Problem with potentially measuring that, compared to something like race, is that a lot of the statistics of gay men are overinflated. How many of those gay men were molested by men in their youth, how many of them are druggies turned prison gay, incels turned prison gay, or overall hormonally imbalanced?
I don't really understand. Gay men are men attracted to other men. The etiology doesn't seem relevant?
Since sexuality can essentially be boiled down to a "trust me" identity, it would be hard to prove homosexuality on its own having a biological edge.
Again, I'm not sure I understand. In what way is being gay a 'trust me' identity? Historically any man who was gay had extremely strong incentives to deny it, not admit to it. And I can barely think of any reason at all for a straight man to to pretend he was gay.
And I don't even mean there can be no reasons for a man to submit to same-sex advances from a more powerful man. I don't doubt there were a lot of guys who were not gay who let Kevin Spacey molest them in order to get ahead. But they didn't have to
pretend to be gay?
There's a study that says a lot of gay men are cluster Bs, and yet guess what else causes cluster Bs? Childhood abuse, drugs, and hormonal imbalances. How do you measure what percentage of those men are "true homosexuals"? Because merely relying on their word is unreliable.
I don't know what a 'true homosexual' is. I've also never found a reason to doubt that a man who consistently seeks out other men for sexual encounters, is gay.
It would be matter of speculating why homosexuals would have the biological advantage of whatever topic a person thinks they have an advantage with too, and is that advantage caused by something else? Ie, mentally ill people tend to get better artists. Autism, OCD, and schizophrenia tend to make people better at STEM.
I find it hard to believe that schizophrenia causes people to be better at STEM.
But, even if it were the case that other traits associated with gayness caused the success, I'm not sure how that detracts from what I've said? If gay men have the personalities that cause them to be more successful, how is that not associated with them being gay?
These things affect people regardless of sexuality. I'm not saying saying you don't have a point, I just don't think that explains what I'm referencing 100%, like I really doubt gay men are better at fashion lol
Well, I don't doubt it.
If I said 'women are better at fashion', would you have any good reason to deny it and then say 'lol'? But why shouldn't women be? Women are genetically and socially different to men.
and with stuff involving working in something like the film imdustry, that takes a lot of connections. Connections a gay/bi man would surely have an advantage with when it comes to Hollywood compared to an everyday straight man considering all the allegations that come out.
Jews or people with Jewish descent have won about a quarter of Nobel prizes, despite being only 0.2% of the global population.
Why? Jews might have connections. Jews are the 'ingroup' for other, powerful Jews. But, that can explain
some of their success but not all of it. Jewish people are literally just higher-IQ, and achieve more per capita, than the rest of the population. Not every Jew. But enough to produce extraordinary talent.
You know what else I believe? Jews are less physically gifted in terms of athletic prowess. That's why there's a gag in
Airplane! (written and directed by Jews) where a passenger asks if there's any 'light' reading material and the stewardess says 'I have a pamphlet on Jewish sporting achievements'.