It feels only sporting to tell you that a lot of people on this site have been trained to have alarm bells go off when reading this sentence.
That doesn’t change the fact that this is the reality. This is why it’s hard to have no conflict between evolutionary psychology folks and academic feminists.
I describe reality and because of their training for alarm bells LessWrong folk doesn’t like my post. Evolutionary psychologists describe reality and because of their training for alarm bells feminists don’t like it.
There no substantial difference. Few people care about understanding reality for it’s own sake.
I don’t see LessWrong as a sport that’s about maximizing karma.
That’s not what I mean. I am talking specifically about the statement:
A person that’s well trained in deconstructivsm can find gender bias in a lot of gender related writing by scientists.
If I were feeling less sporting, I would make a jibe about how well-trained in deconstructivism (deconstructionism?) a person would have to be to find gender bias in the list of ingredients on a box of cereal. Literary textual analysis is not seen as a particularly credible method for deducing facts around here.
The wording of the statement is also worrying, in that it’s reminiscent of confirmation bias and Type I errors.
I am not making any kind of comment on any gender-politics issue in my response to you. I am simply informing you that the argument you have chosen to use in this case is an extremely poor match for the audience.
Literary textual analysis is not seen as a particularly credible method for deducing facts around here.
My argument doesn’t rest on the claim that literary textual analysis is a credible method for deducing facts.
It rests of the claim that feminists use literary textual analysis as a method for deducing facts.
It rests on the claim that the fact that feminists find their facts that way is one of the main reasons for the conflict between feminists and evolutionary psychology.
Your problem is that you can’t distinguish a descriptive statement about the truth that some people use literary textual analysis to find facts from a value judgement about whether it’s good that they do.
It feels only sporting to tell you that a lot of people on this site have been trained to have alarm bells go off when reading this sentence.
That doesn’t change the fact that this is the reality. This is why it’s hard to have no conflict between evolutionary psychology folks and academic feminists.
I describe reality and because of their training for alarm bells LessWrong folk doesn’t like my post. Evolutionary psychologists describe reality and because of their training for alarm bells feminists don’t like it.
There no substantial difference. Few people care about understanding reality for it’s own sake. I don’t see LessWrong as a sport that’s about maximizing karma.
That’s not what I mean. I am talking specifically about the statement:
If I were feeling less sporting, I would make a jibe about how well-trained in deconstructivism (deconstructionism?) a person would have to be to find gender bias in the list of ingredients on a box of cereal. Literary textual analysis is not seen as a particularly credible method for deducing facts around here.
The wording of the statement is also worrying, in that it’s reminiscent of confirmation bias and Type I errors.
I am not making any kind of comment on any gender-politics issue in my response to you. I am simply informing you that the argument you have chosen to use in this case is an extremely poor match for the audience.
My argument doesn’t rest on the claim that literary textual analysis is a credible method for deducing facts. It rests of the claim that feminists use literary textual analysis as a method for deducing facts.
It rests on the claim that the fact that feminists find their facts that way is one of the main reasons for the conflict between feminists and evolutionary psychology.
Your problem is that you can’t distinguish a descriptive statement about the truth that some people use literary textual analysis to find facts from a value judgement about whether it’s good that they do.