Posted: Apr 20, 2018 4:20 pm
by SpeedOfSound
scott1328 wrote:What peezee suffers from, and I am detecting inklings of in this thread, is the Naturalistic Fallacy. That if something exists in nature it is to be desired, good, or proper. Couple that with peezee's implicit sexism (which I also am detecting in this thread) that if a trait is masculine, then it is better, therefore the detection of masculine traits in nature somehow implies that men are better. Therefore, since men are not better and natural traits are good, then the research must be bad. This is reasoning driven by ideology; it is not letting the facts guide the conclusion.

ETA: I am granting peezee the benefit of the doubt, that what he is exhibiting is sexism and naturalistic fallacy. What is entirely in the realm of possibility, and evident in much of his writing, is a snobbish elitism and paternalism(sic) that the hoi polloi is unable to understand the nuances of the research into the innateness of hot-topic traits, and therefore research into those traits must be stopped lest the public seize on those ideas without the benefit of his education and intellect. In either case, ideology is driving the message, not the science.

Big plus one on all that.

The shame is that when this sort of pissing match happens we lose track of the task at hand which is to make the science right and improve the methods. Often the baby gets thrown out with the dirty bath.

And yes, sexism of this kind is a problem with people that are vehemently against sexism yet still possess a healthy degree at this meta-level. Instead of having it that woman are of equal value and rights, woman have to be made 'into' men.

My personal opinion on the sexes is that they are different and men are too emotional and too often prone to irrational violence both literally and often implicitly in the decisions they make. I think that is biological and knowing that I try to be better.