nine o'clock in the morning, now narrow to write a post, but I apply myself because I have to download a criticism that is affecting my heart good relativist. While drinking your coffee eating a cookie after another, I read an article of La Repubblica reported Friday that the interview with a British ethologist, Desmond Morris, about his new book "The Naked Man." At first sight it seems to be a very brilliant writing that combines knowledge of psychology and biology, were it not for his definition of that category of sexual orientation, called a thousand pseudonyms, but more generally HOMOSEXUAL. According to this brilliant scientist gays were human beings who have never completed its growth cycle, staying a little longer infants in order to have more attention to the creative and sensitive belonging to each of us. This is to explain why many artists are gay. This explanation is unfounded in my opinion (from what is explained that a gay is creative), general (not all gays are creative) and deterministic (a gay man can have such preferences from birth or following data can be certain events, then does not mean that is neither creative nor more sensitive than other heterosexual). There may be a thousand and one reasons to be independent of the homosexual gene. I mention two: occasional social desirability. How come we have high rates of imprisonment in homosexuality? Why in southern Italy there is less gay than in the North Italy?
I leave you to reflect. Science sometimes insists on wanting to ask "almost explanations" exposing themselves in areas where not only can not be certain of his conclusions, but even a strong hold. The human psyche has a huge degree of variability that can be caused also by the individual context, so any generalization suffers from unfounded.
I'm not saying to stop the search or not to make assumptions, but do not shoot to zero society.
9.30 am. Good day ...
