Neuroscientist Larry Cahill on the ‘neurosexism’ debate

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 ]