LGB ErasureExposing The Reality of Transgender Science & Trans Activism | Debra Soh | ACADEMIA | Rubin Report

submitted by notdelusionalbased faggot from self.LGBDropTheT

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]GConly 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

This is the first time I've heard the term "left wing science denial"

I'm heavily involved with anthropology and psychology. The left has been getting progressively anti science since about 2000 when it became clear science was just not supporting a lot of Marxist core theory.

For example:

Sex based behaviour differences are mostly down to pre natal hormones. Bang goes the claim institutional sexism is still keeping women out of STEM or killing their pay. Women aren't men.

Class and income: turns out SES is largely derived from your IQ and behaviour, not the other way round.

IQ and behaviour are large down to genetics. The evidence that western poverty lowers IQ is way less compelling that the evidence that it doesn't.

Group differences in IQ have largely been supported by science for decades, and in a few years this one is really going to hit the fan as IQ predictive DNA tests hit the market in a few years.

About 1/3 of millionaires and billionaires have zero financial assistance from family. Turns out hard work and brains (and capitalism) really can improve the lives of the poor.

So there you have it. Men and women are different, SES differences are mostly down to behaviour and genetics. Capitalism works as a way for the industrious to get out of poverty. There are biology based differences that lead to different ethnic outcomes (and most people involved in studying these fields have these opinions).

The upshot of this, if it becomes widely understood by the public, a hard shift to the conservative right/liberal because it's obvious we live in an approximate and reasonably fair meritocracy.

It will ensure Marxist theory never has a chance if being taken seriously or getting a grip on power again.

Literally the only option left to the far left is full on science denial.

This has been helped by the educational system. Govts have decreed a larger percentage need to be shoved through degrees, and provided loans not based on the future earnings the degree would provide.

Only way to pass the lower ability students is easier degrees, and this is where the humanities blossomed.

A lot of these colleges are now sucking money from the teats of 'progressive' (Marxist) NGOs, and have yielded to pressure to install more progressive staff and policies.

And that's how we got to where we are now.

[–]notdelusionalbased faggot[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

I imagine many people who identify as being on the left are experiencing a crisis of faith due to the extreme faction's outsized influence over this topic--we see plenty evidence of that here on this sub. A similar thing happened between conservatives and the religious right. So wild how in just a couple of decades the shoe is now on the other foot. If people on the left want to avoid a popular snapback to the hard right, they need to contain these leftist extremists, right now it's doing them a lot of harm in the court of public opinion.

[–]Astrid2448 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (2 children)

I talked about this in another post, but as someone who has a lot of experience in healthcare and the sciences (entire family is pretty much involved in it, so I grew up around it as well)... this person seems to have a habit of misrepresenting studies. Much of what they’re saying everybody agrees with them on are actually widely debated and actually have a lot of opposition. For example, most psychologists don’t even endorse IQ as a measurement of intelligence (there’s a lot of debate over whether it’s even accurate) and it’s generally agreed that even if it were one, it is only a measure of one form of intelligence. There are quite a few theories on intelligence and none of them have full backing. These types of issues are present with literally every point they just raised. I’m not sure if they’re just unintentionally being biased or if they’re misrepresenting things. Not to mention that apparently the humanities are for stupid people, but their expertise is in the soft sciences that are adjacent to the humanities. My peers in the hard sciences used to take courses in psychology and anthropology to boost their GPA.

I’m really, really tired of science being weaponized by people in these kinds of debates.

[–]GConly 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

For example, most psychologists don’t even endorse IQ as a measurement of intelligence (there’s a lot of debate over whether it’s even accurate) and it’s generally agreed that even if it were one, it is only a measure of one form of intelligence. There are quite a few theories on intelligence and none of them have full backing.

Well no, none of that is true, at all. That crap comes out of the humanities departments and it's been pushed very hard as 'fact' for years. It depends on the masses not being familiar with the science.

, most psychologists don’t even endorse IQ as a measurement of intelligence

That in particular is utter bollocks.

A large number of the best known PhDs publishing in this field once wrote a letter to debunk exactly that BS claim. It was called something like 'statement on general intelligence'. The opinion hasn't changed. IQ tests are use to check for brain damage in medicine, they are strongly predictive of academic outcomes. You can ballpark predict it with a brain scan at this time, same with DNA. I haven't seen more than a half hearted attempt at debunking IQ tests in decades for that reason.

Some starter reading for you.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23931870-400-the-truth-about-intelligence-do-iq-tests-really-work/

Overwhelmingly, when polled, the scientists support group differences being at least partly genetic rather than all environment. By three to one. Irk me and I'll post the polls here.

No there aren't multiple intelligences. Only one or two researchers support that idea, it's pretty widely mocked. No one takes it seriously, and it tells me a lot that you do.

About the best you can say is that an IQ test doesn't check for things like self control, memory, future orientation, planning and so on. They are all valid traits, and they all affect educational and income...and they are also largely down to genes.

I have a great many stored papers discussing genetics, IQ and their implications to life outcomes. Genetics accounts for about 50-70% of variance in academic outcomes. IQ tests are specially designed to test for that kind of ability.

Not to mention that apparently the humanities are for stupid people

No they are for more average people.

"the average IQ of a physics PhD student is about 130. For comparison, english/literature PhD students average about 120 and sociology PhD students only 115"

A sociology undergrad can actually be below average intelligence.

Understanding complex science is a bit beyond the average sociology graduate.

Anyway.. all of the IQ argument is largely moot now, as GWAS studies are showing educational achievement and SES etc are at least in part down to genetics and are getting predictable with a DNA test now.

We find that common SNPs explain 21% of the variation in social deprivation and 11% of household income.

A joint (multi-phenotype) analysis of educational attainment and three related cognitive phenotypes generates polygenic scores that explain 11–13% of the variance in educational attainment and 7–10% of the variance in cognitive performance.

Genome-wide association study identifies 74 loci associated with educational attainment

Genome-wide analysis identifies molecular systems and 149 genetic loci associated with income

GWAS of 126,559 Individuals Identifies Genetic Variants Associated with Educational Attainment

[–]notdelusionalbased faggot[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Who is "they" you keep referencing? Debra Soh?