Question:
I can't say that I agree with this. They've yet to find
any trait in psychology that it more than 50% heritable. That's why I'm big
on the diathesis-stress model. This includes having a genetic
predisposition, and then external factors triggering the trait to be shown.
(I'm overanalyzing, aren't I?)
Answer:
There's no question that, as a result of your DNA, you will have heavy
neurological connections between genitals and brain (just as the human hand
has, compared to, say, the middle of your back). In past decades various
groups have pushed the argument around for political ends, which is a way to
get nowhere.
Beyond the original layout of your nervous system, vascular and hormonal
arrangements (kicking in later), the overwhelming probability is that your
proclivity (love that word) is something you've learned. We like to think
our society doesn't contain either cues or reasons for individuals to go in
these directions.
By saying "learned" I don't mean any direct copying from seeing mummy
put over daddy's knee, but learned as a way of coping with some problem
you've encountered along the way. (Nowadays you might get a direct
suggestion out of the media, thirty years back the suggestions were more
obscure; but, in any case, authority and punishment are the primary model
we're all aware of.)
As someone who doesn't have much faith in the modern practice of psychology
(but nevertheless respect for intelligent people who do) I don't know anything
about this diathesis-stress model except what you've explained above, so
forgive my ignorance if the following is tediously obvious to the better
informed.
How does it address other forms of "deviance" from the sexual "norm" such as,
for instance, homosexuality? In my experience, homosexual individuals often
(not always) object strenuously to the notion that their preferences are
influenced in any way by external, variable "triggers" such as upbringing, etc.
because of the implication for the anti-gay contingency - that people aren't
*born* with that preference, and if reared properly it can and should be
avoided. How does the diathesis-stress model account for that? Is it that
homosexuality is considered a completely physical trait rather than a
psychological one? (though I can't imagine buying into that theory, personally)
That, in a maddening and frustrating attempt to gain tolerance and acceptance,
these homosexual individuals are making the wrong argument, and that in fact
their sexuality isn't inherent to their being, but that they have a right to
tolerance anyway because it's nobody's damned business? Or something else
altogether that my formally psychologically untrained mind just isn't seeing?
Usually my class attendance (or lack thereof) in comparison to my grades is the
stuff of legends, but I live in constant fear that if I don't show up, or even
doze off for a second, that it'll suddenly get really hard and I'll flunk.
Math has been the bane of my existence since we started learning multiplication
tables in grade school. So ironically, I'm getting higher 90s in statistics
than in the classes I enjoy because while I never study for those and make
stupid mistakes as a result, I practically *dream* about statistics on exam
weeks I'm so focused and well-prepared.
