Live data from Hacker News

Online activists are silencing us, scientists say

reuters.com

131–140 of 421 posts

Re: Online activists are silencing us, scientists say

#131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See anyone who has touched "differences of iq between races".

What, genetically, is a race?

Whether you are white or black or have epicanthic fold or stuff like that is 100% encoded in your genes.

Someone saying "in terms of IQ, asians > whites > blacks", which is easily provable, will get in big trouble.

Re: Online activists are silencing us, scientists say

#132
post #75
post #5

This is sad. Unfortunately we have some people who put their beliefs and politics above science and will actively act against investigation only because a line of inquiry could result in evidence against their view. It comes from both the left and right depending on the topic. It’s not simply dissent it also is about pressuring institutions to not fund certain areas of investigation which is a very detrimental conseq…

You are blindly falling into a trap, just like this whole article. The article is using the so-called "online activists" to dismiss political opinion (not some , really the abstract idea of having social ideals) and once again depict science as an intrinsically unbiased source of knowledge (which is usually even extend to unbiased source of social order, cf the recurring mathematical "justification" of the liberal ec…

>So please stop mistaking social-media activism for normal activism and using this to simplistically and superficially discredit non-dominant political opinions (and push dominant propaganda forward like "left and right all extremes are same"

We should care who is dominant or who wants to be “right”. We should care to cultivate scientific consensus. Misinformed or incomplete science bound by some legal principles cannot be worse than “we feel this is the right and moral thing to do”. They can both be right or wrong and I don’t see why we’d have a preference for the one having less data to back it up. Again, all bound by some legal principles (data says sick people cost too much, herd them like cattle and drive down costs).

Re: Online activists are silencing us, scientists say

#133
post #98
post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are blindly falling into a trap, just like this whole article. The article is using the so-called "online activists" to dismiss political opinion (not some , really the abstract idea of having social ideals) and once again depict science as an intrinsically unbiased source of knowledge (which is usually even extend to unbiased source of social order, cf the recurring mathematical "justification" of the liberal ec…

I didn't read it like that at all. The article was very specifically about online toxicity, not activism. And you responded loudly and angrily online, through the lens of your own biases. See how it works?

Sure about my tone, maybe it wasn't the best to convey my analysis, but that's how i have fun during my lunch break, and i prefer high variance comments. Joke aside, sure it was specifically about online toxicity, but it didn't mention anything about why this kind of harassment keeps happening more and more on specifically these online media. Also they put the focus on the confrontation between two sets of people, the scientists on one side and the religiously activists on the other. Honestly this is a reuters report, it's a serious newspaper so the reason of this omission (of something well known) isn't just "they forgot", there is meaning to it. They might not have done it consciously or anything, but the fact is that their behavior is exactly the same as the dominant behavior in face of fake news: confront the people that wrote it, not the people that designed (and get money off of) the tools that shaped/spread it. I argue this is a face of the dominant thought which must be recognized for it's non-rationality and bias towards control structures.

Re: Online activists are silencing us, scientists say

#134
I hope we find more individuals and companies that just opt out if the entire Twittersphere.

Everyone does not deserve an equal voice on all topics and tempting yourself to read such unchecked commentary is only personally counterproductive.

Keep a few trusted advisors close, toss the rest of the social justice couch warriors to the side.

Re: Online activists are silencing us, scientists say

#135
post #108
post #81

> There is no biomarker or blood test to establish diagnosis ... So arguably there is no "CFS/ME". Arguably, there are many conditions that can be diagnosed as "CFS/ME". And so it's not surprising that some patients benefit from talk therapy. And that other patients won't, and will be insulted by the very idea. About being "silenced" by online activists, that's just the Internet working as expected. Or at least, expe…

That's not how science works. CFS/ME is a diagnosis based on real, observable behavior. The lack of a scientific explanation for the cause doesn't mean there isn't a cause, and it certainly doesn't mean the condition is not real. It means the cause has not yet been isolated by repeatable experiment. (And yes, it's possible that there are multiple conditions all diagnosed together as CFS/ME, and that some of them are…

I didn't say that some don't have a physical cause.

> CFS/ME is a diagnosis based on real, observable behavior.

That's not a meaningful diagnosis. It basically comes down to something like "people who report this set of symptoms, and who don't test positive for anything we know about". Medicine is full of this stuff. They used to just put it in Latin. Because then it sounded like they knew what it was.

Doing reliable science with human subjects is hard. And when you don't actually have a reliable test for something, it's impossible.

I'm not saying that any of these diseases diagnosed as CFS/ME aren't real. I'm just arguing that it's hard to assess treatments when you have such a poorly defined diagnosis.

Re: Online activists are silencing us, scientists say

#136
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the pain is real, it's just caused by processes in your brain, I don't find this particular statement very revolutionary. We have known for a long time that physical pain is manufactured by the brain as an evolutionary tactic to help us prevent further harm to ourselves. If we didn't "feel pain" when we were on fire, we would burn to death.

I completely agree with you, but our society has such a stigma around mental illness that if you tell someone their back pain is caused by repressed emotions, you get what happens in the article.

Well, repressed emotions is a term that doesn't have any clear physiological meaning and I think that might be the problem. I see a lot of success around the acceptance of the term "stress" which has clear physiological as well as psychological meanings, both for professionals and lay people. Maybe we need more terminology like this.

Re: Online activists are silencing us, scientists say

#137
post #95

Over the next 20 or so years, expect a lot of syndromes/conditions to be reclassified, as Michael Sharpe puts in the article, as "biological condition[s] that can be perpetuated by social and psychological factors.". I struggled with RSI for a couple of years until I read John Sarno's "The Mind-Body Connection" on the recommendation of someone from HN. Sarno's thesis is that many chronic pain conditions (those withou…

> those without a clear physical mechanism, such as RSI or chronic back pain But RSI has a clear physical mechanism. I don't know as much about chronic back pain, but considering how much physical stuff there is in our back, I'd assume it's similar. Or does "physical mechanism" mean something other than it seems to mean?

John Sarno's theory is that such pain is indeed caused by physical mechanisms ... which are triggered by psychological mechanisms. Such things are common, like a blush to the cheeks, hair on your arm raised by fright, erections and other sexual responses, etc.

He was also clear that this is not always the case, and that direct physical causes should be looked for by a specialist before pursuing psychological remedies.

Re: Online activists are silencing us, scientists say

#138
post #122

I'm not seeing anybody else suggest what seems to me to be the obvious solution: opt out of twitter (which seems like a self-abuse platform) and filter your email. Part of why communication works is because we can't hear everybody's opinion on everything. People earn the right to our ear through networking and earning our company. Twitter undoing this is not progress.

When people call your place of business and complain to your boss about your methods and mental state, when they lobby the government to open investigations into your research under the accusation of child abuse, and when they use every available method to discredit your life's work, I don't think that simply opting-out of Twitter is likely to make a meaningful difference unfortunately.

What are they going to call and complain about if you don't have a social media account for them to dig through?

Re: Online activists are silencing us, scientists say

#139
post #122

I'm not seeing anybody else suggest what seems to me to be the obvious solution: opt out of twitter (which seems like a self-abuse platform) and filter your email. Part of why communication works is because we can't hear everybody's opinion on everything. People earn the right to our ear through networking and earning our company. Twitter undoing this is not progress.

When people call your place of business and complain to your boss about your methods and mental state, when they lobby the government to open investigations into your research under the accusation of child abuse, and when they use every available method to discredit your life's work, I don't think that simply opting-out of Twitter is likely to make a meaningful difference unfortunately.

Seems like scientists at that point have little choice but to bring legal action against those activists for slander. Unfortunately, and apropos of your point, most scientists likely won't be that aggressive in their action and I think the activists know it.

Re: Online activists are silencing us, scientists say

#140
post #110

Over the next 20 or so years, expect a lot of syndromes/conditions to be reclassified, as Michael Sharpe puts in the article, as "biological condition[s] that can be perpetuated by social and psychological factors.". I struggled with RSI for a couple of years until I read John Sarno's "The Mind-Body Connection" on the recommendation of someone from HN. Sarno's thesis is that many chronic pain conditions (those withou…

Just so there is a dissenting reply about Sarno's book, I have chronic RSI and his book did not help me at all. I wish it did, I'm pretty over RSI in general, but after going through a variety of different ideas and experiments pretty much "don't use your hands" is all I've got :-(

Sarno’s book concludes with the idea that negative emotions cannot be changed, and I disagree. I _think_ this is due to the psychoanalysis framework he employs for his analysis.

For me, it didn’t help either, but guided me to search how I could change my emotions. A mix of yoga and meditation plus techniques from “Code to Joy” by George Pratt helped me chronic headaches.

Yoga helps you become more aware of your mind-body. Meditations practiced in Kundalini yoga can help you become more deeply aware of your mind, or trigger certain helpful ideas (they usually have a very specific intention). What was left for me was to change negative beliefs that were created throughout my life, and that I accomplished with Code to Joy (and some of their previous work, which is more focused in emotions rather than beliefs).

Post reply on HN