I don't see how this is newsworthy or even specific to being gay or any other behavior. Though I guess is may not be common-knowledge yet among the layman yet? It's pretty well established that...
I don't see how this is newsworthy or even specific to being gay or any other behavior. Though I guess is may not be common-knowledge yet among the layman yet? It's pretty well established that everything about us - from height and eye color to natural talents and temperament - are influenced by both nature and nurture. And, as far as genetics are concerned, prediction is so poor because everything is polygenic, even distant and seemingly unrelated genes can affect each other.
These sorts of comments really grind my gears a bit actually. The content isn't superfluous, the source isn't low quality, and it's not an appeal to some kind of circlejerk generator. If you don't...
I don't think it's worthy of a Tildes discussion
These sorts of comments really grind my gears a bit actually. The content isn't superfluous, the source isn't low quality, and it's not an appeal to some kind of circlejerk generator.
If you don't like the post or are uninterested in it, in lieu of it actually being not high enough quality to be on Tildes, you don't need to comment. Personally I find the genetics & environmental factors that influence sexuality to be a fascinating topic.
Tildes cannot afford to become so stifling and picky about content discussion so early on in its incubation phase. It'll do nothing but drive new users away.
Fair enough. Maybe I misinterpreted. It's very easy to fall into the trap that all is right in the gay/lesbian world though, there's so many parts of even the western world where prevailing...
Fair enough. Maybe I misinterpreted. It's very easy to fall into the trap that all is right in the gay/lesbian world though, there's so many parts of even the western world where prevailing opinion and consensus is just downright backwards.
Though to be honest, as someone who prides themselves in good communication that was complete shit. Lesson learned... It's nice to have a productive community here.
Though to be honest, as someone who prides themselves in good communication that was complete shit.
Lesson learned... It's nice to have a productive community here.
Not every topic needs to be "discussion worthy" to be submitted, IMO, as simply informing people is just as valid a reason for something to be posted. And this is also the LGBT group, so this...
Not every topic needs to be "discussion worthy" to be submitted, IMO, as simply informing people is just as valid a reason for something to be posted. And this is also the LGBT group, so this article and the related study is particularly relevant here.
Mea culpa, I didn't mean to be that critical. I meant it more in an exasperated way as in - I can't believe we're still talking about this as a society.
Mea culpa, I didn't mean to be that critical. I meant it more in an exasperated way as in - I can't believe we're still talking about this as a society.
Gotcha, and yeah I feel the same about most issues like this too. E.g. The fact the "it's a choice" fallacy is still somehow floating around is incredibly agitating and disheartening.
Gotcha, and yeah I feel the same about most issues like this too. E.g. The fact the "it's a choice" fallacy is still somehow floating around is incredibly agitating and disheartening.
Even as a scientific finding, without the cultural context regarding sexuality, it's still worthy of sharing and talking about. All scientific knowledge is valuable.
I can't believe we're still talking about this as a society.
Even as a scientific finding, without the cultural context regarding sexuality, it's still worthy of sharing and talking about. All scientific knowledge is valuable.
You missed my context - I agree all knowledge is valuable. I was alluding to my exasperation that mainstream discourse has not caught up to the latest science. Coming from someone who complained...
You missed my context - I agree all knowledge is valuable. I was alluding to my exasperation that mainstream discourse has not caught up to the latest science.
Even as a scientific finding, without the cultural context regarding sexuality, it's still worthy of sharing and talking about. All scientific knowledge is valuable.
Coming from someone who complained and argued against that certain types of articles (paid/subscription) be shared, I find this deeply ironic.
That's not what you said, though. It took multiple people replying to you to get that out of you. And, I was pointing out that, even without the context of this information being related to the...
I was alluding to my exasperation that mainstream discourse has not caught up to the latest science.
That's not what you said, though. It took multiple people replying to you to get that out of you. And, I was pointing out that, even without the context of this information being related to the contentious topic of sexuality, the scientific data is still worthy of being shared. Even if homosexuality was boring, it's still interesting to learn stuff.
Coming from someone who complained and argued against that certain types of articles (paid/subscription) be shared, I find this deeply ironic.
If someone posts an article that's locked behind a paywall, then they're not sharing any knowledge. It's perfectly consistent: knowledge should be shared, but information locked behind a paywall is, by definition, not able to be shared.
Well, it's not dramatic, but it's a major study about something the public is interested in, so I guess they had to try to summarize the results somehow? I'm glad they didn't try to hype the results.
Well, it's not dramatic, but it's a major study about something the public is interested in, so I guess they had to try to summarize the results somehow? I'm glad they didn't try to hype the results.
I don't see how this is newsworthy or even specific to being gay or any other behavior. Though I guess is may not be common-knowledge yet among the layman yet? It's pretty well established that everything about us - from height and eye color to natural talents and temperament - are influenced by both nature and nurture. And, as far as genetics are concerned, prediction is so poor because everything is polygenic, even distant and seemingly unrelated genes can affect each other.
The only trait that we know of so far that can be 100% predicted from a single gene is earwax type.
There are many people out there that believe it's totally genetic, and many that believe that it's a genetic disorder.
Yeah fair enough. My assumption of audience expertise is biased to Tildes. Hence my criticism (I don't think it's worthy of a Tildes discussion).
These sorts of comments really grind my gears a bit actually. The content isn't superfluous, the source isn't low quality, and it's not an appeal to some kind of circlejerk generator.
If you don't like the post or are uninterested in it, in lieu of it actually being not high enough quality to be on Tildes, you don't need to comment. Personally I find the genetics & environmental factors that influence sexuality to be a fascinating topic.
Tildes cannot afford to become so stifling and picky about content discussion so early on in its incubation phase. It'll do nothing but drive new users away.
See my reply to cfabbro (posted before yours now)
Fair enough. Maybe I misinterpreted. It's very easy to fall into the trap that all is right in the gay/lesbian world though, there's so many parts of even the western world where prevailing opinion and consensus is just downright backwards.
Not that this study will change those opinions.
See Jake's response above. They didn't mean it in the way either of us read it.
Though to be honest, as someone who prides themselves in good communication that was complete shit.
Lesson learned... It's nice to have a productive community here.
Not every topic needs to be "discussion worthy" to be submitted, IMO, as simply informing people is just as valid a reason for something to be posted. And this is also the LGBT group, so this article and the related study is particularly relevant here.
Mea culpa, I didn't mean to be that critical. I meant it more in an exasperated way as in - I can't believe we're still talking about this as a society.
Gotcha, and yeah I feel the same about most issues like this too. E.g. The fact the "it's a choice" fallacy is still somehow floating around is incredibly agitating and disheartening.
Even as a scientific finding, without the cultural context regarding sexuality, it's still worthy of sharing and talking about. All scientific knowledge is valuable.
You missed my context - I agree all knowledge is valuable. I was alluding to my exasperation that mainstream discourse has not caught up to the latest science.
Coming from someone who complained and argued against that certain types of articles (paid/subscription) be shared, I find this deeply ironic.
That's not what you said, though. It took multiple people replying to you to get that out of you. And, I was pointing out that, even without the context of this information being related to the contentious topic of sexuality, the scientific data is still worthy of being shared. Even if homosexuality was boring, it's still interesting to learn stuff.
If someone posts an article that's locked behind a paywall, then they're not sharing any knowledge. It's perfectly consistent: knowledge should be shared, but information locked behind a paywall is, by definition, not able to be shared.
Well, it's not dramatic, but it's a major study about something the public is interested in, so I guess they had to try to summarize the results somehow? I'm glad they didn't try to hype the results.
I've modified the title a little to include more context from the study.