Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="dragonlordofpoondari" data-source="post: 3670468" data-attributes="member: 42088">My principal point was that any evidence must be looked at carefully, including yours and mine (which included some old and some very recent articles ... it was a bibliography for an unpublished paper I wrote ... some of the sources are quite persuasive). As long as the research methods are sound, then any source should be considered "appropriate." The Masters and Johnson work was indeed flawed but seminal, which is why it might appear in a term paper I'm sure you can imagine. Also, I think it foolhardy to discredit a paper simply because it was not published in the last few years or even decade. Many of the greatest papers ever written (featuring the most elegant of experimental designs) were published before we were born. If I had bothered to peruse this bibliography, I probably would have pulled out the reference to the unpublished master's thesis. That did happen to be have decent work in it, though, IIRC.When you described it as having a "biological cause" and before as a "physical thing," I interpreted that to mean that you must believe genetics to be directly involved. You know signalling pathways upregulate genes to modulate hormone levels. Genes encode and express every fiber of the human body, everything that is "physical." That is how I interpreted what you wrote. Maybe that was an unjustified assumption?At any rate, I do believe that this dialogue is positive, and of interest to those who have a mind to read it. Thank you, Shemeska, for your insights! It's always nice to find a colleague who games. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification