Yes, probably. And likewise, you would probably say that anyway, and we can recurse down this rabbit hole indefinitely.
I have a history of having my mind changed by people I formerly disagreed with. I may not be perfectly debiased, but to the best of my ability I avoid looking for excuses not to change my mind.
In reality, the media already selectively reports research and hides information. It reports research that is by and large acceptable, and hides information that isn’t. That’s why very unscientific things often get reported—they still meet different standards for social acceptability that are entirely related to the empirical truth of the reported finding.
Which is why I largely ignore science reporting by news media.
If a scientist finds themselves in a field where nearly everything they do is propagated in such a way that it causes the oppression of more than half of humanity, they are either obligated to stop doing research in that field or do so secretly. This is why I said earlier (you may have not seen it) that even evolutionary psychology that is on the surface non-sexist should not be propagated. Doing so would legitimize other similar research that would then perpetuate patriarchy.
They do not know in advance what the results of their research will be (otherwise there would be no point in conducting it.) Certainly it’s problematic that some findings are more likely to be publicized than others, but if scientists cannot be trusted to make their findings available unless they support their ideology, then people will have to assume that the evidence supports that ideology less than the scientists say it does.
And if scientists refuse to research a field at all, because they claim it legitimizes findings that will be construed as sexist? People are going to conclude that the truth is sexist.
There are certainly cases where people are biased in ways that keep them from interpreting evidence appropriately. Indeed, this sort of thing happens on a routine basis. I don’t contest at all that there are lots and lots of people interpreting true scientific data in a sexist way, that really shouldn’t be interpreted in that way. But that doesn’t mean you can just hide the information and thereby solve the problem, because hiding the information looks even worse. I majored in Environmental Science, I’m familiar with how many people will seize on anything that looks remotely like evidence that climate change might not be happening and blow it dramatically out of proportion in the face of winds of evidence blowing heavily the other way. I understand the temptation to say “fuck, we can’t let people see this, they’ll take it entirely wrong” if you get a result that doesn’t support the hypothesis, even though statistically it’s inevitable that there will be some. But then when you look at the Climactic Research Unit email controversy, with the huge publicity and the very significant downward spike in how seriously the public took climate change for a long time afterwards, and see that’s really not a prudent way to respond to the issue at all.
You could go read the textbook I linked to above, or read any study, or just mull on what you know about learning, conditioning, and gendered behavior (especially gendered behavior over time and in different communities). But I would bet money at nearly any odds that you won’t, because you’ve won here. You’ve developed a fully general counterargument to anything I can say from this point on.
Please don’t assume that because I hold a different position from you that I haven’t learned or thought about the issue. I’ve spent quite a bit of time studying learning, conditioning, and gendered behavior. A significant proportion of my friends are not just feminists, but Feminists, people who treat it as a major facet of their identity, for whom it is a primary focus of their intellectual pursuits, and I read all the material they share with me. I am not assuming that you only disagree with me because you’ve taken a kneejerk stance and not given any time to contemplating reasons you could be wrong. If you default to assuming that about the people you hold discussions about these issues with, it’s no wonder if you come away from them thinking they’re unproductive.
I have a history of having my mind changed by people I formerly disagreed with. I may not be perfectly debiased, but to the best of my ability I avoid looking for excuses not to change my mind.
Which is why I largely ignore science reporting by news media.
They do not know in advance what the results of their research will be (otherwise there would be no point in conducting it.) Certainly it’s problematic that some findings are more likely to be publicized than others, but if scientists cannot be trusted to make their findings available unless they support their ideology, then people will have to assume that the evidence supports that ideology less than the scientists say it does.
And if scientists refuse to research a field at all, because they claim it legitimizes findings that will be construed as sexist? People are going to conclude that the truth is sexist.
There are certainly cases where people are biased in ways that keep them from interpreting evidence appropriately. Indeed, this sort of thing happens on a routine basis. I don’t contest at all that there are lots and lots of people interpreting true scientific data in a sexist way, that really shouldn’t be interpreted in that way. But that doesn’t mean you can just hide the information and thereby solve the problem, because hiding the information looks even worse. I majored in Environmental Science, I’m familiar with how many people will seize on anything that looks remotely like evidence that climate change might not be happening and blow it dramatically out of proportion in the face of winds of evidence blowing heavily the other way. I understand the temptation to say “fuck, we can’t let people see this, they’ll take it entirely wrong” if you get a result that doesn’t support the hypothesis, even though statistically it’s inevitable that there will be some. But then when you look at the Climactic Research Unit email controversy, with the huge publicity and the very significant downward spike in how seriously the public took climate change for a long time afterwards, and see that’s really not a prudent way to respond to the issue at all.
Please don’t assume that because I hold a different position from you that I haven’t learned or thought about the issue. I’ve spent quite a bit of time studying learning, conditioning, and gendered behavior. A significant proportion of my friends are not just feminists, but Feminists, people who treat it as a major facet of their identity, for whom it is a primary focus of their intellectual pursuits, and I read all the material they share with me. I am not assuming that you only disagree with me because you’ve taken a kneejerk stance and not given any time to contemplating reasons you could be wrong. If you default to assuming that about the people you hold discussions about these issues with, it’s no wonder if you come away from them thinking they’re unproductive.