Are we only as gay as we are left-handed?
Against the deflationary explanation of the LGBTQ+ explosion
One interesting rebuttal to Bryan Caplan’s viral blogpost on the social learning of homosexuality goes like this:
The proportion of people who identified as left-handed in 1930 was drastically lower than what we see today, even though the presence of a genetic predisposition to left-handedness has probably remained constant throughout that time. What explains the change? Presumably, the decline of a historical stigma against left-handedness!
Hence, contra Caplan, the multiplication of bisexuality by a factor of 75 since the generation preceding the Baby Boomers is nothing more than biology showing itself without varnish.
Although outwardly avowing and inwardly recognizing one’s homosexuality reflect a process of social learning, no one becomes bisexual or gay simply because they think it will earn them praise, or in order to imitate their peers. Of course, Caplan’s story isn’t that it isn’t even within the reaction range of our genes to become bisexual, but somehow people become bisexual anyway; after all, he’s thinks bisexuality is real and is learned, to the extent that it isn’t just a label people adopt without manifesting in actual sexual behavior.
So, what distinguishes the two models? Caplan’s is more inclusive of potential mechanisms: although a declining stigma may be part of it, peer-imitation and prestige-seeking are also at play. What test could we run to find out who is right?
If there was a culture with no stigma or praise for LGBTQ+ identification, we could compare its rates of ID with those in the United States. No such society exists as far as I am aware. Another test we could do would be to simply ask people whether they feel more or less gay depending on the admiration and praise they expect to receive for seeming gay. (Of course, social desirability bias would likely cloud the results to some degree.)
I’m not sure of any such formal lines of evidence, but there’s something to be said for the base rate: the last half century of social psychology research attests to the fact that we inhabit the roles we think will earn us social credit from the inside too, the better to pass on the outside.
I don’t particularly enjoy tea, but my friends made me think I would seem worldly if I accompanied them to a tea shop. I knew myself too well to think I would remain immune to its charms. I found myself trying to overtly display my interest, and began to find the experience more enjoyable as I got into the role. I am back to disliking tea, and look back with nothing short of amazement at how thoroughly my brain enlisted my emotions to the task of being a good team player.
Do you remember being a kid and trying to seem like you liked something because you thought it made you cool? Did you notice that you started to like that thing a little more as a result? If this wasn’t a thing, why does the advertising industry exist?
Another relevant strand of evidence: in our times, there’s a lot of social praise to go around if you’re LGBTQ+. There are literally parades for you.
To close, I don’t have a strong conclusion to offer you because I don’t think the “left-handedness” objection leaves us with much in the way of testable empirical predictions, at least in practice. But I will keep my mind open. Please, enlighten me if you have any other ideas.