|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On August 10 2015 04:55 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Same with your 'how to treat transgenderism' - this is not considered an important subject to study because treatment is not considered desirable - acceptance and tolerance is. Same with studies of how males and females differ- they're not important to study because if findings are made, they are made with the purpose of limiting behavior favored by individuals within either gender. (Findings that showcase women as superior caretakers make it harder for men to be caring parents, just the way findings that showcase men as superior 'workers' (in whatever capacity) make it harder for women to choose favoring career over family.)
Regarding transgenderism, it is so unresearched, and I have a bad feeling about gender reassignment surgery. I know it is currently the most effective "treatment" and lowers suicide rates, etc, but not nearly enough. I feel like on that particular operation, there is a 50/50 shot that in 50 years it will be looked at like some of the older, barbaric, medical practices like lobotomy.
On August 10 2015 04:55 Liquid`Drone wrote:
But then, I really have a problem with some of your examples. I operate under the assumption that you are opposed to political correctness within academia because you feel that society would benefit from the knowledge we could establish if not for the crutch of PC holding us back, right? The most glaring one is your mention of the Bell Curve as something that is under-researched.
Firstly, I really disagree with the notion that it's under-researched. My impression is that it's one of the most thoroughly discredited books ever written, and that spending more time doing so is extremely wasteful. But secondly, why would the establishment of different IQ's for different races and IQ being the prime determiner of future societal success be a positive? This type of thinking would, historically, be nothing but an enabler for the continued or increased discrimination based on race/ethnicity and an enabler for increased societal stratification (if social structures are the reason for societal stratification they can be changed, if IQ is the prime issue then not so much). I guess I can get the 'but if IQ is the prime issue then changing societal structures in an attempt to alleviate societal stratification is a futile endeavor' argument - however that still doesn't factor in how the (important) racial component of the book. My honest impression is that those who like this book are entirely dishonest in their reasons for doing so, and when I hear it mentioned in non-pejorative ways, it's an instant huge red flag.
Basically, it's really hard for me to not sound annoyingly politically correct when I'm calling you out on this, because my honest impression is that you have selected these issues as under-researched because they all fit into the mold of either hindering further progress or reverting made progress within the fields of making minorities and women considered fully abled individuals rather than limited by their ethnicity or gender.
On August 10 2015 05:06 Liquid`Drone wrote:And I mean, I'm not really arguing for deliberate ignorance, even though I can see how my second to last paragraph would make it seem that way. (But I don't feel like editing that post now as someone might be in the process of answering it for all I know  ) It's just that I feel like within social sciences, as they are such interpretive sciences (and for most social science subjects attempting to establish objective knowledge is futile to start with), it's possible to interpret or select data in such a way that you can back up many different points of view, and then I don't think we should actively be trying to interpret or select data in such a way that we enable more discrimination and less options for the individual.
I do feel like you are arguing for deliberate ignorance if there is a possibility that the results could be seized upon to implement undesirable policies. But, that is already the reality, because we have bad studies that are used to implement things like the Title IX tribunals.
On August 10 2015 06:08 YoureFired wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2015 05:06 Liquid`Drone wrote:And I mean, I'm not really arguing for deliberate ignorance, even though I can see how my second to last paragraph would make it seem that way. (But I don't feel like editing that post now as someone might be in the process of answering it for all I know ) It's just that I feel like within social sciences, as they are such interpretive sciences (and for most social science subjects attempting to establish objective knowledge is futile to start with), it's possible to interpret or select data in such a way that you can back up many different points of view, and then I don't think we should actively be trying to interpret or select data in such a way that we enable more discrimination and less options for the individual. Boooooom. One reason there have been less studies differentiating between different races/genders is that, for the vast majority of human diversity, most of the diversity happens within groups rather than between them. You can identify and differentiate certain ethnoracial characteristics, just as there are biological differences between males and females, but there's no reason to study it if the assumptions that made such information relevant no longer operate within intellectual discourse.
If true, this discredits the entire premise of Titles VII and IX of the Civil Rights Act.
|
On August 10 2015 06:39 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2015 05:06 Liquid`Drone wrote:And I mean, I'm not really arguing for deliberate ignorance, even though I can see how my second to last paragraph would make it seem that way. (But I don't feel like editing that post now as someone might be in the process of answering it for all I know ) It's just that I feel like within social sciences, as they are such interpretive sciences (and for most social science subjects attempting to establish objective knowledge is futile to start with), it's possible to interpret or select data in such a way that you can back up many different points of view, and then I don't think we should actively be trying to interpret or select data in such a way that we enable more discrimination and less options for the individual. I hope I'm misunderstanding you, but you what you are writing is that we shouldn't do research unless we reach the "correct" conclusions - i.e. those which does not enable more discrimination or gives less options to the individual? I find it very hard to read it any other way, but that is quite possibly because of my personal bias - I always get very nervous when people try to impose limits on scientific studies outside of protection of participants.
...Yeah.
Particularly this bit:
On August 10 2015 04:55 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Same with studies of how males and females differ- they're not important to study because if findings are made, they are made with the purpose of limiting behavior favored by individuals within either gender. (Findings that showcase women as superior caretakers make it harder for men to be caring parents, just the way findings that showcase men as superior 'workers' (in whatever capacity) make it harder for women to choose favoring career over family.)
...is basically saying "we shouldn't publish findings we might not like the answers to", which is the root of the entire PC interaction with science issue.
|
I think what LiquidDrone is saying that social sciences are simply ideological in principle and that empirical research isn't going to do a lot of good besides provoking fallacious appeals to nature.
For example should we prove hypothetically that male brains are more capable of doing math, we shouldn't draw the conclusion that only males should be pursuing mathematical careers in the same way we don't try to give males cancer just because they have a lower tolerance to radiation.
Simple biological facts don't create normative values. There's no reason to believe that some biological fact is supporting a policy any more than that we're supposed to fight it, it's irrelevant.
|
On August 10 2015 07:34 Nyxisto wrote:
I think what LiquidDrone is saying that social sciences are simply ideological in principle and that empirical research isn't going to do a lot of good besides provoking fallacious appeals to nature.
For example should we prove hypothetically that male brains are more capable of doing math, we shouldn't draw the conclusion that only males should be pursuing mathematical careers in the same way we don't try to give males cancer just because they have a lower tolerance to radiation.
Simple biological facts don't create normative values. There's no reason to believe that some biological fact is supporting a policy any more that we're supposed to fight it, it's irrelevant.
That has nothing to do with the research and everything to do with people taking statistical analysis and turning it into binary conclusions.
|
It has a lot to do with the accusation of political correctness, because especially in the gender and race debate the conservative side often argues that the social sciences are "ignoring" biological research or evidence, while the choice to base social policy on biological research in itself is a pretty questionable and ideological practice in the first place.
|
You are conflating social science with biology in your interpretation of what drone wrote. I think we ought to wait for him to clarify to ensure that none of us misrepresents or misunderstands him.
|
Simple biological facts don't create normative values. There's no reason to believe that some biological fact is supporting a policy any more that we're supposed to fight it, it's irrelevant.
Pardon for blatantly channeling Aristotle, but are you so certain that the attributes present in the subject do not in some degree predict his destiny? Are the soldier's virtues the virtues of the priest, and are the teacher's virtues the virtues of the pupil? Should it be wise policy to assign the meek to war, or the impetuous to preach? And should those who seek to assign the strongest instrument to the corresponding task of life be called ideological? Is it not more true to say that the name of ideology belongs to those who would outweed human nature from their roots, expel everyone from the incidental facts of life, and secure them into some simpler arrangement perfected within the individual intellect?
|
Norway28674 Posts
nyxisto nailed what I was trying to say and phrased it better than I did, in both posts. I kinda felt like I was saying something I wasn't fully trying to say, but as I specified, I'm definitely not arguing for deliberate ignorance, and I'm definitely not arguing for selective publishing. I'd make a longer clarifying post but I don't have time for it now - either way it looks like he made my argument, and can continue making it, for me. ;p
|
On August 10 2015 08:08 MoltkeWarding wrote:Show nested quote +Simple biological facts don't create normative values. There's no reason to believe that some biological fact is supporting a policy any more that we're supposed to fight it, it's irrelevant. Pardon for blatantly channeling Aristotle, but are you so certain that the attributes present in the subject do not in some degree predict his destiny? Are the soldier's virtues the virtues of the priest, and are the teacher's virtues the virtues of the pupil? Should it be wise policy to assign the meek to war, or the impetuous to preach? And should those who seek to assign the strongest instrument to the corresponding task of life be called ideological? Is it not more true to say that the name of ideology belongs to those who would outweed human nature from their roots, expel everyone from the incidental facts of life, and secure them into some simpler arrangement perfected within the individual intellect?
I'm not a very teleological man, especially not if it's used as an excuse to have the wife prepare the dinner or to send the black man to do the farm work. I'm also not saying that we need to root up every inequality just for the sake of it or that traditional lifestyles are somehow worse if someone chooses to live that way, but at least everybody in the discussion should be conscious that just pointing your finger at nature is ideology itself.
|
You can do the science just fine. The problem comes when politicians and the media start "interpreting" the science in their usual godawful manner. That is NOT a reason not to do the science. It IS a reason why a certain amount of technical knowledge should be required from our politicians.
For instance, lets talk about climate change. Politicans should absolutely be free to argue what, and whether we should do anything about global climate change. Politicians should not be free to argue that it doesn't exist.
|
On August 10 2015 07:34 Nyxisto wrote:
I think what LiquidDrone is saying that social sciences are simply ideological in principle and that empirical research isn't going to do a lot of good besides provoking fallacious appeals to nature.
For example should we prove hypothetically that male brains are more capable of doing math, we shouldn't draw the conclusion that only males should be pursuing mathematical careers in the same way we don't try to give males cancer just because they have a lower tolerance to radiation.
Simple biological facts don't create normative values. There's no reason to believe that some biological fact is supporting a policy any more than that we're supposed to fight it, it's irrelevant.
What you're talking about is a problem with the way people use and misuse the information, not the information itself. What drone is talking about looks dangerously like an attempt to stifle the raw science.
If you allow a bias to affect what we do or do not study, or - far more critically - what results do and do not get published, you create a skewing of the literature towards that bias. That is incredibly dangerous, because it affects not just the way people can use the information, but the information itself.
I am strongly of the opinion that the science should be left alone. From my experience in biology, it’s hard enough to minimize ideological bias in scientific boards as it is. It becomes quite absurd when you start piling external ideological biases on the system as well.
As a side note, if there is a large, real difference in the aptitude of some group for some particular task, it is no longer a fallacious appeal to nature to cite it.
|
I'm not a very teleological man, especially not if it's used as an excuse to have the wife prepare the dinner or to send the black man to do the farm work. I'm also not saying that we need to root up every inequality just for the sake of it or that traditional lifestyles are somehow worse if someone chooses to live that way, but at least everybody in the discussion should be conscious that just pointing your finger at nature is ideology itself.
It should be noted as a matter of intellectual history, that there is a profound difference between traditionalism and conservatism. One is pre-enlightenment and the other is post-enlightenment. Traditionalist women prepare dinners, conservative women cannot prepare dinners but wished they could; and they cannot cook because they themselves are more modern than the modernity which they react against.
If however all thoughts can be reduced to some ideological position, even if those thoughts are not much more than instincts, there would still be an essential inconsistency in your position which could not exist unless you were indeed somewhat more "teleological" than you are preparing to admit.
If the ultimate end of your "normative values" do not involve treating man as an optimal instrument for some purpose outside of himself, if they involved instead treating him as a valued being by the mere fact of his existence, then such values would not only be independent of "biological facts" but they would be independent of any fact. There are two ways in which we may say we value a man: either he possesses a valuable attribute, such as beauty or intelligence; or he is valuable by virtue of his humanity. A man who is valuable by virtue of his humanity does not increase his value by being made beautiful or intelligent, or by being emancipated from the kitchen and earning a six-figure salary. Once you introduce the latter, you are valuing him for his ability to improve something else, in other words, for his talents, in which all kinds of facts, including biological ones, become necessarily relevant.
|
On August 10 2015 07:52 Nyxisto wrote:
It has a lot to do with the accusation of political correctness, because especially in the gender and race debate the conservative side often argues that the social sciences are "ignoring" biological research or evidence, while the choice to base social policy on biological research in itself is a pretty questionable and ideological practice in the first place.
The problem with this is that there are already social engineering government policies in place. For instance, in your math example. It is basically taken as a given that White/Asian males are "disproportionately" (in a bad way) represented in STEM fields, so the government is attempting to intervene to change that. If there is a biological difference, the government isn't fixing anything, they are just making the world, as a whole, worse off.
|
You shouldn't conflate the value to others of emancipating a woman with the value to herself of being emancipated.
|
On August 10 2015 09:13 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2015 07:52 Nyxisto wrote:
It has a lot to do with the accusation of political correctness, because especially in the gender and race debate the conservative side often argues that the social sciences are "ignoring" biological research or evidence, while the choice to base social policy on biological research in itself is a pretty questionable and ideological practice in the first place. The problem with this is that there are already social engineering government policies in place. For instance, in your math example. It is basically taken as a given that White/Asian males are "disproportionately" (in a bad way) represented in STEM fields, so the government is attempting to intervene to change that. If there is a biological difference, the government isn't fixing anything, they are just making the world, as a whole, worse off.
The problem with the argument that there is overwhelming evidence that lack of diversity in the work place leads to passive racism and all the problems associated with with that. Furthermore, every argument about "biological disposition to specific career paths" has been employed before when people were fighting racism/sexism in the 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s. None of these arguments are new and all of them have been employed by the group that benefits form the status quo. And companies are trying to change this, like Intel. And of course the people whining about Intel's push for diversity are men who do not stand to benefit form it. But they will happily benefit from sexism if it exists and assume they got where they are 100% on their own merits.
Take your argument about women not being in Stem. It wasn't because the didn't want to get involved. They used to be heavily involved, before it became a profitable career path.
http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/10/21/357629765/when-women-stopped-coding
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/when-computer-programming-was-womens-work/2011/08/24/gIQAdixGgJ_story.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/16/business/16digi.html?_r=0
http://www.engadget.com/2014/10/20/what-happened-to-all-of-the-women-coders-in-1984/
The simple fact of the matter is that STEM careers don't welcome women on all fronts. Just like back in the day when women were told to be a nurse, teacher or secretary. Pretending that sexism is this thing we beat in the 80s and 90s is just an excuse. Same with racism.
|
That is the reason that though we will unconditionally love someone else, we also wish their prosperity in some externalised way. Here, the "normative values" shrivel to merely being a good samaritan; it could not be, that we wish someone we love, though she is coarse, to become a great Soprano, or wish a frail friend to be a great athlete, merely to impose our sentiment of equality upon things. At best, we may say that we will support them should they strive, against the prohibitions of nature, to overreaching aspirations and dreams. For the majority of people however, the feeling of happiness in doing something useful is more commonly satisfied when they align their goals with the tendencies of nature, rather than in opposition to them.
|
On August 10 2015 09:31 MoltkeWarding wrote:
At best, we may say that we will support them should they strive, against the prohibitions of nature, to overreaching aspirations and dreams. For the majority of people however, the feeling of happiness in doing something useful is more commonly satisfied when they align their goals with the tendencies of nature, rather than in opposition to them.
That depends on where you start out I guess. If you're a lower class male who ends up in a coal mine in Mexico I'm pretty sure you're not very happy about fulfilling your Aristotelian purpose because you happen to be the best 'tool' for the job. I think the aesthetic value of that philosophy only works from a distance. Striving for general equality seems like a less arbitrary goal to me. Some natural dispositions just suck, others are more fortunate. Being a nurse is hard work, pays little money and wears you down, it's unfair that women should be keeping doing this because they have some hypothetical disposition towards nursing no matter if that turns out to be a biological fact or not.
|
On August 10 2015 06:37 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2015 00:54 Plansix wrote:On August 10 2015 00:30 Deathstar wrote:On August 09 2015 21:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 09 2015 21:12 farvacola wrote:
I think the George Soros angle makes a lot of sense but it's still a bit tin foiley. In any case, I now have little choice other than to regard BLM as a group of belligerents. That's too bad. It's barely about Sanders. He screwed up at NN15 but that's not really what's got people so pissed. It's his supporters and many other white liberals who simply haven't done enough about some serious issues. Basically Bernie is the best person to make the case those liberals don't want to hear. It's not going to stop unless or until liberals change their behavior. The election will get submarined all together and Republicans will win and it will be liberals own fault for not catching on. That type of language is so obnoxious. It's just finger pointing and it's a sure way to make a bunch of people tune you (Bernie supporters) out. Liberals have done A LOT to help blacks raise themselves up. Blacks aren't some innocent bunch who haven't had opportunities. They're not angels who were wronged by the evil white people. I understand the language of raising capital gain taxes, expanding SS, infrastructure spending, but then the hard core progressives ruin it in with these condescending "grow up america," "we need to have an honest conversation about black people," "you just don't understand how bad black people have it," etc blah blah. And you know what? It's incredibly divisive. We could be united under the progressive platform but then shit like this is thrown around. The funny part is that I have seen this before over and over. A minority group like blacks pushes for the majority group to do more for them. The majority group gets defensive and says "this is divisive and we should be under a common banner," which is effectively dodging the request for more help and political support. It is basically saying "I don't want to listen to your concerns now, I did a lot of stuff before and that should be good enough. Now work with me." And to be very clear, I am white as the driven snow. At least someone gets it. Now you just have to get the rest of the white liberals to get it also. Otherwise we're all buggered.
Exactly; i'm pretty sure that Racial Justice has been added within the last 24 hours(?), if so, Bernie is on the right track. Seriously, Sanders' supporters really need to chill out and stop being so defensive, else we'll look like Ron Paul bots. Ugh
|
WASHINGTON, Aug 9 (Reuters) - In her 2008 bid for the White House, Hillary Clinton cast herself as a blue-collar Democrat who was unabashedly pro-coal, a stance that helped her beat opponent Barack Obama easily in primaries in states that produced or were reliant on coal.
Eight years later, a Reuters review of her recent campaign speeches and policy announcements shows that the great-granddaughter of a Welsh coal miner is now talking about the coal industry in the past tense.
The little-noticed shift in rhetoric speaks volumes about how the United States' energy landscape has changed since Clinton last campaigned in 2008: oil and gas fracking have exploded and cheap natural gas has taken a huge bite out of coal.
In the intervening years the Obama administration has also proposed aggressive measures to tamp down greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels like coal, while once-powerful coal companies like Arch Coal, which declared bankruptcy last week, have lost their political clout.
The shift by Clinton is not without significant political risk. She will have to walk a fine line in trying to please the progressive activists she needs to win her party's nomination and working-class "swing" voters whose support will be crucial for the general election in November 2016. Ohio and Pennsylvania, in particular, have a lot of electoral votes, which are key to electing a new president.
Mindful of that, Clinton has been careful to pay tribute to the contribution coal miners have made to the American economy, but she has also made clear that they should be helped to find new jobs, and a new way of life.
Ed Rendell, former Democratic governor of Pennsylvania and Clinton ally, said an economic case for addressing climate change could resonate in his state, where the coal industry employs more than 36,000 directly and indirectly, according to the Pennsylvania Coal Alliance.
Source
|
On August 10 2015 09:31 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2015 09:13 cLutZ wrote:On August 10 2015 07:52 Nyxisto wrote:
It has a lot to do with the accusation of political correctness, because especially in the gender and race debate the conservative side often argues that the social sciences are "ignoring" biological research or evidence, while the choice to base social policy on biological research in itself is a pretty questionable and ideological practice in the first place. The problem with this is that there are already social engineering government policies in place. For instance, in your math example. It is basically taken as a given that White/Asian males are "disproportionately" (in a bad way) represented in STEM fields, so the government is attempting to intervene to change that. If there is a biological difference, the government isn't fixing anything, they are just making the world, as a whole, worse off. The problem with the argument that there is overwhelming evidence that lack of diversity in the work place leads to passive racism and all the problems associated with with that. Furthermore, every argument about "biological disposition to specific career paths" has been employed before when people were fighting racism/sexism in the 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s. None of these arguments are new and all of them have been employed by the group that benefits form the status quo. And companies are trying to change this, like Intel. And of course the people whining about Intel's push for diversity are men who do not stand to benefit form it. But they will happily benefit from sexism if it exists and assume they got where they are 100% on their own merits. Take your argument about women not being in Stem. It wasn't because the didn't want to get involved. They used to be heavily involved, before it became a profitable career path. http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/10/21/357629765/when-women-stopped-codinghttps://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/when-computer-programming-was-womens-work/2011/08/24/gIQAdixGgJ_story.htmlhttp://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/16/business/16digi.html?_r=0http://www.engadget.com/2014/10/20/what-happened-to-all-of-the-women-coders-in-1984/The simple fact of the matter is that STEM careers don't welcome women on all fronts. Just like back in the day when women were told to be a nurse, teacher or secretary. Pretending that sexism is this thing we beat in the 80s and 90s is just an excuse. Same with racism.
Why is it that people only care about inequality with gender when its about women? No one seems to care that men are severely under represented in the teacher industry:
https://ed.stanford.edu/in-the-media/gender-gap-growing-teaching-profession-cites-thomas-dee-research
Most states report that less than 30 percent of all teachers are male, with the average coming in around 25 percent. The survey revealed that Arkansas had the least amount of male teachers at 17 percent while Kansas led the pack with more than 30 percent.
To go a step further, male educators make up 2.3 percent of the overall pre-K and kindergarten teachers, while male elementary and middle school teachers constitute 18.3 percent of the teaching population. It evens out a little more at the high school level with men representing about 42 percent of the teachers overall.
I mean, if you read the article, there are real things to address here. Stereotypes against men, fear of abuse, etc. Things that ACTUALLY represent a clear indication of sexism.
But nope. Women gotta get into science.
Take your argument about women not being in Stem. It wasn't because the didn't want to get involved. They used to be heavily involved, before it became a profitable career path.
And whats this even supposed to imply? Do you believe men bullied women out of the computer science industry or something? It was just a collective decision among the male gender to rally against women-kind?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
