For those who didn’t get to see the CNN special last week, here is what can only be described as a minor temper tantrum from the longtime head of the National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuals (NARTH). Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, who has often described gay people as fundamentally narcissistic, appears to earn such a diagnosis for himself.
Transcript
TUCHMAN (voice-over): Joseph Nicolosi often accuses the media of distorting his research. He was reluctant to speak with us.
(on camera): We were hoping we can talk to you when it’s over. NICOLOSI: Yes. OK. Well, I don’t think so.
TUCHMAN (voice-over): Eventually, he did agree to go on camera, but:
(on camera): You’re categorically saying that, if a father and son have a normal relationship, that child will not be gay?
NICOLOSI: Yes.
TUCHMAN: That’s a pretty strong statement, right?
NICOLOSI: You want to debate? Do you want an answer or you want to debate?
TUCHMAN: Well…
NICOLOSI: I gave you an answer.
TUCHMAN: Yes.
So, there are some stereotypes you talk about, how, you know, if a child’s effeminate, if he’s creative, he’s artistic, those are things to look out for. Is that fair to say?
NICOLOSI: Goodbye. You’re confusing effeminacy with artistic. I didn’t say artistic.
Here.
TUCHMAN: Hey, Doctor?
(voice-over): For the record, the word “artistic” is right here in the Love Won Out literature.
Ah, I had read the transcript for this and was hoping I could see a youtube clip. Thanks for posting 🙂
Right on David,
You saved me a trip! 🙂
https://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1132321812273913194
One can only feel sorry for those who work around him. This can’t be an isolated outburst, so how could anyone actually trust him? An alternate title could be, “When your therapist needs therapy.”
That’s exactly what I was thinking, like with the precursor part with the gay kid and his parents. Would you trust your child with a man who considers a yes or no answer to be equal to an explanation? And in addition, storms off at the question of “is that fair to say?”
Considering the emotional and literally life importance of the subject matter, it’s unacceptable behavior.
Good grief, that was hilarious. Who needs Ex-Gay Watch to expose people like Nicolosi when he does such a fine job of humiliating himself?
It’s not just the fact that he stormed off, it’s the way in which he did it.
I finally bought software yesterday just to get that online after a week of hell-failure.
David beat me to it, but I’ve seen that clip going on a hundred times now and I am STILL caught off-guard by his response.
He’s literally nodding with the interviewer and then seamlessly ‘storms off.’
There’s no discernable distinction between his nodding and his turning his head (in anger) to walk off.
Geez. The mainstream media has finally noticed these groups and is subjecting them to some scrutiny and suddenly there is a widespread meltdown: Cohen, Cameron’s and Nicolosi. These groups did much better when they operated in the shadows.
What researcher does not allow questions regarding their ideas? He does not want a debate? He is not willing to have scrutiny? Not good.
What’s so funny is that the reporter wasn’t even debating him, he was just asking typical interview-ish questions. “That’s a pretty strong statement, right?” is a completely fair question.
I think Nicolosi just had a chip on his shoulder because he dislikes the media. I can’t say I blame him, I know I’d dislike a gigantic spotlight that had the capacity to expose all the holes in my work.
It really is amazing, if I was Nicolosi and I was trying to make those claims, which he KNOWS are so far out of modern psychiatric and psychological thought I’d expect questions even tougher than that and I’d have some sort of response to it. Perhaps this is a cautionary look at what happens when an organization becomes so insular that the fact they say something is true makes it so.
Why do we refer to Nicolosi as a researcher? If he really was a researcher, he would be keeping meticulous records of his patients and publishing peer reviewed results regarding the percentage that convert from gay to straight. It seems the most basic thing to look at in his chosen field and I don’t see anything of note coming from him on this subject.
Wow, he really wants to go on the record stating that if a son and father have a good relationship, then it is impossible that the son be gay.
That is SO falsifiable!
From A Parent’s Guide to Preventing Homosexuality by Nicolosi. [eg, quote here]
Very clearly: in his own book, Nicolosi mentions “artistic” as one of the traits to look out for.
He goes on to say that doesn’t automatically mean the boy’s gonna be a huge flamer… but just, well, you know… look out for those artistic talents (that could be considered a gift) because they can set him apart from his male peers and make him think he’s not a man.
And we all know where that type of confused thinking ends up, right people???
Tuchman quotes Nicolosi accurately. Nicolosi lied.
Haha, from his perspective Sharon I imagine it’s not so falsifiable. Any homosexual that professes a healthy relationship with their parents is probably just waved aside by his all powerful hand.
“I’m gay and I’ve had a great relationship with my Dad.”
“No you haven’t.”
“er…why?”
“Because you’re gay, of course.”
“uhhhh….aren’t you begging the question at this point?”
“DO YOU WANT AN ANSWER OR DO YOU WANT A DEBATE!! “
You’ve hit the nail on the head, Zortnac. This is the fundamental problem with psychoanalytic theory and therapy. Nothing the therapist says is falsifiable. All a sharp therapist needs to do is appeal to the unconscious, and BINGO… you’re cornered.
If you don’t protest, the therapist remains supremely confident in the interpretation he’s just presented. If you do protest, that’s “resistance,” which just validates that the therapist has correctly identified an unconscious sore spot for you. If you protest until you get a bit angry, that’s “transference,” which validates that unconscious hostility that you harbor toward your father and are taking out on the innocent therapist. If you think it’s such a crock that you up and quit therapy, well, that’s back to “resistance” (avoiding the painful truth) and “transference” (reliving the abanonment issues you had with Dad).
As long as he can appeal to unconscious motives, Nicolosi can say anything he darn well pleases. In fact, I think he probably BELIEVES it to be true.
It always struck me as odd that with all the other, much more valid, approaches to psychotherapy out there, the vast majority of the NARTH folks are psychoanalytic, and they are hailed as champions by the church, which ordinarily would eschew anything remotely associated with Freud or psychoanalysis.
Patient: “I’m gay and I’ve had a great relationship with my Dad.”
Nicolosi: “Hmmmmmm. Denial.”
I neglected to say that this is what irritates psychoanalytic therapists so much about being called out by the media. You don’t have the same chokehold on the reporter, who hasn’t approached you with the same perceived credibility, and who hasn’t just spilled his guts to you. It’s much harder to manipulate that situation and attribute it all to unconscious motives in a 30 second soundbite, and that’s VERY uncomfortable for an analyst.
Could be considered gifts? Is he kidding? Those are wonderful traits to have. Am I to infer that men are supposed to be stupid, backward, nonsocial, nonrelational and without artistic talent?
What lairs these friends of Jesus be!
Try having a mom who was studying to be a christian counselor and really grooved on the Freudian line. She used all those techniques (mind-games) Marcus details. Oh, and she was the religious authority figure in the house.
Nicolosi was touting his book “How To Prevent Homosexuality in Your Child” on the Sean Hannity radio show.
When I asked Nicolosi about three specific questions regarding results and OTHER peer bodies and THEIR results on homosexuality…Nicolosi ignored me and behaved as if I hadn’t asked.
My last question after he had done this twice was, “Doctor, you’re on a national broadcast as an expert on homosexuality and it’s causes…and YOUR results are far different from say, the APA’s. Since the subject so important to you, than ANSWER me. That’s what you are paid for and why you are here!”
That egotistical ass***e, NEVER bothered. I was on for at least five minutes with him. Hannity couldn’t get him to answer me either.
Well, I know I have my ways…
:0P
Just like in this clip, Nicolosi ended up looking like a major buttwipe.
Considering there IS no gay gene, no known physiological content, nor family structure or culture has no bearing on sexual orientation….how is it at ALL possible to prevent homosexuality in a person, when you don’t know where it comes from?
For a guy with Dr. in front of his name….I begin to wonder if he isn’t a veterinarian or podiatrist.
Cause he sure didn’t know what to say to me.
Regan you’re making me regret that I don’t listen to Hannity’s radio program so that I could have caught that!
You don’t by chance have a recording? 😉
I should re-phrase my statement…you’re making me almost regret I don’t listen to Hannity.
For a guy with Dr. in front of his name…I begin to wonder if he isn’t a veterinarian or podiatrist.
Because Regan… “nobody” likes cruelty to animals, and “everybody” has feet.
If he spoke and behaved toward animals or feet like he does gay men and women he’d had been dipped in tar, covered in feathers and ran outta town on a rail already!
Or, in the words of O’Connor in Lawrence v. Texas
Another parallel would be the previous anti-miscegenation laws. Or, actually, come to think of it — the current laws blocking the marriage of gay couples. The majority will tolerate a dreadful burden on a minority at times; those being burdens they would never accept being imposed on themselves.
PS the feathers would be donated of their own free-will by the birds. For them, being plucked bare in the name of rough justice is a lifestyle that they value 🙂
PPS: Marcus, Nicolosi is actually a pychologist, but his “work style” is heavily influenced by old-fashioned psychoanalysts like Socarides etc. You’re correct about how Nicolosi works, but just thought we’d clarify what are Nicolosi’s actual qualifications. Cheers!
Nice work, Regan!
Grantdale — thanks for the note. You are correct that Nicolosi is a psychologist. That why I used the term “psychoanalytic therapist” for the most part. Technically, only psychiatrists can be “psychoanalysts,” although there is virtually no distinction between what a psychoanalyst and a psychoanalytically-oriented psychologist do, in practice.
If you look at the early caches of NARTH’s website, they prominently noted that they are “composed of psychoanalysts, psychoanalytically-informed psychologists…” Interestingly, this message is nowhere to be seen on their current pages. I wonder if it made too many people in the Church nervous?
I’ve always found other approaches, such as behaviorism and CBT much more parsimonious and rational, and a lot less kooky than psychoanalysis. I think most fundamentalist Christians would agree. However, politics make for strange bedfellows sometimes!
Nicolosi’s little outburst is an example of the typical reaction that idealogues and zealots have when they move out of their protective bubble of like-minded folk and speak to other people who actually challenge them. It shows just how insecure Nicolosi really is, and it honestly reminds me of the way that Ayn Rand and her affiliates respond to legitimate questions from normal people who aren’t up to their elbows in Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead. Compare Nicolosi’s outburst with how Ayn Rand fields questions on the Phil Donahue show. Ironically, I suspect Nicolosi is a bit of an Ayn Rand fan (despite his strong Roman Catholicism); he sure likes to quote her.
“As long as he can appeal to unconscious motives, Nicolosi can say anything he darn well pleases. In fact, I think he probably BELIEVES it to be true.”
To expand this point by Marcus, I feel Nicolosi is not researching, or psycho-analysing about homosexuality in general. He is psycho-analysing to PROVE HIS OWN PERSONAL BELIEVES about homosexuality are true.
He is looking for evidence that he is right even though he is so wrong. He cannot accept people even questioning his ideas, as we can observe here. His misguided convictions are taking control of his analytical ability to reason.
That is the most powerful evidence of the fact that Joseph Nicolosi cannot handle anything that contradicts his egotistical rhetoric. He definitely is an immature baby who surrounds himself with people who agree with him. These guys (ex-gay leaders) keep shooting themselves in the proverbial foot over and over again and the public is finally waking up to the farce of the ex-gay movement. I hope that the media keeps exposing people like Nicolosi. He is one of the leading founders of the ex-gay movement.
No probs Marcus — obviously unlike yourself, many get as confused as all heck about the differences.
Half jokingly we tend narrow it down to this sort of thing:
Jordan, the Donahue clip was great – not because of the Nicolosi comparison, but because it showed how low this kind of daytime talk show has sunk since that era.
Zortnac, Wayne Besen might have a recording. He was the primary guest there on the show to debate Dr. Nicolosi.
Perhaps the network let Wayne have a copy.
Good luck.
Jordan and Benjamin,
One of my questions to Nicolosi was that his work and background seemed archaic compared to the accepted results of the research of larger peer bodies.
That I’d expect that he’d accept the most up to the minute standards and conclusions regarding the support of homosexuality as fixed, unpreventable (because there is no accepted cause), and that acceptance brings about positive results in gay youth.
So why did he reject all the most robust and current peer studies and conclusions?
Since he didn’t bother to say why, nor did Sean Hannity prompt him to answer, I got something of a feeling of what you two point out.
I can tell you emphatically that Sean Hannity seemed supportive of Nicolosi’s book.
I warned Hannity that his children were very young and their disposition was undetermined.
It was weird though, listening to two straight men, lecture Wayne on where homosexuality comes from and what to do about it.
Like unsympathetic white people telling black folks what the black folks can do about Jim Crow.
Or….could it be that for the sake of just being civil, we just haven’t decided if maybe some people are stupid and bought their college degrees from the Franklin Mint or went to university in Buttistan?
This man seems like he never got a proper paternal upbringing at all. What father would stand for his son behaving like that to the reporter. No sensible mother would tolerate that behavior.
I hate to advocate this, but he needs to get spanked.
No, maybe a few hours of being in his room without TV would do.
How do you defend your interpretation “homosexuality“upon the words of the Messiah? What kind of antichristian fraud/agenda are you running here with help from other misleading republicans/false teachers like Focus on the family? Are you the homosexual here? I think your agenda of love is slavery to idolatry.
You’ve left two posts in a similar vein RBurke but neither one make it clear to whom you are speaking and with what in particular you take issue. Could you be a bit more specific?