Is it sexist? My story

Discussion in 'General Chat' started by Lucresia, Dec 12, 2019.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. lychee

    lychee [- slightly morbid fruit -] ❀[ 恋爱? ]❀

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2017
    Messages:
    2,123
    Likes Received:
    5,244
    Reading List:
    Link
    I skimmed it briefly and I think you have a lot of good material! I won't comment much on the writing itself, but I think you're pretty good.

    I wouldn't really call your writing "sexist" (it's a bit of an extreme word), although the first chapter for me had a lot of gendered cliches that hark back to mid-1900's "cult of domesticity" cultural values. It feels slightly anachronistic, given that your setting is supposed to be many centuries into the future, so I'd be curious if you had an explanation why Earth in the 2500's is like that. Your instructor's comment on the "names" -- for me, the name choices ("Bob" / "Lisa") feel a bit out of date/traditional, and even in the present day the popularity of these names are kind of dropping in the US. I see a lot more people in the older generation with those kinds of names than younger people, so it's just a slight oddity (at least to me).

    Lisa feels kind of like a throwaway character to move the plot along -- but she feels kind of artificial and fake -- probably because there isn't enough time spent building up the feelings. I think it would be nice to see more depth added to these kinds of side characters so they seem more believable and less cliche -- and not pulled straight out of TVtropes.

    I liked your second chapter a lot more and overall I think there's quite a bit of potential!
     
    AMissingLinguist and Lucresia like this.
  2. Konstantin

    Konstantin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2016
    Messages:
    231
    Likes Received:
    91
    Reading List:
    Link
    Lol, you need to read the definition of the word SEXIST. It means discrimination based on gender, nothing you said is related to discrimination.

    Also, there is such a thing as a target audience. The target audience of the SAO is Japanese males who are 12-35 years old. So it should be obvious to write something they will like. Just because men aren't 100% consumers of something, but only 80-95% doesn't mean that you should try to please minorities of the viewerships while upsetting the majority. Also, in SAO Kirito is the only "strong" character, he saves the girls, but he also helps the guys a little bit (for example his blond friend). The same way Asuna was useless in the second arc of the SAO, male friends of Kirito were useless as well. It is the wish-fulfillment story and everyone else other than MC are incompetent.

    Men ARE attracted to helpless women, to innocent women, to incompetent women - it is cute. We enjoy stories in which MC saves the girl who is in danger (why would we be interested in reading MC saving the guy?), we also enjoy sexy women, we appreciate them for their bodies and not only for personality which isn't necessary at all to be attracted. There is nothing discriminating in it. By your logic, all romantic stories for women are sexist because guys out there aren't like real-world guys. Most real-world guys aren't cool, wealthy, handsome and kind without a reason and they are definitely wouldn't fall in love with the average girl while ignoring all other beauties.

    What we can see in the romantic stories is something what target audience wants to see in them. And SAO is the wish-fulfillment harem for men to feel cool and popular by self-inserting. You are reading and watching something which was created for another audience, your opinion doesn't matter at all. No one listens to women about what they want in the Dota because 99% of players are men.

    Also, I just want to mention that on average women ARE much weaker than men, by about 30%. It is just a scientifically proven fact, so when they are depicted weak - it isn't strange or contradicts reality (even though I'm fine with strong women, because why not). Through the history of humanity, women were protected by men - it isn't discrimination, on contrary it is the privilege. Women always were given priority in emergencies alongside the kids. Because one man can easily impregnate hundreds of women, so from the point of view of society as whole women are more important and so should be protected. This is why 90% of casualties in most wars always were men. Men are stronger, more aggressive, but also less important to children making.
     
  3. lychee

    lychee [- slightly morbid fruit -] ❀[ 恋爱? ]❀

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2017
    Messages:
    2,123
    Likes Received:
    5,244
    Reading List:
    Link
    Uhhhh maybe you need to read the definition? Let me quote the top results from google:

    The point is that sexism isn’t restricted to discrimination only.

    It’s actually similar with racism too. A statement like: “Black people are dumb” can be construed as racist, even though “discrimination” per say has not occurred. Rather, the speaker demonstrates clear prejudice — which is a more precise word.
     
  4. Konstantin

    Konstantin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2016
    Messages:
    231
    Likes Received:
    91
    Reading List:
    Link
    Like most of your quotes say - it is discrimination or prejudice based on a person's sex. It is the original meaning of the word before it was corrupted by new wave feminism. If we add other definitions then I would gladly be called sexist because I see nothing wrong with traditional gender roles. SJW doesn't understand that by going from original definitions they make the word more acceptably by more people.

    Also, just saying what "black people are dumb" isn't racism. Saying "black people are stupid because they are black" - is. But what if I say that, on average, black people have a lower IQ, mostly because of their social and economic status? It is a fact, some people could be offended by it, but it isn't racism. There is also a fact that Asian people have, on average higher IQ than Caucasian people. But they have small dicks and weaker bodies. All of those are racial differences and they are real - it isn't discrimination even if it offends someone. People are different, people aren't equal to each other in everything and there are both racial and sexual differences. It is bad to discriminate or humiliate people based on that, but there is nothing wrong in pointing those differences out.

    BTW you still were unable to link any of those definitions to what you said about SAO and Star Wars.
     
    Last edited: Dec 13, 2019
    GDLiZy likes this.
  5. Levanta

    Levanta Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2018
    Messages:
    20
    Likes Received:
    9
    Reading List:
    Link
  6. Konstantin

    Konstantin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2016
    Messages:
    231
    Likes Received:
    91
    Reading List:
    Link
    You have some serious issues if this is the question you ask when everything I stated are facts you can easily check in google.
     
  7. chencking

    chencking [Daolord Grammar Nazi]

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2016
    Messages:
    5,735
    Likes Received:
    3,782
    Reading List:
    Link
    Konstantin that is absolutely racist. Please don't say that to anyone in real life. Also, if you are still not convinced, please look up "stereotype threat". Hopefully that will at least help convince you to keep your opinions to yourself.
     
    Kutaifa likes this.
  8. AMissingLinguist

    AMissingLinguist [Not Here][Blank Sect][Nuffian #N]

    Joined:
    May 15, 2016
    Messages:
    1,971
    Likes Received:
    5,155
    Reading List:
    Link
    Cascadian Rex likes this.
  9. lychee

    lychee [- slightly morbid fruit -] ❀[ 恋爱? ]❀

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2017
    Messages:
    2,123
    Likes Received:
    5,244
    Reading List:
    Link
    @Konstantin I think it is important to keep and open yet critical mind of the research that you read. There are politically-motivated parties involved in research, on both sides of the political spectrum, so it’s very important to remain conscious about what you read. Currently, almost all university IRB boards (research regulatory boards) have institutional bans on research related to topics that could have negative social consequences — so any recent “research” on any of these controversial topics are pursued by sketchy organizations with political motives.

    There is a long history of “research” being used to justify racism. As an individual in healthcare, I fondly recall disciplines such as phrenology that attempted to compare the head sizes of different races to conclude differences in personality. Famously, black skin was believed to be thicker than white skin — which led clinicians to believe that blacks are better able to tolerate pain than whites. Consequently, review of medical records haves demonstrated that clinicians systematically prescribe less pain medications to black patients than white patients for the same procedures. Why? Subconscious bias and an empathy gap. However, many of the early studies regarding skin thickness were flawed and later debunked, which makes this a cautionary tale regarding popular narrative in science.

    The initial “vaccines cause autism” paper was published in very prominent scientific journals — but then debunked — because that’s how science works.

    The initial opioids were believed to be not addictive, and the research seemed to suggest this, and doctors prescribed them en mass to everyone believing they weren’t addictive. However, it turned out the initial claims were wrong.

    The point is that the lifecycle of data often moves like this, and it can be decades before someone realizes a popular commonly accepted feature of science is just purely objectively wrong.

    If you are a scientist, you have to be cautious about the social ramifications of the way you attempt to represent your research.

    Why the heck would you publish a paper tilted: “Black people have low IQ.” And then in small print write that it is entirely accounted for by social and economic factors?

    You are literally baiting people to misattribute your research for a political agenda. People don’t read your paper and their interpret your title/statement to mean that “black people naturally have lower IQ”.

    It would have been fine to title your paper: “Lower socioeconomic status is associated with lower IQ” — and the meaning is exactly the same without setting a fire to a controversial topic that will inevitably be celebrated in conservative news media.
     
    BoredNovelFinder and Loni4ever like this.
  10. GDLiZy

    GDLiZy Wise Deepsea Mermaid

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2017
    Messages:
    2,819
    Likes Received:
    2,419
    Reading List:
    Link
    Just know that you can find basically everything that fitted your view as long as you looked hard enough.

    Asked yourself if you wanted to write your favourite story or your fans' favourite, and remember, those SJW who demanded changed from your creative writing probably wouldn't read your stories anyway.
     
  11. Konstantin

    Konstantin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2016
    Messages:
    231
    Likes Received:
    91
    Reading List:
    Link
    If racial or gender differences offend someone - then those people should change themselves and their opinions, not ban research and screaming about discrimination. It is not. If we talk about an IQ issue - there is also a really clear correlation between a person's IQ and their height. Here is one of the countless studies which correlate IQ to gender, race, and height.
    https://pumpkinperson.com/2018/07/30/iq-differences-in-height-by-race-sex/

    Interestingly, but women have higher IQ at the same height, though they are, on average, also much shorter than men and it counter-balances it. Intellect is also genetical for a large part.
    https://www.spring.org.uk/2017/12/height-intelligence.php

    Whatever you say about those researches being "banned" or not, but the data is real. You can't deny reality and facts, it is just silly. It proves how absurd is the modern world at denying reality for the sake of political agenda. I'm a white man at the height of 5'10 and I perfectly know what some Asian woman at my height should be smarter than me by birth and have higher mental abilities. At least by average. The same way I also know what there a lot of people smarter and stronger than me, just because of the difference in our parents. And there are even more people who are born richer than me. And there are those who were born not as smart or healthy as me but put enough effort to become better. Why any of it should offend me? If reality offends you then you are just delusional and can't face the facts. Yes, people of different races and sexes have different strong points and weak points. The personal difference between people is even bigger. Some people born with inferior brains, some with superior, some people born beautiful and others are ugly, some people born healthy and others are sickly. Life isn't fair and never was. Some people born Kings and others born Slaves, it doesn't change the fact that we should fight to achieve better lives. Our objective as living beings is to adapt to our circumstances and environment to achieve what we want, not cry about unfairness.

    Also, it should be obvious to anyone what the fact that you are stronger, smarter or richer than someone doesn't give you a right to treat them like shit or abuse them. The whole point of racism ISN'T the racial differences, but the assumption that their existence gives you the right to abuse others. Which is not true. Also, the personal differences between each person can be much larger than the average difference. So, for example, a short black man COULD have a higher IQ than the tall Asian girl. It is unlikely, but definitely possible. And IQ is just one part of the intellect, not the whole of it. But running away from the reality of the numbers doesn't make you a better person or helps the victims of the abuse. It just makes you ignorant. And ignorance IS the reason why so many people do bad things to each other. The world would be a better and safer place to live if there were more people like me, not you.
     
  12. GDLiZy

    GDLiZy Wise Deepsea Mermaid

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2017
    Messages:
    2,819
    Likes Received:
    2,419
    Reading List:
    Link
    Although I don't disagree with your reasoning, it should be noted that statistics sometimes can show 'fake' result, aka selective bias, limited sample pools etc. It can be manipulated to lead to some misleading conclusion, like how correlation does not imply causation.

    Not saying that all research is bad and we should not trust big cooperations, but if there is only one research about the issue, there's a chance that it would not age well in the science community.
     
    Loni4ever likes this.
  13. Kutaifa

    Kutaifa Pokémon trainer

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2017
    Messages:
    479
    Likes Received:
    585
    Reading List:
    Link
    You smart? Would a smart guy say: "Whatever you say about those researches being "banned" or not, but the data is real." And not show REAL data? That first website isn't a peer-reviewed scientific paper. The 'research' published on that site, doesn't even show where he collected the data on ethnic IQ differences. He just says it's from it's "some data from the WAIS-IV IQ tests about U.S. ethnic differences in IQ". - https://pumpkinperson.com/2018/07/29/ethnic-differences-in-iq/ And this guy isn't a scientist, he just writes this shit as a hobby.
    This isn't a viable source of information on the subject. And since you said that you have more, then elaborate on this data of yours.
    And the other is also weird. It doesn't even try to show any data. It just says " The conclusion comes from a study of the DNA of 6,815 people."

    You are just another idiot who uses unscientific data and arguments to gain an ego boost. Get help
     
  14. Konstantin

    Konstantin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2016
    Messages:
    231
    Likes Received:
    91
    Reading List:
    Link
    Eh, definitely a big ego burst from the fact that women have higher IQ with the same height ratio, lol.
    Someone who can't see the bottom of the article in
    https://www.spring.org.uk/2017/12/height-intelligence.php
    "The studies were published in the journals Behaviour Genetics and PLoS Genetics (Marioni et al., 2014; Keller et al., 2013)."

    calls me an idiot? Stop humiliating yourself, pls.

    Racial differences in IQ are real and there are hundreds of researches you can find in google. It is a common sense in the world of real science and there are no people who would argue with it for any reason other than a political one. It is as absurd to deny those differences as it is absurd to deny the difference in physical power, height, stamina, etc.

    As about pumpkin guy, it is data from WAIS-IV standardization sample and you can find it yourself. It isn't some research he did, it is just data available to anyone who searches for it.

    It is funny what so many people become offended when someone claims that there is a difference in average intelligence while it is much acceptable when we talk about the difference in physical strength. Your intellect is just how powerful is your brain (which is, surprise, is just a part of your body), it has nothing to do with your worthiness as a human.
     
  15. Kutaifa

    Kutaifa Pokémon trainer

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2017
    Messages:
    479
    Likes Received:
    585
    Reading List:
    Link
    "As about pumpkin guy, it is data from WAIS-IV standardization sample and you can find it yourself. It isn't some research he did, it is just data available to anyone who searches for it." If it is so easy to find, why didn't he link it like the others?

    And google? Really?

    There hasn't been a paper that definitely concludes, and with massive recognition, that ethnicity/genetics is linked to IQ.

    IQ is mainly a question of nurture, and not nature.

    Sure, the IQ median of different ethnic groups varies, but that difference isn't a result of ethnicity or genetics.
    That can be seen with how the IQ gap between American whites and blacks have been shrinking sine 1972.
    - Dickens, William T., and James R. Flynn. “Common Ground and Differences.” Psychological Science 17, no. 10 (October 2006):
     
  16. lychee

    lychee [- slightly morbid fruit -] ❀[ 恋爱? ]❀

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2017
    Messages:
    2,123
    Likes Received:
    5,244
    Reading List:
    Link
    This feels so nostalgic, I haven't debated IQ since @Dragon God was on the forum! :blobxd::blobxd::blobxd:

    I'm going to echo @GDLiZy and state that it's important to read research carefully rather than accept things at face value. Associative research (association =/= causation) is one major point, and you should be very careful about the conclusions that you draw from and overstating what the data show.

    I could design a study saying: "Football fans of the New York Giants are smarter than the football fans of the Mississippi Rebels!" :blobhero::blobhero::blobhero::blobhero: And then a politically motivated group can take the conclusions of my study to create a political policy to discriminate against the Mississippi Rebels footballs fans -- whereas in reality the associative results are driven entirely by the fact that Mississippi is a rural area with fewer higher-education jobs. Attributing the results of your associative study to the "football fans" is a gross misattribution, and is sort of a meaningless point because it's possible to find associations and correlations with almost anything.

    Drinking wine is associated with better heart disease outcomes. Is this because wine truly has a beneficial effect on health? Or is it because only wealthy people can afford wine, and wealth is associated with better health outcomes?

    Again, correlation does not imply causation, and be careful about making inferences or real conclusions on these types of things.

    Sometimes the common sense test is valuable. If something obviously runs counter to your common sense, then maybe you should have a higher bar of disbelief before you're convinced by the data presented in a research paper.

    No, "banned" isn't the right word.

    All human subjects research in any modern Western country requires approval from an Institutional Review Board (IRB). The IRB is responsible for the oversight of the ethical research. For instance, you can't design a study cutting open babies to test if their hearts are pumping at X rate. That's just unethical and an IRB would never approve it.

    One measure by which IRB's determine if a research study can be approved is the anticipated social consequences of the research.

    They weigh the perceived benefits versus the perceived risks.

    For example, I could submit a research proposal stating that I hypothesize that homosexuality is genetically driven. Consequently, my research proposal is focused on identifying the genes responsible for homosexuality.

    However, most IRB's are most reputable institutions in the current world would deny this research proposal. The rationale is that the experimental process of proving that X gene drives homosexuality involves the creation of a mouse model where the gene is deleted -- and essentially the procedure would include tests to determine if deleting or adding back a gene could alter the homosexuality/heterosexuality phenotype. This borderlines on negative social consequences, because the next inference is that people will advocate that homosexuality can be "cured" if the gene is knocked out -- which is an enormous firestorm that nobody wants to go to.

    It's easier to deny the research proposal and fund something else with your money, like curing cancer.

    My point with the IRB's is that if you see a paper that obviously addresses a politically controversial topic, it is far less likely the study was approved by the IRB. Instead, they may have received funding through sketchy sources like political organizations or pharmaceutical companies that have third-party motives.

    Research is expensive, and it's always important to trace the money.

    Why did someone design a study comparing height and IQ?

    What was the purpose? Getting research funded is highly competitive, and no lazy research proposal is going to get funded by any reputable agency. What was the function of all that time and energy and resources?

    Perhaps the study was run by a college student in the psychology department who needs to write a senior thesis to graduate, so they run a study recruiting their classmates to answer a poll.

    Hey, I'm also a PhD student — and I've also done a lot of polls. If I collected all the data from NUF and then assembled it into a paper, is the data I collected on NUF generalizable to the rest of the Internet? Would you trust my research paper?
     
    Cascadian Rex likes this.
  17. lychee

    lychee [- slightly morbid fruit -] ❀[ 恋爱? ]❀

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2017
    Messages:
    2,123
    Likes Received:
    5,244
    Reading List:
    Link
    Oh, I forgot to write about IQ.

    So I have a huge boatload of criticisms on IQ tests. I think they're impractical and the entire concept of "g" (general intelligence) is hogwash.

    Early historical versions of IQ tests (and standardized tests like the SAT tests) asked questions that were socially and culturally defined. They included questions that assessed "common sense", but it's critical to recall that common sense can differ according to the culturaethat you come from. For example, if you come from a tropical country with mosquito's bearing malaria, or a question that discusses snow/ice, the baseline cultural considerations can differ.

    Most IQ tests today also include an assessment of vocabulary as part of the score. It is presumed that a greater vocabulary = greater intelligence.

    But what about multilingual people who speak 5 languages and English is their third language?

    There are dozens and dozens and enormous laundry lists of factors that I can pile huge criticisms on general IQ tests.

    There is a reason why both the medical field (which I'm in) and the higher education field (university admissions) do not rely on IQ tests. It's been shown for many years that IQ scores do not correlate well to college performance or attainment after college, and IQ scores are far too imprecise for any medical purpose.

    Neurology is sort of one of my interests, and rather that doing an IQ test -- we prefer to use tests that address an isolated function of the brain. For instance, the rate that someone can connect the dots in a maze of letters/numbers. Furthermore, the point isn't really to compare results between individuals (what does it even mean if one person can remember more numbers than another???), but rather to compare within the same individual to assess for deviations from an individuals' baseline cognition. A person with Multiple Sclerosis often demonstrate a slowing in cognitive ability, so a test for the speed of recall can be useful for assessing whether treatment is working.

    I don't care about the scope of a person's vocabulary, whether they can comprehend Shakespearean English, and how many digits of pi they can memorize.

    And can you really say those things accurately reflect "intelligence"?

    Honestly, the concept of intelligence is arbitrarily defined.

    In ancient Chinese culture, the ability to state things concisely with wit is considered "intelligent". Consequently, I could design an IQ test that assesses your ability to crack a snarky joke on the fly in the fewest number of words possible. Or better yet, we can have poem battles like they used to have in Ancient East Asian courts of aristocracy.

    Does this mean anything to you???
     
    Last edited: Dec 14, 2019
  18. Cascadian Rex

    Cascadian Rex Villain with a thousand faces | Lychee's rival

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2018
    Messages:
    223
    Likes Received:
    1,625
    Reading List:
    Link
    :sweating_profusely: Geh! Trauma revived!
    [Flashback Forcibly Initiated]:notlikeblob:
    [Cascadian Rex have suffered 5000 pts of psychological damage]:blobdizzy:
     
    AMissingLinguist and lychee like this.
  19. Konstantin

    Konstantin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2016
    Messages:
    231
    Likes Received:
    91
    Reading List:
    Link
    And this is why exactly I linked the study which concluded that 70% of the variation in IQ differences is genetic. Of course, 30% of it is still social.

    Do you understand that if we assume what all ethnicities have the same basic intellectual ability (which is absurd from the biological point of view, because human intellect is just the result of evolution) then it would mean that, for example, African people are vastly superior to Asians? Because, obviously, they have much stronger bodies statistically and I assume even you can't deny this fact. So you are fine with Africans having significantly stronger bodies, but if we assume that they have lower basic IQ, then it is offensive?

    Em, sorry to disappoint you, but...
    http://theconversation.com/stop-calling-it-a-choice-biological-factors-drive-homosexuality-122764
    There are many studies already existing about it ( I assume that unlike Kutaifa you can check the links provided in the article). And you can read "We are our brains" from D. Swaab to get a full picture from a neurobiological point of view. Sexual orientation is NOT purely genetically driven, sure. But it is pretty much predetermined before birth. It becomes about the personal choice only when a biologically bisexual person chooses to avoid either type of his sexual preference. The thing with homosexuality isn't the fact that you are attracted to your own sex, but that you can't feel any attraction to the opposite one. You can't make a choice like this because physical attraction isn't under your control. And children raised in same-sex couples are still straight in most of the cases. Why there are countless studies that contradict to what you said about this "ethical restriction"? And why it should be unethical to understand the biological difference in people? No one gets hurt here unlike poor babies.

    From what you said it seems that, on the contrary, it is IRB who is under a political agenda, not independent sponsors.

    Obviously, but it is the best we currently have. IQ isn't about the absolute ability of the brain. But it is definitely correlated with many functionalities of the human brain - it would be absurd to deny it. The ability to get a degree and good grades is more about making efforts than just being smart by nature. Though often you need both, especially in the higher levels of education.

    It is obvious because no matter how fast and good your brain works it means nothing if you aren't doing any studying. Guess what, college performance statistic is even more "racist" than the IQ one.
    https://www.insidehighered.com/news...on-rates-vary-race-and-ethnicity-report-finds

    How much of it is about society and how much is about biology - isn't certain, though it would be impossible for Asian people to be in the lead if it was just about culture, environment, and social/economical status or any sort of discrimination. Those results are also correlated to any racial IQ study you can find anywhere.

    We also can ignore all this "IQ" talk and just look at the differences in brains. There are significant cultural and racial differences and it would be impossible for those differences to not influence the mental capabilities of different ethnic groups. Wake up, the brain is just a part of our bodies and the same way people have different bones and muscles we also have different brains. The difference in our brains is even more significant if you compare. And, like I already mentioned, the personal difference can be much bigger than racial, sexual or whatever.
    https://academic.oup.com/cercor/article-abstract/29/9/3922/5144872
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29400417
     
  20. lychee

    lychee [- slightly morbid fruit -] ❀[ 恋爱? ]❀

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2017
    Messages:
    2,123
    Likes Received:
    5,244
    Reading List:
    Link
    I think our reference point about "many studies" is slightly different?

    There really aren't that many studies on homosexuality compared to studies on cancer or autoimmune disease.

    The NHGRI-EBI Catalog of GWAS studies (run by the NIH) has only one study run on homosexuality, 45 studies on body height, 103 studies on inflammatory bowel disease, and 113 studies on breast carcinoma.

    The first study in your link is a dataset from 23andMe, a private company that provides direct-to-consumer genotyping services.

    My general understanding about most GWAS studies on homosexuality is that many of them are underpowered, and to date they haven't been very reproducible -- meaning that hits produced in one study aren’t replicable in hits produced in a different study.

    I agree with the general statement that sexual orientation (along with many traits), are a combination of nature and nurture, but I think the scientific field genuinely lacks the robust evidence to really claim that "sciences shows that I'm right!".

    I'm not really sure why you have such a fondness for association studies though. To really demonstrate causality, you need to perturb the environment, which is exactly the barrier that most IRBs (most =/= all) will state is unethical and refuse to approve the human study. Maybe you can design a human study on creating a drug inhibitor that targets a homosexuality gene (not that there's enough evidence to justify this to begin with) and feed it to humans to see if causes a difference in phenotype.

    Ethical or no???

    Well yes, it's true. Despite the fact that science is science, it has social ramifications.

    All IRB boards have at least 1 member who is not related to science and not affiliated with the institution. This is kind of like a "community" member, giving the community some say over what kind of research occurs in their area.

    If I designed a study about injecting a benign virus into local frogs in our area to see how far the virus spreads in frogs in the geographic area...

    ...Maybe someone who has vested interests in our community should stop me from running this study.

    The reality is that you can't cover all the restrictions you want in written law. Science is just too creative and you probably have tons of crazy scientists and with crazy ideas. Consequently, you're relying on human judgement to say what kind of studies are okay and not okay.

    When you take a panel of 7-15 Average Joes judging if research is okay, naturally their own social and political views will become a factor that regulates the research.

    Regional differences can also impact the kind of research IRB boards will approve. For instance, gene-editing of human babies is definitely a "no" in virtually all US and European IRB boards. However, China for some reason approved it, so the first gene-edited baby occurred earlier this year in China -- although there is a lot of controversy in the international community over whether this kind of research is ethical.

    The reality is that science has a lot of capabilities, some of it quite socially undesirable.

    Science is weaponizable, and there is a lot of things that we could do, but maybe we shouldn't do. I'm in the infectious disease and microbiology department of my institution, and uh, we work with a lot of microbes and viruses -- as well as gene-edited ones for academic purposes. However, taking any of these infectious agents, gene-editing them to make then a "superbug" (e.g. resistant to antibiotics), and then releasing it into the environment is... probably not a desirable thing.

    But is actually incredibly easy to do. How easy it is is precisely what makes it so scary.

    So, the reason why this argument baffles me is because I'm not really sure what's your point.

    Did you know that based on total DNA sequence similarity, a male humans is more similar to a male chimpanzee than to a female human?

    You could argue that because of differences exist, everything must be different.

    That is a leap of induction. You can't measure two things, observe they are different, and then claim that 5 million more data points must be different even though you didn't measure them.

    You don't have any basis to say that X group will better be able to do calculus better than Y group.

    You run into serious issues when you start misattributing associative data and use that to drive public policy. If you cite associative data like women get lower scores on the math section of the SATs than men -- then people actually take that information to justify they decisions they make, whether it is hiring more men for an accounting job or just general stereotyping -- whereas every step of this process is a logical fallacy. Nowhere anywhere is an association a causation, or is even the association a direct link rather a result of an indirect factor. The association also does not imply the prospective statement is true in a different setting.

    For example, you might design a study that concludes there is a statistical difference in the amount of alcohol that 21-25 year old men and women drink in Tahiti, with women drinking 3% more alcohol than men (normalized by body weight). The association gives you no capacity to infer that the same difference will be observed in Helsinski, or with a different age group, or with a different cultural context.

    Trying to claim that you have the capacity to generalize the associative data is a fallacy.

    You can find a difference between virtually anything -- like SAT test scores of white Americans in California versus SAT test scores of white Americans in Florida. But is that difference meaningful?

    Subdivide any group and any way, and you can find a difference.

    Using the differences to justify law or policy is where you run into so many problems.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.