4 ms·
This reads like the scientific version of a stereotype. Maybe kind of interesting, but extremely prone to misinterpetation, over-generalization, and potentiall
by chmod600 6y ago
This reads like the scientific version of a stereotype.
Maybe kind of interesting, but extremely prone to misinterpetation, over-generalization, and potentially prejudice.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y agoCertainly prone to those kinds of things, but I think there are interesting questions that can only be answered by this kind of analysis. (For example, it seems plausibly related to why American gun culture is so much stronger and more popular than in other countries, even those with comparably permissive gun ownership laws.)
- chmod600 6y agoI'm skepical of putting a scientific veneer over such analysis. If that's the point you'd like to make, go ahead and make it, but leave science out of it.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y agoI'm not sure what you mean. Why shouldn't the methods of science be used to tackle these kinds of questions?
- chmod600 6y agoBecause they lead to a false sense of certainty and inappropriately appeal to authority. These questions are complex. The premises and framing are critical. The surrounding evidence that's not measured is probably much more important than whatever the scientist is able to actually measure. All living beings, including humans, are a mix of strengths and weaknesses in careful balance. If a martian scientist were to look at humans they would probably say something like: "Not very strong, not very fast, eats a lot, no armor, horns, or poison. Can't fly. We predict that wolves will hunt them to extinction in a few decades." But obviously the martians didn't measure our brains. Evolution of living beings tends to create these exceptions that throw off simpistic analysis. What are you forgetting to measure that will completely throw off your conclusions?
- sjy 6y agoThe scientific article summarised in this piece is clear about this. The effect size is quantified. It’s not fake science to look at small effects. > It should be noted that the magnitude of the effects is generally quite small and the overall explanatory power of the models is modest. However, complex psychological phenomena, such as personality, are likely to be influenced by hundreds, if not thousands, of factors, so small effects are to be expected especially when examined in the uncontrolled context of real-world settings ... our research shows that an increase of one standard deviation in mountainousness is associated with a change of approximately 1% in personality, which may seem insignificant. However, when scaled to hundreds of thousands of people, such an increase would translate into substantial changes ...
- AnimalMuppet 6y agoThey should. But often, you instead get "fake science": a badly-designed study that is followed by inadequate statistical analysis that just happens to confirm the investigator's pre-existing biases. That approach shouldn't be used to investigate anything. Nor should the conclusions be regarded as scientific.
- colordrops 6y agoIt almost reads like an onion article.
- ethbr0 6y agoThe contrary is equally plausible: that we might dismiss a scientifically-justified generalization about a group of people as a stereotype. Conclusions should take additional care, but populations are different in important ways.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- TulliusCicero 6y agoMost non-spiteful stereotypes have some truth to them.
- ColanR 6y agoI think the caveat may not even be needed. [Many] stereotypes have some truth to them.
- TulliusCicero 6y agoYes, but I find the ones that aren't clearly condescending/antagonistic tend to be a lot more accurate. Ones like "women can't drive" aren't coming purely from a place of earnest observation, but from a desire to other and mock another demographic. That makes them suspect, because you know the originators of the stereotype were going out of their way to find something bad.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- zajio1am 6y agoStereotype Accuracy is One of the Largest and Most Replicable Effects in All of Social Psychology: http://www.spsp.org/news-center/blog/stereotype-accuracy-response http://www.spsp.org/news-center/blog/stereotype-accuracy-res...
- voxl 6y agoThe issue with stereotypes is the same issue with comparing IQs between subsets of the population: averages do not work when its one individual applying it to another individual. Variance is very high with humans, and the idea that your Uncle Joe thinks his black friend has a big dick because of the stereotype is idiotic.
- charlieflowers 6y agoAlso known as a "just so story." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-so_story https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-so_story I agree -- they might be onto something here, but you have to be careful or your reasoning can be misled.