376 Comments
Comment deleted
May 3, 2023
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

Based on what's freely available on the web...

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/070674371105600107

This one's from 2011, and covers 34, 653 Canadians, but we have gay men with more mood and anxiety and substance use and cluster B disorders, whereas there are more bi men with cluster A personality disorders; both are more common relative to the general public. (Cluster C is about the same, though higher than the general public; same for suicide attempts.) Schizophrenia is more common among gay, though not bi men.

For women, it basically goes bi > gay> straight for all of the disorders except schizophrenia, which is lower among lesbians.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/the-british-journal-of-psychiatry/article/rates-and-predictors-of-mental-illness-in-gay-men-lesbians-and-bisexual-men-and-women/EFCC9177FC0DF526E0279DAE050F9CDE

This study had 1239 people. Bi men were a little higher for anxiety and depression (it has scores on a scale but no breakdown) than gay men, no such effect for bi vs lesbian. Gay men were a little more likely to have used drugs.

https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-020-09210-6

This survey had 25,880 middle-aged and older people. Again bi > gay > straight for mental illness for both men and women, though again it doesn't break down, say, bipolar vs ADHD. Drug use for bi and gay men is about the same, though higher than straight men; for women it's again bi > gay > straight. Interestingly for chronic *medical* illnesses it goes gay > bi and straight for men (it's all the same for women); maybe it pays to have a woman nagging you to be healthy?

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
May 3, 2023Edited
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

I had a similar thought in an earlier comment but you explained it so much better and in so much more detail.

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
May 3, 2023
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

No, it was my own terrible attempted joke, long COVID in the sense of longcat.

Expand full comment

Wait, that's actually pretty funny, but shouldn't it be stretched vertically rather than horizontally? Right now it's wide COVID.

Expand full comment

It's lying on its side because it's tired.

Expand full comment

Ooohhhh! LOL. I did not get the joke (or even that there was a joke) until this thread.

It's not a terrible joke, it's just very (too?) subtle. I showed it to my wife, and she giggled nervously (she knew I thought it was funny because I had just laughed, but she didn't get it). I explained the joke to her, and she thought it was clever, too.

Sibling thread about wide Covid lying on its side because tired is also gold.

Expand full comment

I like the idea, but I think the intent would've gotten across better with some form of repetition of the middle section rather than scaling the whole thing. 🙂

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
May 3, 2023Edited
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

"Everyone knows a woman who claimed to be bisexual in their 20s yet goes back to getting together with men or never stopped in the first place."

This comment suggests you don't know what bisexuality is. Bisexuality means someone who would be happy dating someone of either sex. Compare to eg me saying I would be happy dating either blondes or brunettes. If I then date a brunette, and then later date a blonde, this doesn't prove I was lying when I said I was okay with either.

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
May 3, 2023
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

Again, I think this is misunderstanding bisexuality.

I wouldn't adopt the "bisexual" label for social reasons because I find the idea of dating a man to be repulsive. Some men do adopt that label, then go on to date both men and women, which apparently suggests they're built differently from me. Even if they eventually get married to a woman, or continue to date some women while also dating men (which is completely consistent with their claim that they're okay with either), that doesn't change my belief that there's something there different from me going on.

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
May 3, 2023
Comment deleted
Expand full comment
Comment deleted
May 3, 2023
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

If there is an element of trendiness in choosing to self-describe as bisexual, then those who do so for trendy reasons are showing they are susceptible to social influence, and I expect that might be generalised into a tendency to be more influenced by other items in the social milieu, including self-diagnosing with the disease du jour. I don't care whether they are "real' bisexuals or not, whatever that might mean, only that we are very likely to see suggestible people in greater than expected numbers among those who claim to have internet-famous conditions.

Expand full comment

There is a difference between something being *possible*, and something being so *frequent* that it explains statistical outcomes.

It is possible that a Chinese cardiologist is a murderer? Yes, certainly.

If we look at the statistics of how many Chinese cardiologists have Long COVID, and someone says: "well, the obvious hypothesis most people ignore is that they are murderers, and perhaps being a murderer changes your probability of reporting Long COVID because..." that is a much stronger statement.

*

Also, if we are using speculation as a research method, it works both ways. You know, there are also environments where people are under social pressure to publicly identify as "heterosexual", no matter how they actually feel (or sometimes who they secretly have sex with). By coincidence, these are often the environments where people publicly doubt whether COVID actually exists, or is actually dangerous. This would explain why people identifying as "heterosexual" are more likely to deny having symptoms of Long COVID.

Do you feel convinced?

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
May 3, 2023
Comment deleted
Expand full comment
Comment deleted
May 3, 2023
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

I'm not denying that some people might claim to be bisexual because it's trendy, I'm denying that "she was bisexual, but also dated men" or "she was bisexual but eventually settled down with a man" provides evidence at all that a bisexual is doing that.

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
May 3, 2023
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

Here is some data from a poll: https://news.gallup.com/poll/389555/lgbt-americans-married-same-sex-spouse-steady.aspx

> Bisexual adults are overwhelmingly likely to be married to, or living with, someone of a different sex (32%) rather than someone of the same sex (5%).

I think that's some evidence that a lot of use of this label is of the trendy nature.

Expand full comment

I think when you say it's either no difference or only opposite sex (or only same sex) you're oversimplifying things. Probably a lot of people have both strong sex urges and preferences that can't always be satisfied. IIRC Kinsey used a 9 level scale in this area. (That's second hand, and I never checked, so don't trust it.)

Expand full comment

I've known multiple out-and-proud confirmed lesbians, across decades (so not evidence of a recent phenomenon), who later in life partnered with and even married men. I have never inquired about this choice, but I believe it has something to do with social acceptance (and maybe something about the male temperament) making for an easier, more relaxed partnership.

I've also known nominally gay women who didn't have a problem with dick, just with what was attached to it; they would have long-term relationships with women, and casual encounters with men. That might fall under "genderqueer" these days.

I don't think any of these people were lying to themselves, or anyone else; I think our categories are insufficiently descriptive of the human experience.

Expand full comment

It's hard to take this seriously when your disrespect for this example person is coming through so clearly. Anyway I bet in many cases this isn't done for the social value of being edgy, or whatever, so much as it is based on a newly-acquired understanding that rigid sexuality is largely made up and actual sexuality can be much more fluid than believed in adolescence (gradually discovering that you can love or be attracted to all kinds of people). It can easily be a phase of positive growth rather than an attention-seeking reaction.

I've known people who did what seemed on the surface like what you described -- a bisexual 'phase' -- but if anything the big indicator is that they are, like, *turned on* by both sexes, which is to say, it's _real_ as far as anyone who's keeping score is concerned. But what you are turned on by and what you can imagine a stable relationship of don't have to overlap.

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
May 3, 2023Edited
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

Gore Vidal (very famously openly gay) took the position that a word like "homosexual" shouldn't be used to describe a person at all. It describes an act.

Seen this way, all of this becomes kinda ridiculous because in our interactions in the world, it's only in very specific situations where we need to be able to predict someone's sexual behavior without other context (i.e..need an identifier).

Expand full comment

When you say "claimed to be bisexual", I see it as an accusation of lying. "Said they were bisexual" is what I consider to be neutral language.

I actually know a woman who said she was bisexual and ended up with a man. Apparently her actual orientation is tall, quiet, blond(e)s.

The pattern could mostly be a matter of odds if lesbians/bisexual women are rare compared to heterosexual men.

Expand full comment

Another complexity is that bisexuality is a plus in some social circles and a minus in others, including some homosexual social circles. I have no idea how the two balance out.

Expand full comment

The point is that how you label your sexuality and your behavior are two different things.

A lot of bisexual-identified people have a revealed preference for heterosexual relationships. Some straight-identified people enjoy gay sex. This suggest that the difference between straight- and bisexual-identified people isn't just that of sexual preference.

To put it more rudely for the sake of clarity: Bisexual identity, like long covid, is transmitted socially. And people more susceptible to such transmission (notably women) are more likely to have both.

Expand full comment

Bisexuality doesn't necessarily mean 'ambivalent gender of attraction'--lots of bi people have a preference for one or the other.

Your average male Kinsey 2, and even your average male Kinsey 4, is much more likely to identify as straight, because there's a huge amount of stigma attached to male bisexuality (and fear of STDs), whereas a female Kinsey 2 or 4 is much more likely to ID as bi. Identifying as a bi man will hurt you with straight women (who are much more numerous than gay men), whereas identifying as a bi woman will...not hurt you with straight men.

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
May 4, 2023Edited
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

Well said about the blue-red tribe distinction (the bi women I knew weren't that bad drama-wise, though I'm sure you definitely experienced what you experienced!) and I should have taken that into account when writing that.

I still think you have a response-bias issue between men and women because the blue tribe is so big. But it's likely half as large as I anticipated initially, or smaller.

Expand full comment

Sure, I'm not saying that the only reason people identify as bi is to be trendy, obviously a lot of other factors are at play.

Expand full comment

Given that most women exhibit a bisexual arousal pattern in formal studies, why can't we say that heterosexual female identity is transmitted socially?

A woman who identifies as bisexual is more likely to be accurately describing her physiological responses. Do we need to explain away accuracy as some kind of mental weakness?

Expand full comment

To the contrary, increased awareness of one’s own physiology could apply across the board, all the way to spotting pathological alterations of it. So our hypothetical woman would be more likely to spot signs of long covid, even when they are subtle.

Expand full comment

How is that different from what I said?

Expand full comment

It’s not, I was agreeing with you

Expand full comment

Yea I agree that you don't have to see it as a negative, especially when it's something harmless like identifying as bi.

But most of the time these illnesses cause real harm, like young women "catching" tourettes from tit-tok influencers:

https://web.archive.org/web/20221224132431/https://www.theamericanconservative.com/what-long-covid-means/

Expand full comment

I think the blonde/brunette example is actually instructive. I think most people accept that "attractiveness" is at least somewhat culturally determined. Some cultures favor thicc butts (or whatever) and so *more* people in such a society then favor thicc butts. It's hard to differentiate between the people who would've liked thicc butts regardless of cultural impact and those who were swayed at the margin.

If attraction to same or other-sex people is similarly culturally mediated (which is Try Catholicism's suggestion), you'd still have a group of people who are intrinsically bisexual, but there would also be some number of people who would develop that attraction (or not) due to social factors. Those people would label themselves as "bisexual" while in the culture favors bisexuality, but then actually feel less/not bisexual if moved to a culture (let's call it "not college") that doesn't favor bisexuality. And those people may also be the people who are probably more likely to internalize other things (let's say, Long Covid) that are culturally favored or accepted in some way.

Expand full comment

Are you implying that some people who say they like big butts might in fact be lying, despite their comrades not denying this preference?

Expand full comment

Not lying - I'm suggesting actual sexual preferences are affected by cultural factors, which I think is fairly well accepted when we're talking about physical attributes within sexes.

And I was referring to "thicc" butts. I'm not sure what the research says on big butts.

Expand full comment

I think the real test would be be to observe, if a female were to enter the room with a large hip to waist ratio and curvaceous gluteus directly in your near-field view, would you become “sprung”?

Expand full comment

> I'm not sure what the research says on big butts.

I believe the prevailing opinion in the field can be found in the publications of Anthony L. Ray et al.

Expand full comment

An interesting follow up would be if pet preferences do in fact correspond to owner preferences.

Expand full comment

And also, does this preference transcend racial categories, as some have claimed, at least for sufficiently shapely and voluminous butts?

Expand full comment

We might be able to rule this out with an experimental manipulation. Have a confederate with a slim waistline but a large amount of gluteal adipose tissue enter the room, and observe whether these claimed big-butt lovers do, in fact, get sprung.

Of course, you'd need a control condition involving someone who does not got buns.

Expand full comment

There's a lot of rounding you can do.

I know people who have the same level of interest in homosexual encounters as I do in heterosexual encounters. They occassionally find people of the same sex attractive, and are curious enough to act on it once or twice in a lifetime, but they clearly are more interested in opposite sex encounters. This is based on conversations and self-description, NOT observing who they date.

Yet these people would say on a survey "I'm bisexual," whereas I would say on a survey "I'm homosexual" because I'd rather simplify my self-presentation and they are motivated to complexify their presentation. They emphasize the ambiguity, I hide the ambiguity.

I have honestly considered the possibility that I have long covid. I entertain the possibility with comparable frequency to how often I entertain opposite-sex attraction: maybe every few months, when I'm in a certain frame of mind. But I said "no long covid" on the survey, because I'm not interested in broadcasting my random uncertainty.

Expand full comment

Yeah, this was my off-the-cuff theory. Maybe rounding up is correlated with rounding up, and vice versa. There's all sorts of reasons why someone might round up or down, but maybe there's signal in the noise.

Expand full comment

It's anecdotal but it does seem to be true that more young than old women identify as bisexual. Without wanting to gatekeep their sexuality, it does strike me at least a little as an affectation (And I can freely admit that if being a bisexual man were socially encouraged, I would have experimented with it more)

Expand full comment

If we go by prejudices many homosexual men have an outgoing personality; yet they have even less long COVID than heterosexual men. You are just trying to shove your own prejudices and believes into the discussion ... (especially considering your Boomer numbers are outright wrong and used to validate your claims, even as far back as 1948 those numbers were much higher: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_Reports#Findings https://kinseyinstitute.org/research/publications/kinsey-scale.php )

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
May 3, 2023Edited
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

Your whole argument hinges on 'Gen Z are more likely to identify as LGBTQ because it's 'trendy'' while not considering the inverse 'Boomers are less likely to identify as LGBTQ because of stigmatization'.

These are surveys about how people identify and they will be affected by the generation one was brought up in. If a Gen Z person has had even the slightest romantic attraction towards someone of the same sex, they will be more likely to identify as bi than an Boomer with those same feelings who will explain them away.

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
May 3, 2023
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

The proof is in the pudding. You have confirmed that you are standing on your beliefs and interpreting the data the way you do. Your bias is not an "obvious conclusion" or basis for a rational conversation. Thoughtful conversation requires a mind that is willing to be changed. Is your perspective on this something that could change and if so, what might be convincing to you?

Expand full comment

You aren't comparing like with like there. Kinsey had a scale, whereas you are trying to compare his nuanced results with an absolute number you googled somewhere. Kinsey had a scale for a reason, and research has since become even more nuanced.

Additionally Kinsey did his research at a time where talking about such things was much more of a taboo back then. If anything, it's Kinsey's numbers which are skewed.

Also: holding random numbers from various sources side by side without context makes no sense at all. The actual ratios depend heavily on the methodology used. There is way more nuance to human sexuality than the heavy labels you are trying to slap onto it. Which is why your approach is prone to fail.

And yes: there is a cultural aspect the human sexuality as well. If society doesn't scold you for exploring your true self the results will of course be very different to those of a society which freaks out at anyone who even dares talking about sex. So yes: those numbers might have changed to a degree.

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
May 3, 2023
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

I don't take issue with Gallup. I take issue with your own personal interpretation of the results of their work ...

Your claims aren't their claims. All they claim is that to a certain question to a certain panel they got a certain ratio of responses. Everything else is your (faulty) interpretation ...

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
May 3, 2023
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

Trans and homosexuality are mostly sociocultural/environmental phenomena anyway (ie. not congenital/biological). This certainly does not mean they are a choice of course, but very little evidence that anyone is born trans or homosexual (and certainly not 30% of the population). So if they are mostly sociocultural/environmental phenomena, it should be normal that with greater acceptance their incidence will increase and vice-versa.

Expand full comment

Considering that literally each and every sexually reproducing species of animals has been observed to perform homosexual practices I don't buy the "mostly sociocultural/environmental phenomena anyway" part. It's very obviously part of the natural variance of behaviors which come with sexual reproduction, even in animals which don't really form any kind of societies. Environmental factors could play a role, but those shouldn't vary in line with social acceptance.

Considering that homosexuality isn't an ON-OFF-switch, I fully agree with your "it should be normal that with greater acceptance their incidence will increase and vice-versa"; if by "incidence" we agree to mean that people act on this preference, instead of suppressing it trying to adhere to opposing social norms, if they feel allowed to do so.

Expand full comment

Yes, homosexuality in nature occurs opportunistically but there is no evidence of a sustained sexual preference for the opposite sex in wild animals under natural circumstances. This has only been observed in human beings and in one breed of domestic sheep. In other words, given an equal choice in natural conditions, the sexual preference in nature is for the opposite sex (which is hard to argue against from a Darwinian perspective). In overcrowded conditions, homosexuality increases (which seems pretty self-explanatory), hence environmental factors are clearly at play. And very hard to argue that in the highly socialized existence that we humans have, that the socialcultural aspect is not extremely influential as well (perhaps the most important factor).

Expand full comment

You don’t think animals have cultures of environments?

Expand full comment

Animals don't engage in 'homosexual practices', as they--with very few exceptions--don't engage in social nor recreational sex. Homosexual activities in animals is a deviation of aim, not a deviation of objective.

Bulling behavior in cows, isn't one cow horny for another, its a cow overcome by hormones that in the natural world would have brought a large number of bulls to engage in sex with her.

Expand full comment

> Trans and homosexuality are mostly sociocultural/environmental phenomena anyway

What about bisexuality?

Expand full comment

FYI, Kinsey data expands to the following numbers, rounded for convenience:

40% of men engaged in same-sex activity at some point in their lives.

30% of men engaged in same-sex activity to orgasm, at some point in their lives.

10% of men had exclusively same-sex sexual contact for a period of at least five years.

4% of men had exclusively same-sex sexual contact for their entire lifespan.

Which of these you classify as 'gay', 'bisexual', etc. is kind of dodgy, especially in the 50s. If you take this data as gospel, I don't think it's at all out of the question that a fairly large plurality of the population would adopt bisexual identity in a 'neutral' setting, though it's honestly anyone's guess what the 'zero tension' number actually is given some hypothetical perfectly-tolerant society.

Expand full comment

I don't think social scientists take Kinsey's numbers that seriously today.

Expand full comment

That's beyond the point. Whether those numbers were good or bad doesn't change the fact that they are MUCH closer to the numbers we find today than "Try Catholicism" claimed! So the change isn't as massive as he implied ...

Expand full comment

If the numbers are bad, then you can't determine whether the change was massive or not.

Expand full comment

Since there aren't any better numbers the same MUST be said for the initial claim I was contesting. Those are the numbers which exist; may they be bad or not. The other numbers were simply made-up.

Throughout this thread I repeatedly stated already that comparing those numbers without regard for methodology is stupid anyways. We agree on that account. I was merely stating that even by doing this stupid thing the outcome wouldn't be the one "Try Catholizism" claimed ...

Expand full comment

The low numbers make sense in my mental model.

Everyone is bisexual. Like, basically everyone. There may be exceptions, but you could never prove it. In a Kinsey scale sense, the *actual* 0s and 6s, if you could read minds instead of relying on surveys or observations, is a negligible percentage of the population.

So why doesn't everyone identify as bisexual?

Well, some of it is legitimately being a Kinsy 3 vs a Kinsey 1 or 5. But on the margins, some people are dedicated to expressing the complexity of their inner personality, and in the social cache of being "queer," while others are more interested in hiding their inner complexity and avoiding the social stigma of being "queer."

Heterosexual-identifiers have two potential motivations, but homosexual-identifiers have only one potential motivation (since they're queer anyways). Hence, anyone claiming to be homosexual in a survey must be statistically less interested in flaunting their inner complexity in surveys (compared to the population as a whole)

Expand full comment

My personal crazy theory, of many years' standing, is that I think there's (at least) two axes here - attraction and (for lack of a better word) phobia. So I think some of what gets counted as 1s and 5s are people who have no attraction but simply aren't repulsed by that type of sex. Cats being grey at night, and all that.

Having the axes be completely independent would imply the existence of heterosexual people who are phobic of heterosexual sex or the opposite sex, and the homosexual equivalent. And frankly, I think that would explain a fair bit of pathological behavior.

Expand full comment

I’d guess a similar correlation with queer or trans identities would warrant further speculation in this direction, but the sheer number of bisexual responses to the survey suggests you might be overly dismissive here.

I don’t think most people who casually use the word demisexual consider that an identity. I think it’s more a qualifier, used especially on dating apps to signal disinterest in hookups.

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
May 3, 2023
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

The relevant point for here though is that it's not in the survey (except under "other", which is too small a number to be statistically analyzed).

Expand full comment

I've known three people who might be said to have had Long Covid. One was an fit fell runner who suffered extreme fatigue and poor concentration for over six months. This was in 2020. She is now ok but it was very scary, and very unpleasant. Another has had what might be called LC since falling mildly ill with Covid in 2021. Symptoms include aches and pains, physical weakening, and fatigue. Not life changing but not nice and still there.

On bisexuality, I am a bi male. Few people know that: for example, my children and most of my friends don't know. I haven't had any same sex action this century and I don't expect to do so in future: nonetheless I have in the past enjoyed it and felt attraction to men. That's a report on experience which may or may not be widely shared but which in fact I suspect to be quite common. If one has settled with a life partner, advertising who hypothetically one would be prepared to sleep with seems somewhat strange.

There is a rather irritating tendency in the rationalist community to interpret behaviours and preferences in terms of social positioning, as though people might not genuinely like hiking, or poetry, or playing the drums. Long Covid is real. Bisexuality is real. Baseless and generalised questioning of integrity doesn't advance the debate

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
May 3, 2023
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

That conclusion only works if you believe it is likely that a large fraction of the people who identify as bisexual fit that description.

Expand full comment

I view our attraction/revoltion on a horizontal scale, and imprint an imaginary histogram atop that.

Some people are going to be very far on either edge, but most are centered. But where are the boundaries between the bands is going to be determined by nature and nurture, and with a heavy dose of culture.

Now make two plots, same sex attraction/revoltion, and opposite sex attraction/revoltion.

Expand full comment

I think this also explains why the effect is larger with bisexual women. In many circles, bisexualism in women is much less frowned upon than in men (is this true statistically?), so the "self-reports bisexuality for attention seeking" is much more plausible with women.

Expand full comment

Yeah, I would guess "left alignment" + "desire to be special" ("specialness deficiency"?) is a big cofounding factor. If you want to increase your "specialness score" bisexuality is an attractive option as it doesn't really *require* any behavior changes. (I think this can be subconscious - I don't think this has to be a conversation about 'lying')

I think the left alignment is a big factor, and the specialness factor is why it's a stronger effect compared to homosexuality, despite both fairly equally implying a left alignment.

Expand full comment

How about:

A lot of women prefer men, but also don't want to get pregnant outside a stable relationship. When they find a man and form a stable relationship, they are satisfied. When they are outside a stable relationship, women are safer, and reasonably satisfying.

Expand full comment

Very interesting research!

Here's a potential alternate interpretation of the data that occurred to me: Perhaps bisexual people are more likely to have more sex, which means they're more likely to contract STD's, which means that on average they are immunologically different to some degree and might legitimately get different physiological consequences from COVID. I don't actually believe this - I think your theory is at least as likely - but I'd be very interested in any analysis that tries to look into this.

Expand full comment

I asked myself the same question. But if that was true then we should see homosexual men having a higher rate of long covid than heterosexual men. Instead, homosexual men have a particularly *low* rate of long covid.

That outcome argues against some comorbid STD leading to long COVID.

Androgens and their related receptors also seem linked to COVID. But I can't figure out what condition would put bisexual women, in particular, at risk.

Expand full comment

Perhaps just like the correlation between being trans and hyper-mobile Scott wrote about, there’s a genetic link with bisexuality and autoimmunity issues.

Expand full comment

Some of us might be flexible enough to kick our own asses!

Expand full comment

That looks pretty plausible. Is there some data about other autoimmune/ post infection problems and bisexuality?

Expand full comment

Using the data shared by a fellow ‘commenter’ where bisexuals are considerably more likely to have relationships with the opposite sex (32%) than the same sex (5%), I think there’s an interesting possibility to consider.

It’s clear that within society there are those who are more confident/definitive about their views/experiences/ideas and those who are less.

This is maybe a commonality with sexuality and something like long covid. Having seen the way long covid was discussed in the media there’s no denying it’s considerably vague. A whole range of often common symptoms were mentioned. Therefore, when it comes to asking a given population whether they had long covid I think there’s a subsection in the population who are less likely to rule things out and perhaps going further, tend to question themselves. Maybe I do have long covid? I have had a stomach ache recently etc.

Similarly with sexuality, perhaps there’s a similar subsection of people who don’t have the conviction in describing their sexuality. Maybe they haven’t fully explored it yet and unlike others aren’t quite willing to rule things out. Bisexuality is clearly the ‘less definitive’ out of the 3 sexuality options, after all.

Expand full comment

So good to see the use of an engaged audience for replication studies. It's really a unique community

Expand full comment

Did you correlate with political orientation? I'd expect that in the US, people willing to acknowledge they're bisexual are probably much more likely to be liberal than conservative/Republican/etc.; and that liberals/Democrats/etc. are probably, on average, more willing to acknowledge that they've had covid / that covid can be dangerous / etc.

Expand full comment

So why not the gays?

Expand full comment

Today if you are gay, you are very likely to accept it. If you grew up red tribe, you may stay red tribe while admitting it. If you grow up blue tribe you certainly will and you'll stay. But if you are bi and in the red tribe - it's a lot easier to pretend to yourself and surveys that you are hetro. If you are bi and blue tribe - you acknowledge it and stay blue tribe.

P(R|B) < P(R|G) because you can still pretend you aren't bi but won't pretend you aren't gay.

There's surely a data table that will quickly confirm or deny this theory but a quick google didn't turn it up..

Expand full comment

This seems like the real deal to me. A blue-tribe person who is open to sex with the same sex but pair-bonds with the opposite sex is MUCH more likely to identify as bisexual than a red-tribe person in the same situation, so the identifies bi population skews heavily blue-tribe and has all of the markers of blue-tribe including "thinks X symptoms are long-covid when a red-tribe person wouldn't think that" and "cops to mental illnesses that a red-tribe person wouldn't cop to". In this admittedly evidence-free analysis, identified mental illness and long-covid are both downstream from culture, rather than identified mental illness being innate and long-covid being downstream from that.

Expand full comment

Crucially, this doesn't suggest to me that bi/mentally ill/long-covid peeps are lying, or that straight/mentally healthy/short-covid peeps are lying, just that those two groups have different thresholds for using those terms to describe themselves, and those thresholds all correlate by culture.

Expand full comment

Precisely these sort of fine-tuned language differences make self-reported polling about anything even slightly abstract weak.

Expand full comment

gay is harder to ignore then bi

Expand full comment

This comment irked me in a way that makes me feel like maybe I'm suffering from a bad faith read of what you meant to say. It sounds to me like you're implying that there's a significant faction of conservatives/Republicans out there somewhere who are actively in denial about having had COVID, which seems grossly out of touch to me.

It makes me wonder what sort of experience you've had with conservatives/Republicans, because I know plenty of them and none seem particularly likely to be deluding themselves about their own health. If anything, they're more likely to take a responsible approach to the whole ordeal than my liberal friends.

Expand full comment

My dad died of COVID. His widow called my uncle (on his ex-wife's side) to see if he'd gotten a memorial CD. _During that phone call_ he told her, "I don't see what everyone's so upset about. It's just the flu." He watches Fox News. I don't talk to him anymore.

I've read multiple accounts from doctors and nurses, describing how conservatives _who are dying of COVID in the hospital_ deny that they have COVID.

I'm glad you don't know conservatives like that. But you interpreted my comment correctly, and it was made from personal experience and apparently-valid multi-sourced information.

Expand full comment

Your uncle sounds like a real piece of work, and I sympathize with your story. I had an uncle pass away recently, and it was a combination of diabetic and COVID-related complications.

Unfortunately, the way you've set up this comment is further ostracizing me from the conversation. Since I don't subscribe to the partisan perspective, it's not exactly damning to me that your uncle watched Fox News and I don't really understand why you included it...

*Wow, Fox News!? It's, like, they're the other team, right?* /s

I ran a quick Google search (<10m) trying to unearth some of these testimonials you're referring to, where bedridden hospital patients are denying their diagnosis, and couldn't find anything but headlines railing against the 'mass conservative delusion'. The search I used was "conservative denies having covid" - please feel free to link me to any sources that you have.

I've definitely encountered my share of radicals, and I'm not denying that there are some delusional folks, but the idea that they're proliferous enough to significantly impact Scott's poll would be pretty shocking to me. Especially given that the ACX audience is majority democrat.

Expand full comment

Red-tribe here, have had COVID, have never denied it.

Expand full comment

I'm wondering if it's explained by something like how likely you are to hear symptoms and think "that's something that describes me" rather than just kinda going with the default answer unless you are forced into picking the other.

I mean, suppose you've occasionally had sexual or sexualish thoughts about someone of the same gender (Iess sure if there is a standard answer effect if homosexual). One sort of person might not think much of that unless they feel them quite strongly while another might report they are bisexual. The same kind of attitude plausibly affects how you answer long COVID questions.

Expand full comment

I think this is the most plausible explanation I've seen: it has something to do with how we process ambiguous stimuli.

(I'd further hypothesize that this factor is different from, but positively correlated with, the "tolerance for ambiguity" dimension of trait Openness.)

Expand full comment

I think what Peter is getting at here is something subtly different from a threshold effect, although I'm having trouble articulating the difference. I think the best way I can put it in "threshold" terms is something like "assessment of the relevance of subthreshold data."

That is, a hypothetical psychological factor behind bisexual identity couldn't really be describe as "high threshold" *or* "low threshold. A Kinsey 2-3 identifying as bisexual could be "low-threshold." A Kinsey 6 identifying as bisexual could be "high-threshold." What they have in common is not "how much information do you need to reject the default and/or accept the alternative," but something like "when you have conflicting information, do you think it's more important to indicate which side you're leaning toward, or to highlight the conflict?"

(Possible connection to the great "lumpers vs. splitters" divide.)

How this tendency presents across different survey questions is likely to vary, although I'd expect an overall tendency to avoid extreme responses on Likert scales. But on e.g. vegetarianism, I don't think anyone is looking at the question, scratching their head, and saying "well, I'm not *not* a vegetarian..." in the same way they might be for long COVID or self-diagnosed mental illness/developmental disability.

(Political affiliation would seem like the best analogue for sexuality in a structural sense, but current politics is extremely weird.)

Expand full comment

Yes, that's what I'm suggesting. Thanks.

Expand full comment

Yeah I am straight as straight could be. So much more interested sexually in women than men, 100:1? 1000? Yet I can remember being IDK 11? Wrestling in shorts with another just on the cusp of puberty boys, and being super turned on by our smooth legs rubbing against each other.

More importantly I hadn’t had any real sexual contact/success with women at that time other than the modeling/aping 4-6 year olds do with each other.

I can see someone in a more modern environment, having that experience and living in this culture, and getting into this headspace where they convinced they are homo or bi-sexual.

But really I was just a horny boy who can be turned on by lots of things vaguely in the vicinity of having sex with a woman. And wrestling with a young boy was one of them.

Expand full comment

I wonder if it's as simple as relationships -> more close interactions with people for longer periods -> greater attack surface for covid and other spread-between-humans things. It's obviously a gross oversimplification that bisexuals have twice as many potential partners, but...(plus this relies on an assumption that one would treat a partner with more lenience wrt covid precautions; this is maybe unwarranted)

Expand full comment

This would have to be a *very* strong effect in order to produce the observed results!

Expand full comment

I think you've missed something in that my first theory would be people admitting they're bisexual on a survey are _weirder_, and more marginalised (and more likely to be Blue Team politically?) - and deciding your symptoms are long covid is something that people who are already not trying to be respectable are more likely to do, and something that is much more fashionable in the Blue Team world than the Red or Grey teams, and you're more likely to need to put a name / diagnosis to it (to obtain support) if otherwise marginalised.

The symptoms of Long Covid could be any number of things, including 'nothing much' to someone who is otherwise healthy - so 'do you label your symptoms long covid' doesn't have much bearing on 'do you have physical symptoms or not'.

(I am somewhat biased on this because I believe the world is currently making a dreadful mistake ignoring long covid which will become increasingly apparent as people with it age and can no longer ignore the minor symptoms, and things which are psychosomatic tend to be ignored or dismissed by society as something you can somehow just stop experiencing)

Expand full comment

Could also be reporting bias, same people who won't admit they're bisexual for social reasons won't admit to a potentially controversial illness (or identify what they have as it).

Expand full comment

I like this. I’m basically elaborating on what you said but there’s a large amount of conservative, religious people who barely admit that Covid is real. Many still call it a flu. So you can’t have long Covid if acute Covid doesn’t exist either. I would wager many of those also would deny and suppress any bisexual feelings, at least in signaling to others if not also not acting upon that. And chronic illness is also frowned upon in general among the bootstraps types, as it inherently admits reliance on others may be necessary and not immoral.

Expand full comment

Feels like you’re neglecting a possible arrow of causality in the other direction!

Imagine that there’s a relatively common personality trait, which expresses itself as a strong antipathy to stand out from one’s neighbors or be classified as a minority or exception; these people really really want to be ‘normal’, at least up to some threshold. Then, it seems obvious to me that they’d resist identifying as *either* bisexual *or* long-Covid.

This is not to exclude the other extreme- people with a very *low* threshold to identify as being part of a minority group or otherwise outside the typical human experience for their culture. Those people, in turn, would be more likely to identify as both bisexual *and* long-covidy, on the basis of minor expressions of either.

“People have a gradient for how willing they are to accept a self-identity far from their cultural center of gravity” seems like a pretty intuitive claim to me by observation. The only question is what fraction of our population tends towards either extreme; if they happen to be evenly balanced, it makes for a weird situation where overdiagnosing bisexuals exactly cancel out underdiagnosing people on the other side.

Expand full comment

Great comment IMO, just want to say it

Expand full comment

Thanks!

Expand full comment

Would that explain the effect for homosexuality, though? It seems like this predicts that they would also be more long-covidy. (Not trying to argue against you, just trying to work through the logic.)

Expand full comment

In my mental model, heteroosexuals have a confounder for homophobia, and homosexual identification is only testing for "how weird do you want to look."

In particular, being bisexual is "zanier" than being homosexual, just because being gay has more of its own established cultural identity whereas bisexuals are weird and marginal from the persepctive of both cultures.

Expand full comment

I was thinking about that when I wrote it, and I think it works okay?

People with a strong conformity-impulse, or whatever you want to call it, will resist identifying as gay, but obligate homosexuality is not an ambiguous signal. (By definition!) In other words, anybody who experiences sexual attraction only to members of the same sex, but identifies as *straight*, is either extremely confused about what sexual attraction is, or (more likely) closeted. So here, the monotonic nature of a person's sexual attraction is set in opposition to their desire to conform to social norms.

On the other hand, if someone with a strong conformity-impulse is experiencing sexual attraction for both men and women, then sexuality no longer functions as well as a wedge against their need for conformity; they are capable building a narrative in which only opposite-sex attraction is 'real', of building habits in which they affirm and express only opposite-sex attraction, and commit to fulfilling monogamous relationships with people of the opposite sex.

As a result, I'd expect people with a strong conformity impulse to be better represented among self-identified homosexuals than self-identified bisexuals- obligate homosexuality simply gives a person fewer tools to maintain a straight self-identity.

Probably this should be said explicitly: there's an obvious political valence here, but I'm not really thinking anything Red v Blue. It's closer to the "lumpers versus splitters" dynamic you see in the sciences where some people like to classify phenomena in to a small number of broad labels, and others like to fine-tune categories in to more descriptive but narrower groups- but add in the evolutionary instinct to fit in well with the herd. Political divides would be basically downstream of that.

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
May 4, 2023
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

There are no (modern) places that I can think of where being straight is seen as odd, unusual, or 'marked', something in need of an explanation that someone with a strong conformity impulse would feel pressured to avoid.

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
May 4, 2023
Comment deleted
Expand full comment