Brain plasticity and sexual orientation: Train it to gain it?

This article about brain plasticity by Neil and Briar Whitehead posted on Anglican Mainstream caught my attention for several reasons. Some relate to classes I teach but for this post, I am interested in discussion surrounding the main reason the Whiteheads wrote about neuroscience: sexual reorientation.

I have a few questions.

Sex and gender researchers working in the belief that the brain and its functions were more less set, believed they might find evidence that homosexuality was hard-wired in the brain. They looked for signs that parts of the brain used in sexual activity were different in homosexuals and heterosexuals, that, for example parts of a homosexual male brain might be more like a woman’s.

Almost without exception these numerous studies produced contradictory conclusions, and were not replicable. Although gay activism sought to use some of these findings to argue homosexuality was biologically ingrained, the most that can be said scientifically about them is that IF any differences exist they are probably the result of homosexual behavior rather than the cause of it. But it is clear now that no-one is stuck with the type of brain they were born with. Our assumption now should be, change is possible in many behaviors – sexual orientation not excluded – and extraordinary effort will produce extraordinary change.

I don’t agree with this assessment of the state of research. We are on the beginning edge of research regarding sexual orientation differences in the brain and some of those differences seem striking. The work of Savic in particular has found some differences in gay and straight males in areas of the brain which may or may not be modified by experience. This study was just last year; there has not been time to publish replications. What research do the Whiteheads refer to here? This is an ongoing process which the Whiteheads describe as though the research program was in some mature state with many contradictory studies. I believe this is a extremely premature statement:

the most that can be said scientifically about them is that IF any differences exist they are probably the result of homosexual behavior rather than the cause of it.

What evidence has been demonstrated that sexual behavior can make these differences? I would like to know what studies have contradicted the Savic research and other studies which demonstrate brain differences, not just in symmetry but responses to sweat, serotonin and visual cues.

The Whiteheads then discuss brain training, noting that musicians and cab drivers have enlarged areas of the brain which are used for the specific tasks used frequently. They then leap to sex.

Monkey experiments have shown that artificial exercise of three digits on the hand increases the area of the brain asso­ciated with those fingers and decreases the other regions proportionately.(1) Violinists have a grossly enlarged area of the brain devoted to the fingers of their left hands. Those who learn a juggling routine for three months produce observable small changes in the small-scale structure of the brain, and these changes reverse when they stop.(3)

London taxi drivers have an enlarged area of the brain dealing with navigation. Is this innate? No. London bus drivers on set routes did not have this enlarged area, and on retirement of the taxi drivers, the brain area involved diminished.(6) Taxi-drivers were not born that way, but developed the brain area through huge amounts of navigation and learning, and only maintained it through constant use. We change our brains at the micro-level through the way we exercise, and anything we do repetitively espe­cially if associated with pleasure (e.g.) sexual activity. So, if brain scientists did find real differences between the brains of homosexuals and heterosexuals, this was probably the result of different sexual behaviors, not the cause of them.

Do we have any research that demonstrates brain areas which enlarge based on frequent sex? Or straight sex or gay sex? I know of none and the Whiteheads offer none but this appears to be what they are suggesting. They also suggest that gay and straight sex might bulk up different brain areas thus reflecting activity rather than causing it. I know of no research which indicates different brain areas for sexual arousal. This study by Safron et al seems to provide evidence against such an idea.

Now here is where stand up comics should get some material.

Doidge sums up the extraordinary plasticity of the brain with the words, Use it or lose it. (Or, for those trying to drop an unwanted behavior, Don’t use it, and you’ll lose it.)

Even if part of the brain is strongly associated with a particular sexuality it should be possible to change it. Stopping a sexual activity and avoiding stimulation of that brain region, and plunging into some other intense brain activity for months would lead to a diminishing of the intensity of that sexual response. Months is about the timescale of first significant change. That can be true for learning a musical instrument too!

Doidge’s conclusion about sexuality is that “Human libido is not a hardwired invariable biological urge, but can be curiously fickle, easily altered by our psychology and the history of our sexual encounters.” and “It’s a use-it-or-lose-it brain, even where sexual desire and love are concerned.” This would apply both to same-sex attraction and opposite-sex attraction.

If we train hard enough, an activity can become automatic and we pay it less conscious attention. That is particularly true of playing a musical instrument. Many of the basic techniques like chords, scales and arpeggios, are so deeply learnt that we don’t think about the details and indeed can’t if the music is fast. Details of driving, throwing a ball, reading, even tying shoelaces don’t and often can’t demand full attention. Anything we do often, we often end up doing automatically. In the same way it can seem that sexual orientation is so deeply embedded that it is innate. But, really, it is no more innate than any complex skill we have worked at to the point where we can do it without thinking e.g. seemingly automatic placement of left-hand fingers on guitar strings to produce a C chord.

Hey, what did you do this summer? Well, I learned to play the…

Changing sexual orientation is like learning to play a musical instrument? Should we have straight lessons? Community colleges could offer them in their continuing education departments. New slogan: “We put the adult in adult development!”

I apparently will need to get this book by Doidge. Whitehead doesn’t offer any of the research Doidge relies on for his startling new discovery about music instruments and sex. I wonder if there are any such studies. Whatever techniques Doidge is aware of, perhaps he ought to share them with Exodus since the changes reported by Jones and Yarhouse do not seem to reflect this new found brain plasticity. (I made this modification here because I have since learned that Doidge does not advocate any techniques of orientation change.).

I suspect this passage in the Whitehead article is deeply insulting to many ex-gays and ex-ex-gays alike (New reparative therapy slogans: “Just train it!” “You’ve got to train it to gain it”). How many such persons have essentially followed this approach: don’t use and you’ll lose it. However, they didn’t lose it.

The Whiteheads then suggest that male and female differences are largely due to experience after birth:

Male and female behavior – let alone ho­mosexuality and heterosexuality – is apparently not hardwired into the brain at birth. In fact, only one quar­ter of the brain is formed in a new-born child; the rest is developed through learning and experience (environ­mental input). We can be confident that whatever male/female differences exist in adult brains (and, no doubt, more will be found at some stage), they will be largely shaped by learning and behavior.

I think researchers in hormones might quarrel with this. I am aware of a recent study which found associations between fetal testosterone levels and sex-typed behavior at age 8.5. Testosterone has an organizing function in the brain prenatally but it is unclear whether it does at or before puberty. There is way too much unknown I believe, for dogmatism here. As with the rest of the claims, I would like to see this research much more than studies about driving and music.

The Whiteheads conclude:

Anatomy is not destiny; change is always possible. The brain is plastic and is in a constant state of change. Indeed the question is rather: what change is not possible?

Well, at the end, an idea is all we have. Essentially, the Whiteheads suggest that because brain plasticity has been associated with driving, musical training and regaining use of motor function, it should be true of sexual orientation change as well. As noted, there are some problems with his facts and no direct evidence for the hyperbolic title of this article.

UPDATE: My comments above about Norman Doidge’s book were made prior to reviewing it. I have since been able to read through parts of it and believe it is a valuable contribution for a lay audience. He does not offer techniques of sexual reorientation nor does he liken orientation change to learning a musical instrument. Neil and Briar Whitehead make those far-fetched connections, not Dr. Doidge. My reaction to the book was solely based on the selective quotations from the Whiteheads. I am sorry if anyone made an impression regarding Doidge’s book based on this post. Readers are encouraged to read the related posts linked below.

Related Posts:

NARTH authors again mislead readers: More on brain plasticity and sexual orientation

My Genes Made Me Do It and brain plasticity

NARTH not petitioning APAs

During his visit to London, Joseph Nicolosi touted the research supporting reparative therapy. He also said on at least one occasion that NARTH was petitioning the American Psychological Association with studies which verify the approach.
From Virtueonline:

Nicolosi said his organization – the National Association of Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) is petitioning the American Psychiatric Association to look at the scientific data.

The BBC News quoted Nicolosi as saying:

“We have a great deal of evidence showing that these individuals are not harmed and that the therapy does work.
“We are petitioning the American Psychiatric Association to look at the scientific data.”

In this BBC News radio interview at about 2:08, Nicolosi says,

We have a great deal of evidence showing that these individuals are not harmed and that the therapy does work…We are petitioning the American Psychological association to look at the data.

It seems clear to me that the APA at issue is the psychological group and not the psychiatric assocition. I asked David Pruden, NARTH Executive Director about the specifics of this petition to the APA. He referred the question to Dean Byrd, past-president of NARTH. Dr. Byrd replied:

NARTH has no plans to petition APA on behalf of reparative therapy (or any other therapy for that matter). Dr. Nicolosi, of course, is free to do whatever he likes.
The Scientific Advisory Committee of NARTH has been working on a number of projects aimed at preserving the rights of individuals to seek psychological care for unwanted homosexual attractions as well as protecting the rights of licensed professionals to provide ethical, effective care for this client population. When these projects are completed and ready for distribution, announcements will be made via press releases on the NARTH website and through other venues.

I am not sure what form a petition would take but it would be important news if some formal research report was available which purported to support reparative therapy (in the sense Nicolosi was using in the term in London – his brand of change therapy). There are various peer-reviewed professional journal articles around which review the available research (I have done two of them) on a host of approaches to behavior and attraction change. In my opinion, those reviews do not present evidence favoring the developmentally based, reparative drive theory and therapy.

Anglican group hosts reparative therapy conference in London

Beginning today, the Anglican Mainstream is hosting a conference called Sex in the City in London. The speakers are Joseph Nicolosi, Jeff Satinover and Arthur Goldberg. A Christian Today article provides a description of the speakers about the content.

The Sex and the City Conference, hosted by Care and Anglican Mainstream, aims to help clergy, rabbis and psychologists among others to address issues like therapeutic approaches to same-sex attractions, mentoring the sexually broken, the sexualisation of culture, and sex and the Bible.
“We want to convey the message that change is possible,” said Joseph Nicolosi, founder of the US-based therapeutic organisation NARTH, ahead of the conference.
“Many people who have same-sex attractions are told you can’t change, it’s biologically predetermined, it’s genetically based, and that’s not true.
“After 30 or 40 years of trying to find the gay gene it has not been discovered and many people, especially young people, are being told that they don’t have a choice and that’s really tragic.
“Basically they are resigning themselves to a gay lifestyle not knowing that there are options for them.”
Nicolosi said young people were at risk of developing “self-defeating, self-destructive, maladaptive behaviours” because they were not being told of the emotional dangers of entering into homosexual relationships. He said research, including studies from within the gay community, had found that people in homosexual relationships suffer more from depression, anxiety and failed relationships than people in heterosexual relationships.

While virtually all others who write and work in the field of sexual orientation recognize that sexual orientation involves a variable mix of biological, contextual, cultural, and psychological factors, Dr. Nicolosi, Satinover and Goldberg want the world to know that there is no gay gene. Later this year, we will get more specifics about the genetics when Alan Sanders reports on his work. However, the best twin studies we have indicate around 35% heritability. Much is related to individual differences beginning in the womb. The research we have does not support the developmental scheme offered by the reparative therapists as being generally true or most or all gays. See the Reparative Therapy Information Page for more on this point.
Once formed, sexual attractions appear to be quite durable for most people. Recent research has found that brain differences between gays and straights associate with reported sexual orientation. These differences are quite large and make it clear that once formed, sexual attractions become automated. Some people spontaneously change and some seem to alter sexual responses with effort, although there is no reliable evidence that identifies the potent factors even for those changers. In any case, even if we knew the causes, we do not know that such knowledge could lead to consistent change.
Given that this conference is being sponsored by a Christian group, a related question I have is: Why is the basic message ‘change is possible?’ It seems to me that the basic message for a non-affirming group should be ‘a faithful Christian life is possible.’ Later, in the Christian Today article, Nicolosi says,

“The Christian view is to overcome your sin and if a believer believes that his homosexuality is a sin to overcome we are providing the ways with which he can overcome it.”

Surely he means behavior choice and not internal desire. Even Nicolosi acknowledges that most of his successful clients are still same-sex attracted. However, many people will read these promises and think they will hear about a way that the same-sex desires will be eliminated (overcome). This kind of confused presentation is what is so potentially damaging about these conferences and the ‘change is possible’ mantra. Many same-sex attracted people keep looking for the magic path to freedom from their desires. They drop lots of cash and time and untold emotional resources into approaches which may or may not have other benefits but which do not lead to elimination of their same-sex attractions. Many in frustration decide their religious tradition was wrong all along and leave the faith – any faith. Others keep searching and think they need to get “healed” before they can really enter life and pursue their life’s goals. In fact, what is possible is a recognition of what can and can’t be changed (or at least what is or is not within my power to change) and then pursuing a life that is congruent with one’s beliefs and values, bumps and all.