 News | Forum | People | FAQ | Links | Search | Register |
Log in |
|
|
as the personality trait basis of political beliefs is an area in need of desperate investigation. As Jonathan Haidt has pointed out (and I'm not saying I agree with his relativistic views, although being slammed by social justice ideologues seems to have altered those views), there's a huge risk of educated people merely assuming that their way of thinking is superior - and yet some of these people don't believe in biological sex, placing them on exactly the same intellectual level relative to the empirical sciences, as creationists. The point Haidt makes which I agree with the most, is that intellectuals are just as susceptible as regular schmucks to cognitive biases - perhaps more so - but the fact that they assume they have transcended such biases is actually quite dangerous.
The real question is, if scientists ever do understand human personality, can we use that knowledge to more or less, fix politics? Because ever since I've been paying attention, we've been getting some pretty bad results. OTP floated the idea a while back to have one in June for Contract Revoked's 15th birthday. Any interest? I wouldn't want to organize it but I would do a map.
Buy my ID and I unlock your computer for bitcoins!
and yet some of these people don't believe in biological sex
Biological sex or gender? Because there's no such thing as "biological gender". All I heard from educated people so far is that gender (being a man or being a woman) is a social construct. From moral panicked people all I've seen is this confusion between biological sex (XX or XY chromosomes) and gender (what society built, throughout history, as male/female identities). I've never seen any educated people denying that XY gives you a dick and and XX gives you a pussy, which is a scientific fact, though I'm aware of people defending that Earth is flat and mankind never went to Moon, so... You would think that the people I'm referring to would take your reasonable perspective, but that's not the case. Here in Canada, on national television, a professor with a PhD actually said "It is not correct to say that there is such a thing as biological sex." Not gender, sex. This was actually just brought up in parliamentary proceedings this week because it's directly relevant to some very unfortunate legislation that probably WILL be passed, and then it may actually be illegal to simply conduct research in biology. Lol. Reminds me of Lyshenkoism in Soviet Russia.
You are giving people the benefit of the doubt and I understand that. I also don't want to exaggerate the problem because I tend to take, as one colleague of mine put it, a "Jeremiad view." However, after more than a decade in the higher education system I can confirm to you that many of the most educated people in the humanities and social sciences, at least in Canada, are as anti-scientific as any evangelical creationist, just on behalf of left-wing ideology as opposed to the right-wing ideology of evangelicals. The level of disingenuous ideological bullshit has reached insane heights and I can hardly imagine that even the medieval Catholic church took things this far, except possibly in the case of Galileo. Canadian evolutionary psychologist Steven Pinker's book The Blank Slate came out more than a decade ago and it was incredibly controversial merely for summarizing scientific consensus on these issues. Since then the problem has only gotten worse. Who needs reality when you have bureaucratic power? is also not defined so distinctly, you can have males with XX chromosomes and women with XY chromosomes. You can also get XXY, XYY, XXX etc ad nauseum.
People who like to draw clear distinctions are being narrow-minded, whether intentionally or through ignorance. I think there's definitely a current backlash for transgender issues recently since there's a lot of people creating new genders on the fly. I personally think there should be a different term altogether for it. To say you're a girl in the morning and a guy in the evening isn't being gender-fluid. It's belittling to real transgender people who typically feel a dissonance between their birth gender and their psychological gender. Also, I tend to agree with John Carmack on some political issues: people should be judged by their productivity and talent above all else.
Politics are largely pointless, despite their effects. not exactly changing the subject.
Quoth Kell Jam sounds fun. Make sure to require the latest version of Quoth, whatever the heck it was called. (2.2?) the thing that i don't like is people seeking to ruin other people lives for symbolic acts or "wrong" opinions, like the guy who landed a satellite in an asteroid and everyone was talking about the shirt that the guy was wearing.
shit like that makes me more hostile to proggresivism, the social justice zealotry the social justice orthodoxy (rejection of the science)... i don't know. there are a lot of those. science is not THAT popular, they're ideologues, not really social scientists. mmm...
i want to clarify what i tried to say is that i don't see that the problem is so bad. after all there are a flat-earthers, creationists, climate change deniers. there is one that says that the sun is merely a few hundred degrees hot, i don't remember the name. there is a lot of weird shit and conspiracies. the social sciencies also have that kind of stuff, but worse because social sciences are not hard science in general. Ahh...the bane of my mapping fame is my inability to create small maps. Would that I would gain legitimate use of my handle through proliferation rather than obscurity of maps.
-said every closet-mapper ever Good job keep it up! https://youtu.be/OGzVYyV_Jsg
heard about this a couple years ago, but I was under the impression it was a sequel film.
|
|
| You must be logged in to post in this thread. |
|
| Website copyright © 2002-2024 John Fitzgibbons. All posts are copyright their respective authors. |