4 ms·

>Without any hard science to back it I think this is the problem. Here's research that's trying to find some quantitative data about this issue, trying to cut

>Without any hard science to back it I think this is the problem. Here's research that's trying to find some quantitative data about this issue, trying to cut through our received wisdom and intuition. And the response is... rooted in received wisdom and intuition. (I don't mean to dispute your proposed model -- merely to suggest that us sitting here and speculating about models is precisely the wrong way to understand these issues.) Frankly, I'm a little disappointed with the tenor of the discussion on this site; it seems the collective will to libertarianism is stronger than the belief in empiricism. I'm happy to be proven wrong, though.

cm2187 11y ago
Only science can really close this debate, but we don't really understand how the brain works, what drives intellectual capacity, character, sexual preferences, etc. So I don't see how we can do anything else than invoke what each of us think is our common sense to form an opinion until science tells us what really happens.
- cookiecaper 11y ago
  You have far too much faith in "science". Academics are human, and subject to human frailties. Studies are often sponsored or otherwise "encouraged" by outside parties with a certain interest. Academics often modify their reports until they get a result that "demonstrates" their desired outcome. Conventional wisdom, supported by the day's best "science", is regularly disproved. Consider that every side in every political debate believes the evidence supports their opinion, and that the evidence the other guys are using is a sham. Although academics have a bias in aggregate, which should not automatically be mistaken as valid consensus, you can usually find at least a few outlying reports to support any desired political position. What it boils down to is that people believe whatever they want, probably for emotional reasons, and they can't really be convinced otherwise. They're only ready to come to the table when those emotional links have been severed by something in their life experience.

cm2187 11y ago

Only science can really close this debate, but we don't really understand how the brain works, what drives intellectual capacity, character, sexual preferences, etc. So I don't see how we can do anything else than invoke what each of us think is our common sense to form an opinion until science tells us what really happens.

cookiecaper 11y ago
You have far too much faith in "science". Academics are human, and subject to human frailties. Studies are often sponsored or otherwise "encouraged" by outside parties with a certain interest. Academics often modify their reports until they get a result that "demonstrates" their desired outcome. Conventional wisdom, supported by the day's best "science", is regularly disproved. Consider that every side in every political debate believes the evidence supports their opinion, and that the evidence the other guys are using is a sham. Although academics have a bias in aggregate, which should not automatically be mistaken as valid consensus, you can usually find at least a few outlying reports to support any desired political position. What it boils down to is that people believe whatever they want, probably for emotional reasons, and they can't really be convinced otherwise. They're only ready to come to the table when those emotional links have been severed by something in their life experience.