Truth Discussion Time - Page 52

On October 19 2017 09:26 Liquid`Drone wrote: Show nested quote + On October 19 2017 05:22 Baalim wrote: Please elaborate on how idology hijacked biology and evolutionary psychology, assuming it is right-wing traditional ideology, what is the proportion between republican/democrats in these fields? I can write a lot how the left took control over many of the department of the humanities decades ago and how the distribution of left/right are about 40 to 1, how they supress publications that contradict their views, how the vast majority of gender studies published articles in their "scientific" journals have no citations. Almost sounds like you're arguing for ideology-based quota schemes

I dont think an anarchist would be for social engineering through state violence


My general view is that we have huge genetic drives, but society can also shape us to unbelivable depth, to draw the line between the two is nearly impossible, so how about we shut the fuck up about social engineering things as how we believe they are ought to be?

very interesting to read through the latest discussion, I'm interested to see Baal linking more data, the level of certainty in his conclusions isn't yet justified by what he has provided imo. I don't want to patronize but I also don't want to just take his word for it, the whole theme of the marxist left status quo fucking up real science is too familiar nowadays even in comments of seemingly unrelated youtube clips by people who will blame absolutely everything to it. I'm not saying he's doing the same, my point is that when putting forth an unorthodox proposition one has to be thorough enough not to be confused for the countless people willing to follow political narratives blindly, if the discussion is to be productive

I am showing the absurd disparity of political inclination in these fields, if you were to show me an alike stat of evolutionary biologists being republican 40 to 1 I would instantly concede you that the field is indeed hijacked by conservative ideology.

Oh, I see. Well, I'd first say that those stats sound a bit off to me. The U of T survey shows that it's 75%-80%. Here are 5 reasons from rationalwiki that might help explain some causes that have nothing to do with hijacking. Let me know if you agree on any of these:

1. The more educated a person becomes, the more the person has to think. As a result, the person is better equipped to notice the hypocrisy of authoritarian or fundamentalist ideology (and so-called 'traditional values' when it consists of these things). In the USA socialists and social-liberals are the most educated ideological demographics.

2. Neoliberals and Neoconservatives are attracted in greater numbers by the larger salaries to be found in the financial sector, ideologically-aligned thinktanks like the Heritage Foundation or institutions like Hillsdale College (a sponsor on shows like The Mark Levin Show) or Liberty University. The economics departments of some public institutions Auburn University and George Mason University are also known for their Neoliberal advocacy, but in general people with these beliefs are more likely to prefer the higher salaries offered outside the public sector.

3. The very few professors who are not tolerant of other viewpoints and/or populations (Mary Daly, for example) are usually Marxist or Fascist, as noted below, and in the long-term a campus can sustain only one intolerant point-of-view.

4. Many teachers are part of a union and many more are government employees, both of which tend to support workers' rights and advocate democracy rather than rule by inherited wealth.

5. Highest quintile intelligence is strongly associated with altruistic motivation, so Neoliberal and Neoconservative idealogues are very rare among this group across all subjects and indeed internationally. This tends to invalidate claims that self-selection or hiring bias effect the prevelance of left-leaning individuals in academia, as highest quintile intelligence scores are probably required very common in faculty positions.

So, I just started listening to the podcast Baal linked, and I wanted to find more about the organization (or academy) hosting it. I did some research and I was disappointed to see that this is also associated with Jordan Peterson (and Stephen Hicks shared it too, ew) but leaving my initial disgust and bias aside , I dug deeper and I really stand behind the principle on which the academy is built: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterodox_Academy

There are of course legitimate concerns with bias there and there's no doubt that the environment is more hostile towards conservatives in general and that a lot of work needs to be done to alleviate publication bias. However, Haidt's work it seems is not without a few flaws and incorrect assumptions. This is an excellent review that goes into them. Awareness of bias and acceptance of diversity are both incredibly important but they're not everything. The book seems to be well worth reading despite that and so I'm assuming that this academy he founded based on his work is also worthwhile.

I thought you were going to post anymore bout this

+ Show Spoiler +

75 to 80% on what field? If you mean gender and women studies that stat seem so off to me that if its true it would make me reconsider my whole stance on this, source?


1 - Indeed people with higher education tend to have more liberal values particularly social, as any electin poll will show, people with degrees disproportionally vote democrat

2 - probably has some minor effect, much less than the one above

3 - Fascist professor? I dont think I've ever known of one to be honest, I dont think a campus should sustain Nazis OR bolsheviks indocrinating their students and if they do they should take a hands off approach and not just allow one single murderous collectivism ideology in campus, let them hear the xenophobic version of marxism too.

4 - I suppose state emloyees will tend to advocate for authoritarism

5 - Absolutely, I'm not saying that universities hire leftist professors into these fields, that is a "natural" distribution of people drawn to the field.



Of couse I've taken this factors into account, as I said Universities are democrat leaning and that is fine, but there is a difference between leaning and 40 to 1, (thats why I asked for source of your 75% in gender studies). That is so statistically relevant that I'm willing to concede that if you show me me a reverse alike stat for evolutionary biology that the field is corrupt with ideologes too.

Except that there isnt any field that I know of with a reverse ideoogy inclination, but if tomorrow universities opened a new field called "traditional studies" in which the professors taught how ethno-states work, how traditional gender roles should be law-enforced and they boycotted opposing points of view I would be concerned that the field is bankrupt and naturally right wing nuts will flock into it.

I'm pretty sure scientists would be pretty annoyed by a discussion about their political views as if that really matters compared to the actual research they're doing.

I thought you were going to post anymore bout this

It's another topic entirely. I was talking about the gender and nature-nurture stuff.

75 to 80% on what field? If you mean gender and women studies that stat seem so off to me that if its true it would make me reconsider my whole stance on this, source?

The Humanities, as you were saying. 75% Social sciences, 81% Humanities. U of T survey source here.

UCLA survey showed there were overall more non-liberals, non-far left professors but this is for all disciplines combined.

On October 19 2017 21:03 Spitfiree wrote: I'm pretty sure scientists would be pretty annoyed by a discussion about their political views as if that really matters compared to the actual research they're doing.

if you are a honest scientist it should be annoying, but if you are a Nazi researching genetics coming to eugenic conclusions then your political affiliation should be questioned, same with postmodernists

On October 20 2017 03:54 Loco wrote: Show nested quote + I thought you were going to post anymore bout this It's another topic entirely. I was talking about the gender and nature-nurture stuff.   75 to 80% on what field? If you mean gender and women studies that stat seem so off to me that if its true it would make me reconsider my whole stance on this, source? The Humanities, as you were saying. 75% Social sciences, 81% Humanities. U of T survey source here. UCLA survey showed there were overall more non-liberals, non-far left professors but this is for all disciplines combined.

I mean specifically gender studies as a bankrupt " science", altho I have to say I would have expected a bigger margin of 4 to 1 democrat/repubilcan in humanities, Ill look into that later

You still havent adressed the opposite results of progressiveness in countries and traditional roles, you asked for my sources and I replied that it came from your own link, you accused me of being lazy on my replies but I get the impression you arent even reading them.


I also want to point out that I that feeling of being less sure of things as I've aged but unlike you this is a subject that I'm interested in, I quite often think about the evolutionary origins of many of our weird behaviors but at the same time I've always found amazing how socially malleable we are when young, feral kids are mind blowing for example.

Its a little flat for an analogy but Its like the engine of a game, you can build vastly different games that dont look anything like the other, but in the end, they runt he same engine, both have this quirks and tendencies that if you are familiar with it you can see it, so what im trying to say is that there isnt really a limit where genetic end and socialization starts, the endless layers of our complex personalities sprout from this tiny forgotten seed

Isn't that like saying that evolutionary biology is a bankrupt field because there's no Christian fundamentalists who take up those studies? I mean, why would they? It seems like Occam's razor is applicable here. If people want to stay stuck in the past, new fields in academia shouldn't be opened up because of them?

edited my post, please re-read

Sigh. How can your sources plural be one single paper that has severe limitations? The same study that says "Evolutionary theory also appears to be unable to account for this pattern; evolved species-wide characteristics ought to be uniform across cultures." and ends with "The future of research on gender differences in personality lies beyond self-reports." to bring home its huge limitations? Do you think this study clearly shows that there is a sexual dimorphic component to the gender balance in STEM fields? It sounds like you just read the abstract to confirm what you already know and interpreted the results superficially. You need to actually read the whole paper if you haven't. The paper is strong evidence against the biological model, but it's inconclusive when it comes to the social model:

The co-occurrence of highly differentiated gender stereotypes with large gender differences in personality is consistent with social role theory, which holds that traits and behaviors follow socially inculcated beliefs and expectation. What is not clear from social role theory is why extreme gender stereotypes would be found in countries with progressive sex role ideologies

I get that it's a surprising finding, and I don't have a special hypothesis to present to you, but neither should I have one. All I can say is that the previous social model was apparently flawed and that it couldn't account for some unknown social factors. It might be that it isn't enough to change the laws etc. and to speak about equality logically in order to have a meaningful impact on deep-seated social stereotypes, and that a woman is unlikely for many reasons to want to join a field where women are extremely poorly represented and vice versa. These are just some guesses from me since you absolutely insist I talk about it, but I shouldn't have to. You said that science has "proved" that these differences are due to biology, and this paper doesn't do that, so I'm still waiting for your evidence.

so what im trying to say is that there isnt really a limit where genetic end and socialization starts, the endless layers of our complex personalities sprout from this tiny forgotten seed

Yeah but if we continue with this analogy, we have to say that the seed won't sprout if it doesn't have certain environmental conditions to favor it. Nourishment in the form of water and vital nutrients, the right weather, but also a carer. A person is likely to never be able to learn language if he is not socialized soon enough. A sprout is as much water, sun, nutrients and carer as it is seed. It doesn't exist when one thing is missing. That's how I look at a human being and human nature too. It's partly determined and partly constructed in complex ways through countless interrelations and interactions and always in flux though we can't see it. We have not only created a society, our society has created us as well (through culture and language). We are both producer and product of our societies, and also therefore, to some degree, of our being/nature as well.

I couldn't agree more with your last paragraph, thats why I always keep saying that our civilization isnt any more our creation than the honeycomb is for the bee, there is no architect but the collective-mind create by personal impulses in our coding, however that heavily implies that in all the chaos of our hive there is a faint pattern, a red thread stitching it all along that is our slowly changing nature.


Since obviously we cant make social experiment with newborns I think the best way to study the nature/nurture thing is in other animals, here is an interesting study that points towards natural male tendencies to rough play in comparison to females, which obviously leads to different behavioral and role patterns later in life, just like us: https://digest.bps.org.uk/2017/10/03/...ource=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer


If I said science has "proved this" I mispoke, what I mean is logic and evidence strongly points towards that, science really has no meaningful way to prove under scientific terms things such as those, however it doesnt mean they dont get overwhermingly likely.

I agree that it's interesting, but obviously if we're studying the nature/nurture relationship in other animals, we can't just easily extrapolate the results to our own species. Not only are there intraspecies biological differences, but the retroactive effects of our environment/society on our biology itself are ignored (epigenetic mechanisms). There is a sense in which obsessing over what is programmed and what is learned is misguided: we are programmed to learn.

Problem is that if we insist on only seeing this dichotomy, then engaging in extrapolation always happens when these studies get mediatized. I saw that JP retweeted that article you just linked and obviously he's not doing that out of a concern for people's intellectual curiosity. He also lazily dismissed David Benatar's anti-natalism book today on his Twitter. Along with his recent climate change denial and his advocacy of Atkins dieting, I hope you realize he's much more full of shit than you first imagined. Btw, 17 weeks later, there's still been 0 arrests in Canada from the passing of Bill C-16. And yet his alarmism over this is what propelled him to fame!

On October 24 2017 09:02 Loco wrote: I agree that it's interesting, but obviously if we're studying the nature/nurture relationship in other animals, we can't just easily extrapolate the results to our own species. Not only are there intraspecies biological differences, but the retroactive effects of our environment/society on our biology itself are ignored (epigenetic mechanisms). There is a sense in which obsessing over what is programmed and what is learned is misguided: we are programmed to learn. Problem is that if we insist on only seeing this dichotomy, then engaging in extrapolation always happens when these studies get mediatized. I saw that JP retweeted that article you just linked and obviously he's not doing that out of a concern for people's intellectual curiosity. He also lazily dismissed David Benatar's anti-natalism book today on his Twitter. Along with his recent climate change denial and his advocacy of Atkins dieting, I hope you realize he's much more full of shit than you first imagined. Btw, 17 weeks later, there's still been 0 arrests in Canada from the passing of Bill C-16. And yet his alarmism over this is what propelled him to fame!

Indeed I also saw those ridiculous criticism to antinatalism and to be hones I've felt a little disillusioned that he didnt even properly debated it, not that I kept him in very high regards since his absurd religious views, I still think he has a lot of practical advice for many things and I listen to many of his stuff carefully.

Its not the arrest that worries, its where the hole thing is going, PC police legislating, do you know who DID got arrested? a youtube in scottland is facing jail because he taught his dog to make the nazi salute as a joke, I can show you a long long lists of people being arrested for being politicially incorrect in Europe, its growing and its getting dangerous.

What's that long list? That youtuber is literally the only example I've heard of where I agree it's ridiculous. And if a law negatively effects 1 in hundreds of millions people then I refuse to consider it a grand societal problem, no matter how dumb it is.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2...n-jailed-offensive-ann-maguire-tweets
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/mar/27/student-jailed-fabrice-muamba-tweets
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/may/25/woolwich-murder-attacks-on-muslims

just google there are dozens and cases like these, and if we counting people just doing the sieg heil hand signal the list would grow bigger.

Most students believe speech that hurts others feelings should be censored:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...ca8-11e7-9083-fbfddf6804c2_story.html


https://youtu.be/vj5JXrpwsZs?t=258

Seems like a UK problem more than a 'the west' problem, tbh. I agree those two links on top should not be punished by law. In Norway there's no way they would be. (Could highly like to you losing your job though, but that I'm also fine with)
The washington post link I read differently from you. 'Hate speech' is not sufficiently defined for the top poll to really be meaningful. Basically, I dunno if people want to censor 'fuck you, faggot' or 'kill all faggots', the former I vehemently disagree with, the second has some merit (although I'm inclined to think it should probably only be punished by law if you can link it to an actual act of violence and where such a connection can clearly be drawn. Like it shouldn't be possible to be jailed for posting random hate on twitter, but it should be possible to be jailed for convincing someone to beat up a muslim immigrant if it's actually possible to 'prove beyond a reasonable doubt' that it wouldn't have happened without the convincing.)

Kinda funny to see that republicans are slightly more accepting of violence as a means of retaliating, though. I also think shouting over people, while I wouldn't do it myself, is 'acceptable'.

On October 26 2017 08:44 Liquid`Drone wrote: Seems like a UK problem more than a 'the west' problem, tbh. I agree those two links on top should not be punished by law. In Norway there's no way they would be. (Could highly like to you losing your job though, but that I'm also fine with) The washington post link I read differently from you. 'Hate speech' is not sufficiently defined for the top poll to really be meaningful. Basically, I dunno if people want to censor 'fuck you, faggot' or 'kill all faggots', the former I vehemently disagree with, the second has some merit (although I'm inclined to think it should probably only be punished by law if you can link it to an actual act of violence and where such a connection can clearly be drawn. Like it shouldn't be possible to be jailed for posting random hate on twitter, but it should be possible to be jailed for convincing someone to beat up a muslim immigrant if it's actually possible to 'prove beyond a reasonable doubt' that it wouldn't have happened without the convincing.) Kinda funny to see that republicans are slightly more accepting of violence as a means of retaliating, though. I also think shouting over people, while I wouldn't do it myself, is 'acceptable'.

Censorship by law is mostly in the UK, but by culture in many western countries, there is some pretty startling censorship when it comes to discussing immigration in sweden but I am not saying its a big problem now, but that it will be in a near future, when the younger generations who are pushing these ideologies get more positions of power.

Watch that part of this video again: https://youtu.be/vj5JXrpwsZs?t=258

That is not a fringe crazy student, that is their leader, you think im making some kind of strawman argument, I am not, these are not rare ocurrences, these are the norm, and they dont share your values of free speech.



Also no, shouting down is wrong, people go with megaphones in lectures in closed spaces and obviously nobody can hear shit, there is a differnce between public demonstration of being against an idea and actually not letting people hear it, that is blocking free speech 100%.

and yes, republicans are retarded you dont need to convince me of that.

just posting that because it sounds so pretty and to piss Loco off