Talk:Genetic sexual attraction/Archive 1

Archive 1

Um...

Is there some reason Oedipus isn't listed? The classic case, surely (no pun intended). Tualha (Talk) 01:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Too bad I missed the vote

This nonsense article needs to be deleted, despite the recent vote. To summarize, you are attracted to people with visual and behavioral similarities, so by extension you will be attracted to your relatives if not socialized otherwise. This is a nothing, nonsense, exercise in mental masturbation. There is a great articel on sexual attraction, and a good one on the Westermarck effect. Combining the information in the two articles and finding a group where such a thing could occur does not merit the creation of an article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.115.211.122 (talk) 4:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Well for example, 'inbreeding' is the mere coincidence of genetically related organisms-- which can be found everywhere-- and the production of offspring-- which can also be found everywhere. Why do we need a term for or article on 'inbreeding' when we already have terms and articles on consanguinity and breeding? Similarly, there're zillions of people attracted to women, and zillions of women-- why do we need a term or article 'lesbian'? There may or may not be any meaningful reality to GSA, but you've not given a good reason to delete the article.

I think it's worth considering deleting all articles that are 'yucky' and/or involve social consequences of biological phenomena. I also think such reflection would result in the decision not to delete them.--Enantiodromos (talk) 22:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup

A question to whoever put this template to the article: which part exatctly requires cleanup? To me, it looks quite normal. --Koveras 20:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, for a start, it appears to completely ignore the points raised in the discussion above; multiple sources before and against should be cited, and cites to more recent research found, if possible. References for any credible evidence for links to phenotypic matching, kin recognition and pheromones would be good too.

-- Karada 21:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• Removed mention of Angel Sanctuary from the "In Pop Culture" section. While it contains incest, it does not contain GSA (Setsuna and Sara are siblings who fall in love, but they were raised together).
  • More of this needs to be done. Several of the works in (what amounts to a giant trivia section) cite examples of incest that do not involve long-separated relatives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.175.0.124 (talk) 01:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Song of Ice and Fire

Should there be some mention of Jaime and Cersei Lannister from A Song of Ice and Fire, or does this only apply to reunions?

---

Seriously, was this written by obsessed Star Wars fans? :P

---

Does this article mean that siblings who meet late in life are more likely to find each other attractive than two random people? Meelar 17:32, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ahah! So THAT explains Luke & Leia! ;) Seriously, I recently saw an interview where Lucas invoked this very phenomenon (though not in these exact words) to explain that situation. If only I could find that text: it would be well worth quoting here, if not in the article itself. --Iustinus 07:01, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wow. This is so weird. I just put that very thing about Luke and Leia into the article, and I hadn't even read this discussion page yet! What a coincidence, I must say. ‡ Jarlaxle June 30, 2005 08:39 (UTC)

This article should be either deleted or edited. GSA does not seem to have much support other than the work of one crank. GSA is not mentioned in scientific literature and thus it should be made clear that GSA is a purported phenomenon by a specific author.Exeunt 04:17, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. Even though the attraction is psychological (which, to be fair, would mean neurological in a physicalist construction), it is rooted in genetic commonality. It doesn't have to be derived directly from nucleic acids to be called "genetic." The phenomenon may not have a lot of studies behind it, but it's worth explaining, particularly for those who have gone through a form of it, or know someone who has. Ventifax 22:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

You're disagreeing with something entirely different than the point raised by Exeunt. If the existence of this named "phenomenon" is mainly promoted by a vocal individual or minority, that fact needs to be pointed out in the article. --Neurophyre^(talk) 15:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

GSA is a real phenomenon, which is worthy of defining at the very least. 2005-11-06

I agree, even if it is only experienced by few, to them the phenomenon is clearly very real and very powerful, and is thus worthy of a mention. Not having experienced it oneself or knowing someone who has, does not mean it does not exist. There are many phenomena we do not understand fully, eg few people are truly psychic, but a few are; few people can divine water, but a few truly can. The fact that it is only experienced by a few does not diminish its reality. Because we understand these phenomena so poorly, we are really not qualified to say with any certainty what precisely their origin is - I think heredity may well play a role in many. And I believe we are born with some ancestral imprints beyond just the physical. I also wonder if this phenomenon is not more common than we think and perhaps applies to cousins, distant enough so we are unaware of the link....??? I happened to fall in love and marry someone towards whom I experienced an extremely strong physical attraction, and vice versa, from the moment we met. Something about him was very 'familiar' and somehow irresistable. I left a partner and changed my world to be with him. Years later I became interested in genealogy and discovered that we are 6th cousins. You may say 6th cousins are not 'close relatives' and this may not apply - but I suspect a very similar situation did apply, and in time science may discover that people have different susceptibilities to this and that in some cases this phenomena extends much wider than just a one generation gap.12:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Real or not, I am not aware of any evidence that supports the idea that GSA is genetic in origin, rather than psychological. Those cases most cited involve reunions between long-separated people who recently learned they are close relatives, a highly emotional circumstance to say the least (doubly so when you consider the strong and prolonged sense of loss and desire for reunion that often surrounds adoption). If you were to put two unrelated people together and tell them they are long-separated relatives, might "genetic" sexual attraction not manifest in them? If the fiction were convincing enough, I bet it would work. And frankly, the phenomena of separated-relative romance in pop culture has little to do with reality and everything to do with emotionally/metaphorically-laden storylines. 2005-11-08

GSA

The reason GSA may occur is because men and women are so different. Homosexual GSA is virtually unheard of, because being both hormonally and genetically close, two brothers meeting for the first time will bond immediately. However, with siblings or parents of the opposite gender, a need to bond may be created though not always, because of so many years spent apart. Children of the opposite sex who grow up together do not feel attracted to one another largely because enough time exists to get past the differences between men and women. Its like this; because men are men, a man does not need to have sex with another man to bond with him on a deep level. Men have so much in common with each other already, a need for deep hormonal bonding is not necessary, hence the relative rarity of homosexuals in all societies. The differences between men and women though dictate that for a man and woman to know each other on a deep level without intimacy, they have to spend many years together, crucially, the formative years. Because parents or siblings of the opposite sex who meet as adults never bonded, and because the fastest way adults bond is sexually, an overpowering need to bond is expressed in a sexual way. The reason GSA is more common with siblings, is because siblings of the opposite sex are not as close to each other, as they are to their mother. The reason it is more common with fathers and daughters, than with mothers and sons, is because men do not have anywhere near the same level of empathic response as women do. Whereas a woman can bond, nonsexually, with her son almost right away, the same can not be said for a man. GSA is rooted, not so much in sexual, physical attraction, but from a need to bond. There is no need if the sibling is of the same gender, because men are similar to men, and women are similar to women, however when differences exist between genders, time has to be taken to get to know that person of the opposite gender to get past those differences. The fastest way to get past them, tragically enough, is sexually. Tragic, considering the social taboo. Even though rare among mothers and sons, the danger is very real. I think more information should be researched and published on the subject; because of the overturn of sexual mores in the late 1960's, the number of illegitimate children fathered by men has become incalculable. Any man in a woman's life, may be a father and not know it. Accidents happening, people meeting half-siblings, is a ticking time bomb waiting to explode.

No; this article should not be deleted. The sheer number of illegitimate births out there dictate that some form of therapy or treatment regarding this must be developed, as very little research exists. The only reputable specialist is a respected Psychiatrist based in London, whose work has not been taken seriously because of the "yuck" factor. The "yuck" factor is the unprofessional response by Intelligentsia who react with a "yuck" whenever they feel a particular field of scientific research would be too "gross" to seriously consider. Apparently the social taboos of ANY kind of incest, even when the people did not even grow up together, will go very high. From what I have seen in adoption websites, GSA will affect up to 90% siblings of the opposite sex, roughly 5% of siblings of the same sex, though almost always homosexual, and if its father/daughter, the numbers can be roughly 50 to 60%. If its mother/son, it stands at the lowest at about 10 to 20%. I personally atribute that low number to the female empathic response. There could also be a link to breast feeding, which is said saturate the person with hormones or something.

If there is anything wrong with the article itself, is that its too small. It could also use, with the apropriate permission, the input of a Psychologist or two. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.63.78.51 (talk) 06:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Is this all fiction?

I wouldn't delete the page: the topic exists and needs to be treated. In this article, the theoretical explanations sound reasonable enough. If the references are complete, then I'd let it go at that.

My main criticism is that all the examples are fictitious. The two "real" examples are uncorroborated and are likely to be urban myths. This may be an effect that is less significant than the article states. Carl Ponder (talk) 09:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, on UK TV on Thursday, 12th June, on ITV at 9pm, there's going to be a documentary on genetic sexual attraction (which is covered under the name of "Brothers and Sisters in Love"). They're gonna use a german couple (who's names I've forgotten), and about their experiences with this, so you could list them as examples? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.177.104 (talk) 00:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the lot - there's too much weight on the fictional examples rather than a discussion of the topic. -Malkinann (talk) 23:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Fiction or reality?

Another fictional example: in Wagner's opera Die Walküre, twin brother and sister, Sigmund and Sieglinde are separated in early childhood. When they meet as adults, they fall in love and elope. Their son, Siegfried is one of the main characters of the 4-part Ring cycle.

Reality: A documentary broadcast on CBC radio in Canada presented real-life examples of GSA with interviews of the people involved. (May 7, 2009)

Lupibob (talk) 03:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

New case in the news in Ireland

In May of 2010, a new story was published in the Daily Mail about an Irish couple who met and began a relationship that produced a child, only to find later that they are half-siblings. This case might be worth mentioning in this article because the couple is considering legal action against the family court system in Ireland. When the man was a boy, a judge ruled to keep the his true father's identity a secret from him, thus denying him the opportunity to know his own genetic background (and, presumably, prevent himself from falling in love with his half-sister). The full article is here. --Caffeinebump (talk) 21:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing issues with BLPs

Can citations be used that dirctly talk about this "condition" or whateverthehell it is, especially for BLPs. This seems like a trainwreck waiting to happen. Thanks,--Threeafterthree (talk) 18:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Article by The Guardian

Article by The Guardian

they discuss research that shows that if people grow up together from before the age of 6, they are protected from sexual attraction. There were two groups studied for this, kibbutz children and Chinese live-at-inlaws children, which suggests this conclusion.

Combine that with the fact that people favor persons that somewhat resemble them physically and you get GSA between separated siblings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.181.212.11 (talk) 07:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Those of you who doubt the existence of this phenomenon, take the trouble to read The Guardian article. You may disagree with it, but doing so will at least give you an informed basis for your opinions.  – OhioStandard (talk) 14:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Applicable BLP policies

Some examples of living persons may legitimately be included here, but the addition of allegations about a particular father-daughter relationship that's under current discussion at ANI isn't one of them. The cases that may be included are those in which both parties have disclosed and upheld their relationship, or it has been proven in a court of law, and that has been extensively reported by reliable sources. Whatever you believe the facts may be in the matter, all we have so far are allegations. Nothing has been proven in any court, and one of the alleged parties denies the allegations. You can't report alleged crimes in this context, as if they had been proved. This material needs to stay out of this article until it's proved or its inclusion is allowed via the WP administrative processes (ANI, possible DRV, etc) that are now underway or under consideration. I'm deleting the (yet again) recent addition as a BLP violation, pending the outcome of these processes, and they should not be re-added. See also our policy:"Someone accused of a crime is not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator until a conviction is secured." That caution certainly applies in this case, as well. I repeat: all we have at this point are allegations, and we can't report an alleged incestuous relationship as an example of GSA. Do not re-add this unless and until our policy dicussions have reached consensus on this matter.  – OhioStandard (talk) 14:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

What a load of crap

Kind of surprised that Wikipedia has this article in this context, frankly. The way it's written it gives the impression that GSA is a real phenomenon rather than an excuse for people who want to have sex with their relations. Does a fake syndrome merit a real article? Vidor (talk) 08:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

How to Spot Pseudoscience. 15 criteria. By my count GSA fails #1, #3, #8-12, and #15. Vidor (talk) 07:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, if you can find reliable and decent sources on genetic sexual attraction being pseudoscience or a 'fake syndrome', feel free to add that to the article. Until then, please be more constructive rather than just critical, your tone seems to suggest you're personally offended by the article subject. ^OohBunnies!Not just any bunnies... 00:40, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The burden of "reliable and decent sources" isn't mine, sorry. It's on those who propose this completely new concept. It's on you to produce peer-reviewed scientific sources that state that GSA is an actual thing. And I suppose I am offended--offended by such arrant nonsense getting its own Wikipedia article. What tripe. Vidor (talk) 02:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

If you're not willing to do the job, don't complain at others. If it offends you that much then fix it. Don't simply post strongly-worded rants on the talkpage, you're being decidedly unhelpful. ^OohBunnies!Not just any bunnies... 18:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Does this article [1] by Dr. Maurice Greenberg, BSc, MPhil, FRCPsych count as an authoritative reference? The article is maintained on Barbera Gonyo's website — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vin Rohm (talk • contribs) 00:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

GSA is non-existent

People, we don't need personal conjectures. There is no scientific literature with the term "Genetic Sexual Attraction". NONE. This term seems to be coined by the webmaster and author of GeneticSexualAttraction.com Barbara Gonyo who fancied her own son and elaborated a personal theory naming it "GSA". By the way, she self-claims to be the world expert of GSA. (a term that clearly has been coined by herself)

The BBC seems to have interviewed Barbara, and since BBC is (supposedly) a reputable source everyone started to believe that it is an actual scientific term. All the sources cite newspapers as the sources of the term of "GSA", there are no research papers in the scientific community that describes the condition known as "GSA". This definitely is worth of a deeper investigation.

I strongly suggest to close this article until it is properly confirmed. Guys remember that this is an encyclopedia, not a forum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.129.183 (talk) 06:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC) ( ← This anon-IP has a total of three contributions to Wikipedia, two to this article and one to this talk page.  – OhioStandard (talk) 14:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC))

The foregoing strikes me as almost nothing but "personal conjecture". As for the lack of research studies, what do you think? Researchers can just put an advert in the paper, saying, "If you're having sex with a close relative, give us a call?" And do you imagine there's some abundance of grant money just waiting for some researcher to come along and say, "Sure, I'll take some." And what about researchers: How many of them really want to be known as "the guy who does that incest research"? Read The Guardian article if you haven't already. See what adoption agencies have to say about this. If it doesn't change your opinion, at least you'll have a sounder basis for rejecting the idea than you appear to have now.  – OhioStandard (talk) 14:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

You clearly don't seem to be familiar to the methodologies of scientific research. Btw, to use the word "genetic" suggesting genetic causes of attraction without ANY scientific proof is enough to consider it highly unreliable. Btw that article proofs nothing. It is a known phenomenon? yes. But to call it GSA Or Genetic Sexual Attraction without any scientific basis to support its allegedly genetic origins, it is highly irresponsible and stupid. Considering that GSA was coined by this lady without any credentials and without any scientific backing, it is a weightless term that has no meaning at all. Just like the word "Google". Now everyone uses GSA, even in the media. As I said before, the usage of the term GSA started with Gonyo, she is the one who coined the term. The term GSA is NON-SCIENTIFIC. Don't remove that from the article until you can find a reliable research paper that uses the term GSA at least once. You won't, end of discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.62.50 (talk) 22:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

And you evidently have a strong conviction about this, since disputing the validity of GSA has comprised the entirety of your edits to Wikipedia. You're entitled to your opinion that GSA doesn't exist, but you're going about trying to have your opinion reflected by the encyclopedia in the wrong way. You can't just insert vague, disparaging phrases like "non-scientific", just because you don't like the term. The correct procedure would be to take the article to AfD, or possibly the fringe theory notice board, if you think you have a supporting basis for either. Also, we have a rule here that says "comment on the content, not on the user". I slipped just a bit, in that regard, with my "sounder basis" remark, above, and I'll withdraw that. You also need to stick to that policy, however, and speculating (erroneously, as it happens) that I might lack an adequate grounding in the principles of scientific research violates that. Likewise, your characterization of anyone who disagrees with your opinion as "irresponsible and stupid" is offensive and counterproductive, and your warning not to revert your addition to the article unless certain criteria that you set up are met isn't helping your case, either.

As it happens, I don't especially care whether the term can be called "scientific" or not, although tagging it as "non-scientific" as you keep insisting on is clearly a POV attempt to discredit the basis of the article without any source to support it. But you should have done your homework before saying, "Don't remove that [description of GSA as 'non-scientific'] from the article until you can find a reliable research paper that uses the term GSA at least once. You won't, end of discussion." Perhaps you didn't look. This paper does so. If you don't have access to the full-text you can verify as much by this search on Google Scholar, where it currently comes up as the first hit, and displays the text,

... body of evidence that long-separated relatives reunited with their families often find themselves powerfully attracted to one another (Greenberg and Littlewood 1995; Krista 2003; Erickson 2004). This phenomenon, which is called Genetic Sexual Attraction (GSA), occurs in over ...

As I wrote previously, there's not a great deal of research in this area. probably because of the difficulty of recruiting interviewees on the subject, and because of a likely dearth of funding. "In what remains the only academic study on GSA, Dr. Maurice Greenberg looked at 40 cases and concluded the sexual attraction was a normal response to an extremely unusual situation of blood relatives meeting as strangers."¹. But you might also like to examine this pdf, a different paper which also mentions GSA. Given the opinion you've stated, it wouldn't surprise me if you'd like to discredit these papers, or dispute the validity of, say, Greenberg and Littlewood. You're free to do so, provided you can introduce a reliable source on which to base the attempt, or can introduce some reliable source that uses your characterization of GSA as a "non-scientific" term. Btw, please sign your posts by using four "tilde" characters in a row, like this, ~~~~. Doing so will display your IP address and timestamp your comment, as is required on talk page comments. Finally, please don't change a talk-page section title after a discussion has begun, as you did in your previous edits to this page. If you'd like to modify your original argument, you're free to do so by adding an additional comment for the purpose.  – OhioStandard (talk) 10:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it might surprise you, but I don't have anything against these papers. You don't seem to understand the relevance of those papers. Sexual attraction among peers can be explained by the lack of the Westermarck effect (purely psychological imprinting, appropriately mentioned in the article), there are no researches that would suggest there is a genetic predisposition to be incestuous. As long as the scientific community doesn't have evidence suggesting a biological tendency of being incestuous, then there is no point of being called "GENETIC Sexual attraction". I wouldn't have any problem if she called it "the Gonyo Effect", because that is actually the origin of this term, it is based on her observations and personal experiences.

This is now a vox populi term, and it is used as such in those papers. The term has been coined by Gonyo, and now it is propagated as a way to describe this phenomena. She could have called it "the juicy hamburguer Attraction" and people would have mention it both in newspapers and journals just because it is the name of the phenomena. My point is that this name is just a name, and has no scientific basis at all. IT IS NON-SCIENTIFIC. A more relevant example, Neurolinguistic programming. This is also another groundless naming, it has no neuroscience and has no linguistics and not scientific. Now, going back to our topic: The lack of research doesn't justify a misnomer, as long as there are genetic evidence it should not be called GENETIC because it is misleading.

PS: By the way I wasn't calling you stupid, I was calling HER irresponsible and thoughtless (I think that is more appropriate than the ambiguous "stupid")71.190.1.194 (talk) 15:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Barb Gonyo did not make up the term Genetic Sexual Attraction. She overheard it used to describe what another person was going through that was very similar to what she herself was experiencing. Further, it is not just her experiences, there are now hundreds of people that have come out and spoken of this issue. Barb was just one of the very first that had the courage to talk about something that caused most people to label her a freak. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.5.107.130 (talk) 17:53, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

New case in the news in California

This article [2] about a woman (Mistie Rebecca Atkinson) who had a sexual relationship with her son after reuniting, being apart for nearly 16 years. She was arrested and sentenced for incest, but claims GSA.--Auric (talk) 12:24, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

A recommendation to semi-protect this article for editing.

Genetic sexual attraction is a heated issue for many people, and it is almost impossible to be unbiased in the treatment of the subject. Due to the implications of such a phenomena, some groups may attempt to discredit it for religious or ethical reasons. If the article history is viewed, many controversial and disruptive edits have been made by unregistered users. I would recommend placing a semi-protect on this article so that only trusted, registered users familiar with the rules and policies of Wikipedia may edit it in order to preserve its neutrality. Luvanger666 (talk) 21:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The key word is not trusted users, but expert users. It doesn't really care if I can trust my mother won't do harm on purpose, but she will harm my car if I give her a wrench to fix it.

The user above critizising the pseudoscientific conception of the GSA is right spot on, it is not an accepted scientific term.

We need scientists reviewing this article, but unfortunately wiki is designed to be a Democratic collaboration, even if the minority is truly expert.208.54.45.72 (talk) 00:38, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Why is it almost impossible to be unbiased? It's a part of a series on inbreeding (indeed the two articles should be merged), and contributes to speciation. Just find proper citations and be done with it. 99.255.144.127 (talk) 04:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

You people are ALL wrong GSA IS VERY REAL. EDUCATE yourselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.206.253.9 (talk) 19:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Television Documentary

There is a documentary on the subject called "Incest: The Last Taboo". Generally the people involved in the problem relationships don't feel that they are doing anything wrong, and concoct many self assumptions and presumptions why their lifestyle should be acceptable and deregulated by authorities. Some of the arguments presented show that the fault of current adoptions laws that block the history of adopted siblings meeting a parent later in life creates this problem.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.67.144.9 (talk) 05:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The Further reading section of this article could mention the 2010 documentary that you're referring to. The documentary is "Incest: The Last Taboo?", England, 2010. Produced by Kathryn Bonnici for Current TV, first aired 26 April 2010. Directors are Nick Ahlmark and Nicole Precel. More information here and here. Available on-line here (an SBS 6 website; English with Dutch subtitles, a couple of commercials throughout) and here (dubbed Spanish). --82.170.113.123 (talk) 13:33, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Genetic sexual attraction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081025090221/http://bbcamerica.com:80/content/334/index.jsp to http://www.bbcamerica.com/content/334/index.jsp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:51, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Claims about nonexistent scientific literature

It seems odd that people would make these claims. I took a very quick look, using Google Scholar. Searching for "Genetic sexual attraction" gets you 81 hits, which corresponds to this article's importance rating of "low". However, skimming the articles makes it clear that there is indeed scientific interest in this topic.

Some examples:

• Greenberg, Maurice. "Post-Adoption Reunion–are We Entering Uncharted Territory?." Adoption & Fostering 17.4 (1993): 5-15.
• Greenberg, Maurice, and Roland Littlewood. "Post‐adoption incest and phenotypic matching: Experience, personal meanings and biosocial implications." British journal of medical psychology 68.1 (1995): 29-44.
• Paul, Robert A. "Incest Avoidance: Oedipal and Preoedipal, Natural and Cultural." Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association 58.6 (2010): 1087-1112.
• Childs, Robert M. Genetic sexual attraction: healing and danger in the reunions of adoptees and their birth families. Diss. Massachusetts School of Professional Psychology, 1998.
• Segal, Nancy L., Jamie L. Graham, and Ulrich Ettinger. "Unrelated look-alikes: Replicated study of personality similarity and qualitative findings on social relatedness." Personality and Individual Differences (2013).

As one can see, these papers are not all old, they are not by the same author all of them, so it isn't entirely fringe, and they are mostly from academic literature. Indeed, some of them are so old they were published more than 10 years ago even while people were claiming in this page that there is no scientific literature on the topic.

From the above I conclude that either 1) people sincerely did not know about any literature on the topic, because they didn't look, and 2) likely there is some other interest for whatever reason in not including this topic in Wikipedia. I won't accept (2) and so I have added this to my watchlist, to keep on eye on things.

I also rewrote the explanation of the phenomenon and added some citations of academic literature for the claims. These are well in line with other articles citing similar sources. Deleet (talk) 03:15, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I have also changed the quality scale to C, which seemed appropriate now that more sources have been added. Deleet (talk) 03:20, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Well clearly you don't know how to research or interpret the validity of these results.

All of them point to the article released by Gonyo in '87 so your "scientific literature" is just an echo chamber of references, but the truth is that there is no actual research on the definition of Genetic Sexual Attractiveness, it is barely an hypothesis coined by a non-scientist based on anecdotal evidence.

If you actually care to dig the rabbit hole you will see that all the web of references at the end is rooted on Gonyo's claims only.

181.90.36.126 (talk) 01:54, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect use of the correlation coefficient

As of right now the article reads:

As for mental traits, one study found a correlation of 0.403 between the IQs of husbands and wives, with husbands averaging about 2 IQ points higher. The study also reported a correlation of 0.233 for extraversion and 0.235 for inconsistency (using Eysenck's Personality Inventory). A review of many previous studies found these numbers to be quite common.

This doesn't actually mean anything because what is meant by correlation is probably the correlation coefficient. This would only indicate how accurate a linear transformation from one dataset to the other would be, not the parameters of the transformation, meaning how strong (in a colloquial sense) the correlation actually is.

--DER RÜTTLER (talk) 08:16, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I know this is late, but that stuff actually fails verification anyways. You are correct, however. The claim about husbands' IQs in particular is completely unsupported by the source. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:52, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Do sources need to literally use the phrase "genetic sexual attraction"?

I have reinstated some sections which had been removed on the grounds that they could not be cited as instances of genetic sexual attraction unless a source literally included the exact phrase "genetic sexual attraction". I believe that a description of a situation which clearly fits the definition of the term is acceptable, even if the precise wording was not used in the source. In the spirit of WP:BRD, I'm inviting discussion on this question. Any thoughts? — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 05:18, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I'd say they either need to use the phrase genetic sexual attraction, or at least something similar. A lot of these stories gave no indication that they exhibited this. This isn't an article about incest, it's an article about a purported natural attraction between people who are genetically similar to one another. Those subjects are obviously related, but they're not the same thing. If a source doesn't provide evidence that 'genetic sexual attraction' is a thing which affected the people in a case of incest, then the story doesn't belong on this page. I'd also note that a lot of these stories are sourced to the Sun, a sensationalist UK tabloid - it's not a WP:RS for anything, certainly not for WP:BLP and shouldn't be used to support stories of this nature. I'd like to ask you to consider undoing your revert, or at the very least checking through the stories carefully and considering whether they are reliably sourced enough. GirthSummit _(blether) 06:45, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Also pinging MjolnirPants and PaleoNeonate as they were involved in discussion about these changes (at WP:FTN if I remember correctly). GirthSummit _(blether) 06:50, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

To assist with discussion, I've gone through the sources:

• The Guardian does not mention genetic sexual attraction at all. It describes a case of an incestuous relationship, but doesn't argue that there is a particular reason for it.
• Der Spiegel describes the same case in similar terms - no mention of generic sexual attraction by that name or any other.
• I haven't read the Kathryn Harrison memoir, which is why I left this case in originally. Can't comment.
• The Journal does mention GSA by name, which is why I left this case in the article. It might be worth noting that the article quotes extensively from an interview with a Sun journalist, Dulcie Pearse, but they seem to have done their own research into GSA as a phenomenon.
• The Sun, in this case, doesn't refer to GSA at all - it just reports on a case of incest. And it's the Sun - we shouldn't be using it for material like this.
• WCNC doesn't mention GSA or anything like it - it just reports a case of incest.
• The BBC doesn't mention GSA or anything like it - it just reports on a murder/suicide of a family where the parents were in an incestuous relationship.
• The Sun does reference GSA in this case - but it's the Sun, we shouldn't be using it.
• Mamamia also refers to GSA, but it doesn't look like an WP:RS to me. I note that they take their quotes from a Daily Mail interview throughout the article.
• I couldn't work out what the Muck Rack source was, it doesn't seem to point at a particular article. Also refers to a Daily Mail reporter though.

So, the long and the short of it is that unless it's your contention that incest = GSA, the only sources I removed that mention anything relevant to this article are the Sun and the Daily Mail - neither of which should be used as references in areas that touch on WP:BLP. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:04, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the original deletion. The detail and description of these "examples" is, frankly, weird. It's a huge jump to say that incest means GSA, particularly if it's not mentioned in the article itself.

I actually think you'd be very hard pressed to say that any particular example of incest is due to GSA ever, even if the article mentions it, because if it were a real effect, you'd still only be able to prove it exists in aggregate or on average - not prove it for any particular couple. It's like saying that a woman who marries a rich man definitely did it because he was rich - you can show that women are attracted to wealth in men on average but not that it was the deciding factor for any given couple. Notably, the article about this phenomenon, hypergamy, has no examples.

Saying "this is an example of genetic sexual attraction" is misleading at best I wonder if including an examples section at all is itself misleading, even if it is mentioned in the article. It could probably be reduced to a few lines at most. Mvolz (talk) 20:06, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I also agree with Girth Summit's assessment, WP:OR and WP:SYNTH should be avoided (as inferring that a case of incest was due to Genetic Sexual Attracition unless the source mentions it) as well as WP:BLP claims issues using questionable sources. —PaleoNeonate – 22:26, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

• Meh. It's actually good OR and SYNTH; GSA as a phenomenon can only really be tested statistically, so in theory, every single case of incest could be that, and in particular, cases of unwitting incest would be highly suggestive of GSA.

But we ain't a research publication, so good OR belongs with bad OR. I agree with the OP on removing this stuff. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:19, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: Can I quickly double check what you're saying? It seems like you think the material should be removed as OR (regardless of whether it's good or bad), but then you said you agree with the OP (who reinstated it) on the deletion. Should I assume you meant you agreed with the original deletion? GirthSummit _(blether) 06:31, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Ooops, I thought you were the OP. My mistake. I agree with removal of this materials, not reinstatement. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:04, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

@Richwales: Would be interested to know your response to the comments so far in this section - would you be happy for me to remove the relevant sections again, or indeed to remove the entire section as Mvolz suggests? GirthSummit _(blether) 18:08, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

If (as appears to be the case) there is a consensus to remove the material in question, I will not object. I won't re-remove the material myself, but if someone else wants to, I won't start an edit war. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 18:38, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I've removed the three stories that I previously deleted.GirthSummit _(blether) 19:28, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

This somewhat goes back to what is stated in the #Name section above. If there are alternative names for the topic, then, yes, that material can go in the article. On a side note, Wikipedia had a similar discussion regarding the Slut-shaming article: Talk:Slut-shaming/Archive 1#RfC: Is it WP:Synthesis to use sources that do not identify the topic as slut-shaming to make claims about slut-shaming?. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:53, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

____

References