Cancelled (7 Viewers)

[magicbastarder]

I'm getting the impression that there a school of thought that studying the biological/evolutionary basis of human behaviour is immoral/dangerous/"problematic". Is that the case? And if so - why?

because it can be (mis)used as a weapon.
funny enough, it was a steven pinker book where i first read anything longer than a magazine article about the dangers of using evolution and/or nature to explain or justify everything.

 

[JohnnyRaz]

She definitely uses Wilson as a jumping-off point for what she wants to say.

But c'mere, I think what you've said here is the crux of the whole thing. I'm getting the impression that there a school of thought that studying the biological/evolutionary basis of human behaviour is immoral/dangerous/"problematic". Is that the case? And if so - why?

I think context is everything here - there would be an extreme school of though in the decolonialisation field that would pretty much reject a lot of science as inherently racist as it grew from a western approaches, and was largely conducted from western institutions.

I think genetic predeterminisation as an 'nature only' argument is problematic (and indeed what we now know about epigenetics etc. invalidates some this) when it doesn't take into account enviromental factors, or is applied to a culture/group uniquely

 

[magicbastarder]

it's utterly trivial in a sense (and funny) compared to the issues above, but one thing we've come across a couple of times in the tree hugger crowd i'm involved with is that some people think we're 'tree racists' because we focus on native trees.
one of our directors was once accused by someone (well known) of being a 'tree fascist', and directly compared him to the SS.
we don't go round blowing up sycamores, FWIW (cue that joke about the RUC van hitting a tree and the IRA claiming they'd planted it)

 

[egg_]

because it can be (mis)used as a weapon

So the argument basically boils down to "let's not look to closely into our own natures, in case we find out something that people can use to hurt each other"?

 

[magicbastarder]

FWIW, i wasn't making that argument myself. you asked why is there a school of thought that it can be (among other things) problematic, and you can be guaranteed that there will be people who mistrust a discipline that can be wielded as a weapon, even if it shouldn't.

if you (generic 'you', not you you) place too much faith in evolutionary psychology, it can, and has been easily used to claim that the behaviour of a marginalised group is something they were born with, rather than because they're marginalised to begin with.

it's a discipline where the stakes are high, and the boundaries blurry, so i wouldn't blame any evolutionary psychologist for treading carefully.

 

[JohnnyRaz]

So the argument basically boils down to "let's not look to closely into our own natures, in case we find out something that people can use to hurt each other"?

no - just be aware of how it can and has been misused.

the argument is for better, more complex, more inclusive science - not for abandoning genetics

 

[egg_]

Ok. I very much doubt you'll find any scientists who disagree with "better, more complex" science. Some of my closest friends (incl Mrs. egg_) are working scientists, and I find it pretty galling when someone who knows nothing about science slings accusations at people who are so fascinated with nature that they spend their lives trying to understand it.

 

[JohnnyRaz]

it's utterly trivial in a sense (and funny) compared to the issues above, but one thing we've come across a couple of times in the tree hugger crowd i'm involved with is that some people think we're 'tree racists' because we focus on native trees.
one of our directors was once accused by someone (well known) of being a 'tree fascist', and directly compared him to the SS.
we don't go round blowing up sycamores, FWIW (cue that joke about the RUC van hitting a tree and the IRA claiming they'd planted it)

tree Nazi's would be Oak purists I'd imagine

 

[egg_]

one of our directors was once accused by someone (well known) of being a 'tree fascist', and directly compared him to the SS

I know I've said this here before, but I was once at a public debate where a guy described himself as a "tree shepherd". Game over for his side as soon as he came out with that

 

[JohnnyRaz]

Ok. I very much doubt you'll find any scientists who disagree with "better, more complex" science. Some of my closest friends (incl Mrs. egg_) are working scientists, and I find it pretty galling when someone who knows nothing about science slings accusations at people who are so fascinated with nature that they spend their lives trying to understand it.

but not necessarily more inclusive?

I'm not sure if you're including me in the 'someone who knows nothing about science' category - but you'd be pretty off the mark if you were.

and I'm certainly not slinging accusations about anyone, but if your impression is that scientists and their data cannot be politicized, or that people working in a narrow field might not see how their work might impact on other fields or wider society - then I think you're being naïve

 

[egg_]

I'm not sure if you're including me in the 'someone who knows nothing about science' category - but you'd be pretty off the mark if you were

Talking about the author of the Sci Am piece, not directed at you at all

but not necessarily more inclusive?

Mrs. egg_ works on Irish bat populations and impacts climate change might be having on them. Another friend studies population genetics in plants. A few other friends have Ph.D.s in things like bogs or salt marshes. Some old classmates are radio astronomers. I just can't see where inclusivity fits in here

 

[JohnnyRaz]

Talking about the author of the Sci Am piece, not directed at you at all


Mrs. egg_ works on Irish bat populations and impacts climate change might be having on them. Another friend studies population genetics in plants. A few other friends have Ph.D.s in things like bogs or salt marshes. Some old classmates are radio astronomers. I just can't see where inclusivity fits in here

ok - sorry -

if you're working in bat populations, or plant genetics, or ecology, or astronomy, the context of this is different - its not study of humans.

if you're working in population science, social sciences, bio-medical/clinical science, public health related fields (as I have been for most of career) - then inclusivity in terms of what data, from what groups, is used to set standards is highly important, and implicitly political.

This is a huge issue in the states,

 

[Unicron]

ok - sorry -

if you're working in bat populations, or plant genetics, or ecology, or astronomy, the context of this is different - its not study of humans.

if you're working in population science, social sciences, bio-medical/clinical science, public health related fields (as I have been for most of career) - then inclusivity in terms of what data, from what groups, is used to set standards is highly important, and implicitly political.

This is a huge issue in the states,

Is this a sort of thing like:

In the whole human population sickle cell is uncommon, but in particular groups it is more common and so it's problematic to say that sickle cell is uncommon?

I'm probably not using the right words, it's been a few years since I read the book I'm pulling that point from. But I hope you get the jist

 

[magicbastarder]

can you imagine

A few other friends have Ph.D.s in things like bogs

an interesting place in which to preserve your PhD

 

[JohnnyRaz]

Is this a sort of thing like:

In the whole human population sickle cell is uncommon, but in particular groups it is more common and so it's problematic to say that sickle cell is uncommon?

I'm probably not using the right words, it's been a few years since I read the book I'm pulling that point from. But I hope you get the jist

a good case study
Not problematic
- to say that certain populations have higher incidence of sickle cell, and that this leads to specific medical needs in a population
- to postulate on why this higher incidence occurred, in this case its associated with resistance to malaria (IIRC)

Problematic
- to suggest that these populations are less, a burden etc as a result
- that this might influence their behavior, intelligence etc as a result
- where you have a minority of such people, to rely on data from a majority community to inform decision making in policy, healthcare provision, standards of care etc. for that minority population.

 

[Unicron]

- to postulate on why this higher incidence occurred, in this case its associated with resistance to malaria (IIRC)

Yeah, that's what I was thinking of. I think the point in the book was related to evolutionary advantages (being more resistant to malaria) and what happens/the health impacts when large groups of that population are forcibly moved to another part of the world where malaria is less common.

 

[magicbastarder]

i remember there was that 'theory' which went around a few years back which postulated that the reason black athletes are so prominent in american athletics was that the slave trade had resulted in a massively accelerated 'survival of the fittest'; i've no idea whether it was based on any sort of scientific research of belief, or whether it was just some idea which went viral because it sounded truthy. but people will associate it with evolutionary theory even if it's provable it was half baked bollocks.

 

[Space]

i remember there was that 'theory' which went around a few years back which postulated that the reason black athletes are so prominent in american athletics was that the slave trade had resulted in a massively accelerated 'survival of the fittest'; i've no idea whether it was based on any sort of scientific research of belief, or whether it was just some idea which went viral because it sounded truthy. but people will associate it with evolutionary theory even if it's provable it was half baked bollocks.

Half baked problematic bollox.

 

[therealjohnny]

i remember there was that 'theory' which went around a few years back which postulated that the reason black athletes are so prominent in american athletics was that the slave trade had resulted in a massively accelerated 'survival of the fittest'; i've no idea whether it was based on any sort of scientific research of belief, or whether it was just some idea which went viral because it sounded truthy. but people will associate it with evolutionary theory even if it's provable it was half baked bollocks.

I remember a (white) American acquaintance asking his (black) friend to settle an argument, that wasn't it true that black people had an extra muscle in their legs that allowed them to run faster.

 

[egg_]

In fairness, if I was part of an oppressed minority I'd probably find a lot of hilarity in cooking up nonsense like that and talking my oppressors into believing it