Faith, posted 03-06-2016 4:21 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by NoNukes, posted 03-07-2016 1:51 PM Pressie has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 130 of 165 (779730)
03-07-2016 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by Faith
03-06-2016 4:21 PM


Re: explaining things
So, if you want me to take current research seriously, you're going to have to present it in a serious fashion.
I don't want you to take current research seriously. (And we really are not talking about anything all that modern). Whether you lean or lean not to your own understanding is up to you. If making decisions based on the evidence were your mode of operation, you would have looked the stuff up yourself at some point.
I'm not trying to convince you of anything, because I know I could never do that. I know from experience that if the stack of evidence gets too high, you are perfectly capable of simply denying it. I expect you to continue along the same lines you as you do now. Keep on thinking "psychologically" or "geologically" or whatever. I'm not trying to change you. I like you just fine the way you are.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Faith, posted 03-06-2016 4:21 PM Faith has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 131 of 165 (779731)
03-07-2016 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by Pressie
03-07-2016 6:32 AM


Re: explaining things
Seriously bro? That's effed up.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Pressie, posted 03-07-2016 6:32 AM Pressie has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 132 of 165 (779751)
03-07-2016 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by ringo
03-06-2016 1:52 PM


I wonder if it's possible to type gay on the Internet?
Like, OMG, totally, right?

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by ringo, posted 03-06-2016 1:52 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Theodoric, posted 03-08-2016 10:46 AM Jon has replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 611 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 133 of 165 (779769)
03-08-2016 8:55 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by Faith
03-04-2016 2:35 PM


Re: some odds and ends
You mean, it comes from your interpretation of the biblical perspective, which is taken more from later misinterpretation of the letter of Paul and the Torah.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Faith, posted 03-04-2016 2:35 PM Faith has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(6)
Message 134 of 165 (779773)
03-08-2016 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by ringo
03-06-2016 1:52 PM


I wonder if it's possible to type gay on the Internet?
FABULOUS!!!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by ringo, posted 03-06-2016 1:52 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 135 of 165 (779784)
03-08-2016 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 132 by Jon
03-07-2016 6:16 PM


That would be valleyspeak, something completely different.
Valley girl - Wikipedia

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Jon, posted 03-07-2016 6:16 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by NoNukes, posted 03-08-2016 10:54 AM Theodoric has replied
 Message 138 by Jon, posted 03-08-2016 6:49 PM Theodoric has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024