5 ms·

> It is only hard to believe if you are entirely unfamiliar with the history of this discussion. Completely disagree. The crux of most historical discussions

> It is only hard to believe if you are entirely unfamiliar with the history of this discussion. Completely disagree. The crux of most historical discussions were based on ability and was blanketed to all individual women, as they were implying that gender was the only causal factor. Discussing how prenatal testosterone may be a factor in influencing decisions for a distribution of a group is a completely different beast. The thing that bothers me about the left is their inability to accept any sort of biological determinism as a possible large contributing factor to anything. Out of curiosity, if we were to use your analogy loosely: > Let's take a more obvious example: the common racist claim that black people are lazy. If evidence came out that a certain portion of blacks were missing some sort of hormone that is almost completely causal in lack of desire to eat apples, so that it skewed their distribution in a statistically significant way, would you accept it? If it pertained to something considered more valuable, like say, intelligence or athletic ability, would you still accept it? Do you see that this shirks the definition of racism since it is talking about distributions and not individuals? > That would correctly generate outrage, because a) one should not be ignorant about the history of these things when jumping into a discussion with such impact on people's lives…. Anyone can take offense to anything and be “outraged.” What good does that do? A sliding metric of people being sensitive and getting emotional is no reason to not have discussions. In fact, some people have disorders making it difficult for them to navigate social contexts tactfully. Are you saying people on the autism spectrum shouldn’t be a part of the discussion? This could possibly apply to James (I don’t know), especially if you’ve watched any of his interviews. >b) there is a long, long history of virulent racists edging their way into the mainstream by dressing up their prejudices just enough to sound reasonable to the ignorant. Would you mind giving a modern example?

wpietri 9y ago
> Discussing how prenatal testosterone may be a factor in influencing decisions for a distribution of a group is a completely different beast. No. It is the same discussion, just revised for fancier modern science. But it's the same deal: "I, a man, have noticed a possible fact about women. That proves that the status quo is awesome, and let's talk about going back to a simpler time before civil rights were such a thorn in my side." The reason nobody on the left will discuss biological determinism with you is because of its rich history as a tool of oppression. The discussion has happened a zillion times over hundreds of years. It's the same reason that most people who understand evolution won't bother to debate with hardcore creationists: it's a fucking waste of time. The creationists will never come around and say, "Oh, gosh, guess I was wrong." Motivated reasoning driven by deep bias is just not a fertile ground for discussion. Anybody who's sincerely interested in the history of evolution or the history of racism or the history of sexism can take a class. That somebody wants to strongly argue a point without having done that work is a big sign it's useless. > Anyone can take offense to anything and be “outraged.” What good does that do? This is a fine example of motivated reasoning. Nicolashahn, who at least has the decency to write under his own name, was clearly talking about morally justified outrage. If you would like to argue that people on the receiving end of sexist and racist bias don't deserve to be upset, make the argument. But you can't slip it like this. > Are you saying people on the autism spectrum shouldn’t be a part of the discussion? No. But as someone on the spectrum, I will say you're an asshole for using me as a strawman in a dumb argument. > Would you mind giving a modern example? Oh, modern. You mean after racism and sexism ended? When did that happen exactly? If you're serious about all this, open an account in your actual name, stop with the bad rhetorical techniques, and carry on with the discussion. But as far as I can tell, you're yet another bigot who popped on a mask.
- Soeldner123 9y ago
  >No. It is the same discussion, just revised for fancier modern science. You seem to be missing the nuance of distribution vs every individual. To me, this is a big distinction. >"I, a man, have noticed a possible fact about women." Actually, the vast majority of people in the social sciences are women, many of whom found this correlation with prenatal testosterone despite the evidence running counter to their ideology. If you would prefer, I can cite you many female researchers' names on peer reviewed articles. Regardless, why does it matter what gender the person is, if the science is sound? >The reason nobody on the left will discuss biological determinism with you is because of its rich history as a tool of oppression. That's too bad. As the confidence of a fact increases because of corroboration of evidence, the history of a more generalized, historical concept of the specific claim should have less bearing on whether it is true or not. If the issue doesn't appear sound, simply find evidence to refute the claim; the main concept behind the scientific method. Moreover, I debate this with people on the left all the time. If they aren't far left, they usually just downplay the amount the hormones affect decision, but they don't rule out there is any correlation. >It's the same reason that most people who understand evolution won't bother to debate with hardcore creationists: it's a fucking waste of time. False analogy. Yes, evolution is the only theory that has significant corroborating evidence and bringing up "designers" with mountains of evidence to the contrary (and no supporting evidence) is just faulty reasoning. Also, many times creationists make claims that are unfalsifiable and thus useless. On the contrary, though, people working hard to isolate independent variables in the messy field of cognitive psychology to find correlations to other attributes is not the same thing by any stretch of the imagination. >This is a fine example of motivated reasoning. Nicolashahn, who at least has the decency to write under his own name, was clearly talking about morally justified outrage. If you would like to argue that people on the receiving end of sexist and racist bias don't deserve to be upset, make the argument. But you can't slip it like this. It isn't sexist or racist if you talk of distribution instead of every individual. Is it racist to ask for someone's race on a medical form? No, it's highly useful. Black males have a higher incidence of prostate cancer... or is that racist by your reasoning? Why does using one's actual name make any difference to the content of the discussion? Are "Mark Twain's" literary works worthless because that is a pseudonym? >No. But as someone on the spectrum, I will say you're an asshole for using me as a strawman in a dumb argument. How is that a strawman? You implied that tact should be used when discussing things with strong historical contention. I brought up the fact that a certain proportion of people with a social disorder can't meet you metric because of materialistic deficiencies and that your requirement ostracizes those people. It's simply a further example of why I think emotions and feelings have little place in a discussion. > Oh, modern. You mean after racism and sexism ended? When did that happen exactly? No. I was genuinely curious what you were referencing. >If you're serious about all this, open an account in your actual name, stop with the bad rhetorical techniques, and carry on with the discussion. But as far as I can tell, you're yet another bigot who popped on a mask. Once again, why does my actual name matter or have any bearing whether I am "serious?" I am serious or else I wouldn't have taken the time out of my busy schedule to reply. Vaguely saying I'm using "bad rheteorical techniques," isn't very useful. I assume you are talking to your belief that I used a "strawman" fallacy. Masks are useful. Often, I'll put on a devil's advocate mask when debating with myself. I find this usefully gives me a more balanced perspective.

wpietri 9y ago

> Discussing how prenatal testosterone may be a factor in influencing decisions for a distribution of a group is a completely different beast. No. It is the same discussion, just revised for fancier modern science. But it's the same deal: "I, a man, have noticed a possible fact about women. That proves that the status quo is awesome, and let's talk about going back to a simpler time before civil rights were such a thorn in my side." The reason nobody on the left will discuss biological determinism with you is because of its rich history as a tool of oppression. The discussion has happened a zillion times over hundreds of years. It's the same reason that most people who understand evolution won't bother to debate with hardcore creationists: it's a fucking waste of time. The creationists will never come around and say, "Oh, gosh, guess I was wrong." Motivated reasoning driven by deep bias is just not a fertile ground for discussion. Anybody who's sincerely interested in the history of evolution or the history of racism or the history of sexism can take a class. That somebody wants to strongly argue a point without having done that work is a big sign it's useless. > Anyone can take offense to anything and be “outraged.” What good does that do? This is a fine example of motivated reasoning. Nicolashahn, who at least has the decency to write under his own name, was clearly talking about morally justified outrage. If you would like to argue that people on the receiving end of sexist and racist bias don't deserve to be upset, make the argument. But you can't slip it like this. > Are you saying people on the autism spectrum shouldn’t be a part of the discussion? No. But as someone on the spectrum, I will say you're an asshole for using me as a strawman in a dumb argument. > Would you mind giving a modern example? Oh, modern. You mean after racism and sexism ended? When did that happen exactly? If you're serious about all this, open an account in your actual name, stop with the bad rhetorical techniques, and carry on with the discussion. But as far as I can tell, you're yet another bigot who popped on a mask.

Soeldner123 9y ago
>No. It is the same discussion, just revised for fancier modern science. You seem to be missing the nuance of distribution vs every individual. To me, this is a big distinction. >"I, a man, have noticed a possible fact about women." Actually, the vast majority of people in the social sciences are women, many of whom found this correlation with prenatal testosterone despite the evidence running counter to their ideology. If you would prefer, I can cite you many female researchers' names on peer reviewed articles. Regardless, why does it matter what gender the person is, if the science is sound? >The reason nobody on the left will discuss biological determinism with you is because of its rich history as a tool of oppression. That's too bad. As the confidence of a fact increases because of corroboration of evidence, the history of a more generalized, historical concept of the specific claim should have less bearing on whether it is true or not. If the issue doesn't appear sound, simply find evidence to refute the claim; the main concept behind the scientific method. Moreover, I debate this with people on the left all the time. If they aren't far left, they usually just downplay the amount the hormones affect decision, but they don't rule out there is any correlation. >It's the same reason that most people who understand evolution won't bother to debate with hardcore creationists: it's a fucking waste of time. False analogy. Yes, evolution is the only theory that has significant corroborating evidence and bringing up "designers" with mountains of evidence to the contrary (and no supporting evidence) is just faulty reasoning. Also, many times creationists make claims that are unfalsifiable and thus useless. On the contrary, though, people working hard to isolate independent variables in the messy field of cognitive psychology to find correlations to other attributes is not the same thing by any stretch of the imagination. >This is a fine example of motivated reasoning. Nicolashahn, who at least has the decency to write under his own name, was clearly talking about morally justified outrage. If you would like to argue that people on the receiving end of sexist and racist bias don't deserve to be upset, make the argument. But you can't slip it like this. It isn't sexist or racist if you talk of distribution instead of every individual. Is it racist to ask for someone's race on a medical form? No, it's highly useful. Black males have a higher incidence of prostate cancer... or is that racist by your reasoning? Why does using one's actual name make any difference to the content of the discussion? Are "Mark Twain's" literary works worthless because that is a pseudonym? >No. But as someone on the spectrum, I will say you're an asshole for using me as a strawman in a dumb argument. How is that a strawman? You implied that tact should be used when discussing things with strong historical contention. I brought up the fact that a certain proportion of people with a social disorder can't meet you metric because of materialistic deficiencies and that your requirement ostracizes those people. It's simply a further example of why I think emotions and feelings have little place in a discussion. > Oh, modern. You mean after racism and sexism ended? When did that happen exactly? No. I was genuinely curious what you were referencing. >If you're serious about all this, open an account in your actual name, stop with the bad rhetorical techniques, and carry on with the discussion. But as far as I can tell, you're yet another bigot who popped on a mask. Once again, why does my actual name matter or have any bearing whether I am "serious?" I am serious or else I wouldn't have taken the time out of my busy schedule to reply. Vaguely saying I'm using "bad rheteorical techniques," isn't very useful. I assume you are talking to your belief that I used a "strawman" fallacy. Masks are useful. Often, I'll put on a devil's advocate mask when debating with myself. I find this usefully gives me a more balanced perspective.