4 ms·

Biological cognitive differences (real or not) have traditionally been applied to exclude people from work, opportunities, and liberty that, in a free society,

Biological cognitive differences (real or not) have traditionally been applied to exclude people from work, opportunities, and liberty that, in a free society, everyone should have the chance to access. I get the sense there is a fear that concrete evidence of biological cognitive differences will give cover to discrimination, and likely broader discrimination than the evidence really "supports."

bendbro 8y ago
> Biological cognitive differences (real or not) have traditionally been applied to exclude people from work, opportunities, and liberty that, in a free society, everyone should have the chance to access. Sources? I don’t believe anyone has been using science (biological cognitive differences?) to exclude individuals from jobs, beyond the perfectly acceptable “let’s not hire the stupid and incompetent when we can hire someone less stupid and less incompetent”
- amanaplanacanal 8y ago
  Go back a hundred years and the culture is full of this kind of stuff. Racial and sexual stereotypes were rampant, and people could commonly point to "science" to back up their biases. Surely you are aware of this?
  - pmarreck 8y ago
    So because "scarequote science" (as you are using it) was 1 flavor 100 years ago (an extremely flawed one), that means MODERN-DAY science is also suspect? If I cherry-pick 1 study out of 10 which corroborates my worldiew and use it to cudgel my oppressive point home, that is not a "science problem," the problem there is that someone must step up and point out that 9 other studies did not have results in agreement with that one person's worldview!
    - amanaplanacanal 8y ago
      > I don’t believe anyone has been using science (biological cognitive differences?) to exclude individuals from jobs That was what I was responding to. Yes, people have used science as an excuse to do those very things.
- abathur 8y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology#Application https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology#Application
  - pmarreck 8y ago
    Phrenology has no actual science behind it, otherwise it would still exist in some way/shape/form.
    - abathur 8y ago
      Not clear to me what definition of "actual science" is operative here, and how you measure whether it still exists in some way/shape/form, but this may be hindsight bias. Gall was taking real measurements inspired by: - the faulty premise that there was a closer relationship between small differences in the exterior of the head and the brain than ultimately existed - the ultimately borne-out premise that different mental faculties are closely related with different physical parts of the brain If the science underpinning most but not all interpretations of fMRI results was debunked in the next 20 years, it seems like there would still be "actual science" behind the incorrect conclusions. How/where do you draw the line between phrenology's primitive grasp of the relationship between mental faculties and brain areas and the manifestation of the same concept in fMRI?
      - pmarreck 8y ago
        I don't think it's necessary, as a simple Google search on "structural brain differences" reveals hundreds of studies identifying physical differences correlating with various things such as transgendered individuals, dyslexics, etc.
pmarreck 8y ago
> there is a fear that concrete evidence Fear of the truth... Always a good reason to not do something. ::eyeroll::
- shredprez 8y ago
  I don't believe this fear involves "the truth." The fear is that a true thing (there are cognitive differences between men and women) will be used to bolster a lie (men and women should be excluded from varying industries based on reductive readings of physical generalizations). This is something that has happened repeatedly throughout history and along many dimensions; it's not an unfounded fear. That you seem to think "something" should be done at all in response to this study only validates the fear.
  - pmarreck 8y ago
    Oh jeez... the "something" was referring to doing the actual research, not to acting on it (which I would be against, anyway)

bendbro 8y ago

> Biological cognitive differences (real or not) have traditionally been applied to exclude people from work, opportunities, and liberty that, in a free society, everyone should have the chance to access. Sources? I don’t believe anyone has been using science (biological cognitive differences?) to exclude individuals from jobs, beyond the perfectly acceptable “let’s not hire the stupid and incompetent when we can hire someone less stupid and less incompetent”

amanaplanacanal 8y ago
Go back a hundred years and the culture is full of this kind of stuff. Racial and sexual stereotypes were rampant, and people could commonly point to "science" to back up their biases. Surely you are aware of this?
- pmarreck 8y ago
  So because "scarequote science" (as you are using it) was 1 flavor 100 years ago (an extremely flawed one), that means MODERN-DAY science is also suspect? If I cherry-pick 1 study out of 10 which corroborates my worldiew and use it to cudgel my oppressive point home, that is not a "science problem," the problem there is that someone must step up and point out that 9 other studies did not have results in agreement with that one person's worldview!
  - amanaplanacanal 8y ago
    > I don’t believe anyone has been using science (biological cognitive differences?) to exclude individuals from jobs That was what I was responding to. Yes, people have used science as an excuse to do those very things.
abathur 8y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology#Application https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology#Application
- pmarreck 8y ago
  Phrenology has no actual science behind it, otherwise it would still exist in some way/shape/form.
  - abathur 8y ago
    Not clear to me what definition of "actual science" is operative here, and how you measure whether it still exists in some way/shape/form, but this may be hindsight bias. Gall was taking real measurements inspired by: - the faulty premise that there was a closer relationship between small differences in the exterior of the head and the brain than ultimately existed - the ultimately borne-out premise that different mental faculties are closely related with different physical parts of the brain If the science underpinning most but not all interpretations of fMRI results was debunked in the next 20 years, it seems like there would still be "actual science" behind the incorrect conclusions. How/where do you draw the line between phrenology's primitive grasp of the relationship between mental faculties and brain areas and the manifestation of the same concept in fMRI?
    - pmarreck 8y ago
      I don't think it's necessary, as a simple Google search on "structural brain differences" reveals hundreds of studies identifying physical differences correlating with various things such as transgendered individuals, dyslexics, etc.

pmarreck 8y ago

> there is a fear that concrete evidence Fear of the truth... Always a good reason to not do something. ::eyeroll::

shredprez 8y ago
I don't believe this fear involves "the truth." The fear is that a true thing (there are cognitive differences between men and women) will be used to bolster a lie (men and women should be excluded from varying industries based on reductive readings of physical generalizations). This is something that has happened repeatedly throughout history and along many dimensions; it's not an unfounded fear. That you seem to think "something" should be done at all in response to this study only validates the fear.
- pmarreck 8y ago
  Oh jeez... the "something" was referring to doing the actual research, not to acting on it (which I would be against, anyway)