4 ms·

> biological explanations of poverty That's brave territory. But nonetheless, we shouldn't be prevented from discussing, let alone researching it. Naval Ravi

> biological explanations of poverty That's brave territory. But nonetheless, we shouldn't be prevented from discussing, let alone researching it. Naval Ravikant talks about this quite a bit, - universities escalated to establish themselves to higher levels of truth-authority since the 50s given the objectiveness and fruits of hard sciences, (physics, biology, chemistry, microeconomics). However, now soft social "sciences" such as Gender studies and macroeconomics (you know it's not a hard science because it says Science behind it) have bullied their way to the front. Wherein, the hard sciences are being displaced yet cemented with the same aforementioned authority - but with the reluctance, or even sabotage to objectively discuss, let alone research dissenting ideas. Especially under duress is Evolutionary Biology, here is a prime example - https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/09/13/can-progressives-be-convinced-that-genetics-matters https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/09/13/can-progressiv...

rilezg 5y ago
Regarding the linked article, I feel it is important to clarify that the field under duress is 'Behavioral Genetics', not 'Evolutionary Biology' (the former may be considered a sub-field of the latter, but I think it is important to be clear as much of the controversy lies in attempts to use DNA to explain/predict the personality/behavior of a modern individual). I am also curious why you consider microeconomics is a 'hard' science? As someone with a BA in economics (truly the pinnacle of academic understanding), I would not consider it any less wishy-washy than macroeconomics (both of which are 'soft social sciences', in my view). I can appreciate that social sciences are often vague and messy and never seem to offer universal truths, but, when trying to understand human behavior, I also feel it is important to say that we live in a society. At least for me, I truly believe much of my behavior and habits are dictated by what I learned from the people around me and the stories I have been exposed to throughout life. And then some academic comes along and claims to understand who I am and who I will be and that it is all encoded in my DNA? It will take a lot more than wishy-washy social-science statistical analysis to convince me of that. Sure, there could be a discussion about fate and free will, but I do not see much use in that, I certainly do not see the need to bring DNA into the conversation, and I definitely do not want the government looking to genetics for solutions.
antifa 5y ago
> Especially under duress is Evolutionary Biology, here is a prime example The article kind of said nothing, it just had the flashy headline: > Can Progressives Be Convinced That Genetics Matters? > >The behavior geneticist Kathryn Paige Harden is waging a two-front campaign: on her left are those who assume that genes are irrelevant, on her right those who insist that they’re everything. Then never mentioned that topic again. It looks like you're trying to misrepresent "the left doesn't believe in old debunked claims about race and IQ" as some kind opposition to actual genetic research.

rilezg 5y ago

Regarding the linked article, I feel it is important to clarify that the field under duress is 'Behavioral Genetics', not 'Evolutionary Biology' (the former may be considered a sub-field of the latter, but I think it is important to be clear as much of the controversy lies in attempts to use DNA to explain/predict the personality/behavior of a modern individual). I am also curious why you consider microeconomics is a 'hard' science? As someone with a BA in economics (truly the pinnacle of academic understanding), I would not consider it any less wishy-washy than macroeconomics (both of which are 'soft social sciences', in my view). I can appreciate that social sciences are often vague and messy and never seem to offer universal truths, but, when trying to understand human behavior, I also feel it is important to say that we live in a society. At least for me, I truly believe much of my behavior and habits are dictated by what I learned from the people around me and the stories I have been exposed to throughout life. And then some academic comes along and claims to understand who I am and who I will be and that it is all encoded in my DNA? It will take a lot more than wishy-washy social-science statistical analysis to convince me of that. Sure, there could be a discussion about fate and free will, but I do not see much use in that, I certainly do not see the need to bring DNA into the conversation, and I definitely do not want the government looking to genetics for solutions.

antifa 5y ago

> Especially under duress is Evolutionary Biology, here is a prime example The article kind of said nothing, it just had the flashy headline: > Can Progressives Be Convinced That Genetics Matters? > >The behavior geneticist Kathryn Paige Harden is waging a two-front campaign: on her left are those who assume that genes are irrelevant, on her right those who insist that they’re everything. Then never mentioned that topic again. It looks like you're trying to misrepresent "the left doesn't believe in old debunked claims about race and IQ" as some kind opposition to actual genetic research.