undefined | Better HN

0 pointsfoldr5y ago0 comments

It's not actually taboo at all to discuss variation in psychological traits between genders. There are innumerable academic studies of gender differences in all kinds of domains. No-one, to any significant extent, is stopping these papers from being published, or calling for this kind of research to cease. Similarly, there are endless articles about gender differences in mainstream news publications.

What is controversial is using cherry-picked scientific results to tell just-so stories about why the gender distribution in certain fields is imbalanced.

The study on the facial features of criminals was criticized mainly for its shoddy methodology, not for being unethical (see e.g. https://www.callingbullshit.org/case_studies/case_study_crim...). Of course, people did point out that the research could have unethical applications – which strikes me as an obvious and fairly undeniable point. Your assertion that research of this nature is "forbidden" in the West is trivially refuted by googling: e.g. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/288373839.pdf https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3366989/

0 comments

2 comments · 1 top-level

dvfjsdhgfv5y ago· 1 in thread

There is a sea of difference between the Chinese paper and the other two you mentioned. The Chinese were very straightforward: can we identify facial traits that are more present in criminals? To a certain degree, they answer positively by saying there is a greater variation in facial traits in criminals than in the rest of the population. Of course there was a lot of criticism of their methodology (to which they answered [0]).

The first article you mentioned describes the bias of eyewitnesses related to stereotyped "criminal look". But the researchers are very clear: "Further research is needed to identify the features that are associated with the criminal stereotype and how they affect lineup decision processes. The specific elements associated with criminal face stereotypes have not yet been identified."

The second article deals with our interpretation of certain traits (which, in this case, are listed) and it's careful not to imply these traits are actually related to criminality. On the contrary: "such evaluations could inappropriately influence decision making in criminal identification lineups. Hence, additional research is needed to discover whether and how people can avoid making evaluations regarding criminality from a person’s facial appearance".

[0] https://arxiv.org/abs/1611.04135

foldrOP5y ago

The Chinese paper is almost certainly wrong. A simple explanation for why other people aren't publishing the same claim is that it's both inherently implausible and unsupported by any of the available evidence. You can find plenty of equally kooky and potentially controversial papers published in Western countries. E.g. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/095679761245146... Of course we can play a game where you keep denying that any example I give is exactly parallel to the paper you cited. However, I'm sure that if you do a few Google scholar searches you'll be able to find something that satisfies whatever criteria you have in mind.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse