Pack up nerds

Can't believe no one has pointed it out but
>(((Weinstein)))

Behavior analysis avoids all of the problems of other paradigms of psychology.

>judging an article by its title

>judging anons by their posts

Am I the only one who wants to see her getting blacked by him?

>Weinstein
EVERY. FUCKING. TIME.

>Slate
Mhm, so very academically rigorous.
Also, it's very amusing that she only disregards science that challenges her world view.
Hypocrisy and denialism?
I think so.

If I could be arsed, I'd remake this with a great dane and a chihuahua

...

>feels > reals
This is what the Slate article was talking about. People like you using pseudo-science to justify your worldview.

coincidence

A bigger problem is that as you get further from hard science, you lose fundamental laws and principals that help you judge the validity of your experiments.

If a physicist does an experiment that appears to create energy, he can check his results with a fundamental law that tells him that shouldn't be happening, and he should scrutinize his experimental design for flaws.

If a psychologist does an experiment, there's no such way of validating the results. They just say "my stats look good" and publish. Add into this the fact that academic publishing strongly incentivizes publishing publishing conclusions that are novel, or have that "woah" factor, and you get a deluge of publications about crazy psychological phenomenons and human behavior that make great popsci articles, but usually can't be reproduced.

There's a massive crisis of reproducibility in the social sciences, and a big part of it is the only tools they have for evaluating their experiments are statistics.

Also add into this the problem of scientism, people who treat the concept of "science" as a religion above criticism and you get a pretty big cultural problem. I can't be assed to read this slate article, but the notion that we should not treat the concept of science, or things produced "scientifically" as inherently true is valid.

Even though she's using the antithesis to justify her world view of supposed "equality"; when that verifiably isn't the case, men for instance (on average) are stronger than women.
Fact.
That is a form of superiority, superiority in physical prowess.
Either extreme, blindly accepting science and blindly denying certain fields of science are not satisfactory a centrist view point with heathy cynicism of both is far more fitting.

>She says she wanted to study physics because she thought physics would better human lives but then she saw that science advances too slowly so if you want to have an impact against inequality just going into science won't do much.

But writing shitty click bait articles on Slate are REALLY helping out the world

|Fighting the good fight am I right user

There was a thread with this picture as the starter like a week ago, where OP got BTFO. There's a lot of shilling going on.

Also, OP's picture is right in its headline- any scientist would agree that science is a tool meant to find the most likely explanations to phenomena via rigorous testing of internal consistency and explanatory power. It's incredibly dangerous for people to think science = truth, because you get two phenomena that hinder scientific work;

1) People will believe that just because a theory doesn't pan out, all of science must be wrong
and
2) Pseuds can commandeer science, using the legitimacy of """"research"""" to peddle products to the masses under the guise of "scientifically proven" health benefits.

We had a thread just yesterday where it was demonstrated multiple times by anons that the research indicates there's more genetic variation within a population of humans than between populations- there's no scientific way to determine race. In most cases, the birds on the left would be sampled based on population, and then some clearly defined algorithm would set the boundary for 'subspiecies' based on the total number of ways their genome differs. It just so happens there can be few total # of genetic differences but a high observable change, that we as humans are biased towards considering greater. You can tweak only a few nucleotides and get a completely different-looking species, however it would be so genetically similar it's classified as the same species.

him?

The fuck is she on about?

>Racial taxonomies conveniently confirmed that enslaving African people was a perfectly reasonable behavior since, as Thomas Jefferson put it, black people were “inferior to the whites in the endowments of body and mind.” Of course, this apparent inferiority never stopped Jefferson from repeatedly raping his wife’s half-sister, Sally Hemings, herself a product of rape. Jefferson is remembered as a great thinker, but when one reads his writing about race, it becomes immediately evident that rather than being much of a scientist, he was a biased white supremacist who hid behind science as a shield.

Are you saying the black boy is a woman?

She's conflating humanities with the scientific method, of course the result seems illogical.

You go comrade. We are all equal and born as blank slates. Science can never determines race from genetics let alone skeletal remains.

Is it not? It looks like one.

> but then she saw that science advances too slowly so if you want to have an impact against inequality just going into science won't do much.
> I think she is completely right about the first point
I think this is bait, but I'll bite. Scientific advancement is what brought humanity from the miserable state of tribalism and feudalism to today's meritocracy and socialism. Hard science boosted output of agriculture, tools and everything else to the level, when there is almost enough for everyone and the opportunities are ample. You don't have to be born in some special family to become rich. You can become reach by luck and hard work, and if you are rich you can loose your money quite easily.

Does the science develop society slow? Yes, but this is it's nature. Developing, optimizing and putting things into industrial production takes a lot of time, especially if no one has ever done this before.

So, hard science does help us to progress forward towards the future where there is enough resources for everyone. What DOESNT help though is people not going to hard sciences for some bullshit ideological reasons and people shitting on science for those reasons. So, if she wants to return to times where women belong in the garden or the kitchen and men make all decisions, she continue do what she is doing. By thwarting science she will either succeed and initiate a period of stagnation and decline OR cause a reactionary backlash which will lead to the same thing.

Get this through your head, he is a rapist. He is biased due to his rapes and his sciences is rapey. STFU

Correct, race is not a scientific concept, and can't be scientifically classified, so it can never be determined by science.

I suppose I made a mistake. I thought it looked like a young (~16yo) boy. Could be a woman too.

Exactly comrade, animals aren't related in a population group. Lysenko was right all along. Fight comrade, we are going to bring in a new era of correct science.

It's not like a forensic pathologist can tell gender and race simply from skeletal remains... oh wait... they can!

...

That confused me a bit, my man. Animals are related in a population group- nobody would argue that because there's some genetic variation within a population that they aren't the same fundamental classification (unless it's beyond a certain degree phenotypically or genotypically, at which point it's a 'mutant').

It's just that BECAUSE that small variation is even greater than the variation between populations (like between Europeans and Africans) that any argument that race is a quantifiable scientific denomination falls apart.

That's true, actually. You can tell gender through typical traits of females, but they can tell race only phenotypically- if it's morphologically dissimilar to humans of today, then it's classified separately, so there are a whole load of problems with the field of archaic biology.

The classic example used for that kind of biology is to look at two breeds of dog, like a chihuahua and a husky- looking at the skeletal remains you would have no idea they were similar enough to breed with each other, but genetically they are incredibly similar.

That doesn't disprove biological race.

That doesn't, but the data sets used in these show fairly clearly that there's no way to biologically determine race among current human populations.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4750478/

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3498066/

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3173859/

science.sciencemag.org/content/298/5597/1337

nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html

Let us give these heathen half scientist evolutionary psychologists their due room and leave them be to fulfill their social potato function. That is, being the PR firm. But we shall hear of them no more unless they do our bidding. Unless they have something serious to say that isn't motivated by the weaving knitting instinct of slowly accumulating low quality writing.

well shit. I dont usually do this, but you're actually right about this one

Listen to what you just said. It makes no fucking sense, but your head is so far up into your ideological rectum that you can't see it. Going by your irrationality, I should be genetically closer to a chimp than to an african.

Ancestry and genetic makeup are part of the traits that make up a race. In sociology you define a race as a polythetic function of one's ancestry, culture and socio-linguistic evolution. In modern times race has become a plain function and doesn't really resemble the concept of ancestry as it is supposed to do. Genetic make up of populations such as Whites, Blacks and Asians (Caucasiods, Negroids and Mongoloids) have greater variance among their population than in between (Witherspoon et al 2007, 2009). Their ancestry and genetic make up can help us map out where they are from,and a baseline of functionalities that predict life outcomes such as IQ, cognitive abilities, social aptitude, physical fitness etc, but that is more of a cultural epiphenomenon than a purely genetic one. (Turkheimer et al 2001 "Three laws of Behavioural genetics")

So it isn't as simple as a brainlet like yourself would like it to be. So keep calm and read up on your anthropology and keep off of pol. They have decent resources on anthropology but very poor nuance when it comes to observations and starying from conclusions given in an academic paper.

Also thanks for the much needed sources user

>Varation extraneous from phenotype disproves biological race.
Wat?

>Going by your irrationality, I should be genetically closer to a chimp than to an african.
idgi

>Make good argument, one that I agree with.
>Then strawman me.
What is your problem?
I agree with your statement, but that still means race is genetic, not that it overly matters.
I think you're the one lacking nuance, nuance in read comprehension you pretentious prick.

If I have more similarities with someone that has more distant common ancestrals, than I have with someone that has closer, you can just open the scope to a interracial analysis, and have this absurd conclusion.
If I build a laser to measure the distance of the moon and conclude it is only 3km away from the ground, that does not prove anything, but that my equipment is flawed.

That's not the argument.

This.
His argument relies solely on the conclusion being incorrect, but it doesn't prove that assumption.
Made me giggle, blud.

>the difference between humans of the same group is bigger than the difference between groups

That's what you're saying. But you can't realize that the difference between a pole and a Indian is much bigger than the difference between two poles. Eat a bowl of shit.
You are quantifying the gene differences without establishing weights for each one of them. That's where you fuck up.

And your evidence is what? Anecdotal evidence of people possessing phenotypic traits you cherry picked as relevant? Scientists have done actual genetic studies on the matter and concluded there's no scientific backing to race.

This fucking retarded shit starts with the strawman that the Google memo said that women are inferior to men, when what is actually said was that women are just as competent as men, they just don't like tech fields. She then argues that since bullshit science was used in the past to prove things like "black people are inferior", any and all science today that shows differences between the two genders must also be bullshit, because gender equality is an unquestionable, self-evident truth. She also drops gems like
>And far too many universally call technology progress while failing to acknowledge that it has left us in a dangerously warmed climate.
I liked leftists more back when they were cancerous pseudo-intellectual I fucking love science redditor atheists, and not literal fucking luddites.

>that's where you fuck up

So your entire argument rests on it being a fuckup to choose the only objective, non-arbitrary quantifying value- total genetic differentiation, and base my analytic comparison on it?

That instead, we should arbitrarily weight nucleotide differences based on phenotypic differences where we argue in some counsel over what constitutes a heavier difference than another?

Dude I thought you were trolling but you might just be retarded, holy hell

Yeah sure, getting a thousand people of multiracial background makes a really conclusive study, I mean, fuck cladistics, amirite? Who needs logic in the current year. Maybe you Mr. Pigeon, can proclaim in a future thread of how you demonstrated that the earth was flat too.

My problem is that you're subhuman tier meme that has no idea what he's talking about.

Here. Read.

science.sciencemag.org/content/298/5602/2381

nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html

sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982205002095

science.sciencemag.org/content/351/6273/564.full

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24032721

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14655871

nature.com/nature/journal/v523/n7561/abs/nature14618.html?foxtrotcallback=true

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3514343/

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC403703/

genetics.org/content/176/1/351.full

Sure, the few genes that made the omnivore panda become a vegetarian blob is just as important as the one that the ones that make its tail small.

Kek, Nicely done

For the purpose of any scientific analysis of this type, that's correct. If there were two populations of pandas, one with and without the trait that were otherwise identical genetically, they would be classified as the same species, with a different mutation distinct between populations.

You are literally using baby tier logic. Just because it looks different doesn't mean it's fundamentally very different. I understand it takes a higher degree of intelligence to grasp concepts like genetics and mechanistic biology, but I ask you think a little harder on this one.

Race isn't an issue of science, but rather evolution of behaviorism, ideas, and culture. It's not an issue that can be incorporated by the rigours of science that seek to remove arbitration in lieu of reaching as objective an approach as possible, while what you suggest is the opposite.

You're looking for validation where you can't receive. Go ask a sociologist or a cultural anthropologist and get the fuck outta here bruv

Agreed on the part that its more of a social construct than biological.

And that genetic differentiation in populations has gone crazy but not enough to cause a split in our definition of species (See Ernst Mayr's definition. And even that has its own issues.)

A good approach would be pic related.

>If a psychologist does an experiment, there's no such way of validating the results.
That isn't entirely true. Depending on the paradigm of psychology, a psychologist can record the rate of behavior of an organism before the treatment and then compare it to how that rate changes after the treatment is implemented. To test whether or not the treatment actually caused the change, the psychologist can simply remove the treatment and later re-implement it to see if the behavior goes back to baseline levels and then back to post-treatment levels respectively.

Of course, this doesn't apply to any paradigm of psychology that relies on inferential statistics (which a lot do).

You the guy in that other thread who made that? Top shit man.

T.biofag from that thread

>Scientific advancement is what brought humanity from the miserable state of tribalism and feudalism to today's meritocracy and socialism
You just don't understand, she wants it NOW!

>guys they're two different species because the one on the left shaved her head and is wearing a headband
>these are biological differences!!!!11111one

What... so you're saying your own argument is bullshit, if I apparently don't know what I'm going on about.
Well done, dickhead.

Find it absolutely hilarious how evolution denial has gone from being a right wing position to a left wing position in the span of less than 10 years

>social construct than biological.
Social constructs are biological.

Forget about race, being Human is a social construct. Hard niggers from South Africa fail this.

Soviets jailed their geneticists, in the gulag, because they believed in science.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism
>Joseph Stalin supported the campaign. More than 3,000 mainstream biologists were sent to prison, fired,[3] and numerous scientists were executed as part of a campaign instigated by Lysenko to suppress his scientific opponents.[4][5][6][7] The president of the Agriculture Academy, Nikolai Vavilov, was sent to prison and died there, while scientific research in the field of genetics was effectively destroyed until the death of Stalin in 1953.[2] Research and teaching in the fields of neurophysiology, cell biology, and many other biological disciplines was also negatively affected or banned.

She don't care about "helping" the world; she just want to feel like she matter.

is she cute at all, tho?

>The fuck is "Evolutionary Psychology"?
Studies how Evolution, History & Genes shape our minds, intelligence & identity.
Similar to the book "Guns, Germs & Steel"
Hated by Leftists because it shows how the minds of different races & the (only) 2 Genders are shaped by genes, evolution & history.

>Agriculture Academy, Nikolai Vavilov
>Stalin scientific don't need teach you how grow food
> famine
> communist begins retarder again

Each time some lefty speak about Evolutionary Psychology, complains comes from don't believe evolution inside question if begin valid relation psychology and evolution,irony.

IQ Psychometrics & Evolutionary Psychology replicate.
While all other areas of Psychology don't replicate.

Stalin
>kill farmers
>kill geneticists
>famine
>millions dead

Mao
>kill birds
>pests everywhere
>famine
>millions dead

Leftists don't want to employ science; they got it all figured out already.

>IQ Psychometrics & Evolutionary Psychology replicate.
>While all other areas of Psychology don't replicate.
Ironically Leftists think the opposite.

>science is a leftist conspiracy
Just say it's the Jews already.

Decolonize Science!
youtube.com/watch?v=C9SiRNibD14

Judge by yourself.

I think the implication of those posts is that it's leftists who think biology is a right wing conspiracy

But biology proved racialism to be wrong.

If her nose was 3 times smaller she would have been cute

No.

youtube.com/watch?v=KC1RMsMAaM8

HEYYYYYYYYY SCIENCEEEEEEEEEEEE

do these leftist propaganda outlets even have any self-awareness

they're all written in this (english is my second language i'm not sure what to call it) faggy/bitchy tone lmao

also
>weinstein
you can't make this stuff up

self-righteous? smug?

I don't think she knows what science is.

No it didn't.

>Decolonize

The Jew fears the science.

This is too woke!

moar: haaretz.com/only-40-of-ultra-orthodox-high-schools-in-israel-teach-english-and-math-1.401471

Empire of Dust. It's kino newfriend.

I've heard of it before, never watched it.
Seems like I should.
Thank you for the motivation.

Science is a red pill, that's why it's racist and antisemitic.

Evolutionary Psychology is mostly speculation that is hard to falsify, it deserves much of the criticism it gets

this would be really good satire