4 ms·

It was a sexist statement. If the author intended something besides naked sexism, she failed at conveying it. I personally find sexism to be a rather stupid poi

by jqm 12y ago

It was a sexist statement. If the author intended something besides naked sexism, she failed at conveying it. I personally find sexism to be a rather stupid point of view (as well as being offensive). Also, the premise of the article was foolish to begin with. There is no evidence that preferred entertainment becomes reality. Also, what people are offered is what they can chose to view. So who is doing this type of writing? What are their motives? Are there solid metrics that this type of writing is becoming more preferred? *See posts above for more repudiations. One last thing... what exactly does diversity have to do with scientific reality? I found it a very poor article overall and it certainly makes me think less of Wired for publishing it.

ZenoArrow 12y ago
"It was a sexist statement." in your opinion. In my opinion it was not. Effective verbal communication requires more than just a speaker that thoughtfully chooses their words, it also requires listeners that can interpret in a flexible way. One way to do this is to be able to consider different levels of meaning. Take the word 'male' out of the statement we're discussing... now, what point do you think the author is trying to make? "There is no evidence that preferred entertainment becomes reality." Have you never heard of 'life imitating art'? VR is probably a good example, there are a number of high profile people in the VR field who cite specific works of cyberpunk fiction as a strong early influence. I can name them if you'd like? It'd also be possible to illuminate the influence that Star Trek has had on our technology. What I find is that most people consume fiction about the future as entertainment, but later when certain aspects of it become possible they're welcomed as 'the future' because that's what we've been led to expect from the future. For example, try to imagine a future where we give up on high tech and figure out another path to take... see that idea in much of our media? No, it's clear we expect much more tech in our future (as long as society doesn't collapse). That singlemindedness came out of somewhere. "what exactly does diversity have to do with scientific reality?" Science does not exist in a vacuum, it is interwoven into the world in which we live. Putting aside the main corrupting influences placed upon science itself (money and ego), so that we can assume scientific research is a pure field, there are frequently new ethical questions surrounding the direction that scientific research follows. It is important that scientific research is sensitive to the culture in which it inhabits. Having a diversity of opinion guiding science helps strengthen the outcome. If you believe science should not be restrained by societal concerns then I can share some ideas that may give cause to reconsider.
- jqm 12y ago
  If sexist statements are simply a matter of opinion than there probably really aren't any at all by some measure or the other.... I believe scientists (aka people who have taken the time to study and learn) should do science. Not anyone with a diverse opinion. There is plenty of room for guidance at the funding and application levels. Which, btw, also require some knowledge and qualification besides being a third rate hack writer who makes sexist statements.... Uninformed opinions are cheap. Knowledge and good thinking skills are rare.
  - ZenoArrow 12y ago
    "If sexist statements are simply a matter of opinion than there probably really aren't any at all by some measure or the other...." In subjective matters, the interpretation of written statements in this case, there is room for shades of grey. So yes, even if you are convinced something is how you see it, does not mean everyone will agree. Let me put it like this, if a female makes a negative statement about a group, and points out that this group is overwhelmingly male, does the gender automatically become the focus, or is it merely an observation about a group, and it is the group which is being placed under scrutiny? If I say I work with a group of geeky men that are clever, is the gender really the most important part of that statement to you? "I believe scientists (aka people who have taken the time to study and learn) should do science." Did I say anything different to that? "Not anyone with a diverse opinion. There is plenty of room for guidance at the funding and application levels." Application level is after the horse has bolted. To use an obvious example, you can't prove that we know how to build an atomic bomb and then not expect negative consequences, regardless of how interesting the science was the scientists involved still needed to take responsibility for their part in it (which at least some of them did). Funding level is part of the corrupting influence I mentioned before. Science exists to serve us, it's how we explore the systems of the world we live in, but not all science serves us, and until we recognise that and ethically guide our research we're setting ourselves up for huge catastrophes.
    - jqm 12y ago
      So you think certain areas just shouldn't be studied? And that there should be a diverse (aka non-experts) panel to decide what scientists can research... for the good of humanity? How often liberal arts college propaganda seems to talk itself right back around into something resembling medieval theology. Fortunately (or unfortunately depending on perspective I guess) it seems to never be quite competent enough to achieve it's objectives.... For the record, I believe in environmental concerns. I believe in social and economic justice. I look at history and see these best being addressed by science. Not "me too even though I haven't really taken the time to study the issue" opinions.

by jqm 12y ago

ZenoArrow 12y ago

"It was a sexist statement." in your opinion. In my opinion it was not. Effective verbal communication requires more than just a speaker that thoughtfully chooses their words, it also requires listeners that can interpret in a flexible way. One way to do this is to be able to consider different levels of meaning. Take the word 'male' out of the statement we're discussing... now, what point do you think the author is trying to make? "There is no evidence that preferred entertainment becomes reality." Have you never heard of 'life imitating art'? VR is probably a good example, there are a number of high profile people in the VR field who cite specific works of cyberpunk fiction as a strong early influence. I can name them if you'd like? It'd also be possible to illuminate the influence that Star Trek has had on our technology. What I find is that most people consume fiction about the future as entertainment, but later when certain aspects of it become possible they're welcomed as 'the future' because that's what we've been led to expect from the future. For example, try to imagine a future where we give up on high tech and figure out another path to take... see that idea in much of our media? No, it's clear we expect much more tech in our future (as long as society doesn't collapse). That singlemindedness came out of somewhere. "what exactly does diversity have to do with scientific reality?" Science does not exist in a vacuum, it is interwoven into the world in which we live. Putting aside the main corrupting influences placed upon science itself (money and ego), so that we can assume scientific research is a pure field, there are frequently new ethical questions surrounding the direction that scientific research follows. It is important that scientific research is sensitive to the culture in which it inhabits. Having a diversity of opinion guiding science helps strengthen the outcome. If you believe science should not be restrained by societal concerns then I can share some ideas that may give cause to reconsider.

jqm 12y ago
If sexist statements are simply a matter of opinion than there probably really aren't any at all by some measure or the other.... I believe scientists (aka people who have taken the time to study and learn) should do science. Not anyone with a diverse opinion. There is plenty of room for guidance at the funding and application levels. Which, btw, also require some knowledge and qualification besides being a third rate hack writer who makes sexist statements.... Uninformed opinions are cheap. Knowledge and good thinking skills are rare.
- ZenoArrow 12y ago
  "If sexist statements are simply a matter of opinion than there probably really aren't any at all by some measure or the other...." In subjective matters, the interpretation of written statements in this case, there is room for shades of grey. So yes, even if you are convinced something is how you see it, does not mean everyone will agree. Let me put it like this, if a female makes a negative statement about a group, and points out that this group is overwhelmingly male, does the gender automatically become the focus, or is it merely an observation about a group, and it is the group which is being placed under scrutiny? If I say I work with a group of geeky men that are clever, is the gender really the most important part of that statement to you? "I believe scientists (aka people who have taken the time to study and learn) should do science." Did I say anything different to that? "Not anyone with a diverse opinion. There is plenty of room for guidance at the funding and application levels." Application level is after the horse has bolted. To use an obvious example, you can't prove that we know how to build an atomic bomb and then not expect negative consequences, regardless of how interesting the science was the scientists involved still needed to take responsibility for their part in it (which at least some of them did). Funding level is part of the corrupting influence I mentioned before. Science exists to serve us, it's how we explore the systems of the world we live in, but not all science serves us, and until we recognise that and ethically guide our research we're setting ourselves up for huge catastrophes.
  - jqm 12y ago
    So you think certain areas just shouldn't be studied? And that there should be a diverse (aka non-experts) panel to decide what scientists can research... for the good of humanity? How often liberal arts college propaganda seems to talk itself right back around into something resembling medieval theology. Fortunately (or unfortunately depending on perspective I guess) it seems to never be quite competent enough to achieve it's objectives.... For the record, I believe in environmental concerns. I believe in social and economic justice. I look at history and see these best being addressed by science. Not "me too even though I haven't really taken the time to study the issue" opinions.