You're welcome! Glad you made that clearer. I think people grab ahold of openings like "biological differences" and try to extrapolate "can write my name in the snow with pee" to "better spatial thinking".
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I enjoyed that post and may look into the supporting links a bit more, but this last sentence was cringworthy:
No, sorry, that's not how good science works. "Hurray for flawed papers which support my agenda"? Scary. Her agenda may actually prove to be the "right" one most accurately describing physical reality, but the perspective communicated in that last sentence has historically led to a lot of bad outcomes. Other than that, I though it was well written and balanced enough to include counter perspectives, which I always like seeing.
Sure. To what I think her point is, though, it's a field with too little research being done. Every study is flawed, and for many studies, the flaw is limited sample sizes due to funding. Each individual study contributes to a larger picture that will make future meta-studies possible. That IS how science works. The vanguard has to deal with inevitable restrictions because they are paving the way for future, more extensive studies. It may be too early to say anything definitively, but having studies at all is a good thing, when the alternative is no studies, and just a reliance on "what everyone knows" which is where the gender determinism camp tends to operate from. (e.g. "everyone knows that men are better at spatial orientation and women are better at understanding emotions.")
And I'd add that, since we live in a society that still leans so heavily on sexist tropes to enforce the status quo and since public perception often ignores scientific consensus, if flawed research results in tearing down the patriarchy, it still has value, especially if it merely supplements less flawed research.
Very little research isn't flawed. It is meta-studies that we must rely on to give us a clearer picture, since any individual study has so many limitations. And especially in fields that aren't thoroughly examining their pre-existing assumptions for flaws.
Yeah, that's a great way to think about it. Thanks for bringing that perspective. I just get concerned about people pushing their agendas with "science" that may, as you said, still be uncertain.
But, if it causes less harm in the world, I'm all for that, regardless of the details as long as it doesn't create more long term, systemic risk down the road.
Totally. I think it's imperative that one be skeptical and approach every piece of new information with a cautious eye, but at the same time, we must be open to the possibility that we are wrong. It's a delicate balance.
Interestingly, in the article that @sean-king linked, one of the debaters says, "There is evidence, admittedly squishy in parts, that differences in prenatal hormones make a difference in later thought and behavior even within a given sex. "
That "admittedly squishy in parts" seems remarkably like "even when it's flawed".
Hmm... maybe, but one clearly celebrated an agenda being pushed by "flawed" science. The other is simply saying "There is some weak evidence for this conclusion" without any declaration of whether or no that conclusion is good, bad, a desired agenda, etc.