Neuroscientist Larry Cahill on the ‘neurosexism’ debate

Re:Neuroscientist Larry Cahill on the ‘neurosexism’ debate by WillPostForFood on Monday April 22, 2019 @10:10AM (#19719045)

The conundrum for modern feminists is that we are becoming more aware that we are becoming more aware of the power of genetic outcomes. So when equality of treatment and opportunity doesn't get all the way to equality of outcome, then more radical ideas become tempting, and science can get tossed out the window.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Neuroscientist Larry Cahill on the ‘neurosexism’ debate by Viliam1234 on Monday April 22, 2019 @05:37PM (#19723240)

If some differences are caused by biological reasons, and some differences are caused by social reasons, then by removing the social reasons for inequality we achieve two things at the same time:

1) men and women become more equal;

2) the remaining reasons for inequality become predominantly biological (because the social ones are reduced, while the biological ones remain).

But it is easy to make a completely opposite conclusion, such as: "if some differences are social, then all differences have to be social". And then, when trying harder does not change things anymore, it is only a proof that we need to try even harder.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Neuroscientist Larry Cahill on the ‘neurosexism’ debate by amanaplanacanal on Tuesday April 23, 2019 @12:23PM (#19730093)

The history has informed our intuitions here. Many things used to be described as biological that we now suspect are social. And those things have been used to prevent people from doing things they wanted to do.

My take is: don't describe things as biological unless you are damn well sure that they are. We (as a society) have been wrong too many times before.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Neuroscientist Larry Cahill on the ‘neurosexism’ debate by Viliam1234 on Wednesday April 24, 2019 @04:31PM (#19742304)

The opposite extreme -- belief in "tabula rasa", and how biology doesn't matter for the New Soviet Man -- was also used in the history, also with bad results.

(And similarly, this doesn't prove that everything is genetic. You can't get science by merely doing the opposite of other people's prejudices.)

The belief that nothing is genetic can also be used to oppress people. For example, you can dismiss highly intelligent people from poor families by insisting that high intelligence doesn't really exist and everything comes from universities, and then pointing out how poor people usually don't come from the best universities.

Any kind of incorrect belief can be strategically used to hurt someone.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Neuroscientist Larry Cahill on the ‘neurosexism’ debate by wnkrshm on Tuesday April 30, 2019 @03:42PM (#19791194)

I would add that truth can be used to harm as well, because even entirely rational arguments with the best intentions can lead to grave atrocities (e.g. utilitarianism).

[ Parent | on HN ]