I correctly guessed what X was. Because there’s only one thing it could ever be, unless the paper was talking about very unusual subgroups like Jehovah’s Witnesses in Mormon territory.
Well, it could be creationist zoologists, or satanist school teachers, or transgender fashion models. But of course it’s psychologists studying psychologists, and of course it’s reiterating an interesting narrative we’ve seen before.
One would expect creationists to be underrepresented in zoology for a number of reasons, only one of which is that zoologists have negative beliefs about creationists and tend not to hire or encourage them. Others would include that creationists may avoid studying zoology because they find the subject matter unpleasantly contradictory to their existing commitments; and that some people previously inclined to creationism who study zoology cease to be creationists.
Anecdotally, I know at least one creationist zoologist, although I don’t think he publishes creationist stuff. He doesn’t stand out at all or has any noticeable trouble because of it. All zoologists I know are weirder than the average person.
Between the word “beliefs” (which rules out most demographic groups), the word “openly” (which rules out anything you can’t easily hide), and the existence of a plausible “anti-X” group (which rules out most multipolar situations), there’s not too many possibilities left. The correct answer is the biggest, and most of the other plausible options are subsets of it.
I suppose it could also have been its converse, but you don’t hear too much about discrimination cases going that way.
I think that ngurvfgf would have been a plausible X in some places (and perhaps the opposite in others), but the correct one was the first that came to mind and the one I considered most likely.
I correctly guessed what X was. Because there’s only one thing it could ever be, unless the paper was talking about very unusual subgroups like Jehovah’s Witnesses in Mormon territory.
Well, it could be creationist zoologists, or satanist school teachers, or transgender fashion models. But of course it’s psychologists studying psychologists, and of course it’s reiterating an interesting narrative we’ve seen before.
One would expect creationists to be underrepresented in zoology for a number of reasons, only one of which is that zoologists have negative beliefs about creationists and tend not to hire or encourage them. Others would include that creationists may avoid studying zoology because they find the subject matter unpleasantly contradictory to their existing commitments; and that some people previously inclined to creationism who study zoology cease to be creationists.
Anecdotally, I know at least one creationist zoologist, although I don’t think he publishes creationist stuff. He doesn’t stand out at all or has any noticeable trouble because of it. All zoologists I know are weirder than the average person.
That’s an interesting observation, isn’t it?
Between the word “beliefs” (which rules out most demographic groups), the word “openly” (which rules out anything you can’t easily hide), and the existence of a plausible “anti-X” group (which rules out most multipolar situations), there’s not too many possibilities left. The correct answer is the biggest, and most of the other plausible options are subsets of it.
I suppose it could also have been its converse, but you don’t hear too much about discrimination cases going that way.
I think that ngurvfgf would have been a plausible X in some places (and perhaps the opposite in others), but the correct one was the first that came to mind and the one I considered most likely.