Review of Research Paper: "Using to numb the pain: substance use and abuse among lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals."

Review of Research Paper: "Using to numb the pain: substance use and abuse among lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals." Published in Journal of Mental Health Counseling, Jan 2008, Vol 30 # 1, pp. 31-48; Author: Weber, Genevieve N.

Genevieve Weber's research was based on a sample of 824 lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) individuals, although 3% of her sample were "transgendered" and 1% were "other". The sample was recruited via advertisements to LGB listservs and posters placed in the LGB community. Nineteen percent came through emails "from friends". The analyses consisted of the use of four separate scales.

The major finding in the study was that participants who were classified as having at least one substance use disorder reported experiencing heterosexism and internalized homophobia more often than those who are not classified as disordered on either the alcohol or drug abuse scale. Interesting to note however, was what the author said subsequent to this finding:

Although these relationships are significantly significant, their small effect sizes limit my confidence that participants who are classified as having at least one substance use disorder have, in fact, experienced more heterosexism and internalized homophobia. In this case, statistical significance may not necessarily mean that the findings have practical or clinical significance to the field of mental health counseling. To this end, interpret the following discussion points with caution. (p. 40)

Much discussion was placed on the notion that sexual minorities experience stress from being in a predominately anti-gay society. However, this study could not support whether or not that heterosexist events and/or internalized homophobia led the LGB subgroup to use or abuse substances.

The author, not able to make any conclusive outcome about what causes the high incidence of substance use/abuse among gays and lesbians, stated that, "There is much that remains unknown about the etiology of alcohol and drug use and abuse among LGB people" (p. 44).

Concluding, in a practical sense, the author made a case that in her opinion, counselors and educators need to increase their awareness of how LGB individuals might cope with minority stress.

Limitations of the study:

1. The sample was recruited from an internet survey from LGB resources only; therefore, it lacked the diversity of methods for which strong research designs require.

2. The use of self-reported measures provided the strong possibility for participants to be influenced by social desirability. The general profile of these recruits were that they were largely "out", thirty-something, educated, and savvy about LGB resources (well read), therefore it made sense that they would value having an explanation, such as heterosexism, to account for the high incidences of substance use/abuse within their population.

Vox Popoli: The Failure of Scientody

The failure of scientody
The profession is demonstrating its corruption through its refusal to make use of the method:

In today’s political climate, it has become fairly dangerous for a young scientist or professor to step up and say: ‘This is all nonsense.’ It is increasingly difficult to challenge the global warming consensus, on either a scientific or a political level. Academies can be incredibly cowardly institutions, and if one of their employees was to question the discussion of climate change he or she would be pulled to one side and told: ‘You’re threatening our funding and reputation - do you really want to do that?’ I don’t think we should underestimate the impact that kind of informal pressure can have on people’s willingness to think thoroughly and speak openly.One way in which critics are silenced is through the accusation that they are ignoring ‘peer-reviewed science’. Yet oftentimes, peer review is a nonsense. As anyone who has ever put his nose inside a university will know, peer review is usually a mode of excluding the unexpected, the unpredictable and the unrespectable, and forming a mutually back-scratching circle. The history of peer review and how it developed is not a pretty sight. Through the process of peer review, of certain papers being nodded through by experts and other papers being given a red cross, the controllers of the major scientific journals can include what they like and exclude what they don’t like. Peer review is frequently a way of controlling debate, even curtailing it. Many people who fall back on peer-reviewed science seem afraid to have out the intellectual argument.

While I have tremendous regard for the effectiveness of the scientific method, I have very, very little respect for scientists. They are very, very far from the impartial devotees of scientody that they so love to portray themselves being. With a few notable exceptions, they are cowardly, contemptible herd animals more interested in jousting for a better position among the herd hierarchy than advancing the state of human knowledge.There have never been more scientists accomplishing less of scientific value than at any point in the scientific era. As for global warming, scientists of the future will look back on it in much the same way scientists today view phrenology, even as they attempt to push their latest non-scientific nonsense on the rest of us.

From: http://voxday.blogspot.com/