tnzn

Never heard of it before and I live in Paris lol

Because this has to do with western medicine as a discipline and practice, in which we over-objectivized health care and the doctor/patient relationship is heavily asymetric. This leads to the fact that in most cases, doctors do not really listen to their patients, let alone believe them when they don't manage to find objective cues of a illness.

They easily discard patients' subjective experience. Recent research is calling for a change in that aspect, and change is slowly happening.

It can be re oppened https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/media/2017/...

I'm a supporter of equalty outcomes, versus equality of opportunity, and I don't believe we're "all equal" in the sense you make it look like. This is a strawman. I believe we should distribute ressources depending on each people's needs, and not "merit", for instance. But that's not on the basis of the idea that "we're all equal". Btw in a world in which opportunities are bound to be dependant on ressources and social/cultural capital, reaching an actual equality of opportunity would require everyone to have "equal" social/cutlural/material capital in the begining smh. And if you let people accumulate said capitals, then the next generation... won't have equal opportunity once again.

There is still flaw in the reasoning though. Transitionning implies much more than just a change in hormone balance as you are aware. Plus emotionnal responses to subjective feelings and physiological cues are not free from social influence either.

Well, it is clearly stated that it's a methological error.

Copy url to sci hub, simple as that. Or contact one of the authors.

Anthropologists are careful to call for ethical decisions based on evolutionnary arguments.

If you're saying it in a conversation about wether or not we should allow non-white people to be in a country with low light, yeah. There is no objective, neutral statement.

>The author is almost making it seem like models are reality and that people think that. They're not and I don't think anyone has ever thought they were...

that's where you're wrong. Way too many people, many of them engineers, consider models to represent reality, and that's a real, big problem, because this is deeply linked to how they consider science.

Because you don't recall the digits, you recall yourself learning these digits. While doing so, you experience, you have feelings, although weak.

When a scientific definition is too far away from the common definition, using the word in a headline becomes a problem

Seems like it. I upvoted when I read the begining, because I came to discuss the problem with the lack of critical stance towards criteria and metrics used to define how innovative a country is, so I thought it was about that, then I found out it was more about chauvinism :(

Except that's not what happens.

Well there's r/askscience and r/askhistorians which are similar on that matter.

Cant provide sources because I lost my written notes but Diamond's claims are often based off of cherry picking and iirc there are a lot of canibalistic societies which don't back this claim up. This is a hammer and nail issue. He wanted to push his environmental determinism everywhere and a bit tol far.

But do weather forecast always end with "but this could also be completely random" to avoid being accountable ?

Because stats show otherwise

This isn't the point though. There's not much communism, if at all, in China, at least in the original sense of communism.

It's been like that for like, 3 years, in France

Care to explain why you believe the "authors assumptions of what constitute environmental consciousness and threat to mascuilinity" was wrong ? Because the way they defined it seemed ok to me from what I remember.

No matter the limits of the study, though, comparing an academic study, even one that's biased by the author's ideology and worldviews in general (like any and every scientific study every written, especially those about political issues) with a purely activist action is questionable. The very process behind them are different. Plastic straws ban was just impulsed by some viral videos of turtles with straws stuck in their noses. There's a logical chain of event which makes considering this as "virtue signaling" a fair analysis. It's questionnable to assume academics who linked environmental consciousness with masculinity were actually virtue signaling and looking for some recognition when it could just be that their worldview and past experiences "naturally" lead to such hypotheses and the way they built their study just proved their point due to how they were designed.

Secondly, the way you hierarchize what you consider real issues vs unimportant ones also betrays your own position and is by no means absolute, AND it's not a good argument I believe. 99%¨of what I see on HN is not relevant to actual problems as you define them, for starters. And more than 99% of research activity is disconnected from any of those issues, and making all research focus on such issues wouldn't even help anyway, or so I believe. The academic study you refer to does not by any means claim to be revolutionnary when it comes to solving environmental issues, but it is very plausible that a part of why so many people don't care much about the environment is tied to sociocultural factors.

Yeah but the partisanship, or ideology in general for that matter, can basically be a core reason why people "want to believe" in X. Why would one "want to believe" in Muslim rape gangs other than to confirm previous beliefs on muslims.

"Anybody who's capable of any degree of self reflection can also probably see the exact problem in themselves. "

It has less to do with an ABILITY of self reflection than with a POSTURE to take in context. Look around you, you'll most probably meet many people who are ABLE to think "critically" yet fall for fake news and hoaxes. Also, there's the fact that it's easier to detect false information on questions you are familiar with.

"Politically neutral" what ?

I've had to send dozens of resumes in 2 years but I guess the resume is ded because SV says so yep

>Socialism. It wasn't called socialism in those days, but that is what it was—unlimited government control and taxation of everything and everybody

What ?! Seriously ? Taxes = sociamism ?

Not every employee in amazon is a well off techie.

BBC has most likely never been non partisan though. It's just the stance it used to take was too close to the so-called neutral one, which isn't actually neutral.

No way to disagree about sensationnalism though.

I doubt the world would be a better place. Different languages often go hand in hand with different cultures, trying to unify everything may not be a good idea to make the world better.

It's hard making some people understand that such debates go beyond the scope of science (or that there's anything beyond the score of science for that matter) :/