4 ms·

I find this philosophical phenomenon itself interesting: it seems impossible to speak about sexuality-related topics without ideological bias. You can't just st

I find this philosophical phenomenon itself interesting: it seems impossible to speak about sexuality-related topics without ideological bias. You can't just study human sexuality like you would study baboons and write what is purely logical given the actual observations, you always have to think about what are people going to feel about what you write. It would be interesting to define why is this particular subject so special.

rowanG077 4y ago
I don't think it's possible With baboons or anything for that matter. Human sexuality is just put under the microscope for such things. Obvious examples are the ape sign language studies.
jl6 4y ago
Is it so special, or is it a universal problem in social science? The example of sex from the article is instructive: from a purely hard-science biological perspective, sex is studied without controversy.
ben_w 4y ago
Puts me in mind of Nacirema: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nacirema https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nacirema Perhaps for the entire species we would need something else, such as Homo Ipsum Lorem?
carschno 4y ago
You can call it ideological bias, but I think it comes down to everything that is related to humans and society, not only sex. Human sexuality implies psychology, which is linked to mass psychology and hence society. A study that excludes these factors must be very narrowly restricted to e.g. purly medical issues. This can make sense in such clearly defined domains, but as soon as you broaden things to sexuality in general, you have to take context into account.
tomxor 4y ago
> it seems impossible to speak about sexuality-related topics without ideological bias Yup, I find in many otherwise rational people all reasoning faculties seem to evaporate when trying to have an unbiased conversation about this area today, kind of like a religion almost. The following paragraph from the paper pretty much sums up my experience. I just don't bother discussing any of it with anyone in person any more, it's tainted. > one should note that, from an egalitarian perspective, differences are better tolerated if they reflect positively on a group that is perceived as underprivileged or oppressed (e.g., findings of higher verbal ability in females tend to be less controversial than findings of higher spatial and mathematical ability in males). It's a shame because I think we would move forward faster as a society if it was easier to talk about these things openly without worrying about offending people... how can we overcome unfair biases in society if we do not investigate and understand them properly.
- blueflow 4y ago
  I think the "offending people" is the key here. Why do some people have deep emotional investments over whether some fact is true or false?
  - capitol_ 4y ago
    Maybe because those facts have been used as arguments of oppression.
    - blueflow 4y ago
      That a observably true thing can be used to justify bad things, does not mean its untrue. I'm quoting myself from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31595298 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31595298: > People see that "men and women are different" is used as justification for prejudice (like a person not getting a chance because people of the same sex did rarely have success previously). Which sucks and people feel its unfair. And when trying to conceptualize that unfairness into words, their contra opinion sometimes ends up being "so man and women must be equal" instead of "a persons sex does not justify prejudice".
trasz 4y ago
>It would be interesting to define why is this particular subject so special. Christianity, Catholicism in particular - perversion of human sexuality is one of its pillars. You can see this in their fight against reproductive rights and sexual minorities.
akomtu 4y ago
Just like a few centuries ago you couldn't study the origins of religious texts. What we are seeing is a cult of genitals and skin color raising rapidly, and just like then, discussing any of its dogmas or its priests is heresy.

rowanG077 4y ago

I don't think it's possible With baboons or anything for that matter. Human sexuality is just put under the microscope for such things. Obvious examples are the ape sign language studies.

jl6 4y ago

Is it so special, or is it a universal problem in social science? The example of sex from the article is instructive: from a purely hard-science biological perspective, sex is studied without controversy.

ben_w 4y ago

Puts me in mind of Nacirema: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nacirema https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nacirema Perhaps for the entire species we would need something else, such as Homo Ipsum Lorem?

carschno 4y ago

You can call it ideological bias, but I think it comes down to everything that is related to humans and society, not only sex. Human sexuality implies psychology, which is linked to mass psychology and hence society. A study that excludes these factors must be very narrowly restricted to e.g. purly medical issues. This can make sense in such clearly defined domains, but as soon as you broaden things to sexuality in general, you have to take context into account.

tomxor 4y ago

> it seems impossible to speak about sexuality-related topics without ideological bias Yup, I find in many otherwise rational people all reasoning faculties seem to evaporate when trying to have an unbiased conversation about this area today, kind of like a religion almost. The following paragraph from the paper pretty much sums up my experience. I just don't bother discussing any of it with anyone in person any more, it's tainted. > one should note that, from an egalitarian perspective, differences are better tolerated if they reflect positively on a group that is perceived as underprivileged or oppressed (e.g., findings of higher verbal ability in females tend to be less controversial than findings of higher spatial and mathematical ability in males). It's a shame because I think we would move forward faster as a society if it was easier to talk about these things openly without worrying about offending people... how can we overcome unfair biases in society if we do not investigate and understand them properly.

blueflow 4y ago
I think the "offending people" is the key here. Why do some people have deep emotional investments over whether some fact is true or false?
- capitol_ 4y ago
  Maybe because those facts have been used as arguments of oppression.
  - blueflow 4y ago
    That a observably true thing can be used to justify bad things, does not mean its untrue. I'm quoting myself from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31595298 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31595298: > People see that "men and women are different" is used as justification for prejudice (like a person not getting a chance because people of the same sex did rarely have success previously). Which sucks and people feel its unfair. And when trying to conceptualize that unfairness into words, their contra opinion sometimes ends up being "so man and women must be equal" instead of "a persons sex does not justify prejudice".

trasz 4y ago

>It would be interesting to define why is this particular subject so special. Christianity, Catholicism in particular - perversion of human sexuality is one of its pillars. You can see this in their fight against reproductive rights and sexual minorities.

akomtu 4y ago

Just like a few centuries ago you couldn't study the origins of religious texts. What we are seeing is a cult of genitals and skin color raising rapidly, and just like then, discussing any of its dogmas or its priests is heresy.