Tuesday, July 24, 2012

Psychologists twist research results

A reader asked for more info about academic research that leftists try to censor. Here is the Mark Regnerus study showing that kids of LGBT parents do worse on the available meansures.

The Loren Marks study shows that American Psychological Association (APA) has misrepresented the research in legal briefs and arguments supporting same-sex marriage.

The APA is dominated by quacks who are ideologically committed to destroying the American family.

The same issue of Elsevier's Social Science Research has a Paul R. Amato essay try to keep readers from drawing the obvious conclusions from the above two studies. Amato is an advocate of same-sex marriage.

Amato writes:
It would be unfortunate if the findings from the Regnerus study were used to undermine the social progress that has been made in recent decades in protecting the rights of gays, lesbians, and their children. ...

To understand the implications of being raised from birth by two same-sex parents, researchers need to study children born through sperm donation or surrogacy. Yet we know relatively little about the newest generation of planned children with same-sex parents. ...

Second, the legality of same-sex marriage is a constitutional issue and not one that should be decided on the basis of social science research.
In other words, he wants to ignore the facts unless they promote the LGBT agenda.
Too much attention has been given to this evidence. Social science has produced a long list of parental characteristics that are statistically associated with children’s development and well-being, including personality traits, cognitive ability, education, earnings, mental health, child-rearing philosophies, and parenting skills. But we do not restrict the right to marry and raise children on the basis of any of these characteristics. When a particular parental behavior poses a clear danger to children’s health or well-being, the state will not hesitate to remove children from the parental home to prevent abuse or neglect. Unless a clear and imminent danger exists, however, the state does not regulate family life on the basis of parental characteristics that correlate — usually quite modestly — with child outcomes.
That last statement is false. The APA psychologists are in the business of writing recommendations for regulating family life, even when there is no clear danger to children’s health or well-being. The APA even has guidelines for it on its web site.
From a civil rights perspective, one could argue that all children should have the right to be raised by married parents.
As noted last week, we have a culture war in America. The liberals and Democrats are overwhelmingly dedicated to laws, policies, and propaganda to destroy the right of a child to be raised by his married parents. They openly mock the Ozzie-and-Harriet family model as antiquated.
This is not a debate that can be adjudicated on the basis of social science research. The Regnerus study makes an important contribution to our understanding of how a variety of childhood family environments are related to outcomes among young adult offspring. But these findings — and for that matter, any social research findings — should not be used to restrict the civil rights of any group of individuals.
I agree that we do not need social science research to know that kids have a right to be reared by their parents. It has been the belief of civilized society for millennia. The Regnerus study just adds a small amount of confirmation.

But it is the liberal social scientists who are attempting to inject bogus social science into a political debate.

A Scientific American Mind article said:
The guidelines judges and psychologists use to decide child custody cases have little basis in science.
Other scholars say the same:
"Psychologists don't have the knowledge to do what they attempt to do when they do custody evaluations," he said.

Many custody decisions, he said, involve not scientific findings, but competing values, like a father's wish that his child excel in sports versus the mother's emphasis on studying.
And yet the APA supports a whole industry doing this bogus anti-family work.

13 comments:

Anonymous said...

I don't believe that..

They openly mock the Ozzie-and-Harriet family model as antiquated. but, evn if they did, consider the following..

Twenty-five years later, Nelson told the Los Angeles Weekly he hated school because it "smelled of pencils" and he was forced to rise early in the morning to attend.At Hollywood High, Nelson was blackballed by the Elksters, a fraternity of a dozen conservative sports-loving teens who thought him too wild.[26][27] Many of the Elksters were family friends and spent weekends at the Nelson home playing basketball or relaxing around the pool.[27] In retaliation, he joined the Rooks, a greaser car club of sideburned high school teens clad in leather jackets and motorcycle boots.[27][28] He tattooed his hands, wrist, and shoulder with India ink and a sewing needle, slicked his hair with oil, and accompanied the Rooks on nocturnal forays along Hollywood Boulevard randomly harassing and beating up passersby.[27][28] Nelson was jailed twice in connection with incidents perpetrated by the Rooks, and escaped punishment after sucker-punching a police officer only through the intervention of his father.[28] Nelson's parents were alarmed. Their son's juvenile delinquency did little to enhance the All-American image of Ozzie and Harriet Nelson used marijuana early in his musical career, and became a regular user. He buried his stash in his yard. He supported marijuana's legalization. He tried mescaline, was a regular cocaine user and carried the drug in an empty ginseng capsule.[97][98]

During the Nelson divorce proceedings, he was accused by his wife's attorney of using cocaine, quaaludes, and other drugs, and of having "a severe drug problem" encouraged by his managers, his entourage, and his groupies. The attorney noted that Nelson's "personal manager" secured drugs for Nelson, wild parties took place in his home whether he was present or not, and his children, aware of his drug use, were in great physical danger from drugged persons entering and exiting the house at all hours.[99] Following Nelson's divorce, while he was involved with Helen Blair, his drug use grew so dire friends urged him to seek treatment for substance abuse.[100]

Nelson had a tremendous sexual appetite and a casual attitude toward sex, once estimating he had had sex with thousands of women.

What's to mock about the Nelson's family life and child rearing ?

George said...

When they mock Ozzie-and-Harriet, they are mocking what was portrayed on TV.

Anonymous said...

What exactly did Mark Leno say about a T.V. show ? or anything that was portrayed ? Didn't he mention, "Ozzie and Harriet" ?

Anonymous said...

What was portrayed on T.V...?

Many of the series storylines were taken from the Nelsons' real life.

Anonymous said...

You called it a "reality show"

"There was a 1950s TV show called Ozzie and Harriet. It was a scripted sitcom reallity show about a traditional American family."

Was it a lie, or reality ?

Anonymous said...

In other words, he wants to ignore the facts unless they promote the LGBT agenda.

This is not a fact ? "Yet we know relatively little about the newest generation of planned children with same-sex parents." ...

We do in fact, know a lot about these children, currently ?

This is not a fact either ?

"Second, the legality of same-sex marriage is a constitutional issue and not one that should be decided on the basis of social science research."

It is NOT a constitutional matter and should be decided on social science research ?

George said...

Same-sex marriage is a constitutional issue in the sense that California and many other states forbid it in their constitutions.

Anonymous said...

"Second, the legality of same-sex marriage is a constitutional issue and not one that should be decided on the basis of social science research."

"In other words, he wants to ignore the facts unless they promote the LGBT agenda."

So, why would you claim that he or they want to ignore the facts..etc" They're not promoting an agenda and ignoring the facts, you are. You're ignoring or "twisting" the facts and what's being said.

George said...

After years of psychologists claiming that research supports same-sex marriage, all of a sudden Amato says to ignore the research when he does not like the results of the latest research.

Anonymous said...

He didn't sy to ignore the research. He saying all of the research should be considered, and that same sex mariage is a constitutional issue. Which of this do you disagree with, or not ?

Anonymous said...

In other words, he wants to ignore the facts unless they promote the LGBT agenda.

This is not a fact ? "Yet we know relatively little about the newest generation of planned children with same-sex parents." ...

We do in fact, know a lot about these children, currently ?

This is not a fact either ?

"Second, the legality of same-sex marriage is a constitutional issue and not one that should be decided on the basis of social science research."

It is NOT a constitutional matter and should be decided on social science research ?

George said...

I will clarify tomorrow morning.

Anonymous said...

"clarify", I didn't expect that you would, and you didn't. Just another dodge.