I think you are misinterpreting what was meant here.
No, I do understand well what diegocaleiro intended to communicate. It’s just that what he intended to communicate isn’t the only thing that he communicates.
When it comes to discussing gender the goal of most feminists is to change social realities. It’s not to make claims that explain reality.
Whenever people who have different goals interact there will be some conflict.
In science you can often interpret a fact in multiple ways. If your goal is the search of truth within the scientific community it makes sense to have different people argue for the merits of all possible explanations for the data that you have. If your goal is social change than you profit from blanking out possible explanation that go against your social goals whenever there’s a possible explanation that’s more benefitial for your goal of social change.
No, I do understand well what diegocaleiro intended to communicate. It’s just that what he intended to communicate isn’t the only thing that he communicates.
Are you saying that you are deliberately interpreting his statement in a way that you know wasn’t intended?
diegocaleiro stated goal is about understanding that conflict.
I’m interpreting his statement in a way that shifts the attention towards the reason there’s conflict between evolutionary psychology and feminism.
I don’t think it’s useful to address the statement in a way that doesn’t help with understanding the conflict between evolutionary psychology and feminism.
There’s also the meta level. You won’t understand the whole conflict between evolutionary psychology and feminism as long as you think that the only part of communication that matters is the part that the sender intends to send.
No, I do understand well what diegocaleiro intended to communicate. It’s just that what he intended to communicate isn’t the only thing that he communicates.
When it comes to discussing gender the goal of most feminists is to change social realities. It’s not to make claims that explain reality. Whenever people who have different goals interact there will be some conflict.
In science you can often interpret a fact in multiple ways. If your goal is the search of truth within the scientific community it makes sense to have different people argue for the merits of all possible explanations for the data that you have. If your goal is social change than you profit from blanking out possible explanation that go against your social goals whenever there’s a possible explanation that’s more benefitial for your goal of social change.
Are you saying that you are deliberately interpreting his statement in a way that you know wasn’t intended?
diegocaleiro stated goal is about understanding that conflict.
I’m interpreting his statement in a way that shifts the attention towards the reason there’s conflict between evolutionary psychology and feminism. I don’t think it’s useful to address the statement in a way that doesn’t help with understanding the conflict between evolutionary psychology and feminism.
There’s also the meta level. You won’t understand the whole conflict between evolutionary psychology and feminism as long as you think that the only part of communication that matters is the part that the sender intends to send.