Can past lives determine sexual orientation?

[Natasha]

Can past lives determine sexual orientation?

http://www.examiner.com/x-12989-LA-Occult--Paranormal-Examiner~y2009m7d27-Can-past-lives-influence-sexual-orientation
7/27/09

For years, there has been a debate from everyone among the scientific community to average person whether sexual orientation is determined by nature or nurture. Outside of science, examining the string of a person's past lives and what sex they were can usually give clues to how a person's sexuality is most likely going to turn out. However, it is not simply just tallying up the number of instances someone had been male or female in previous existences that determines if a man or woman would become gay. Past lives work in patterns, and figuring the patterns will generally establish who someone will most likely be attracted to.

[Miniar]

I, personally, believe in reincarnation.
I believe I remember certain past lives.
I believe I have lived as a man as well as a woman in the past without issue.
I don't believe I've been trans-anything before.

[finewine]

Leaving aside that I personally think reincarnation & past lives are a load of hairy old bollocks (with genuine apologies to Miniar), the hypothesis is unverifiable and just on that basis alone, fails the "so what?" test with me.

I'll pull a theory out of my arse to show how easy it is...

Every variation of sexual orientation and gender identity plays out in parallel universes.  The "you" that's reading this with your current orientation and identity just happens to be living in this one.  Tell you what, I'll throw in a universe where you're just a happy little nematode...for free!  I'm so generous sometimes...

[Miniar]

No offence taken. You're as entitled to your personal beliefs as I am to mine.

[finewine]

Thanks buddy.  Mates can disagree!  Cheers!

[FairyGirl]

Leaving aside that I personally think reincarnation & past lives are a load of hairy old bollocks (with genuine apologies to Miniar), the hypothesis is unverifiable and just on that basis alone, fails the "so what?" test with me.

I would say that "unverifiable" is based solely on the criteria you use to verify. If you use criteria based on preconceived root assumptions that certain events are "impossible" or root assumptions that preclude the occurrance of such events, then I don't see how you could possibly ever verify anything that wasn't already in line with those root assumptions to begin with. All you are "verifying" in that case is the veracity of your own root assumptions, and it would indeed seem to be impossible by definition to verify anything outside of those. Just sayin'.

[finewine]

Ah ok   It's verifiable if you're willing to take someone's word for it!  Forgive my skepticism, it's honestly not intended to besmirch any particular person.

[FairyGirl]

Ah ok   It's verifiable if you're willing to take someone's word for it!  Forgive my skepticism, it's honestly not intended to besmirch any particular person.

Nothing at all wrong with healthy skepticism dear sir! The challenge is always in not throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I do agree there is a whole lot of bathwater floating some of these babies.

[NicholeW.]

I do agree there is a whole lot of bathwater floating some of these babies.

How odd, and here I was under the impression that my old stomping grounds were now yours, FG!

But you've obviously swum in the Delaware Bay at Rehoboth Beach during a hot summer!! An entire estuary deep enough for ocean-going freighters and oil tankers and wide enough for a few abreast to sail up it and down it all at the temperature of one's comfortably warm soak-bath!!    

[FairyGirl]

nope but it sounds like fun. Can we swim naked?

How odd, and here I was under the impression that my old stomping grounds were now yours, FG!

oh you wouldn't believe how much bathwater has accumulated here in the past few years! Unfortunately most of it is fairly toxic to the poor babies lol

[NicholeW.]

Yes, I've been swimming in that lake at the edge of town where you live. Much warmer during summer than Delaware Bay.

I think the only nude beaches in this area, well legal ones and not private only like Eden Resorts in Lancaster, PA, is Gunnison Beach in Sandy Hook Recreation Area and National Seashore up in Middletown, NJ. I don't think we can, legally, swim nude anywhere else.

However, I have been told by anonymous sources that there are a few lakes around here that people, when they were in high school, skinny-dipped in!    

[Nero]

interesting. the jury's still out on whetehr i believe in past lives, but if there were past lives, i believe they would affect us in some ways.

[FairyGirl]

However, I have been told by anonymous sources that there are a few lakes around here that people, when they were in high school, skinny-dipped in!

sounds like every swimming hole creek in TN I've ever been to lol

[NicholeW.]

sounds like every swimming hole creek in TN I've ever been to lol

And running around graveyards nekkid as well? You are goin' to have to meet my anonymous sources!

[finewine]

If we consider the influence of past lives or anything "mystical" on us, then I suggest that there needs to be the signature of interaction.  It's difficult to imagine how anything could exert an influence without any form of interaction, unless one wishes to subscribe ideas based on "pure magic".

If there is an interaction, then it should be theoretically detectable, reproduceable or verifiable - taking it out of the "supernatural" and placing the phenomenon in the natural.  I have no problem considering any idea that is open to this principle.

I get intensely skeptical when any hypothesis is put forward couched in constraints or terms that seek to render it completely outside the realm of interaction and into the supernatural.  Partly because this makes the hypothesis untestable but mainly on the sheer principle of "well if that's true, then how the hell could you possibly know anyway!?"

By defining the hypothesis in such terms, the proponent has inadvertently eliminated themself as an observer or witness because they've defined themselves out of the interaction...and that's what makes it a "woo woo" idea.   (That and the lack of any evidence)

[fake consultant]

you know, it might be possible to test this by experiment.

to create a hypothesis, you'd need a list of patterns and expected outcomes.

then you recruit a random group of subjects and a second, random, control group. do not inform them as to the nature of the experiment--and do not allow them to disclose their sexual orientations.

next conduct the past-life analysis, record the patterns observed in real time, and collect the predictions of sexual preference...but keep them sealed until later.

at this point, allow some other group of "analysts" to guess as to the sexual preferences of the control group members--no interviews, just guesses.

at this point, you recruit a "blind" group of interviewers to re-interview the subjects to determine actual sexual preference and compare to the predictions and the guesses.

[finewine]

A nice idea but the flaw would be in the quality of the non-control predictions based on a past-life analysis because there's no objective way to know that you're really drawing predictions by analyzing a past life vs. tapping into someones imagination.

The obvious problem is knowing who (or what) the alleged past life was, let alone the sexual orientation.  There would be no experimental difference between a prediction and a guess.

From a scientific perspective, the result would be comparing guesses with guesses.  I suppose if you ran the experiment enough times to generate a statistically significant result set, you could draw some conclusions.

For example, if the non-control group *consistently* scored highly compared to a random distribution in the control group then that would suggest there is some correlation.

Of course, if the result is a chance distribution on both sides, then all we'd prove is that this particular experiment yields no supporting evidence of past lives.  You can't *disprove* past lives, or any other hypothesis, you can only show it's weakness in predicting outcomes.

Unfortunately, proponents of "woo" are remarkably stubborn.  Their theories consistently fail to predict outcomes in line with observation, yet because it cannot be logically disproved, they assert equal status with theories that do align with observation.

[Miniar]

In cultures where reincarnation is a "given" the reincarnated person is not expected to be the same in the new life as he/she was in the last one. Personality, identity, and things like that, are considered physical in nature.
So, even where reincarnation is a given, the dead are dead, and the reincarnated are "new" people.

[fake consultant]

i think your analysis of what this experiment might yield is pretty accurate.

as i see it, the two likely outcomes would either be that people who use pre-documented patterns as a basis for prediction are able to accurately identify people by sexual orientaion more often than people who guess...or that they can't.

as you note, you won't be able to prove anything, but you might be able to establish a correlation.

[Nero]

In cultures where reincarnation is a "given" the reincarnated person is not expected to be the same in the new life as he/she was in the last one. Personality, identity, and things like that, are considered physical in nature.
So, even where reincarnation is a given, the dead are dead, and the reincarnated are "new" people.

what do you think about the idea that transpeople were their target gender in another life and this is why they feel trans?