Is Janice Shaw Crouse Smarter than a Fifth Grader?

Rob Tisinai

December 14th, 2011

I’ve written about anti-gay activist Janice Shaw Crouse in the past.  More than once, in fact. Her arguments tend to be so off-the-mark, it’s hard to decide whether she’s deliberately dishonest or just heroically incompetent.

She’s at it again. In the midst of a calm, measured, and false presentation against homosexuality, she says this, as if it were significant:

Homosexual relationships generally last only a fraction of the time that most marriages last. Very few homosexual relationships last longer than two or three years. In fact, it’s rare that they last more than one and a half years.

She doesn’t say where she got these numbers.  Perhaps she doesn’t want her viewers to find out she commonly uses obsolete data in ways that piss off her sources.  The problem in this case, though, is that Crouse is comparing relationships in general to marriages in particular. And if you do that, you can just as easily say:

HETEROSEXUAL relationships generally last only a fraction of the time that most marriages last. Very few HETEROSEXUAL relationships are long-term relationships.

Half of women don’t marry until after their 26th birthday. For men, it’s even later.  And you know what?  Before that, they date, having relationships that a few weeks, a few months, occasionally a few years. As a result, the great majority of their relationships don’t last as long as most marriages.

How many three-month relationships can you have in your twenties?  And how many twenty-year marriages can you have in your life?  This isn’t about hetero/homo — it’s about arithmetic.

I’m sure Janice Shaw Crouse knows arithmetic. She’s got a Ph.D. in, well, something, and she’s a paid expert on, you know, stuff, so she ought to understand the gross error in comparing length of relationships to the length of marriages.  Hell, even Herman Cain understands the difference between apples and oranges.

And that brings us back to the original question: Is she dishonest or incompetent?*

Believe it or not, I’m now  leaning toward incompetence. I’m reading Thinking, Fast and Slow, by psychologist (and 2002 Nobel Prize winner in economics) Daniel Kahneman. He demonstrates that humans are bad intuitive statisticians. Instead, we makes sense of numbers by inventing causal explanations even when they don’t belong — especially if the explanations fit our pre-existing bias. Then, once our brains have come up with a story that feels coherent, we interpret all information in light of that story, avoiding or rationalizing away any contrary logic or data (the book is fascinating; I’ll be writing more about it in the next few months).

This isn’t a conservative trait or a liberal one — it’s universal and human. The only way out of it is to bump up your own self-awareness and deliberately apply some critical reasoning to your own bias-ridden intuitions.  That’s hard (it’s hard for everyone) but not too much to expect from a Ph.D. writing a statement she’s planning to read on camera. Apparently, though, this is something Janice Shaw Crouse is unwilling — or unable — to do.

*I understand this is not an either/or proposition.

Timothy Kincaid

December 14th, 2011

The only way out of it is to bump up your own self-awareness and deliberately apply some critical reasoning to your own bias-ridden intuitions.

Or read BTB regularly. The authors here try very hard to apply logic and consistency, knowing that if they compare apples to oranges some reader will call them on it. Be part of the BTB community for a while and you will instinctively begin to say “oh really?” when you hear a statistic or asserted “fact”.

The book sounds fascinating. I’m putting it on my Nook list to buy.


December 14th, 2011


Apparently Janice Shaw Crouse graduated with a degree in Speech and English from Asbury College in 1961, then received a doctorate in Communications Theory from the State University of New York at Buffalo in 1979. Neither of which qualify her as an expert in the topics on which she opines. (And as you pointed out, math isn’t her strong suit, either).

Jim Burroway

December 14th, 2011

I suspect if you were to ask Crouse where she got her statistic, she would say it came from a “Dutch Study.” In which case, her statistic is bogus for precisely the reason you gave: she’s comparing relationships with marriage.

Here’s the info on the “Dutch Study”:,003.htm

Richard Rush

December 14th, 2011

Like Janice Shaw Crouse, virtually none of the anti-gay zealots have credentials in the subject they talk about most. For example, Dr. Michael Brown, recently self-published a 691 page tome: A Queer Thing Happened to America | And what a long, strange trip it’s been. Take a look at his Academic C.V. to see his impressive credentials on the subject:

Timothy Kincaid

December 14th, 2011

Well … I’m not exactly sure that engineer (Jim), accountant (me), architect (Daniel) or instructional designer (Rob) are exactly the credentials that most qualify one as experts on the subjects that BTB covers. Sometimes one’s self-education on a subject, study, and experience are better qualifiers.

It isn’t Brown’s CV that is the problem. Actually, he is quite qualified to talk about the Bible and how the various passages can and should be interpreted. Rather, it is Brown’s bias that leaves him incapable of reaching any conclusions that don’t fit his preconceptions.


December 14th, 2011

TIm writes: “Well … I’m not exactly sure that engineer (Jim), accountant (me), architect (Daniel) or instructional designer (Rob) are exactly the credentials that most qualify one as experts on the subjects that BTB covers.”

That may be true. However, one of the reasons I trust BTB is usually you cite and link to the study/article/etc. you’re analyzing or quoting, allowing the reader to verify what you’ve said for themselves.

The “experts” we’re talking about don’t do that. They quote secondary sources, throw out “facts” without revealing their origins, misrepresent and quote-mine and just plain make up stuff.

Honesty and transparency go hand in hand. As Dr. Phil says, “People who have nothing to hide, hide nothing.”

It’s funny you mentioned the “Dutch Study,” as it was a Google search on a quote from that study that led me to my first visit to BTB a couple of years ago. Someone I was debating online quoted from that study, it sounded “fishy” to me – and as it turned out, my instricts were correct.

Now when I’m debating and need to verify a claim someone makes, BTB is the FIRST resource I check.


December 14th, 2011

“engineer, accountant, architect, instructional designer”
No wonder I feel so comfortable here — with the value BTB puts in rational discourse.


December 15th, 2011

The causal connection fallacy is particularly powerful and pernicious. It’s often counter-intuitive, and it plays particularly well into any party that engages in anti-intellectual strategy and “dumbs down” their rhetoric.

This is precisely the reason Pirates are revered amongst Pastafarians (they will end global warming, you see… look it up –

So, although the fallacy is non-partisan, the demonization of leading thinkers as “elitist” *is*. When some choose to discuss policy in terms of causality, they are shouted down by those who want the simple explanation that fits on a bumper sticker, and that appears to have better fit the description of the GOP strategy since the 1970’s than the Dems.

That said, it behooves us to question anything anytime we hear someone cite information, especially when it tells us something we want to hear… Who’s telling, what stake do they have in it, how trustworth, what conclusions have they really drawn, and did how did they arrive at things. Scarely possible to discover from print media these days, and notably drowned out on the web…

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.


Latest Posts

The Things You Learn from the Internet

"The Intel On This Wasn't 100 Percent"

From Fake News To Real Bullets: This Is The New Normal

NC Gov McCrory Throws In The Towel

Colorado Store Manager Verbally Attacks "Faggot That Voted For Hillary" In Front of 4-Year-Old Son

Associated Press Updates "Alt-Right" Usage Guide

A Challenge for Blue Bubble Democrats

Baptist Churches in Dallas, Austin Expelled Over LGBT-Affirming Stance

Featured Reports

What Are Little Boys Made Of?

In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.

Slouching Towards Kampala: Uganda’s Deadly Embrace of Hate

When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.

Paul Cameron’s World

In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.

From the Inside: Focus on the Family’s “Love Won Out”

On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.

Prologue: Why I Went To “Love Won Out”
Part 1: What’s Love Got To Do With It?
Part 2: Parents Struggle With “No Exceptions”
Part 3: A Whole New Dialect
Part 4: It Depends On How The Meaning of the Word "Change" Changes
Part 5: A Candid Explanation For "Change"

The Heterosexual Agenda: Exposing The Myths

At last, the truth can now be told.

Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!

And don‘t miss our companion report, How To Write An Anti-Gay Tract In Fifteen Easy Steps.

Testing The Premise: Are Gays A Threat To Our Children?

Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.

Straight From The Source: What the “Dutch Study” Really Says About Gay Couples

Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.

The FRC’s Briefs Are Showing

Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.

Daniel Fetty Doesn’t Count

Daniel FettyThe FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.