
Americans Greatly Overestimate U.S. Gay Population - rajnathani
https://news.gallup.com/poll/259571/americans-greatly-overestimate-gay-population.aspx
======
trackofalljades
Is it possible that what you're seeing in this data is less about inaccuracy
and more about how comfortably out people are?

It says the estimates skew greater for younger people and women responding.
Well are younger people and women more likely to know which of their friends
are LGBT, because of a host of societal reasons that tend to influence men or
older folks to wall off their feelings and communicate less about such things?

I'm just saying, having lived in more than a dozen locations in five states
and a Canadian province for the past several decades, the 4.5% number feels
low to me (as in, impossibly so).

~~~
m0th87
4.5% self-report as LGBT. That's an important distinction to make, and I too
would be surprised if it's accurate.

~~~
notJim
It's risen by 1 percentage point since 2012 when they started tracking this,
and for millennials, the number is around 8.2%. They don't seem to have data
for zoomers yet. [1] This would suggest (imo) that 4.5% is in fact a
significant underestimate, but I don't know necessarily that it's as far off
as 20%

[1]: [https://news.gallup.com/poll/234863/estimate-lgbt-
population...](https://news.gallup.com/poll/234863/estimate-lgbt-population-
rises.aspx?g_source=link_newsv9&g_campaign=item_259571&g_medium=copy)

~~~
brandmeyer
Its also important to remember that as humans we tend to vastly over-estimate
the incidence of relatively rare things. We tend to think that something
happens based on how often we encounter it, without considering the total
number of encounters.

4.5% is about 1 in 22. 8.2% is 1 in 12. Even accounting for the fact that most
LGBT people are as private about their sexuality as straight people are, its
often enough that you're likely to encounter LGBT people on a frequent basis.

------
modeless
These people were asked to choose between 6 options. _Every_ number in every
option was higher than the true value. Is it any wonder people overestimate
when primed this way? I wonder how many other poll results people rely on are
this obviously biased.

Edit: I now believe this is incorrect, see below.

~~~
drawnwren
Eh, it's clear priming didn't have too much of an effect here. The single most
selected answer in every year was >25%. Respondents thought the number was too
low to begin with.

~~~
abathur
There are a _lot_ of sources of sloppiness here, though.

The question is sloppy relative to the definitions. They _asked_ "Just your
best guess, what percent of Americans today would you say are gay or
lesbian?", but the measuring stick is what portion of people _identify_ as
gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender. I would be a little surprised if
people use exactly the same framework to decide if someone _else_ is gay as
they use to decide if they want to _personally identify_ as gay.

There's no I-have-no-clue choice.

If you assume some fraction of all respondents are just guessing, and they
know they're guessing based on a 100% scale, it would make some sense for the
results to skew towards a choice given 75% of the scale.

Young people give estimates that are significantly higher, but a cursory
search (not sure about the veracity) suggests that LGBT self-reports _also_
sort very strongly by age
([https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/visualization/lgbt-
st...](https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/visualization/lgbt-
stats/?topic=LGBT#demographic)). As far as I can tell, the survey Gallup is
using (on identification) doesn't provide an age breakout. I don't want to be
_too_ hyperbolic, but the change in the acceptability of _identifying_ as LGBT
over the last 70 years is pretty profound, and it seems at least plausible
from the data that much of the difference in age groups (and, for that matter,
partisan affiliation) could disappear if controlled for different
identification rates among people's actual peer groups.

If so, the headline is more like, "Most Americans assume everyone in America
is a bit more like their peers than they are."

This feels a little bit like asking one set of people "How many Americans have
ever cheated on a test?" and asking another set "Have you ever cheated on a
test?" and then publishing an article about how "Americans Greatly
Overestimate How Many Americans Have Cheated on a Test"

~~~
drawnwren
> it seems at least plausible from the data that much of the difference in age
> groups (and, for that matter, partisan affiliation) could disappear if
> controlled for different identification rates among people's actual peer
> groups

This assumes that homosexuality is evenly distributed across age groups,
something that is directly contradicted by the data. Your bias makes you think
that this is caused by unacceptability of identification, but you would need
to show that the change in acceptability has only affected younger
generations.

As a counter-example, people who have worn LA lights sneakers are
disproportionately under 30. It has become culturally acceptable to wear LA
Lights sneakers over the last 15 years, perhaps older people are under-
reporting their wearing of the sneakers?

> "How many Americans have ever cheated on a test?" and asking another set
> "Have you ever cheated on a test?" and then publishing an article about how
> "Americans Greatly Overestimate How Many Americans Have Cheated on a Test"

This metaphor seems directly contradicted by: > the change in the
acceptability of identifying as LGBT over the last 70 years is pretty
profound,

The change in ever cheating on a test over the last 70 years does not seem
pretty profound to me.

It's clear that your personal bias is that there is an iceberg of non-
identifying homosexuals who still feel oppressed. Even in SF, the number
barely reaches 15% [1]

1:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_demographics_of_the_Unite...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_demographics_of_the_United_States#By_locality)

~~~
abathur
Sigh. I probably didn't phrase something clearly enough. Or perhaps we're not
occupying the same universe. Since I was feeling free to impute sloppiness to
Gallup last night, I'll do my best to take your imputation of bias in stride.

> This assumes that homosexuality is evenly distributed across age groups,
> something that is directly contradicted by the data. Your bias makes you
> think that this is caused by unacceptability of identification, but you
> would need to show that the change in acceptability has only affected
> younger generations.

Exactly the opposite. It is possible that a significant fraction of the age
correlation the poll observed might disappear if they controlled for different
identification rates at different ages. They don't try to use the data to
investigate the possibility that the rates young people guess and the rates
old people guess are actually pretty similar (even if over-estimated!)
relative to identification rates in their peer group. It directly assumes the
rate (at least of identification) can differ.

> This metaphor seems directly contradicted by... The change in ever cheating
> on a test over the last 70 years does not seem pretty profound to me.

The point of the metaphor isn't a time-correlated rate change. It's that the
narrative of the release (Americans don't know Americans) is trying to compare
quantities that might be expected to differ (because they measure different
things) and then making news out of the fact that they aren't the same.

> It's clear that your personal bias is that there is an iceberg of non-
> identifying homosexuals who still feel oppressed. Even in SF, the number
> barely reaches 15% [1]

I have no strong opinion on or suspicion about what portion of the population
does or doesn't identify as gay. If anything, I think the entire project of
ontologizing our sexuality is fraught.

------
DoreenMichele
The LGBTQ community seems to be especially visible online. If you spend a lot
of time online, it's possible to have your perception skewed for that reason.

You also have to consider that different people define these things
differently. Some people will self identify as _bisexual_ based solely on
feeling attracted to other people, having no actual experience. Meanwhile,
there are people who feel that you have to actually have (substantial) sexual
experience with both genders to qualify for the label.

I've seen advocates say things like "You don't have to give your sexual
history to prove you are bi." and I've seen people talk about feeling
attracted to members of their own sex and realizing they are actually bi, but
don't yet have experience with members of their own sex because of taboos.

So you can potentially have two different people look at the exact same data
and draw different conclusions concerning who qualifies for what label.

Different cultures also have different baseline concepts concerning sexuality.
Some cultural differences will not be readily captured by the questions used
in a survey, especially if they don't take the time to clearly delineate their
terms.

------
wool_gather
Okay, now have them estimate the proportion of, say: Muslims, people who can't
walk, two-parent households, and retired military. Are these any more
accurate?

------
reaperducer
People also overestimate the amount of crime in America, the divorce rate, and
how much money YouTube "celebrities" make.

Perception is driven by exposure. Both are driven by media.

~~~
stankypickle
The old adage: "TV will rot your brain" seems more true the older I get.
Probably needs to be updated to include spending too much time on the
internet.

------
mynameishere
The media skews everything. Almost every TV show has a homosexual character, a
black computer programmer, and an ass-kicking female martial arts expert.
Hollywood has to parade its ideals, after all.

And to some extent, it's showing you how urban sophisticates view their own
world, amplifying the same skew.

I remember some really old poll from a NYC high school (decades ago) in which
the students estimated the Jewish population of the US at 50 percent, and the
black population of the US at 50 percent. Because that was very close to the
surrounding neighborhood's actual demographics. Even math like to stay local.

~~~
Geimfari
I would actually be interested in seeing a crude analysis of this, because I
don't know if there is a skew or if we just tend to notice the things that
break our expectations.

There are a few recent shows where a gay character is a part of the core
ensemble, but I'm not sure gay characters are _overall_ more than 1 out of
every 30.

~~~
djdidf
Few shows have casts in the 30s. It’s almost unheard of.

What modern show doesn’t have a gay character within its main cast?

------
ApolloFortyNine
Is this just not classic recency bias? Many TV shows feature a gay
couple/character, and gay marriage was in the national news for years. People
are shown examples through media constantly, and therefore think it's more
prevalent than it really is.

This applies to almost all issues too, plane accidents being one of the more
obvious ones (plane travel is many times safer than car travel, and yet many
people don't see it that way).

Thinking Fast and Slow is a great book that covers at length recency bias and
its affects [1]. Quite eye opening to me was one study where people were asked
to spin a wheel with 1-100, and then asked how many African nations are in the
UN. The number on the wheel had a profound affect on the number people picked
[2], despite the fact that the number on the wheel should clearly has no
meaning.

[1] [https://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-
Kahneman/dp...](https://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-
Kahneman/dp/0374533555)

[2]
[https://www.realclearscience.com/lists/10_problems_with_how_...](https://www.realclearscience.com/lists/10_problems_with_how_humans_think/anchoring.html)

------
dahart
> Americans' estimate of the proportion of gay people in the U.S. is more than
> five times Gallup's more encompassing 2017 estimate that 4.5% of Americans
> are LGBT, based on respondents' self-identification as being lesbian, gay,
> bisexual or transgender.

I would have guess it was around 10%, because I’ve read that number from
several sources before, so 4.5% is a surprise. Today I also learned that the
10% number I’d read has been pretty controversial in the past.
[https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/apr/05/10-per-
cent-...](https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/apr/05/10-per-cent-
population-gay-alfred-kinsey-statistics)

Looking at Wikipedia’s article, higher numbers among youth globally seem to be
a common trend. I would expect it’s not the population changing, but the
stigma being shed. I wonder if it will take a few more decades before the
numbers stabilize enough to be trustworthy...

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_sexual_orien...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_sexual_orientation)

~~~
devoply
Or that youth is experimenting before they decide one way or another.

------
Geimfari
This can also be explained by the fact that humans are terrible at estimating
percentages. I would assume we'd see similar result for other questions. "3%
of the population" sounds ridiculously low, but if you interact with 30 people
each day you're likely to meet someone in that small category.

------
codingslave
If you look at pride month and the level of marketing and news associated with
it, one would estimate that the gay population is huge. Nearly every major
corporation on linkedin has a rainbow logo, my uber the other day showed their
ride path as a rainbow. The level of influence that LGBTQ currently has in the
American mind share far outsizes their population, even now I am worried my
account will be banned for mentioning this.

I have actually had many people from different walks of life mention this in
the last month, people are taking note.

~~~
sgentle
I would be jaw-on-the-floor shocked if you were banned for your comment, and I
think the suggestion otherwise gives your ideas a "too hot for HN" cachet that
they haven't earned. There is no evil empire hunting down the renegade free-
thinkers who dare to say that LGBT activism is disproportionately influential.
If anything, that's the whole point.

"We're here, we're queer" isn't just a catchy rhyme, it's a statement of
purpose: the problem isn't just discrimination and violence, but
marginalisation. If you can treat a person as an outlier and the group they
represent as a rounding error, it's easy to justify mistreating them. I mean,
there are always a few angry weirdos who show up at the town hall, right? Just
ignore them and they'll go away.

So why throw huge flamboyant parades? Why make flags and shirts and bumper
stickers? Why force us to think about them? Well, I can probably name a bunch
of groups that you aren't forced to think about, and are doing far worse
because of it. That's activism. Being aware of something is a prerequisite to
caring about it.

~~~
belorn
Marginalisation is the big problem. An other community comes in mind that is
currently only allowed to congregate in small designated reservation where the
general public is warned of their presence. The size of that demographic is
estimated to be bigger than the LGBT community and yet holds no political
influence and I doubt there has been a single US presidential candidate in
history that given them positive focus on the political agenda. Most seems
happy to regard them as a few weirdos that can be kept out of sight and mind
from the rest of society. LGBT activism and in particular the pride parade are
good examples of how to break out of such public perception.

------
BorRagnarok
That must be because of the over promotion of LGBT then.

Also look at this:
[https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/06/24/lgbtq-a...](https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/06/24/lgbtq-
acceptance-millennials-decline-glaad-survey/1503758001/)

"Young people are growing less tolerant of LGBTQ individuals, ... , a survey
released Monday shows."

Because the promotion and attention seeking is everywhere, people think it's
everywhere. That's why we're starting to see it backfiring now. And, lots of
parents just don't want that message broadcasted to their kids all the time,
at least not until they're a certain age. Parents realize the whole 'having a
weewee doesn't make you a boy' story can be extremely harmful to young
children. And so they teach their children to ignore those influences when
they encounter them. That starts to reflect now in polls and attitudes.

I bet on the LGBT community to start fighting even harder for tolerance again
though, because the activists (who do all the speaking) seem to be quite
incapable of self reflection and self examination.

~~~
m0llusk
As a gay person I don't see that at all. My sexuality has always been a major
hot button such that as a boring, tech-obsessed geek who mostly keeps to
himself my presence has been a major source of gossip in my home town, at
school, at the places I have worked, and in the urban neighborhoods where I
have lived.

As far as I can tell this is mostly related to the psychological mechanism of
Altruistic Punishment. Calling someone out on their perceived flaws generates
an immediate boost in social status and provides opportunities for bonding.
Whether this is the mechanism or not, it is an undeniable fact that my being
gay has been a major issue for me in essentially every social context.

When I march in Pride Parades or insist on equal insurance coverage at work
this is not me promoting myself or my homosexuality at all. This is me
attempting defend myself from the crushing an inescapable force of homophobia
in this culture. If people would stop promoting their issues with
homosexuality then none of this would be necessary. I am just a person with
the same issues and needs as everyone else. It is rampant homophobia that does
the most to promote homosexuality as an issue and subject for discussion.

~~~
0815test
> Calling someone out on their perceived flaws generates an immediate boost in
> social status and provides opportunities for bonding.

The important part here is ' _perceived_ flaws'. The whole dynamic you're
pointing at is one where people will virtue-signal and _pretend_ to be
"altruistic punishers", in order to abuse/bully someone that they hate for
_other_ , concealed reasons - often, this is an inflated sense of self-worth
or status that the targeted person is threatening in some way. The abuse is
just as likely to involve allegations of, e.g. homophobia as homosexuality!
These things are simply immaterial to the deeper facts of what's going on.
Most often, others will go along with the thinly-veiled bullying simply out of
habit, or as a ploy to engage in their own signaling and raise their status in
the surrounding community.

------
JMTQp8lwXL
How can we be certain the "actual" U.S. Gay population is 4.5% of the
population? We know not everyone who is LGBT is out or identifies on these
surveys.

Sure, there's undeniably a large cap between ~20% and 4.5%. But it's kind of
meaningless to say what the absolute difference is, if we can't be certain how
many remain closeted.

~~~
prepend
It’s not meaningless as it’s important to plan for populations based on size.
From a health perspective, there are programs targeting helping gay
populations and allocating funds accurately is important so the most people
are helped.

There are many practical reasons for know demographics. There are limitations
and it’s probably difficult to know the exact percentage, but we still need to
know as accurately as possible.

------
0xdeadfa65
The cynical part of me says this is done intentionally for politically
posturing.

------
luord
This... Makes perfect sense. And it's really odd that the population would
increase instead of decreasing, for obvious reasons.

Whatever the case, there must be something wrong with millennials and younger,
but I'd bet it's more likely to be _over_ reporting instead of underreporting.

------
baccheion
8.55% of males on OkCupid indicated they weren't straight. 28.95% of ESFJ
males said they weren't straight. If normed to the general population (given
personality type frequency), 15.7% of males are not straight.

------
Grue3
Alternative headline: Gallup greatly underestimates US Gay Population.

~~~
djdidf
Sure, but you better have research to back it up. Gallup has theirs.

Honestly I don’t know why 5% is controversial. It’s one in twenty. 25% would
be one in four. Do you really know one in four homosexuals unless you live in,
say, San Fran?

~~~
Grue3
Well, sexuality is a spectrum. The exact number of gay people depends on what
is defined as a cut-off. It seems reasonable to me that at least 1 in 4 people
wouldn't be 100% straight.

------
hansdieter1337
How did they come up with the selection of these bins? Looks like one of these
studies that are designed with a result in mind.

------
mxcrossb
Something is weird about this poll. They are talking about the average person
thinking it’s 20%, which is already crazy, but the most picked answer was 25%
or more. What would the average have been if Gallup had allowed people to pick
higher values?

------
rolltiide
the most useful thing that article points out is that there isnt a clear way
to count LGBT populations, as these are all different things.

There are also other groups of people wishing to be included in non-cisgender
and non-hetero movements.

It means the cisgender and heterosexual population is greatly overestimated
but simply easy to conform to.

