Church leaders recommended Caroline Leaf's "Switch on your brain" to overcome my gay feelings

Hey again JToivonen,

Here we have the first problem in the argumentation. The "left foot" which he started the conversation with. Only you can feel what you feel and reach the final conclusion about your feelings. He can't describe what you are, especially "deep down". I also can't describe what you are (and I never did - I only commented on the thoughts you described to me, but you are the one who reached the conclusion). If someone is telling you something like this, either that person is grossly misinformed or he/she is arrogant enough to think they know better than you about your own feelings.

I've never heard of Caroline Leaf before. I've checked a few pages about her, but I didn't found any information about the university where she studied in. Do you know this information, just so we know?

In any way, let me start by quoting the following paragraphs from a disclaimer in her own website.

They might just have said "Hey, look, our books and products are full of life-changing advice that may activate the super powers in your mind so you become a super productive person with the highest possible level of happiness! But this may actually not work, so we aren't responsible for anything. So, buy our books that will certainly help you but, hey, if they don't, it's not our fault! She isn't a medical doctor anyway!".

I believe that the argument of "this is just for legal safety" isn't strong enough to support the fishy smell that comes from these words, from her own website. By the way, that website looks more like an office from a cheap coach who will tell you to smile 3 times a day in front of the mirror than an actual scientist or doctor. She is even offering an app for a "detox in 21 days". A responsible scientist would never do something like this, instead of reffering people to real, science supported therapy, with a psychologist and/or psychiatrist. There are no easy answers, no "magical app" - and the disclaimer, conveniently NOT on the front page of her site, shows exactly what I'm saying. If they "make no representations or warranties that any individual will achieve a particular result", they are basically saying that they don't have any proof that this actually works.

That's not how protein works, and any biology book will explain the basics on proteins for you, which will be enough for you to understand that the formula "thoughts -> matter -> protein" is bullshit. Sorry if I'm being too direct on this, but this is upsetting for me not just as a member of the LGBT+ community, but also as a biologist.

If you are interested in learning the basics on proteins, which have nothing to do with the transformation of thoughts into them, any textbook for Medium School (Ensino Médio) will suffice. I personally recommend Modern Biology (Biologia Moderna), from Amabis and Martho, which I have used as a student during my school days and also to prepare some classes during my later studies. Dr. José Mariano Amabis is a Doctor in Genetics, having studied on the Instituto de Biociências da Universidade de São Paulo, and Gilberto Rodrigues Martho studied on the same institute. As you are probably aware, the University of São Paulo (USP) is one of the most respected science institutions on the planet, so these guys aren't random people who decided to write a book on Biology.

Protein synthesis is more closely related to our genes than our "thoughts". In simple words, you can't change your genes using your thoughts, and, as genes are directly responsible for the proteins you produce in your body, that's why you can't change the color of your hair, grow an extra finger or increase your mithosis speed to close a wound as fast as Wolverine. There are people with different colors of hair and extra fingers (Polydactyly), but that's related to their genes, not their thoughts.

Now, it's true that our thoughts may change our health and body up to a point. I'm not denying that and, if I was, I wouldn't be recommending therapy for you. Because that's exactly what therapy is for: You want to change something, and therapy helps you to work with your thoughts and behaviors to accomplish a goal, like diminishing anxiety or overcoming depression. Anxiety and depression have direct effects on your body chemistry and your feelings, that's true, and so it's true that therapy like cognitive-behavior therapy (CBT) may assist you with that. In some cases, you do need medication from a psychiatrist, which will have an effect on your neuroconnections, neurotransmitters and even some chemicals in your brain (like serotonin) to assist you.

However, nothing will change your genes.

In addition, we don't have a definitive answer on the actual "cause" of sexual orientation, regardless if we are talking about straight or LGB+ people. According to Dr. Drauzio Varella (you have certainly heard of him too and I believe you understand that, like Amabis and Martho, Varella isn't just a random guy), there isn't any proof of a "gay gene". Homossexuality may be related to epigenetics before birth. I don't have an English version of his talk on this (it's in Portuguese), but I can give you the link through PM if you are interested.

As you may have noticed, I leaned heavily on the biological side of things in what I have said above. @Chip and other members may have more to add on the psychological side of things. But this much I can tell you with scientific precision: If she is saying that you may change your orientation through "the power of thought", then I'm really curious to see which evidence she has on this beyond words on a bestseller self-help book (which isn't scientific). Does she have studies on recognized scientific papers on this?

Yep, that's fishy. A serious scientist doesn't say "scientists have proven X" without citing the references to back up this affirmation (and I'm talking about serious scientific references, not texts on newspapers), unless we are talking about a informal conversation. That's a book she is writing, and if she claims to be a scientist and isn't citing serious sources, then yeah, there's something weird about this.

Furthermore, that phrase is, like you said yourself, vague. Love, caring and other positive emotions do have effects on our body (see Dr. Brené Brown for information and research on emotions), but fear is also an important biological trait. Or does anybody think animals with natural predators run because they are "in love with life" and not because they are scared and afraid? Say hello to Sympathetic Nervous System, or SNS for close friends. Yeah, fear, up to a certain point, is part of our progamming.

If she is talking about the courage to change our behaviors and not to let fear overcome us, that's another thing entirely. But that phrase is certainly vague, not to mention empty, coming from someone who claims to be a scientist.

As far as I know, what science has proven is that some religious rituals and processes (like praying or chanting) may have a positive effect on our bodies indeed. However, that neither proves or disproves the religious aspect of the Bible - that is a matter of personal belief, not science.

Praying or taking part in some rituals are helpful just like other social activities and non-religious medidation are helpful. In a Christian Church, for example, you are with people who think like you, you are hearing and talking about love and how God cares for you during most of the time you are in there, and sometimes you even hold hands, hug people near you and sing beautiful music. The art present in many churches is also amazing and inspiring even for people.

Obviously, there are pretty negative churches (of all religions) out there, with priests screaming about sinful people and how "blood will wash this world" (so much for the Word of Peace, huh?). However, there are many that have a quite positive atmosphere. See that I'm not talking about belief here? Even if you aren't a member of a particular religion, you may look at the art, the music, the words of love, the architeture, or even just the silence and peace of an empty church when just a few people are kneeling and praying.

That is soothing and may have a calming effect indeed. However, that doesn't "prove what the Bible has been telling us since the beginning of times". First because, again, she appears to be extending factors like the environment and the social aspect to the entire Bible, which isn't what science has saying (I've never heard any serious paper affirming something like this). Second because, if we are picky, a scientist would never refer to the Bible as a book from "the beginning of times".

Again, this isn't a matter of belief or not, but the first registries of writing we have are from around 3400~3300 before Christ, on Mesopotamia. Texts from the New Testament were written much after that and, even if we don't consider that, the New Testament was only written After Christ. So, yes, that phrase could have a poetic meaning, sure. But if she is intending to write a book on neuroscience, using her degree as a point of affirmation, then she should've known that the "beginning of HUMAN time" was much before the Bible, regardless of the sacred meaning of the text.

Long story short: I honestly didn't know her before your post. I don't know where she got her degree from or if she is an actual doctor. I don't think she seems a serious scientist based on her own website, offering "easy solutions" which seem to be direct against what science has studied in Psychology and Biology. There isn't any scientific reason why you should believe that you can "train your brain to not be gay anymore". Many have tried that and failed, becoming miserable until they finally accepted themselves.

There is no scientific evidence that you can change your sexual orientation, just like you can't change the color of your hair or the number of fingers you have using the "power of thought". Being gay is completely normal and you can't fix what isn't broken.

Just to be clear, like I said before in this post: I'm a biologist, not a psychologist. I do know a few things about psychology because of my experience on the LGBT+ community (and as you know it isn't uncommon for us to have to deal with charlatains claiming all sorts of absurds about us) and also as a patient of CBT (because of anxiety - unrelated to my orientation). As Leaf claims to be a neuroscientist, then yes, as a biologist, I'm comfortable with the arguments I have constructed above. However, on details about psychology, Chip and other members may provide more information.

As for what @out2019 said, we aren't an atheist forum. We have atheists on here (like me, and I never hid that), that is true. But we also have open christians (like PatrickUK) and members of other religions. The staff is a multicultural team, living in different countries and having different beliefs.

However, we are strict about the information shared here, not because there are things that "go against our beliefs", but exactly because we can't use just our own beliefs or opinions, coming out of nowhere, to provide information. And that's why we value the scientific knowledge here. Which kind of support forum would Empty Closets be if we were defending shady magazines and "alternative so-called therapy" without any solid evidence of eficacy?

That doesn't mean we are opposed to religion (otherwise, why would we have religious people in our team, which have provided in many cases advice about spiritual themes?). You can't simply say you believe Earth is shaped like a donut when we have numerous studies proving that simply doesn't make sense. And, about this, we have never questioned religion itself, or the existence of God. That is up to each individual. However, when we are talking about the change of sexual orientation, then we are entering a field science has studied and hasn't found any evidence that it is possible to change your orientation (on the contrary, there is evidence of it being harmful to try to change, which is frequently related to the lack of self-acceptance, like you said yourself).

If someone disagrees, that's fine, and that person is free to provide evidence through serious study of a different point, which can be published in many scientific papers around the world. You can't simply write a book without any scientific basis and expect to be taken seriously. But people frequently do that and then start whining about "how scientists are old fashioned and close minded" because "they didn't accept my incredible and inovative research without any connection to the scientific method or possibility of replication".

 

Chiroptera has given a really good explanation. In short, this woman is completely full of shit. She's also grossly unqualified and has no legitimate credentials in neuroscience. Basically, the worst of quacks, making utterly unfounded claims with absoulutely no backing in any credible science.

 

Thanks. I know I've already written much, but I have read the text Chip quoted and I want to highlight the following:

So, that explains why I didn't found any information about the university where she got her degree in Neuroscience. That's because she doesn't have one and apparently doesn't even have basic knowledge about Biology.

 

Well... I wouldn't agree with that. There are a whole lot of really excellent, life-changing books out there by many credible authors. The key is usually whether the author is basing what s/he says on research or factual information, or on something pulled out of somewhere. In the case of Ms. Leaf, it's pretty much pulled out of her ass.

 

TED itself (the actual conference) is quite discerning. TEDx (the independently organized TED conferences) range from wonderful to absolutely abysmal in terms of their vetting of speakers. Given that this TEDx conference was a Christian one, we can be pretty much assured that credible scientific vetting was not part of their process, and thus, this unqualified quack was allowed to speak. But you'll pretty much never see bullshit like that on the actual TED site.

 

We've removed some posts of Out2019 because he has been repeatedly warned not to post false information that is not supported by current evidence, and has been specifically warned against representing religious dogma as factual information when there is scientific information that condradicts the religious dogma.

On the sexual fluidity issue, what we currently know based on the general consensus and the credible research is that wherever someone tends to land on the spectrum (straight, gay, somewhere in between), they tend to stay there. You don't see people who are gay becoming straight, and straight becoming gay. And of course bisexual people exist. But again, where someone lies on the bisexuality spectrum typically tends to stay relatively stable over time.

You do see people who have spent their lives acting straight coming out later in life, but that isn't fluidity; it's someone getting in touch with their authentic sexual orientation. You pretty much never see someone who is gay for 20 years and then suddenly becomes straight, unless they've been hoodwinked by religious crazies, and in those cases, the "straight cure" pretty much never lasts.

As has been previously addressed, EC does not take a position on religion, and many of our staff members are deeply spiritual people, some with pretty traditional Christian beliefs, some with other beliefs, and some are pretty strongly atheistic. However, our governance certainly does not value any one viewpoint over another. We do side with the evidence, so where religious quacks claim it's possible to change sexual orientation, we side with the voluminous evidence, dating back 60+ years, documented in hundreds of studies, that prove otherwise.

It's bothersome to our staff when people make unfounded and inaccurate observations about our organizational perspective because our perspective is grounded in credible science, evidence, and current consensus among professionals. We believe that an important of our organizational goal is to ensure that people have accurate, evidence-based information on which to base decisions. Religious dogma and quackery that has been soundly disproven by extensive research does not qualify as "evidence-based information."