Read on Twitter
Evidence assymetry is a problem in convos about "isms".
This is a well done, but rather normal study about "isms" showing perceptions of bias. The research can certainly be critiqued (probably keying in on "perceptions").
Importantly it is what most social scientists...
(1/9)
This is a well done, but rather normal study about "isms" showing perceptions of bias. The research can certainly be critiqued (probably keying in on "perceptions").
Importantly it is what most social scientists...
(1/9)
...breeze through in their day to day research.
These studies become so common until the question is not *if* these "isms" are there, but when, where, and why they occur.
Critical scholars will push this further and try and develop ways of addressing these isms.
(2/9)
These studies become so common until the question is not *if* these "isms" are there, but when, where, and why they occur.
Critical scholars will push this further and try and develop ways of addressing these isms.
(2/9)
This is why convos about these issues can be so frustrating with two main groups:
(1) conservative/centrist intellectuals, in an amazing feat of willful ignorance, act as if these studies do not exist and cherry pick conservative scholars to cite (e.g. Thomas Sowell).
(3/9)
(1) conservative/centrist intellectuals, in an amazing feat of willful ignorance, act as if these studies do not exist and cherry pick conservative scholars to cite (e.g. Thomas Sowell).
(3/9)
(2) folks use their every experiences combined with cherry picked thinkers (e.g. Coleman Hughes) to conclude these "isms" are overblown.
Both groups cherry pick information - willfully or just because the information aligns with their values.
(4/9)
Both groups cherry pick information - willfully or just because the information aligns with their values.
(4/9)
They then place this evidence on equal terms with the vast amount of peer-reviewed, methodical evidence coming from scholars who have invested years studying these issues.
The standard rebuttal is that social scientists are progressive and therefore biased.
(5/9)
The standard rebuttal is that social scientists are progressive and therefore biased.
(5/9)
My standard reply would be:
"Sure, but they are not lying about these phenomena, and the weight of evidence is too strong to ignore. If you wish to ask different questions about the world, fine. But that does not then mean these isms are not there."
(6/9)
"Sure, but they are not lying about these phenomena, and the weight of evidence is too strong to ignore. If you wish to ask different questions about the world, fine. But that does not then mean these isms are not there."
(6/9)
The next rebuttal would be to take a few cherry-picked scholars, like Thomas Sowell, and challenge the person to rebut their arguments.
In short: "Address the claims, not the person! Is he wrong"?
(7/9)
In short: "Address the claims, not the person! Is he wrong"?
(7/9)
My standard reply would be:
"They could be right about some things, given the complexity of the world. I concede. And so now I challenge you to rebut all the evidence, that is maybe to a power of 10, arguing in the opposite direction. Can you do that?"
(8/9)
"They could be right about some things, given the complexity of the world. I concede. And so now I challenge you to rebut all the evidence, that is maybe to a power of 10, arguing in the opposite direction. Can you do that?"
(8/9)
I think social scientists, myself included, sometimes forget that we are awash in evidence and other people are not.
And so when presented with the cherry-picked scholars, or questions of bias, we get frustrated and revert to the "it's obvious/read" argument.
(9/9)
And so when presented with the cherry-picked scholars, or questions of bias, we get frustrated and revert to the "it's obvious/read" argument.
(9/9)
