Well I wasn't aggravated, I had an appointment I needed to get to (at 12:45), but after reading this post I am. With that, you're welcome to do your own research. Those decisions regarding the orientation were, btw, evaluations made based on the self-reported behavior of the participants.Um...a few posts back, I stated I was commenting on your criticisms, from the lens of this particular study, so that we can cleanly and precicely target our dialogue, without talking about "original studies" out there (without any specific references). Which, thanks for the offer of wanting to provide for me. I'll stick to this study for now.
I think we are understanding behaviour to be two different things in this instance. I'm talking of explicit behaviour as a measurement of a reaction to a given stimulus. You are talking of homosexual behaviour to be interchangeable with how one is defining homsexuality (I agree with this). (e.g., this original study talked of previous studies that looked at brain imaging when they had the subjects 'smell' pheremones and quantifying arousal, and that, it was SPECIFICALLY controlling for such indication of 'behavioural' response, so that it can cleanly look at what the brain is telling at a 'resting phase', i.e., no stimulus with reactionary behaviour)
To elucidate -
From the original article/the study:
However,the major purpose of the present study was to investigate how the rCBF covaries between the amygdala and the rest of the brain during a condition not associated with perceptive, emotional, or cognitive tasks, which could be linked to sexual orientation or behavior.
By prompting subjects to concentrate on breathing the room air we aimed to minimize variations caused by spontaneous reflections or judgments.
And, this is how they grouped the subjects on homosexuality versus heterosexuality:
Subjects. Twenty-fiveHeM(age 304 years), 25HeW(age 314 years), 20HoM (age 32 7 years), and 20 HoW (age 31 5 years) were included. All subjects participated in the MR study, and 50 of them (13 HeM, 13 HeW, 12 HoM, and 12 HoW) also participated in the PET studies. All of the subjects were right-handed (60), healthy, and HIV negative. The heterosexual men and women all scored 0, thehomosexual men,and the homosexual womenon average 5.5 on the Kinsey heterosexual/homosexual scale (0 maximally heterosexual, 6 maximally homosexual) (61). In addition to scoring themselves on the Kinsey scale (which is based on self-identification), the subjects also participated in interviews regarding three dimensions of sexual orientation (fantasy, romantic attraction, and sexual behavior) over consecutive 5-year historical time periods, from age 16 to the present (5, 62). All decisions about subjects’ sexual orientation were made in ignorance of the subjects’ PET and MR data.
Meaning, it is more than just behaviours.
Fair enough, but I don't know why you seem aggravated with my countering you, I usually ask for precise clarifications before I tackle a point of another so that I don't wrongly assume their point of view/put words in their mouth, etc (also, it gave me the chance to really read up on the article, stalling time, and all, can't read too fast. ). Nothing more, really.
And, my initial engagement with you was in regards to your criticism of this scientic study and tackling those criticisms that you agreed with, through your initial agreement with another poster (avolkiteshvara) on this thread. Hence, leaving our conversation in this thread versus PM. I'm interested in talking about the OP topic, including dialogue from all out there, through our discourse, and the study it relates to, and criticisms on this thread brought up by it (one of them happened to be you). Not about yours or mine's personal investment (lack of) in it.
I spar when a topic interests me, regardless of the pretty face who writes on the topic. I don't pick topics by people, but by the interest piqued in the topic itself. Regardless, my apologies for my supposed aggravation caused in you.
For anyone else, I hunted down the original article (I despise reading scientific studies summarized by pop media, and go to the primary source).
Savic, I., & Lindstrom, P. (2008). PET and MRI show differences in cerebral asymmetry and functional connectivity between homo- and heterosexual subjects. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(27), 9403-9408.
I found a free access to this article (early print edition):
PET and MRI show differences in cerebral asymmetry and functional connectivity between homo- and heterosexual subjects — PNAS