undefined | Better HN

0 pointsmaxnoe7y ago0 comments

The thing is, reality is under no obligation to care about your feelings.

I don't like the idea men live shorter than woman, but that's reality.

Reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.

And nobody here said that women are less capable than men. The hypothesis was, that the distribution for some traits for men has more kurtosis, so while the mean is similar, there are more outliers, and to be clear, in both directions!

0 comments

marchenko7y ago

I'm agnostic about the GMV hypothesis, but I will note that is generally taken very seriously in behavioral genetics. Interestingly, the example of the significant female advantage in life expectancy is a relatively recent phenomenon thought to be significantly influenced at present (at the population level) to differences in smoking rates. Pregnancy and childbirth morbidity and mortality used to neutralize the difference or even tip the scales in favor of men in some places in the past. Nature might not be fooled, but we can be fooled about nature, especially when complex behavior is involved.

charmides7y ago

The difference in life expectancy between men and women appears to be significant across every human culture. The effect appears to be biological and not cultural.

geofft7y ago

Reality is under no obligation to care about your feelings, yes. But that does not imply:

1. that humans are not obligated to care about each other's feelings, either. If you are pursuing a course of research that is purely hurtful and has no perceived positive impact, nobody is making you pursue it. (I don't think this paper is in this category, to be clear.)

2. that an idea is more likely to be true simply because it hurts people's feelings. The hypothesis of this paper is simply a hypothesis. It's got some evidence, but it's subject as all ideas are to future argument. "What if it's true, let's not flinch away" is a fine sentiment; "It's true, deal with it" is not.

haihaibye7y ago

>> 2. that an idea is more likely to be true simply because it hurts people's feelings.

I suspect, given two hypotheses- one that is politically correct and one that isn't- the politically incorrect one will be held to a much higher standard of evidence required due to confirmation bias and people acting as described in the article.

If you look at psychology, the politically incorrect results (IQ) have much better evidence despite being constantly attacked. Compare that to say, priming and sterotype threat - which everyone wanted to believe in.

tomp7y ago

Nobody is claiming (2). IMO (1) is plain wrong, I believe there is positive utility in pursuit and subsequent discovery of the truth, even if such truth is "purely hurtful" - it still allows us to structure our society and plan our future better (i.e. readjust our goals so that they are realistic (not impossible / in conflict with reality) and figure out better ways to achieve them), taking strictly more (and better) information into account.

darkerside7y ago

Does the pursuit of truth, with no tangible outcomes, count as a perceived positive impact? (I'd argue it does)

sremani7y ago

We are talking about a research paper, a paper that can be scientifically refuted. The only reason much of abuse of power and non-scientific angles of attack are because there are no strong scientific refutations.

This is not about my feeling vs your feelings, it is about your tribe vs my tribe. Simple! The whole article is about the opposing faction was obsessed about Alt-Right or Conservatives using this paper as a basis of their arguments.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse