Desktop Google Chrome Windows 8. Plugin W. Media Player Winamp.
Meu perfil Enviar letra Mensagens Editar Sair. Editar playlist. Tem certeza que deseja excluir esta playlist? Cancelar Excluir. Cancelar Sair. Excluir playlist Cancelar Salvar. Quem pode ouvir Todos Somente eu. Isaac Murphy, that is very convincing. But I would like to have a really solid understanding of why it is incorrect, or correct, as the case may be. Periodically I ask Google and see what the latest bloggers have to say. Bob They do seem parallel. Parallel and wrong. I agree with Bob Hearn. Again, language is arbitrary.
- The Reason Why.
- the reason (that vs why) is (because) | WordReference Forums!
- 13 Reasons Why!
- Navigation menu?
- The Reason Why Vol. 3 | Goran Kajfes.
Grammatical Highgrounderon : I think you are being a little unfair by claiming that the use of redundancy in language is a sign of low intelligence. Remember, language is strongly rehearsed and deeply entrenched in behaviour. Automatic illogical behaviours are easy to miss if one is not directly focusing on them. Plus, the rules of language are generally not understood explicitly, and it is only when we learn about grammar and the forms of language that we would notice, and bother to scrutinize, these redundancies.
I just came across this. By Mark Nichol. Stop making those embarrassing mistakes! Subscribe to Daily Writing Tips today! You will improve your English in only 5 minutes per day, guaranteed!
You'll also get three bonus ebooks completely free! LeVay writes that there are several possible mechanisms by which genes predisposing persons of one sex to homosexuality might increase the reproductive potential of persons of the opposite sex, for example, the economist Edward M.
Miller 's proposal that the inheritance of a limited number of "feminizing" genes might make males more attractive to females by giving them increased empathy and kindness, or rendering them less aggressive, in turn making them more successful in reproductive terms, while a larger number of feminizing genes might result in male homosexuality. LeVay writes that a study has provided supporting evidence.
Reviewing his work on the hypothalamus, LeVay defends his study from the criticism that the differences in brain structure between gay and straight men which it found were simply a side-effect of AIDS , which all the gay men in the study had died from. LeVay writes that there was no obvious pathology in the specimens he studied and that he was subsequently able to study a gay man who died of factors unrelated to AIDS and found that his INAH 3 was the same size as those of the gay men in his study.
LeVay notes that one attempt has been made to replicate his study. The psychiatrist and neuroscientist William Byne found a difference in INAH 3 size between gay and straight men, but the difference was not quite statistically significant by the criteria Byne used.
LeVay concludes that homosexuality is, "part of a package of gender-atypical traits. For the second edition, LeVay added a new chapter dealing with aspects of sexuality and gender such as bisexuality, asexuality, attraction to different age groups, "butch" and "femme" behavior, preferences for different sexual roles or positions, and transsexualism. The book appeared in paperback in In , a second edition was published. Velasco called the book "a comprehensive, engaging and occasionally quite funny look at the current state of the research.
- Zärtlich ist die Nacht (detebe) (German Edition).
- The Greatest Period of Human Turmoil: The 21st Century.
- Some experts say ‘the reason is because’ is not correct.
- Blacksmith to the Stars (The Children of the Nephilim Book 1);
- Genetics explain the reason why people hate cilantro.
- One of Thirteen (Crimson Lore Book 5).
- 'The Reason Is Because': Redundant But Acceptable.
Blum noted that many of the most influential studies LeVay cited were from previous decades, and wrote that "when a chapter on the importance of biology in sexuality contains 32 citations and 23 of them date to the year or earlier, a book can feel a bit dated. Publishers Weekly commented that, "The nature vs. The review concluded that, "LeVay comes close at times to dry recitation of research results, but although the book's chief appeal probably will be to professionals dealing with these issues, other interested readers will find it an informative and generally approachable read.
Andy Cohen Gives the Reason Why Real Housewives Get Fired from the Shows
Schlichenmeyer wrote that the book was "intriguing" and made "sense on several levels". However, she also found it overcomplicated and technical. However, he considered the book necessary to bring together the information from such studies. He compared some of the research projects LeVay described, such as those that involved attempts to correlate the ratio of various finger lengths to sexual orientation, to Victorian anthropometry.
Jones in Christian Scholar's Review. Lippa called the book "an excellent review" of scientific research on sexual orientation and "fair-minded, and easy-to-read".
The Reason Why This Is Correct | Arrant Pedantry
However, he argued that the book had subtle problems readers not familiar with the primary literature might not notice. He wrote that LeVay's claim that if one of a pair of monozygotic twins is gay, the other is roughly fifty per cent likely to be gay as well is incorrect, and that research that LeVay himself cites shows that the actual odds are much smaller.
He noted that discovering such mistakes undermined his confidence in LeVay's work in general. He accused LeVay of having a tendency to employ "creative" arguments to explain away findings inconsistent with his theory, criticizing the methodology only of studies that disagreed with him, and of wrongly implying that sexual orientation must be caused either only by biological factors or only by environmental factors, failing to suggest ways in which the two factors could interact. He rejected LeVay's claim that there is no evidence environmental factors influence sexual orientation, writing that "examples abound" of significant sociocultural influence, and argued that LeVay sometimes employed studies with dubiously representative samples despite his awareness of the problems involved in doing so.
Gay, Straight, and the Reason Why received a negative review in Socialist Review from Colin Wilson, who argued that LeVay failed to deal convincingly with evidence showing that people cannot be easily divided into categories such as homosexual and heterosexual, that in his evaluation of the biological evidence LeVay sometimes relied on studies with inadequate sample sizes, that the studies do not consistently support LeVay's hypothesis, and that LeVay was "too obsessed with his hypothesis to accept that it doesn't work" and was following a misguided strategy to advance the cause of gay rights by showing that homosexuality has a biological basis, in the process accepting sexist stereotypes.
- Bedbug smell and source of immortality.
- 21 Responses to “Is There a Reason “the Reason Why” Is Considered Wrong?”.
- Tuscan Heat!
Lauritsen charged LeVay with ignorance of relevant historical and anthropological evidence and poor scholarship, noting that LeVay's bibliography excluded important works by the biologist Kinsey and the psychologist Clarence Arthur Tripp. They also argued that LeVay implicitly endorses conversion therapy, criticizing his view that some highly motivated gay people can be helped to engage in heterosexual relationships, and to "pay less attention to their homosexual feelings.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.