How is Same sex attraction considered innate when it fails twin studies?
No.11151819 ViewReplyOriginalReport
Quoted By: >>11151937 >>11151977 >>11154058 >>11154146
I'm trying to keep this out of the pol and lgbt realms by sticking strictly to the research, but the question bares asking given the science there.
Bailey and Pillard studies in the 90s with small sampling showed that in Monozygotic twins same sex attraction was around 50%, which already is a strange phenomenon given they are genetically identical.
Bearman and Bruckner in the 2000s did a more comprehensive study and found it to be even smaller a concordance rate at 8% for same sex attraction.
Finally when working with the Langstrom and Lichtenstein studies in Sweden in 2010 we got similar low concordance results and had the highest amount of variance in biometric models found in "unique enviromental factors" at .64 against the genetic factors at only .19.
So granted that the twin study is the defacto level for culling out the genetic influence of traits and expressions, given that the subjects in question are genetically identical, clones if you will, how can same sex attraction be considered innate when it can't even pass the twin study? Even in the biometric models to shows to be way more influenced by environmental factors than any other variable.
Granted that Same Sex Attracted people make up about 2% of the population, and most factors pointing to small genetic predispositions, moderate pre-natal hormone influence, and large post-natal environmental issues, that Same Sex Attraction is just an aberration from the norm (And I mean that in the literal sense, not as a pejorative)?
Bailey and Pillard studies in the 90s with small sampling showed that in Monozygotic twins same sex attraction was around 50%, which already is a strange phenomenon given they are genetically identical.
Bearman and Bruckner in the 2000s did a more comprehensive study and found it to be even smaller a concordance rate at 8% for same sex attraction.
Finally when working with the Langstrom and Lichtenstein studies in Sweden in 2010 we got similar low concordance results and had the highest amount of variance in biometric models found in "unique enviromental factors" at .64 against the genetic factors at only .19.
So granted that the twin study is the defacto level for culling out the genetic influence of traits and expressions, given that the subjects in question are genetically identical, clones if you will, how can same sex attraction be considered innate when it can't even pass the twin study? Even in the biometric models to shows to be way more influenced by environmental factors than any other variable.
Granted that Same Sex Attracted people make up about 2% of the population, and most factors pointing to small genetic predispositions, moderate pre-natal hormone influence, and large post-natal environmental issues, that Same Sex Attraction is just an aberration from the norm (And I mean that in the literal sense, not as a pejorative)?
