On average, the meme of “evolutionary psychology” certainly perpetuates patriarchy. But if I were to be bold, I’d say that all of it does.
Further, a consequentialist scientist knows that what they publish will be reported, and misreported, and must judge the ethical consequences of publishing based on those actual outcomes, not social scripts related to “free information” or any other idealized concept. This is similar to the recurring theme in LW of scientists witholding results like UFAI, sun-destroying bombs, or powerful spells (in HPMOR). Even if a difference does exist, is it worth publishing, knowing that you are perpetuating patriarchy?
To put it concretely, the common evo-psych statement that women are more selective because they have to carry a fetus to term while men are more promiscuous because inseminating a woman is cheap causes rape apologism and policing of women’s sexuality. It provides a narrative by which the people who do those things can point to science and say “Look, clearly I’m right because of this finding that states that it is unnatural for a woman to do something I disapprove of!” Evolutionary psychology justifies victim-blaming, which harms women in both abstract and tangible ways (women who are victim-blamed after sexual assault experience worse PTSD and other trauma-related symptoms).
Continuing on that, even idealized, entirely correct, and throughly non-sexist evolutionary psychology is probably harmful, since it legitimizes the evolutionary psychology that is none of those things. It should probably be avoided until the world is more sane.
Even if a difference does exist, is it worth publishing, knowing that you are perpetuating patriarchy?
The consequentialistic problem with a scientist not publishing truthfully because this truth will help perpetuate some injustice, is that the scientist’s word becomes worthless when the truth will help destroy some other injustice… For every injustice-destroying truth they reveal, their opponents will be able to claim “Of course, they never reveal those results that don’t suit their political purposes”.
In another forum I’ve talked about “shallow” and “deep” egalitarianism. To demand that people of group A and people of group B must be treated with equal respect because these groups are in their nature identical in all measurable characteristics is shallow egalitarianism. The deeper egalitarianism is that you should treat people as individuals, not judge them on what group they belong to, even when those groups are measurably differently in average.
The shallow egalitarianism is eventually a failing and unsustainable proposition because it rests on factually false premises. People should choose the deeper egalitarianism which doesn’t require any false claims, and is therefore sustainable in the long term.
The problem is that EY doesn’t see his struggle as a political one, so most of his stuff about “politics” is hugely irrelevant to someone who actually does care about politics. I’m a rationalist because I want to win in my particular political struggles.
Further, a consequentialist scientist knows that what they publish will be reported, and misreported, and must judge the ethical consequences of publishing based on those actual outcomes, not social scripts related to “free information” or any other idealized concept. This is similar to the recurring theme in LW of scientists witholding results like UFAI, sun-destroying bombs, or powerful spells (in HPMOR). Even if a difference does exist, is it worth publishing, knowing that you are perpetuating patriarchy?
The actual outcome of publishing correct information, or at least information that is correct to the best of your knowledge, is that there is correct information out there to be found. Therefore, I think that the only reason to withhold correct information is where that information is in itself dangerous in some manner (e.g. blueprints for a sun-destroying bomb).
In this case, what is dangerous is not the correct information. What is dangerous is a set of false memes that are well-entrenched in many modern societies. You can’t thoroughly destroy a lie until you know what the truth is; false memes will persist until they can be taken down be something that is clearly, demonstrably true. (Before that point, the best you can do is replace one false meme with another one).
So. I’d think that properly presented, correct, research findings should not only be published, but should be published widely, to best counter the false memes. In order to get the “properly presented” part right, it might be a good idea for a researcher to write his own press release. Assuming, of course, that he has the writing skill to do so; writing a good press release requires a very different style from writing a good scientific paper. If he does not have the press-release-writing skill, a well-informed colleague could write it instead. This is important, because I am not sure that the world can get “more sane” in this matter without correct information being properly distributed.
You can’t thoroughly destroy a lie until you know what the truth is; false memes will persist until they can be taken down be something that is clearly, demonstrably true. (Before that point, the best you can do is replace one false meme with another one).
This presumes that humans will reliably update towards the truth when given appropriate evidence.
It is impossible to hold this belief, and also believe that Christianity (for example) exists.
It presumes merely that there exist a subset of humans who will reliably update towards the truth when given appropriate evidence. There is much evidence on this site that many of the commenters believe themselves part of such a subset.
As a Roman Catholic myself, I have to wonder what widespread evidence there is that you believe disproves Christianity.
Therefore, I think that the only reason to withhold correct information is where that information is in itself dangerous in some manner
And even then, I don’t think that in the era of the Internet security through obscurity works anywhere near as much as it did until WWII. The Streisand effect an’ all that.
I am presently employed as a researcher at a major university. Do you know what I’ve worked on in the last year? Do you think anyone on the Internet does?
If a scientist (read: professor or grad student at a university in almost all cases) wanted to keep a finding secret, they could trivially do so.
I am presently employed as a researcher at a major university. Do you know what I’ve worked on in the last year? Do you think anyone on the Internet does?
No, among other reasons because I don’t know who you are and because I don’t give a damn. But it took me less than an hour to find out what the LW basilisk was about.
If a scientist (read: professor or grad student at a university in almost all cases) wanted to keep a finding secret, they could trivially do so.
Well, if you don’t tell anyone else and don’t publish it anywhere, you could trivially keep anything secret. But then, why would anyone bother to research such stuff in the first place? (Other than personal benefit, I mean.)
Well, if you don’t tell anyone else and don’t publish it anywhere, you could trivially keep anything secret. But then, why would anyone bother to research such stuff in the first place? (Other than personal benefit, I mean.)
This is the scenario I’m talking about.
Presumably, if you found yourself in a field where you constantly couldn’t publish things because of your consequentialist ethics, you’d switch fields (or ethics).
I think the more relevant point than “can I figure out what you’ve worked on in the last year” is “can other people in your field independently rediscover whatever you did fairly soon?”
Unless you’ve discovered giant shoulders that nobody else is standing on, you probably can’t cover up discoveries for very long.
I am presently employed as a researcher at a major university. Do you know what I’ve worked on in the last year? Do you think anyone on the Internet does?
Well, I don’t know who you are. You could just as well be Debbie Kralik from Flinders University or Juan Perez from the University of Buenos Aires—this is a pseudonymous forum so there’s no way to tell what you’ve worked on, even if you were to claim you were some particular person.
I could give you a link to my website, or the website of any of my colleagues, but you still wouldn’t know what they’re working on at any given time.
In my particular group, the whole group knows in general what everyone’s current project is, but only small subgroups know the particulars of each project, and individual people within a focus might work on something individually for a long while.
So, in my experience, it’d be pretty trivial for me to entirely discard some set of findings I disliked (and this happens a lot for accepted reasons, like “I can’t publish this”), and the Internet doesn’t really change that.
Making the world more sane requires understanding it. Knowing that there is a biological, evolutionary force behind rape allows to take more appropriate measures to actually fight rape. Blinding ourselves on the true cause of an evil will never allow us to defeat that evil.
In the same vein, halting inquiry at the question that most fits biological-essentialist gender models will not cause you to reliably arrive at the truth either.
To put it concretely, the common evo-psych statement that women are more selective because they have to carry a fetus to term while men are more promiscuous because inseminating a woman is cheap causes rape apologism and policing of women’s sexuality. It provides a narrative by which the people who do those things can point to science and say “Look, clearly I’m right because of this finding that states that it is unnatural for a woman to do something I disapprove of!”
Just parachuted in.
So my first thought here is that the obvious point of attack for advocacy is the widespread false belief that natural=good, not the “idealized, entirely correct, and throughly non-sexist evolutionary psychology” which is philosophically misconstrued because of the natural=good conflation. (By all means, please criticize bad evo psych, which a lot of it is.)
In general it seems like stopping inquiry (or public disclosure) because some factual results might be philosophically misconstrued by the public has the potential to stop a lot of inquiry… off the top of my head, evolution in general is often wildly misconstrued to imply various bad moral stances. Do you think we should be censorious in many other fields of knowledge? Assuming you do, I’m guessing you’re of the opinion that this is acceptable on account of the harm thus prevented?
On average, the meme of “evolutionary psychology” certainly perpetuates patriarchy. But if I were to be bold, I’d say that all of it does.
Further, a consequentialist scientist knows that what they publish will be reported, and misreported, and must judge the ethical consequences of publishing based on those actual outcomes, not social scripts related to “free information” or any other idealized concept. This is similar to the recurring theme in LW of scientists witholding results like UFAI, sun-destroying bombs, or powerful spells (in HPMOR). Even if a difference does exist, is it worth publishing, knowing that you are perpetuating patriarchy?
To put it concretely, the common evo-psych statement that women are more selective because they have to carry a fetus to term while men are more promiscuous because inseminating a woman is cheap causes rape apologism and policing of women’s sexuality. It provides a narrative by which the people who do those things can point to science and say “Look, clearly I’m right because of this finding that states that it is unnatural for a woman to do something I disapprove of!” Evolutionary psychology justifies victim-blaming, which harms women in both abstract and tangible ways (women who are victim-blamed after sexual assault experience worse PTSD and other trauma-related symptoms).
Continuing on that, even idealized, entirely correct, and throughly non-sexist evolutionary psychology is probably harmful, since it legitimizes the evolutionary psychology that is none of those things. It should probably be avoided until the world is more sane.
The consequentialistic problem with a scientist not publishing truthfully because this truth will help perpetuate some injustice, is that the scientist’s word becomes worthless when the truth will help destroy some other injustice… For every injustice-destroying truth they reveal, their opponents will be able to claim “Of course, they never reveal those results that don’t suit their political purposes”.
In another forum I’ve talked about “shallow” and “deep” egalitarianism. To demand that people of group A and people of group B must be treated with equal respect because these groups are in their nature identical in all measurable characteristics is shallow egalitarianism. The deeper egalitarianism is that you should treat people as individuals, not judge them on what group they belong to, even when those groups are measurably differently in average.
The shallow egalitarianism is eventually a failing and unsustainable proposition because it rests on factually false premises. People should choose the deeper egalitarianism which doesn’t require any false claims, and is therefore sustainable in the long term.
I see your point, and I have to say I hadn’t thought of it before. I still think I’m right, but I’ll have to consider this further.
Consider reading A Fable of Science And Politics if you’ve not already done so.
I did years ago when I first read the sequences.
The problem is that EY doesn’t see his struggle as a political one, so most of his stuff about “politics” is hugely irrelevant to someone who actually does care about politics. I’m a rationalist because I want to win in my particular political struggles.
The actual outcome of publishing correct information, or at least information that is correct to the best of your knowledge, is that there is correct information out there to be found. Therefore, I think that the only reason to withhold correct information is where that information is in itself dangerous in some manner (e.g. blueprints for a sun-destroying bomb).
In this case, what is dangerous is not the correct information. What is dangerous is a set of false memes that are well-entrenched in many modern societies. You can’t thoroughly destroy a lie until you know what the truth is; false memes will persist until they can be taken down be something that is clearly, demonstrably true. (Before that point, the best you can do is replace one false meme with another one).
So. I’d think that properly presented, correct, research findings should not only be published, but should be published widely, to best counter the false memes. In order to get the “properly presented” part right, it might be a good idea for a researcher to write his own press release. Assuming, of course, that he has the writing skill to do so; writing a good press release requires a very different style from writing a good scientific paper. If he does not have the press-release-writing skill, a well-informed colleague could write it instead. This is important, because I am not sure that the world can get “more sane” in this matter without correct information being properly distributed.
This presumes that humans will reliably update towards the truth when given appropriate evidence.
It is impossible to hold this belief, and also believe that Christianity (for example) exists.
It presumes merely that there exist a subset of humans who will reliably update towards the truth when given appropriate evidence. There is much evidence on this site that many of the commenters believe themselves part of such a subset.
As a Roman Catholic myself, I have to wonder what widespread evidence there is that you believe disproves Christianity.
Just because they believe themselves to be X, doesn’t mean that they’re actually X...
And even then, I don’t think that in the era of the Internet security through obscurity works anywhere near as much as it did until WWII. The Streisand effect an’ all that.
I am presently employed as a researcher at a major university. Do you know what I’ve worked on in the last year? Do you think anyone on the Internet does?
If a scientist (read: professor or grad student at a university in almost all cases) wanted to keep a finding secret, they could trivially do so.
No, among other reasons because I don’t know who you are and because I don’t give a damn. But it took me less than an hour to find out what the LW basilisk was about.
Well, if you don’t tell anyone else and don’t publish it anywhere, you could trivially keep anything secret. But then, why would anyone bother to research such stuff in the first place? (Other than personal benefit, I mean.)
This is the scenario I’m talking about.
Presumably, if you found yourself in a field where you constantly couldn’t publish things because of your consequentialist ethics, you’d switch fields (or ethics).
I think the more relevant point than “can I figure out what you’ve worked on in the last year” is “can other people in your field independently rediscover whatever you did fairly soon?”
Unless you’ve discovered giant shoulders that nobody else is standing on, you probably can’t cover up discoveries for very long.
Well, I don’t know who you are. You could just as well be Debbie Kralik from Flinders University or Juan Perez from the University of Buenos Aires—this is a pseudonymous forum so there’s no way to tell what you’ve worked on, even if you were to claim you were some particular person.
I could give you a link to my website, or the website of any of my colleagues, but you still wouldn’t know what they’re working on at any given time.
In my particular group, the whole group knows in general what everyone’s current project is, but only small subgroups know the particulars of each project, and individual people within a focus might work on something individually for a long while.
So, in my experience, it’d be pretty trivial for me to entirely discard some set of findings I disliked (and this happens a lot for accepted reasons, like “I can’t publish this”), and the Internet doesn’t really change that.
Yeah. That doesn’t even count real secret-squirrel stuff.
Making the world more sane requires understanding it. Knowing that there is a biological, evolutionary force behind rape allows to take more appropriate measures to actually fight rape. Blinding ourselves on the true cause of an evil will never allow us to defeat that evil.
In the same vein, halting inquiry at the question that most fits biological-essentialist gender models will not cause you to reliably arrive at the truth either.
Just parachuted in.
So my first thought here is that the obvious point of attack for advocacy is the widespread false belief that natural=good, not the “idealized, entirely correct, and throughly non-sexist evolutionary psychology” which is philosophically misconstrued because of the natural=good conflation. (By all means, please criticize bad evo psych, which a lot of it is.)
In general it seems like stopping inquiry (or public disclosure) because some factual results might be philosophically misconstrued by the public has the potential to stop a lot of inquiry… off the top of my head, evolution in general is often wildly misconstrued to imply various bad moral stances. Do you think we should be censorious in many other fields of knowledge? Assuming you do, I’m guessing you’re of the opinion that this is acceptable on account of the harm thus prevented?