Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
These days, I wouldn't believe ANY "Government" numbers on ANYTHING, any more than I'd trust them to do anything right. And self-reporting on the issue in question has always been notoriously inaccurate/unreliable.
Self-reporting and self-identification are notoriously unreliable, regardless of the subject. People respond with what they wish were true, and what they think OUGHT TO BE TRUE. And they tend to try to give the RIGHT answer (rather than the accurate answer). "What does Teacher want me to say?"
The sad fact is that America has been dumbed-down to the point where most Americans lack the intelligence to understand the terms in the questions. It isn't simply a matter of ignorance and "culture": it's a matter of STUPIDITY. And they certainly are not capable of the level of self-analysis required to answer such questions.
Furthermore, Journalism in America has degenerated to such an alarming degree that journalists get more wrong than they get right. They don't understand the issues upon which they are reporting. And even if they did understand the issues/stories/trends, they are so bad at expressing themselves, they wouldn't be able to relay that understanding to others - even if they had any understanding, which they seldom do. And unlike in olden days, there are apparently no editors, proofreaders, and fact-checkers to catch their mistakes.
To that, add the fact that Journalism is no longer objective. Most reporting serves some sort of agenda, and has to pass through certain filters, to please various powerful groups, as well as the ideological bias imposed upon those working in Mainstream Media. So, a journalist's analysis of the results here is more likely to obfuscate than to enlighten.
But going by just what I read in the article:
From the way people answered questions regarding smoking, drinking, etc., in addition to their self-identification of their sexuality, it seems to me that people prone to answer objectively and truthfully were more apt to identify themselves as gay or bisexual, as well as owning-up to smoking and getting drunk. People who answered idealistically and deceptively tended to report the sexual orientation they ought to have, along with the lifestyle habits they ought to have.
And remember: these results are simply from the people stupid (or lonely & bored) enough to participate in such a survey (which was not reliably anonymous, considering that "followup telephone calls" were involved). Smarter and busier people (those more likely to give intelligent and accurate answers) were probably a tiny minority among those who participated.
Last edited by GrandviewGloria; 07-16-2014 at 12:01 PM..
These days, I wouldn't believe ANY "Government" numbers on ANYTHING, any more than I'd trust them to do anything right.
Boy, you got that right!
Whether it's inflation numbers, unemployment, the deficit, or the true cost of the health care law,
this administration is cooking the books so often you'd think Bobby Flay was their Budget Director.
One of the long-lasting legacies of this administration will be that the public will have virtually zero confidence in any numbers coming out of Washington, D.C.
First large scale survey on orientation by the government. Another 0.7% identify as bisexual
FTA:The National Health Interview Survey, which is the government’s premier tool for annually assessing Americans’ health and behaviors, found that 1.6 percent of adults self-identify as gay or lesbian, and 0.7 percent consider themselves bisexual.
The figures offered a slightly smaller assessment of the size of the gay, lesbian and bisexual population than other surveys
The overwhelming majority of adults, 96.6 percent, labeled themselves as straight in the 2013 survey.
That 10% figure thrown around since Kinsey studies in the 1940s is pretty much bogus.
How do you know this? Are you a statistician? I am, so I will explain a few things. A researcher derives accurate figures by repeating the same experiments or studies over time. The more the results of an experiment is repeated, the more likely the results are to be accurate.
The experiments you are quoting are dependent on a variable that is inaccurate from the start: self reporting. It depends on the truthful responses of the subjects. People may not want to report that they are gay/bisexual for many reasons: stigma, discrimination, denial, etc. . . The definition of what is gay/bisexual can even vary from one person to another. Some people vew being gay as primarily a sexual attraction to the same sex, while others may view it as primarily an emotional attraction. Still others may believe it must include both components (such as myself). Also, a sample of individuals may not be representative of the population as a whole. Thus, the study or studies may or may not be an accurate representation of the incidence of gay/bisexual individuals in the US. Further studies must be performed to validate or invalidate these results.
I've seen it estimated from 2-4% from several different sources, so 1.6% isn't outside the realm of possibility. What is really interesting is that it is such a small number. Given the over-representation of homosexuality and gay issues in the media, my guess is that most Americans probably think gays are 10-25% of the population.
I've heard the 4 and still think it is smaller just because of how normal being gay is getting in suburbia. My parents had a pair of neighbors for a few years who are in fact gay that moved out due to the commute to the airport. I'm surprised the bisexual number was much lower though it could be bi-curiousness that makes it seem more common. I would say at most 10% of America is gay/lesbian, bi or questioning. I am leaving trans out because that is a gender issue NOT sexuality.
As for the method, self-reporting is an issue in particular with closeted people who haven't officially said they are to the public, so I would say those that answered yes aren't closeted so there are likely more.
Furthermore, Journalism in America has degenerated to such an alarming degree that journalists get more wrong than they get right. They don't understand the issues upon which they are reporting. And even if they did understand the issues/stories/trends, they are so bad at expressing themselves, they wouldn't be able to relay that understanding to others - even if they had any understanding, which they seldom do. And unlike in olden days, there are apparently no editors, proofreaders, and fact-checkers to catch their mistakes.
To that, add the fact that Journalism is no longer objective. Most reporting serves some sort of agenda, and has to pass through certain filters, to please various powerful groups, as well as the ideological bias imposed upon those working in Mainstream Media. So, a journalist's analysis of the results here is more likely to obfuscate than to enlighten.
Everything dog attack is a pit bull or pit bull mix until otherwise proven. You notice "pit bull mix", what about the other mixes in the mutt? A recent example is in Miami where a lady got attacked and killed by her four dogs, the media quickly labeled "pit bull" attack. A few days later, buried in the back of the news (the attack was the headline), did the local media (Miami Herald I think) put out a correction and stated they were not pit bulls, but boxers.
Even a few people in this forum labeled the dog in the "hero cat" story a pit bull, though the dog did not look even close to one nor any where in the media identified it as such.
The gov has its own ways of conducting surveys, much of it is in accordance with normal and accepted survey methods, others methods may be acceptable, but still questionable.
If you want an example, go research the methodology on how the gov finds out how many people are disabled in the US.
Well it's anywhere from 3.3% to 4.4% using those numbers.
Perhaps it's a minor point but I don't get why you've assigned the entire 1.1% "don't know/refused to answer" to the LGBT column. Couldn't some of the "refused to answer" people be straight Muslims, Evangelicals, or others who are so offended by the question they refuse to answer?
There might be a few that fit your description, but I'm assuming that anyone (well, almost anyone) who responded "don't know/refused to answer" is not comfortable identifying as straight, but also not comfortable identifying as gay or bisexual. By default, we're assumed to be straight, so anyone who is should be comfortable identifying that way. If they aren't, they're almost certainly some variant of LGB.
It's like asking if you're male or female. Cisgender people wouldn't think twice about answering that question. The only people who might express reservations would be those who fell under the transgender/genderqueer umbrella.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
