3 ms·

So, is the science wrong because you don't like the conclusion or is the science wrong because you don't like the presentation order in this particular video?

So, is the science wrong because you don't like the conclusion or is the science wrong because you don't like the presentation order in this particular video? It's interesting also that you need to warn like minded folks to turn their mind firmly off at 2:20 because it directly threatens your opinions with straight forward anatomy and neuroscience. A thoughtful person would welcome an opportunity correct an erroneous viewpoint not wave other people away from opinion changing data.

SwellJoe 12y ago
I upvoted the post above you, as they called out the part of the video I found most interesting. But, I also think the use of language is interesting; there is no discussion of the science, merely a response of crying "class warfare" and dismissal of the video as though it is somehow not worth watching because it doesn't fit a particular philosophy. Which is unfortunate, as I was hoping for a discussion of the science...empathy, reciprocity, and non-familial generosity, are elements of humanity that I find utterly fascinating. It's one of the more challenging and puzzling aspects of evolutionary psychology, and is among the things that make us human.
- humanrebar 12y ago
  To be fair, the video was pop science at best. Strong science is inherently convincing because it: 1. Describes some findings about a natural phenomenon 2. (Usually) attempts to quantify that natural phenomenon in some way 3. Describes the process the researcher took to measure the phenomenon (i.e., the experiment) 4. Details how to reproduce the steps so others can verify the findings The above was an interesting "food for thought" video in the vein of Ted Talks, but I wouldn't label it science. Can we bring back the term "natural philosophy"?
  - SwellJoe 12y ago
    Yes, it is a casual introduction and not a rigorous scientific survey. But, the people behind the video are real scientists with real and interesting data to back them up. The UC Berkeley team behind it have been doing research in this field for years, and there are links to relevant websites with their research on the same page as the video. I hoped it would spawn a conversation, but that's not really what happened. A few people dismissed it, and a few found it interesting, but nobody said, "Here's an article or piece of research which seems to conflict with these results or presents new ideas on why they got these results". I think it's interesting that you haven't raised any objections to the science...only that the video is not a peer-reviewed scientific article, even though the peer-reviewed science does exist, and is easily found on the websites linked in the information on the video (http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~keltner/publications.htm http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~keltner/publications.htm). The use of the term "natural philosophy" implies you don't believe the research discussed in the video is reproducible or predictive, and is instead merely the musings of pre-scientific thinkers, which is dismissive. Yet, you haven't addressed the science itself, only their methods (seemingly without digging a bit to see that they are, in fact, doing real science). So, I understand your desire to see real science instead of bogus science masquerading as the real thing. I'm as suspicious as you of most videos I see that claim to understand something really complex (like human behavior). But, if I see that the people making the claims have linked to copious and good research on the subject, I'm happy to watch a layman's introduction to the subject so I can get a bird's eye view, without having to have a deep understanding of the subject matter. If you have reason to believe there's something wrong with their science, that would also be great to talk about. I'm genuinely not trying to convince anybody of anything, I'm trying to learn and I found this video really interesting and informative about things I don't have a good grasp of.
- whybroke 12y ago
  >...But, I also think the use of language is interesting; there is no discussion of the >science, merely a response of crying "class warfare" and dismissal of the video... Yes, I find this quite interesting and a possibly a significant new variation on the way groups maintain coherence by avoiding disruptive information. In the past I suppose the approach employed to avoid ideas that challenge preconceived notions was an authority figure would simply produce a list of banned books and forbidden topics. Maybe this process is a little deprecated in this era of greater easy access to information. So this new technique seems to be self imposed and seems to work by marking undesirable ideas with keywords instantly recognizable by the group. In this case apparently either to warn the viewer not to look at the material at all or to stimulate a rage filled attitude to the matter before viewing and thus eliminating any potential impact. In essence this new process seems to use the web to essentially add metadata to objectionable ideas signaling what attitude to have about them and that viewing the information is to be avoided.

SwellJoe 12y ago

I upvoted the post above you, as they called out the part of the video I found most interesting. But, I also think the use of language is interesting; there is no discussion of the science, merely a response of crying "class warfare" and dismissal of the video as though it is somehow not worth watching because it doesn't fit a particular philosophy. Which is unfortunate, as I was hoping for a discussion of the science...empathy, reciprocity, and non-familial generosity, are elements of humanity that I find utterly fascinating. It's one of the more challenging and puzzling aspects of evolutionary psychology, and is among the things that make us human.

humanrebar 12y ago
To be fair, the video was pop science at best. Strong science is inherently convincing because it: 1. Describes some findings about a natural phenomenon 2. (Usually) attempts to quantify that natural phenomenon in some way 3. Describes the process the researcher took to measure the phenomenon (i.e., the experiment) 4. Details how to reproduce the steps so others can verify the findings The above was an interesting "food for thought" video in the vein of Ted Talks, but I wouldn't label it science. Can we bring back the term "natural philosophy"?
- SwellJoe 12y ago
  Yes, it is a casual introduction and not a rigorous scientific survey. But, the people behind the video are real scientists with real and interesting data to back them up. The UC Berkeley team behind it have been doing research in this field for years, and there are links to relevant websites with their research on the same page as the video. I hoped it would spawn a conversation, but that's not really what happened. A few people dismissed it, and a few found it interesting, but nobody said, "Here's an article or piece of research which seems to conflict with these results or presents new ideas on why they got these results". I think it's interesting that you haven't raised any objections to the science...only that the video is not a peer-reviewed scientific article, even though the peer-reviewed science does exist, and is easily found on the websites linked in the information on the video (http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~keltner/publications.htm http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~keltner/publications.htm). The use of the term "natural philosophy" implies you don't believe the research discussed in the video is reproducible or predictive, and is instead merely the musings of pre-scientific thinkers, which is dismissive. Yet, you haven't addressed the science itself, only their methods (seemingly without digging a bit to see that they are, in fact, doing real science). So, I understand your desire to see real science instead of bogus science masquerading as the real thing. I'm as suspicious as you of most videos I see that claim to understand something really complex (like human behavior). But, if I see that the people making the claims have linked to copious and good research on the subject, I'm happy to watch a layman's introduction to the subject so I can get a bird's eye view, without having to have a deep understanding of the subject matter. If you have reason to believe there's something wrong with their science, that would also be great to talk about. I'm genuinely not trying to convince anybody of anything, I'm trying to learn and I found this video really interesting and informative about things I don't have a good grasp of.
whybroke 12y ago
>...But, I also think the use of language is interesting; there is no discussion of the >science, merely a response of crying "class warfare" and dismissal of the video... Yes, I find this quite interesting and a possibly a significant new variation on the way groups maintain coherence by avoiding disruptive information. In the past I suppose the approach employed to avoid ideas that challenge preconceived notions was an authority figure would simply produce a list of banned books and forbidden topics. Maybe this process is a little deprecated in this era of greater easy access to information. So this new technique seems to be self imposed and seems to work by marking undesirable ideas with keywords instantly recognizable by the group. In this case apparently either to warn the viewer not to look at the material at all or to stimulate a rage filled attitude to the matter before viewing and thus eliminating any potential impact. In essence this new process seems to use the web to essentially add metadata to objectionable ideas signaling what attitude to have about them and that viewing the information is to be avoided.