"Atheist psychiatrist argues that gays can change," reports Christianity Today.
That subheadline, a misquote, is refuted by the story’s first paragraph — which acknowledges that only "some" people can sustain significant change in sexual attraction after undergoing various exgay programs.
In the interview that follows, Columbia University professor Dr. Robert L. Spitzer acknowledges the following:
- Spitzer submitted a summary of results during his 2001 study of exgays to the head of NARTH, Joseph Nicolosi, as a price to obtain Nicolosi’s further assistance with the study.
- Spitzer misrepresents the clearly explained objections of his colleagues to the methodological weaknesses of his study.
- Spitzer indicates he is not particularly interested in knowing whether the "change" is only temporary.
Spitzer says:
Some people have said, "Follow these people,
interview them five years later, see how many of them have switched
back," since it’s well known that some ex-gays give it up.But suppose you found that 5 percent or 10 percent
did switch back. I mean, so what? You’d find the same thing if you
followed people who had treatment for drug addiction. Some are going to
relapse.The study that ought to be done is a controlled
study where people go into the therapy, and then you initially evaluate
them, and then you evaluate them later and see how many actually
changed. But that study is not going to be done, unfortunately.
Spitzer’s interest in knowing only half the truth — and some gay scientists’ disinterest in conducting any studies at all — are equally regrettable.
Without studies of the long-term impact of exgay therapies, prospective patients can only guess which exgay programs (if any) will be effective, and which ones are ineffective or counterproductive.
You might want to alter that headline– RSS readers just see the headline until you click on it, and subscribers might interpret that headline to mean that it has something to do with NY Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, since he has been in the news so much lately–I did.
Michael, good point. Thanks. I’ve changed the headline so that it doesn’t refer specifically to “Spitzer.”
Spitzer: “…Within the gay community, there was initially tremendous anger and feeling that I had betrayed them. I think that has largely dissipated…”
Huh? Speaking for myself, I’m still pissed about his “study” which seemed to be about getting his name back in print. I think he is misinterpreting that fact that he is being ignored and dismissed.
What undermines Spitzer’s credibility is that he admits that seeking attention is part of his motivation. According to a 2001 article in The Advocate, he states, “I’m willing to admit that I like controversy and to be in the center of burning debates.” Although he claimed to be uncomfortable associating with right-wing groups or advocating reparative therapy then, four years later he seems to have changed his mind and is willing to stir-up news with a conservative Christian publication.
It’s great that Spitzer advocates a controlled study. I also agree with his doubts about a controlled study being viable. What should be possible though, is a comprehensive definition of a reparative therapy program. Even if ex-gay promoters are not scientists, they should have an interest in identifying what parts of reparative therapy are effective.
So you think that he is nothing but an attention-whore? It’s no surprise you would feel this way, considering the fact that the media has totally misrepresented his views. After doing much research, here’s what he really thinks:
1) He believes that those who are able to shift their orientation towards a “more” heterosexual orientation are in the minority. (I say “more” because a complete shift is highly unlikely).
2) He believes that groups like Exodus tend to inflate their success rates. The real success rates are probably much lower.
3) He supports gay rights and gay marriage.
I can find the quotes later, but as of now I don’t have the time. The results of his study were quite modest. He did not find anything out that people did not already know. Regardless, I don’t see his study as something worth getting angry over, especially when a magazine like the Advocate publishes a sound bite like that. I see him as a scientist who had sincere intentions, but whose study was hijacked and exploited by conservative bigots with an ideological agenda.
That’s nice, Benny, but apparently Spitzer has a tin ear. He must have one since he obviously doesn’t understand how his idiotic “study” might be spun by the anti-gay crowd.
I have a few problems with a “scientist” giving such an interview:
Spitzer states:
“But from the very first people that I talked to, I had the feeling they were talking about something real.”
and
“You talk to people and you get a sense of whether they’re being candid or not. I had the sense that they were. Also, there was a consistency, the fact that the change was described as slow and not immediate.”
Scientists are supposed to base their findings on FACTS, not feelings. He interviewed these people over the telephone, which deprived him seeing the actual body language, limiting his ability to judge their truthfulness.
Remember, a large portion of his subjects were employees of, or spokespeople for, the “ex-gay” movement. When people advocate something they may experience “cognitive dissonance” if they don’t actually have the faith or facts to back up what their saying. However, because they have made public statements, they may feel the need to back up those statements, even by stretching the truth, because of their need to maintain their reputation for accuracy. It is a very common phenomenon in psychology, and one reason why anyone currently involved, particularly receiving a paycheck from, the “ex-gay” movement should not have been included in his study.
Spitzer goes on to dismiss a follow-up study:
“No. I feel a little battle fatigue. But also I’m not sure what the study would be. Some people have said, ‘Follow these people, interview them five years later, see how many of them have switched back,’ since it’s well known that some ex-gays give it up.
But suppose you found that 5 percent or 10 percent did switch back. I mean, so what? You’d find the same thing if you followed people who had treatment for drug addiction. Some are going to relapse.”
Aside from the negative connotations of homosexuality (it is an addiction, people relapse into it), the point Spitzer is missing is that the findings are not solid UNLESS they are sustainable. And not “some” ex-gays who “relapse” – critics charge MOST relapse. A follow-up study of the same individuals would at least give an idea of how this group of “success cases” made out.
But the real kicker is here:
“The reasons are, number one, reparative therapists are not scientists—they don’t do studies. The second reason is, if somebody proposed that the National Institute of Mental Health do such a study, I think almost certainly any gays in the study section would say this is a total waste of time: They would say, We already know it’s hokum, so why do it?”
He comes right out and says it – “reparative therapists are not scientists.” That should be the most damning phrase of the whole article.
As for NIMH, are they the only ones who could fund a study? Are not the “ex-gay” groups funded and supported by “religious” organizations who could easily raise the funds for a follow-up to the original study, at least? Was NIMH the grantor for Spitzer’s survey (if so, we should demand our $$ back, it is methodologically bad research, at best)?
Benny, I agree with you that Spitzer doesn’t seem to be anti-gay. But, his study was hijacked by the conservative group, completely misrepresented (shouldn’t he have seen this coming?), and then he did little to squash the hijacking. In his interview linked by Mike, he could have easily stressed the point that his opinion is that some gays (very few- he once said he thought it was around 3% or so I believe) could change. He didn’t even though he knows people have used his study to say that gays (read: all gays) can change.
On a separate note, in the interview I read this, “I guess it surprised me how convincing the accounts were… But from the very first people that I talked to, I had the feeling they were talking about something real.” This study was an “interview” basically of seemingly biased participants referred primarily from biased sources. Then he goes on to say that he had the “feeling” that they were being honest. This really makes the study sound pretty unscientific.
Benny: “So you think that he is nothing but an attention-whore? It’s no surprise you would feel this way, considering the fact that the media has totally misrepresented his views…”
As quoted in The Advocate article I referenced, Spitzer admits that he seeks attention and controversy (although he doesn’t use the term “attention whore”). The same Advocate article quotes him as being for gay marriage and rights.
Benny: “…I see him as a scientist who had sincere intentions, but whose study was hijacked and exploited by conservative bigots with an ideological agenda.”
He may have a sincere scientific interest in studying reparative therapy, but a wreckless way going about it. His “study” seemed to be completely pointless in that it only confirmed a bias groups’ proclamations, but offered no unbias way of confirming such claims.
TA: “[Spitzer] could have easily stressed the point that his opinion is that some gays…could change. He didn’t even though he knows people have used his study to say that gays (read: all gays) can change.”
Christianity Today’s Spitzer interview is so short, that I suspect the interviewer or editor would have snipped-out such comments. However, I agree that Spitzer has done a poor job refuting the mischaracterization of his “study”. The fact that Spitzer would agree to be interviewed by an “anti-gay” publication and not discuss how his “study” was misused seems to show that he is seeking some publicity in the waning days of his career.
Re: “The fact that Spitzer would agree to be interviewed by an “anti-gay” publication and not discuss how his “study” was misused seems to show that he is seeking some publicity in the waning days of his career.”
I wish I knew how to read Spitzer’s mind, but I have a strong suspicion that you are correct. I don’t know if it is an editing problem or if it is him pandering to whichever audience he is speaking to. He seems to do it a lot.
This is consistent with his self-professed thirst for controversy because once the inevitable firestorm breaks out, he gets to be interviewed by someone else to “clarify” what he said. I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s fielding calls from the Advocate as we speak.
Unfortunately, his “clarification” often doesn’t amount to much of a clarification at all, just a policy statement that gays should not be denied basic rights, etc.
Not only does he seems to change the tenor of his remarks depending on who he’s talking to, but he specifically continues to dodge every opportunity to clear up misconceptions by acknowledging what his study doesn’t prove. I suspect his reluctance to do so would mean having to acknowledge the gross deficiencies in his study as pointed out by his peers.
Furthermore, he had a chance in this interview to disassociate himself with those who abuse his flawed study. He apparently chose not to.
TA: “[Spitzer] could have easily stressed the point that his opinion is that some gays…could change. He didn’t even though he knows people have used his study to say that gays (read: all gays) can change.”
If you read his original study, you will see that he states that a complete orientation change is a rare occurence, and that this change only occurs in a minority. He states that the sheer difficulty in finding candidates seems to support this. Further, he states that it would be an atrocity if people were to misuse his study. Also, FYI he turned down an award from NARTH (they wanted to give him an award for his 2001 study on ex-gays) because he disagreed with their moral/religious views regarding homosexuality.
However, because he is not a politician, why place the burden of public service announcements on his shoulders? His study says what it says, however modest those findings were (the notion that “some” gays can experience a degree of change is hardly an impressive or ground breaking finding). Anybody who is truly interested in the heart of the matter should find out what his study is actually saying rather than relying on media distortions (both liberal and conservative).
We can draw a parallel here to Dean Hamar. Remember Dean Hamar? He is a prominent gay scientist who, in the early-mid 1990’s found that genes MAY play a significant role in male homosexuality. However, the media took his study and twisted it into a conclusive proof that gays were born that way (something that not even Hamar himself would admit, as he felt that environment also played a significant role). Yet, Hamar took no steps to clear up this mischaracterization of his study.
In the end, philosophy/ideology usurps science in the case of both Spitzer and Hamar. I guess that’s just life.
Benny | March 30, 2005 04:24 PM
If you read his (Spitzer’s) original study, you will see that he states that a complete orientation change is a rare occurence, and that this change only occurs in a minority.
I’ve read his original study. From what I read, I gleaned the methodology that he used in the study. Quite frankly, the methodology was so amazingly shoddy, that anyone who considers it to be a “scientific” study should have his head examined. Not by Spitzer, obviously.
My undergraduate and graduate work was in physics, so I’m hardly a stranger to science or the methodology of science. No scientist would believe that Spitzer’s study was in any way scientific.
Regardless. From what I read, Spitzer actually did try to take some steps to set the “record” straight after conservatives started to miss-use it. For example, when anti-gay activists in Finland tried to use the Spitzer “study” to oppose partnership registration of same-sex couples (their version of civil unions), Spitzer objected that they were misinterpreting his findings. See, for example, https://www2.helsinginsanomat.fi/english/archive/news.asp?id=20010926IE4
As far as I’m concerned, it isn’t an issue that Spitzer hasn’t tried to correct the miss-use of the results of his “study.” The issue is that the methodology of the study was fatally flawed from the very beginning.
Benny,
I agree that in the past Spitzer has taken some steps to clarify his position. I am familiar with this study and his later comments about it. My point, though, was directed at this particular interview. As someone that knows how his study has been portrayed and is being portrayed (innaccurately), whenever he gives an interview to a media outlet that might be in anyway be bias, he should go on record to be clear about the findings of his study. Is it too much to ask to have him be completely clear about what his study says every time he discusses it?
Sure, he is not a politician, but if he is being misrepresented, he should try to avoid that misrepresentation in the future by being clear up front.
As for Hamer, I realize the media did the same thing (sort of) with his study. I surmise that he was not as clear as he could have been when he was misrepresented because he liked the attention he was getting from the fanfare. I tend to agree that Spitzer is the same. But, Spitzer’s study, imo, is being used for more sinister motives than Hamer’s was.