Why does science and reason go out the window when talking about humans?

CursedLemon · 2015-06-17T05:36:29+00:00

They're not against science. They're against biological determinism.

andrewisgood · 2015-06-17T00:38:26+00:00

Two words: Confirmation Bias.

wonderingwhether54 · 2015-06-17T21:27:03+00:00

Lawrence summers studies economics not biology, that's like an art history professor trying to treat cystic fibrosis. He did not have any research/credibility to say what he did.

Wanderlustian · 2015-06-17T01:29:13+00:00

If you're interested in science you'd know full well that early studies dealing with humans, especially human psychology or sociology rather than physiology, are often misleading at best. They are typically seen as being important for shaping future studies but not considered to be decisive by any means. Thus, any new study or idea about human behavior should be met with healthy skepticism until further validated. This IS the scientific method, not a deviation from it.

It's unfortunate that so many of these questions are so politicized that it becomes a huge backlash rather than real skepticism, but that doesn't really say anything about scientifically minded people who associate with the bloopers more than the terpers. That's merely an observation about the reactionary nature of our current society, and the lack of scientific understanding in the general population even in groups who passively advocate for science regardless of their ideological associations. It's entirely possible to be in favor of scientific education and a science based understanding of ourselves but to not be very good at science as an individual. Further, and I have no proof of this, but my suspicion is that TRP tends to attract people who are far more anti-science in their daily lives (especially about climate change, evolution, etc) than TBP, so this is a very misleading way to characterize the scientific fluency of the two groups.

Terpers typically use the findings - which are frequently small gender differences that help to shape an understanding of human history but have little effect on the daily lives of adults in modern society - to validate every shitty thing they've ever done. If anyone who has ever used the acronym AWALT with sincerity tries to claim scientific superiority, they should be ignored immediately because they clearly lack the higher reasoning necessary to actually use the information these studies present in any useful way. Basically, just because a terper liked the clickbait title that some idiot reporter used while referencing the study doesn't mean they actually have any fucking clue what they're talking about, and it also doesn't mean they like science. For instance, let's suppose you're 100% correct about variation in males and females (the evidence seems to support it). Great. This still says nothing about individuals, and it definitely doesn't mean that women should be banned from STEM fields to tend their babies while men do real work. We bloopers generally are not upset by the findings. We're upset because people take the findings and draw completely unrealistic and vitriolic conclusions with no justification.

Additionally, science - especially the science of human behavior - is descriptive (at best), not prescriptive. A study showing that something tends to be true at present does not at all mean it's the best way for society to function. Sometimes it would be useful to take human nature as a cautionary tale of what not to do, rather than some sort of manifest destiny. We need to have reasonable discussions about how to best run a society, not try to shut half the population out because science.

geniice · 2015-06-17T19:45:28+00:00

To me, this makes logical sense

Science moved on from that approach some centuries ago.

and there are a fair bit of studies to back up this claim

So you are going to cite them? The review papers published in high impact factor journals in particular.

However, when Harvard Professor suggested this, he wasn’t met with scientific discourse, he was met with accusations of sexism nd bigotry.

Summers is an economist not a biologist. If he wishes to engage in scientific discourse he is free submit a paper to the relevant journals supporting his position. The fact he chose not to well it suggests he's less interested in the scientific aspect.

savepenguins1 · 2015-06-17T00:59:59+00:00

That Harvard professor was an economist, not a biologist or psychologist.

[deleted] · 2015-06-17T07:50:16+00:00

Made up "sciencey logic" goes out. Want some real relationship science? Here you are:

http://www.amazon.com/59-Seconds-Change-Under-Minute/dp/0307474860/

59 seconds is the ONLY self help book out there ACTUALLY based on peer reviewed research, and it has a relationship section.

E.g. ideal behavior confirmed by studies: "Come accross as someone who is usually hard-to-get, but really making an exception for you"

Then some of these stuff:

http://www.artofmanliness.com/2014/07/07/the-myth-of-the-alpha-male/

Then this:

http://lesswrong.com/lw/hbp/using_evolution_for_marriage_or_sex/

More general: properly understanding evolution:

http://lesswrong.com/lw/yi/the_evolutionarycognitive_boundary/

Useful: http://lesswrong.com/lw/fry/how_to_avoid_the_conflict_between_feminism_and/8131

But beyond this, there is a generic problem. Human behavior, due to intelligence is far less fixed than animal behavior. Humans did not evolve to build cathedrals, they learned them.

Evo-psy is useful in understanding the computers "leanings" but just look at how truly varied and diverse software various cultures installed on it.

If you want really human universals, instead of evo-speculation, go for anthropology: http://humanuniversals.com/human-universals/

luxo42 · 2015-06-17T00:25:24+00:00

I truly care about science. That is really the only position I argue for on this subreddit. Science. Science. Science. Logic would be great too, but I never see that either. Most Red Pillers I've talked to say that their personal experience is better than science. This thread for an example. So I'm stuck trying to convince them that field reports aren't an objective source of data on the behavior of women.

As far as there being more genetic variance in men, I already believed that. I'm not sure how one can make the logical jump from there is more variation in men to women are innately worse at science. That's a huge leap. If anything, your premise would suggest that there are some men who are very good at science, and some men who are very bad. Women would generally be somewhere in the middle. I know you are probably mentally injecting the missing steps, but look at your argument from my perspective.

P1: There is more genetic variation in men.
C: Women are innately worse at science than men.

You have to give me more than that. I'm not opposed to the belief that women are innately worse at science, but I need more steps going from point A to point B.

wazzup987 · 2015-06-17T09:12:26+00:00

http://www.avoiceformen.com/sexual-politics/evo-psych/transcending-the-matriarchy/

DevilishRogue · 2015-06-17T20:18:48+00:00

Feminism is a faith based theory. People don't like having their beliefs challenged. Ergo Larry Summers gets booed.

trpobserver · 2015-06-17T14:11:54+00:00

Imagine the hellstorm that would happen if this subreddit managed to get an "I'm a researcher studying evolutionary biology at such and such University, AMA!"

That would be pretty cool to see.

HelenBeck · 2015-06-17T00:52:07+00:00

I am not sure how this article backs up your opinion that so many people hate science. All BP, liberals and feminists!

crimeo · 2015-06-17T05:10:40+00:00

1) Nowhere did you establish that the people who believe this theory vs. those who don't are bluepillers, redpillers, both, or neither, or in what proportions. What does this have to do with this subreddit regardless of whether the theory is right, wrong, popular, or inconsequential?

2) You didn't post any of the "fair bit of" studies that you say back up his claims. A 3 minute cartoon popular media youtube video with no citations is not exactly an ironclad scientific truism that shows any deniers must be anti-science... nor does it establish "what is believed" in the field of biology.

KrisK_lvin · 2015-06-17T00:14:04+00:00

Why does science and reason go out the window when talking about humans?

I think Adolf Hitler has a lot to do with it. Not just him of course, but you get the idea I'm sure.

pandorarosie · 2015-06-17T00:27:46+00:00

Because the scientific studies are interested in explaining things...YOU guys are interested in using those findings to limit people.

VerticalSmileyCyrus · 2015-06-17T17:27:47+00:00

Honestly, I think we might all benefit from giving the science & technology thing a rest for a while and just all learn to dance instead.

People spending a mortgage payment on an iPhone but dressing like a refugee has not been a good look for a while now.

VerticalSmileyCyrus · 2015-06-17T17:21:52+00:00

Because I am not an animal! I am special!

itsalreadybeenthrown · 2015-06-17T04:35:25+00:00

Is BP a synonym for atheist now?

Title	Why does science and reason go out the window when talking about humans?
Author	rdsthrowaway
Upvotes	15
Comments	95
Date	June 16, 2015 10:50 PM UTC (11 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/3a3h0e/why_does_science_and_reason_go_out_the_window/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/why-does-science-and-reason-go-out-the-window-when.281566 https://theredarchive.com/post/281566

Comments