The Dangers of Anti-Intellectual Propaganda

[realibrad]

Considering the fact that gender identification may extend to biological as well and mental issues, a lone psychologist is not enough. You need a consensus of psychiatry and psychology.

Anything other than that is merely an uninformed or partially informed opinion.

The fact of the matter is this subject is still being studied. The world's greatest experts have not yet reached a consensus. So who the fuck is anyone on this board to make any determination at all?

Dunning Kruger.

So your stance is that we dont know if its 100% nature, society, or even a mixture. That still means that any statement that its 100% anything is wrong. That said, here is this.

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpsy/article/PIIS2215-0366(16)30310-8/fulltext

Finally, there is the question of gender. This refers to the social aspects or construct of a person, how they perceive themselves and how others perceive them. Gender is usually expressed as a binary (female/male) factor but can be regarded as a spectrum, with multiple ways for individuals to identify themselves, often grouped under the term non-binary. For many fields of medical research, gender might not be influential, but in psychiatry it matters. Mental health is above all about how a person thinks and feels. That reflects their biological health but also their sense of self, how they think that others perceive and treat them, and how they see their role in society. The role of sex and gender clearly needs to be acknowledged; and researchers should also be aware of their own preconceptions, and how these might affect both the scientific questions they ask, and their interpretation of the data they collect.

So enjoy a paper from "The Lancet Psychiatry".

 

[realibrad]

Google was right to divert resources away from its younger male employees and potential hires.

It’s a biological fact that studies have found testosterone makes men, especially younger single men agressive.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/16483890/



Direct application of testosterone shows increases in manic symptoms.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullarticle/481565



Now older men and married men have decreased testosterone making them less likely to be aggressive.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/200907/sex-violence-and-hormones



Now some attribute being aggressive with being a positive for leadership in business. This is not accurate. Assertiveness is actually what most businesses are looking for when grooming potential leaders.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbes...lity-a-key-characteristic-of-a-strong-leader/



Seeing as how important team work is in Silicon Valley and the evidence of business benefit to diverse teams:
https://hbr.org/2016/11/why-diverse-teams-are-smarter


Is it any wonder Google wanted to increase its employee diversity by pulling away from younger males who as a group evidence shows exhibit more aggressive and criminal behavior detrimental to the success of a diverse team.

Now stereotyping young men as more aggressive may seem like its negative but as it is backed by facts it’s obviously not.

Do you believe the "Google memo" was to promote men over women? To me it was to explain how it happened, and how to increase women. Am I misunderstanding you?

 

[Jhhnn]

Here is my take on gender studies:

I do not know nearly enough to form an independent opinion on the matter. Nor does anyone in this thread.

Therefore, logically and rationally I must defer to the expertise and consensus in science on the subject.

Period.

Bu... bu... but Icky! Bad!

 

[realibrad]

I'm a psychiatrist and I'm a psychoanalytic candidate, not a psychologist. My personal feeling is that gender and its determinants, biological and developmental, are so complicated that there will never be an answer that can be generally applied; we would always need extensive evaluation of an individual to render an opinion. Even so, such a thing could never be objectively validated.

I think it doesn't matter at all. It's easy to observe that some people present with genders different than what might be assumed from their observable sex characteristics, and both sex and gender expressions may be straightforward or ambiguous, comfortable or conflicted. In the end, they are just parts of what makes a person who they are, just the same as any other thing. I think all people deserve basic respect, autonomy, and compassion regardless of their differences. Providing these does not restrict you from disagreeing with their choices, and neither does it obligate you to change your life for their benefit. If, however, you provide deserved respect, autonomy, and compassion, there is a likelihood you will make some changes to benefit another because you feel it's the right thing to do.

I think it does matter in two narrow ways. As we are still limited by resources, assumptions based on gender as a starting point can be helpful. If we could provide individualized care then gender has little importance. We simply would not have the time to analyze every person and then create a plan based on that.

The other is when you make a statement that gender is 100% this or that is wrong and I think will lead to long term problems. I can think of nothing in terms of identity that is 100% anything. Believing that biology has no impact could lead to treatment that is social and not biological and or vice versa.

 

[Moonbeam]

That took a lot of work and was just amazingly brilliant. Thanks

 

[Moonbeam]

Is projection an inherent part of the new right-wing?

Seriously. Because it's something the right-wing has been doing a lot of lately. And it's so transparently projection as to be rather pathetic.

Nowhere in this thread or OP have I claimed to know more than any expert in any field. Nor have I argued against a scientific consensus.

So please tell me, where is the Dunning Kruger in the premise of this thread?

I took it to mean I am too dumb to not know I don't understand Dunning Kruger.

 

[interchange]

I think it does matter in two narrow ways. As we are still limited by resources, assumptions based on gender as a starting point can be helpful. If we could provide individualized care then gender has little importance. We simply would not have the time to analyze every person and then create a plan based on that.

Plan? For what exactly?

The other is when you make a statement that gender is 100% this or that is wrong and I think will lead to long term problems. I can think of nothing in terms of identity that is 100% anything. Believing that biology has no impact could lead to treatment that is social and not biological and or vice versa.

There's no doubt that such splitting is factually inaccurate. It's a defensive operation. Telling someone "don't split" isn't very helpful. If you do have hope of helping another change their views, perhaps you could work to understand what is distressing to them to imagine things work differently such that they need to split.

 

[Moonbeam]

I disagree, but I already explained why. If you disagree with anything I gave in my summary then by all means do explain.

I read your post but will decline your invitation in an effort to suggest I really am not interested in the argument itself and especially in winning it. Plenty of others have done better than I can in the logical rebuttal department. You can argue with them. I decline because, again, I want to make good on my assurances to you that for me this isn't about winning. My aim was to try to give you some insight into how your moral convictions create vision restrictions. Thank you for the conversation.

 

[Paratus]

Do you believe the "Google memo" was to promote men over women? To me it was to explain how it happened, and how to increase women. Am I misunderstanding you?

Interesting question. Was there something I posted that made you think I was promoting one sex over another?

That took a lot of work and was just amazingly brilliant. Thanks

High praise.

 

[realibrad]

Plan? For what exactly?

I am by no means a medical professional, so this is me working off of logic from what I do know. If someone comes in for lower abdominal pain, it may have different causes for a man or a woman. The first thing a doctor would do is try to go after the most likely causes for a man or a woman depending on who came in. Now, if those things do not work then they look further into the individual person. They will not request all the possible tests because its likely something more common. Does that make sense?

There's no doubt that such splitting is factually inaccurate. It's a defensive operation. Telling someone "don't split" isn't very helpful. If you do have hope of helping another change their views, perhaps you could work to understand what is distressing to them to imagine things work differently such that they need to split.

So what am I missing in terms of this conversation? For me I cannot seem to find what would be distressing in believing its both and not an either or.

@zinfamous, do you believe there are any negative implications in believing its not just social, but also biological?

 

[realibrad]

Interesting question. Was there something I posted that made you think I was promoting one sex over another?

"Is it any wonder Google wanted to increase its employee diversity by pulling away from younger males who as a group evidence shows exhibit more aggressive and criminal behavior detrimental to the success of a diverse team. "

The general tone of your post seem to be in response to the current Google memo topic. I'm assuming you listed negative traits that men often have and how they might be a detriment in the work place. The implication would be that men and women are equal and thus trying to look at traits of a group are pointless and we should just look at individuals.

Again, that is my working understanding of your post. But, before I put words into your mouth I want to make sure.

If that is right, then my response is this.

What you posted was not stereotypes because they are accurate in a non-oversimplified way. It does, however, miss the point that I believe the memo was trying to make.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Is projection an inherent part of the new right-wing?

Seriously. Because it's something the right-wing has been doing a lot of lately. And it's so transparently projection as to be rather pathetic.

Nowhere in this thread or OP have I claimed to know more than any expert in any field. Nor have I argued against a scientific consensus.

So please tell me, where is the Dunning Kruger in the premise of this thread?

The Dunning Kruger effect does not necessarily require one to claim they know more than any expert in any field, nor to those who may argue against scientific consensus. It refers to those who harbor an illusion that they are superior to others.... who fail to adequately assess their own level of competence.

 

[Amused]

The Dunning Kruger effect does not necessarily require one to claim they know more than any expert in any field, nor to those who may argue against scientific consensus. It refers to those who harbor an illusion that they are superior to others.... who fail to adequately assess their own level of competence.

The usual outcome of Dunning Kruger os for a person to overestimate their competence on subject matters they actually know little about. To think their opinion is superior. In the case and context of the transgender debate of this thread, superior to the consensus of science or opinion of experts in the field.

In the case of anti-intellectualism, superior to the consensus of science and the opinion of experts.

In the case of science denialism...

I could go on...

But hey, if accusing me of it makes you feel better when all I have done is bemoan the wave of anti-intellectualism and science denial in society. Go ahead.

Just know it's a projection and doth protest too much.

 

[Amused]

So your stance is that we dont know if its 100% nature, society, or even a mixture. That still means that any statement that its 100% anything is wrong. That said, here is this.

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpsy/article/PIIS2215-0366(16)30310-8/fulltext



So enjoy a paper from "The Lancet Psychiatry".

Thanks. How does this paper disagree with what I said?

 

[realibrad]

Thanks. How does this paper disagree with what I said?

Its a psychiatry paper and it specifically references that biology and gender are linked. You seem to be operating under the idea that its not decided that biology is linked to gender. That is actually wrong. Think of it like this. I would bet that interchange would have no problem telling me if I got a technical detail wrong here. I have made a very narrow and concise claim that is backed up by the data. Gender is not 100% a social construct. Somehow my claim has misunderstood or twisted into something other what I said and have argued. There is paper after paper finding this to be true.

Are you disagreeing that claim in some way? It feels like you are but maybe I'm wrong.

 

[Amused]

Its a psychiatry paper and it specifically references that biology and gender are linked. You seem to be operating under the idea that its not decided that biology is linked to gender. That is actually wrong. Think of it like this. I would bet that interchange would have no problem telling me if I got a technical detail wrong here. I have made a very narrow and concise claim that is backed up by the data. Gender is not 100% a social construct. Somehow my claim has misunderstood or twisted into something other what I said and have argued. There is paper after paper finding this to be true.

Are you disagreeing that claim in some way? It feels like you are but maybe I'm wrong.

No, I'm not. That's precisely why I disagreed that a psychologist would be able to fully weigh in on this subject.

But again, I know just enough to know I don't know shit. So hey.

 

[realibrad]

No, I'm not. That's precisely why I disagreed that a psychologist would be able to fully weigh in on this subject.

But again, I know just enough to know I don't know shit. So hey.

So why cant we use science and peer reviewed research to answer this?

 

[pmv]

Have to admit I feel a bit of a devil's advocate impulse to stick up for anti-intellectualism. Mainly because I've always felt that it was a distrust of grand intellectual theories, and of intellectuals, that limited the appeal of fascism and stalinism this side of the Channel. I mean, when you look at what the French and Germans, with their veneration for intellectuals, have allowed that type to get away with (both in terms of theoretical writings and, just as much, in actual behaviour), I think maybe its a good thing that in the Anglo world we treat them with a healthy level of skepticism and don't worship intellectuals the way the Continentals have historically been liable to do. Keeps them on their toes.

And I just can't entirely forget that 'intellectual status' and 'class' get very strongly mixed up.

However, it seems fair to say that in the age of Trump things appear to be going way too far the other way, and there's always been a pathological strain of anti-intellectualism in the US in particular.

Also I think I may very well be horribly inconsistent, in that I have no patience for ignorant skepticism about the physical sciences, but remain full of doubts about, say, psychiatry, economics, and large swathes of philosophy (I sympathise with Alan Sokal). Oh, and a good portion of medicine as well...though that doesn't extend to anti-vaccine panic. Dammit, I'm all over the place on the topic.

Not all fields of 'expertise' are equal.

Its a psychiatry paper and it specifically references that biology and gender are linked. You seem to be operating under the idea that its not decided that biology is linked to gender. That is actually wrong. Think of it like this. I would bet that interchange would have no problem telling me if I got a technical detail wrong here. I have made a very narrow and concise claim that is backed up by the data. Gender is not 100% a social construct. Somehow my claim has misunderstood or twisted into something other what I said and have argued. There is paper after paper finding this to be true.

Are you disagreeing that claim in some way? It feels like you are but maybe I'm wrong.

Just to point out, that biology and gender could be linked even if gender is 100% a social construct, becuase biological sex clearly influences our social experiences. Not saying it _is_ such a construct, merely that your paragraph here seems a bit imprecise.

Edit - actually, maybe there's a distinction between 'anti-intellectualism' and a distrust of intellectuals.

 

[realibrad]

Just to point out, that biology and gender could be linked even if gender is 100% a social construct, becuase biological sex clearly influences our social experiences. Not saying it _is_ such a construct, merely that your paragraph here seems a bit imprecise.

Edit - actually, maybe there's a distinction between 'anti-intellectualism' and a distrust of intellectuals.

In the context of the discussion its as follows.

Biological = behavior driven by genetics.
Social = behavior driven interactions and constructs from society.
Sex = genetic makeup on the binary spectrum.

So, when its said that biology and Social drive gender, it means that gender identity stem from both genetics and how people interact. So when it says that sex and gender are linked, its saying that biology drives behavior and identity to some degree.

 

[jackstar7]

"Binary spectrum" is a great phrase from you.

 

[Amused]

So why cant we use science and peer reviewed research to answer this?

Because no clear consensus has been reached.

 

[realibrad]

Because no clear consensus has been reached.

That simply is not true. The consensus is that biology is part. There is not a consensus on what ratio, which is likely due to individual differences, but there is a consensus that it's not 100% social.

Unless you mean "not a consensus" in the way conservatives argue about climate change because one guy in the field is unsure.

 

[realibrad]

"Binary spectrum" is a great phrase from you.

How so?

 

[Starbuck1975]

Because no clear consensus has been reached.

Is it fair to say that biology is already conclusive on this topic. Forget about societal labels or identity for a moment. Let’s just focus on the hard nonpartisan realities of biology.

If someone is biologically born with certain anatomical realities, it means that certain health screenings, procedures and medical approaches are forever linked to their body. Biology will always be the more prevalent reality, and at some level, dictate behaviors and to a certain extent identity as well.

In a delivery room, a doctor will never declare “its a non-binary gender fluid”

What this means is that lets say you are a FTM transgender. You identify as male. Your ID and legal name is that of a male. But you still have biological realities that would require things like health checks by a gynecologist. That does not change. That will probably never change. But your identity will create friction. A health care provider or insurance company will question why someone legally documented as a male would receive say a mammogram.

I also think it is possible to treat transgender people with dignity and respect while also acknowledging these certain biological realities, and do it in a way that is not disrespectful to how they identify.

 

[pmv]

That simply is not true. The consensus is that biology is part. There is not a consensus on what ratio, which is likely due to individual differences, but there is a consensus that it's not 100% social.

Unless you mean "not a consensus" in the way conservatives argue about climate change because one guy in the field is unsure.

But saying 'biology is part of it' (which I would assume everyone agrees about) doesn't tell us anything useful. It's not just a 'ratio', or a proportion expressed as a percentage - how could it be? Genuinely I don't get what it would mean for it to be a simple percentage thing. Surely it has to be a complex interaction between the two? How would you, conceptually, reduce that complex contingent interaction to a question of percentages? You need to explain that in concrete terms - how would you measure such a percentage, by what hypothetical experiment?