While I agree that gay people should have identical rights, it doesn't make sense that this Rorschach study was touted as "groundbreaking" research attributed for so much of this cultural shift. Rorschach studies are interpretive styles of psychological measurements and don't really show anything more than subjective differences from the interpreter. Maybe they were more accepted as scientific in the 1930s and 40s, but I find it aggravating that such an important issue was utilizing such a flimsy style of research as scientific "ammunition".
Oh please are you really upset or just mad they didn't consult a religious "Rorschach" which given the endless variety of interpretations, behavior and denominations is far far worse metric but given endless authority. She couldn't do much number crunching without a laptop either. We have morons doubting basic virology these days 🙄
They basically showed there was no statistically significant difference between the gay man and straight men on how they perceived or interpreted Rorschach. Before that there was no statistically relevant study which could ascertain whether or not there are differences between gay and straight men based on some psychological test parameters.
"Maybe they were more accepted as scientific in the 1930s and 40s" Yes. Exactly. Which is why this study sparked the beginning of the gay rights movement *in the 40s*. Nobody uses this study in the modern day, but it caused a big splash at its time.
The topic aside, I find it somewhat strange that the video implies that 1 study can actually "clearly and objectively disprove" something at all. I'm glad that the study was a flagship in the advancement of the human rights, but when it comes to scientific method, 1 paper should never be seen as a 100% proof of any truth, not even saying anything about the small data sample.
5:57 This should be stabled on every scientific "article," especially today where special interests regularly push cultural/political/financial value over scientific accuracy.
Well, I can assure you, the situation in India, specially in metro cities, most people don't really care if someone is gay or not. I can see this, because I am gay and my parents know about it. Even if my parents don't completely understand it, there are like it's your situation deal with it, whatever you want to do. Besides, I believe the recent Supreme court decisions on declaring homosexuality is not a crime and agreeing to the fact that Right to Privacy is a constitutional right, did help.
This is an interesting video but leaves the viewer somewhat confused. It seems that in the 1940's that this researcher was able to research and publish on homosexuality. That is something that we often brush over but in fact is very important. The most confusing part of this video is the admission that the original research used an opportunity sample (among the heterosexual participants although the selection process may have been more rigorous for the homosexual sample) which is a limitation of any study. Also using a Rorschach test has been shown in later research to be a limitation due to the rather important amount of subjective interpretation. This subjectivism was addressed in the video and complements to Dr Hooker for acknowledging this, however, what was the feature to control for this in the research? Also has anyone replicated the study? As we all know, initial research is often flawed due to the limitations of the design because it is new and untried. The video addresses further research but does not describe this (it seems that a researcher, especially the University of California, would recognize this to be very important). Given that political activism has reduced science and especially the questioning of anything that is not politically approved, it is surprising that the video gives the impression that political activism is a positive in scientific research instead of a negative. Negative, of course, in the sense that it can insert confirmation bias and otherwise corrupt the data leading to invalid results and conclusions. This is an interesting but rather disturbing video given that the video is presented in a scientific way. It is helpful in a historical way, however, and I wish the producers well.
If you read much of the comments, most people support the message of having equal rights and no problems with that aspect. They have a problem with how the video presents what is actuality not a very good study that is both limited in scope and significantly flawed. There are many much better studies out there that lend support. But this one is presented in a way that perpetuates some inconsistent and inaccurate practices like the ink blot test.
Everyone hates gays, tells them to get back in the closet, tons of innuendos and profanities spit at us, and constant harassment. Pride means to be proud of who you are, no matter who.
It's because there are people who think we should feel shame. And because a lot of us come from a place of shame. A big part of Pride is railing against the society that tried to make us feel ashamed for who we are.
I am a socially progressive person if you want to pigeon hole and make things so simplistic as that guys democratic that ones republucan or whatever labeling of canned good we are gonna be ..but echo chambers are not useful in critical thinking...I just saw this woman give a great video explanation and share her experience having to argue growing up as a teen in ohio and how nowadays she doesnt get challenged because her social circle is just liberals but that is narrow minded and a trapping...i wish i could remember her name..anyways
Are people naturally selfish and power hungry?🤔Watch our video on how the brain is wired to be kind: ruclips.net/video/SsWs6bf7tvI/видео.html
While I agree that gay people should have identical rights, it doesn't make sense that this Rorschach study was touted as "groundbreaking" research attributed for so much of this cultural shift. Rorschach studies are interpretive styles of psychological measurements and don't really show anything more than subjective differences from the interpreter. Maybe they were more accepted as scientific in the 1930s and 40s, but I find it aggravating that such an important issue was utilizing such a flimsy style of research as scientific "ammunition".
Oh please are you really upset or just mad they didn't consult a religious "Rorschach" which given the endless variety of interpretations, behavior and denominations is far far worse metric but given endless authority. She couldn't do much number crunching without a laptop either. We have morons doubting basic virology these days 🙄
Hmm could someone give me a more tangible research using a better method. Because I genuinely am curious.
They basically showed there was no statistically significant difference between the gay man and straight men on how they perceived or interpreted Rorschach. Before that there was no statistically relevant study which could ascertain whether or not there are differences between gay and straight men based on some psychological test parameters.
"Maybe they were more accepted as scientific in the 1930s and 40s"
Yes. Exactly. Which is why this study sparked the beginning of the gay rights movement *in the 40s*. Nobody uses this study in the modern day, but it caused a big splash at its time.
Whatever works 💁🏻♂️
Thank goodness for Evelyn Hooker.
The topic aside, I find it somewhat strange that the video implies that 1 study can actually "clearly and objectively disprove" something at all. I'm glad that the study was a flagship in the advancement of the human rights, but when it comes to scientific method, 1 paper should never be seen as a 100% proof of any truth, not even saying anything about the small data sample.
Ya, especially when it comes to psychology and other social science. Multiple researches using different methodology are needed.
No explanation as to why an ink-blot test would be the correct method of testing.
5:57 This should be stabled on every scientific "article," especially today where special interests regularly push cultural/political/financial value over scientific accuracy.
Try to use roshchar drawings today in a serious study hahaha
Well. This still thinks happens in other countries. Pakistan, India and other countries in Africa.
Poor peoples
Now India is out of that situation. LGBT community is now legalised by government of India.
Well, I can assure you, the situation in India, specially in metro cities, most people don't really care if someone is gay or not. I can see this, because I am gay and my parents know about it. Even if my parents don't completely understand it, there are like it's your situation deal with it, whatever you want to do. Besides, I believe the recent Supreme court decisions on declaring homosexuality is not a crime and agreeing to the fact that Right to Privacy is a constitutional right, did help.
Do we have more modern studies or data for this question?
Gonna cruise with her when I die😌♥️
Same lol
One study? Ok it's phycology you can't make things black or white.
👍
This is dr. Evelyn Hooker…….. she gay
"Woe to them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness... --Isaiah 5:20
"Religion is the opium of the masses"
@gilbert Nonsense. Born eunuchs from the womb, said Jesus. Matthew 19:12
Subjective morality can not determine objective morality....
Explain
BS
I thought objective morality doesn't exist? Even though morality is objective, being objective about certain moral is impossible.
Is there any "objective morality"?
@@RATsnak3 It's not that hard, is it?
nice bs keep missleading the world u doing a hella job 4 our bosses.. they will give u n extra trate
Rigth wing rant. Predictable.
The comment section is gonna be interesting
Great video Greg! Very well done :)
Is that Tina Belcher's voice?
my thoughts too
Why would this not have come up in my feed upon release?! I'm long-since subscribed, and this was usefully informative.
This is an interesting video but leaves the viewer somewhat confused. It seems that in the 1940's that this researcher was able to research and publish on homosexuality. That is something that we often brush over but in fact is very important. The most confusing part of this video is the admission that the original research used an opportunity sample (among the heterosexual participants although the selection process may have been more rigorous for the homosexual sample) which is a limitation of any study. Also using a Rorschach test has been shown in later research to be a limitation due to the rather important amount of subjective interpretation. This subjectivism was addressed in the video and complements to Dr Hooker for acknowledging this, however, what was the feature to control for this in the research? Also has anyone replicated the study? As we all know, initial research is often flawed due to the limitations of the design because it is new and untried. The video addresses further research but does not describe this (it seems that a researcher, especially the University of California, would recognize this to be very important). Given that political activism has reduced science and especially the questioning of anything that is not politically approved, it is surprising that the video gives the impression that political activism is a positive in scientific research instead of a negative. Negative, of course, in the sense that it can insert confirmation bias and otherwise corrupt the data leading to invalid results and conclusions. This is an interesting but rather disturbing video given that the video is presented in a scientific way. It is helpful in a historical way, however, and I wish the producers well.
Come on... we know that gay is not a disabilities. We just hate something that's different or we're used to
exactly
Yeah even in 2021 :-(
Madness of Crowds by Douglas Murray brought me here!
I was stunned by how poorly this book was argued, and in fact mostly unreadable, because it was a rant. I am just sorry I spent money on it
How did 1 fourth of viewers dislike this video??
If you read much of the comments, most people support the message of having equal rights and no problems with that aspect. They have a problem with how the video presents what is actuality not a very good study that is both limited in scope and significantly flawed. There are many much better studies out there that lend support. But this one is presented in a way that perpetuates some inconsistent and inaccurate practices like the ink blot test.
I'm not gay. I don't judge someone for their orientation. But have to ask, What's the "Pride" associated with being gay?
Everyone hates gays, tells them to get back in the closet, tons of innuendos and profanities spit at us, and constant harassment. Pride means to be proud of who you are, no matter who.
Be proud of yourself in the face of hatred...... at least, thats my interpretation of pride.
It's because there are people who think we should feel shame. And because a lot of us come from a place of shame. A big part of Pride is railing against the society that tried to make us feel ashamed for who we are.
That's like asking, "What's the pride in being Black?".
Pride is celebrating how LGBT can live and be themselves without being oppressed over something they couldn't control :-)
This is a bias video and it is lying to you
we are both Spongebob
more like it doesn't have a conservative bias.
I am a socially progressive person if you want to pigeon hole and make things so simplistic as that guys democratic that ones republucan or whatever labeling of canned good we are gonna be ..but echo chambers are not useful in critical thinking...I just saw this woman give a great video explanation and share her experience having to argue growing up as a teen in ohio and how nowadays she doesnt get challenged because her social circle is just liberals but that is narrow minded and a trapping...i wish i could remember her name..anyways
This is an actual study by a real scientst
@@yoshisarethebomb ha ha ha funny I wonder who funded those scientists who happen to be far left people. It’s not science when it’s bias