Online activists are silencing us, scientists say • Hacker News Board

Re: Online activists are silencing us, scientists say

#401

Post by subsection1h » Thu, Mar 14, 2019, 3:29 AM UTC

onion2k wrote: post #43

mc32 wrote: 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…

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. You say that's people putting beliefs and politics above science, but while that's a rational thing to suggest there are two problems with it. Firstly, a lot of issues don't and can't have any scientific rationale beh…

if you want to go looking for scientific evidence for why the death penalty is a terrible idea you won't find any.

The consensus among criminologists for decades has been that the death penalty is racist in application:

https://www.asc41.com/policies/policyPositions.html

https://www.asc41.com/policies/policypapers.html

if you take a random sample of teams and find the ones that make the best decisions are more diverse

The Forbes article that you cited doesn't include the term "best decisions". The term they use is "better business decisions". Business decisions often relate to optimizing products for the lowest common denominator among consumers in a particular market. In this context, the benefit of having a diverse team is unsurprising.

Do you know of any research of which the results indicate that diverse teams of mathematicians or physicists make better decisions?

Re: Online activists are silencing us, scientists say

#402

Post by hnick » Thu, Mar 14, 2019, 5:01 AM UTC

tome wrote: post #340

reitanqild wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree. This is kind of embarrasing as a grown up, an engineer and a soldier, but the brain can really prank some of us. (Edit: I guess it might be even worse as a doctor or nurse. My point is only that I consider myself a reasonable adult, not too easily scared.) My brain used to have my body act up when I took a certain medication. I was lucky: Once it got a little ahead of itself and my body started acting funny be…

> I was lucky: Once it got a little ahead of itself and my body started acting funny before I'd even taken the medication. This is really interesting! I have a funny reaction to spicy foods: my scalp starts itching. I've notice that the itching can start even before eating when I merely have the spicy food in front of me and I'm anticipating eating it.

I've read anecdotally this applies to drug tolerance too. If an addict uses a drug in an unfamiliar setting their body won't have steeled itself to expect it, and they can overdose more easily. It was definitely a weird idea when I first heard it.

Re: Online activists are silencing us, scientists say

#403

Post by siruncledrew » Thu, Mar 14, 2019, 6:14 AM UTC

drm237 wrote: post #122

alexandercrohde wrote: post #109

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.

Imagine how f-ing annoying any city would be if everyone in the streets had a megaphone. Instead of a conspiracist standing on a box and shouting from a corner, now they can echo through the streets and draw other like-minded conspiracists together into a mob. That's what Twitter (and other social media) has allowed.

There's such little thought put into actions because action is immediate and satisfaction is self-served. A group dedicated to seeking action will always find something to nit-pick over to add fuel to the fire. If the desire is bad enough, emotion will surpass logic, which is like an addiction.

When people favor their actions over thinking, and neglect consequences, they will do things that make no sense or do more harm than good. But I suppose as long as someone gets their way, none of that matters to them.

Re: Online activists are silencing us, scientists say

#404

Post by siruncledrew » Thu, Mar 14, 2019, 6:35 AM UTC

mc32 wrote: 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…

As seen in the responses:

1. People love to nit-pick every single detail and shred of possibility that could be used to support their own beliefs and politics.

2. People who consider themselves to be the "Gold Standard" for whatever will believe themselves first and foremost.

3. People seek 'personal victories' for themselves by choosing to evince that they are right.

4. A reality that contradicts an ideality is unacceptable and dismissible.

5. Dualism can be used to create separatism.

Re: Online activists are silencing us, scientists say

#405

Post by Emma_Goldman » Thu, Mar 14, 2019, 8:21 AM UTC

leftyted wrote: post #384

Emma_Goldman wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'This is exactly my point. Race means different things in different contexts. Colloquially, the word is used as you used it here. But it has other definitions, like the one I posted. All words are like this.' You are being obtuse. There are not 'different' definitions of race. There is an overwhelming homogeneity in the dominant definitions of race, i.e. according to melanin. Race, on these terms, has been a major st…

It's easily to verify that there are different definitions of the word race. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(biology) I don't think this conversation has much hope of continuing in a productive direction so I'm going to call it a day

I am not saying there are not different definitions of race. I am saying that there is an overwhelming homogeneity in the definition of race that has and does structure modern social relations, and that it is simply unhelpful to use race in a highly atypical way to study biological populations. See, for example:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/race-is-a-social-...

Re: Online activists are silencing us, scientists say

#406

Post by logifail » Thu, Mar 14, 2019, 8:24 AM UTC

btilly wrote: post #372

logifail wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are drug candidates that make it all the way to phase 3 trials before they fail. One of the (surprisingly?) common reasons for failure at this stage is turning out to be less effective than placebo https://www.nuventra.com/resources/blog/placebo-response-pha... https://seekingalpha.com/article/256697-why-phase-3-trials-f...

Reading the articles left me with the impression not that they were less effective, but that they couldn't prove efficacy. So they could win, or lose, but it was close. It is also worth noting that one of the reasons why this happens in stage 3 despite having passed through a test in stage 2 that was meant to whittle this out is that improved expectations increase the strength of the placebo effect. Which makes the r…

> not that they were less effective, but that they couldn't prove efficacy

Could you explain the difference?

Re: Online activists are silencing us, scientists say

#407

Post by taneq » Thu, Mar 14, 2019, 9:46 AM UTC

freeflight wrote: post #218

vgoh1 wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I was a child, I would suffer from terrible muscle contractions in my calves. I would get a charlie horse in the middle of the night, and it would not go away completely for over a day. I couldn't put my foot flat to walk properly, and it was very painful. After about a dozen of these attacks, I noticed a pattern - they would occur on the night before something that I was dreading - a test I wasn't prepared for,…

Wow, that's like the exact opposite to my nighty calf cramps. I tend to get them when I'm way too relaxed as that makes me "stretch out" during sleep, which I kinda notice in half-sleep as feeling great, until I seemingly "overstretch" and get fully woken up to a painful calf cramp. Tho that whole problem kinda fixed itself once I started taking Magnesium supplements before going to bed, to help with teeth gnashing/n…

Magnesium is an interesting one, because all sorts of muscle things (cramps, restless leg syndrome etc.) can be caused by, or helped by, both high and low levels of magnesium. It seems to be something that needs to stay within a certain band for muscle control to work properly.

Re: Online activists are silencing us, scientists say

#408

Post by monotone666 » Thu, Mar 14, 2019, 12:52 PM UTC

leftyted wrote: post #64

These activists seem to be promoting an all-or-nothing approach to medicine. But attempting to alleviate symptoms seems like a valid - and common - medical approach. If physical therapy or talk therapy can improve the quality of life of CFS/ME sufferers, isn't that worth knowing?

The problem is that in many chronic fatigue patients they would have to choose between physical/talk therapy and eating or showering for the day. Its a severe disabling condition, not just feeling "tired."

Re: Online activists are silencing us, scientists say

#409

Post by mjpawlowski » Thu, Mar 14, 2019, 1:45 PM UTC

mc32 wrote: 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…

If you're interested in a decent analysis of this phenomenon in modern societies, I can recommend a recent book "The Death of Expertise" by Tom Nichols. The author also explores some ideas for how to counter this trend.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_of_Expertise

Re: Online activists are silencing us, scientists say

#410

Post by btilly » Thu, Mar 14, 2019, 2:40 PM UTC

logifail wrote: post #406

btilly wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reading the articles left me with the impression not that they were less effective, but that they couldn't prove efficacy. So they could win, or lose, but it was close. It is also worth noting that one of the reasons why this happens in stage 3 despite having passed through a test in stage 2 that was meant to whittle this out is that improved expectations increase the strength of the placebo effect. Which makes the r…

> not that they were less effective, but that they couldn't prove efficacy Could you explain the difference?

To prove efficacy, you have to have a statistically significant win.

If you're ahead by a small margin, it isn't evidence that you're less effective. But you did not prove efficacy.