I am saying that reflexively ignoring or discounting an opinion because it came from a source that you don’t believe in may cause people to discount the actual opinion itself.
Don’t like the mouth the words came from? Fine, but does that mean that the opinion itself is garbage? I dunno, if the issue is something that I’m interested in then I’d rather do my own research on the manner by looking into it instead of taking what a mouth said as truth or untruth.
And in the case of campus sexual assault and the way it’s currently handled, I see enough to be alarmed.
Edit- In shorter words- Where did Betty DeVos get her opinion? That’s what I’m more interested in.
It means the opinion should be greeted with skepticism, and should not be accepted absent corroboration from more qualified mouths.
That seems reasonable. But if you expect me to believe you consider all opinions, regardless of source, to be equally valid prior to your research, well…Let’s just say I’m very, very skeptical.
ALL opinions (unless there is a bunch of substantiating information that comes along with them in whatever article/mouth you’re getting it from the get-go) should be greeted with skepticism and SHOULDN’T be accepted absent corroboration from more qualified mouths.
I don’t treat any opinion as valid. I treat them as mere opinion and thus as invalid as mine own until I find either-
-many other same/similar opinions from people who I know to be much more learned than I
-actual literature/research that substantiates them.
Where the hell did you get the idea that I’m saying that I think all opinions are initially valid? It’s the opposite- I think all opinions are initially invalid.
Oh, I disagree completely, and dare say you do too. We (people) accept all sorts of info purely on the basis of expert opinion, without doing a shred of personal investigation. I dare say 99.99% of our semantic memory is of this sort. The world would grind to a halt if we had to independently verify everything we accept as known.
This assumes that this is actually coming from her. I seriously doubt that any of this was her idea.
With that said, rape and sexual assault should be issues for the police to deal with, not the school’s admin. If a student is convicted then the school’s admin can take action otherwise they should stay out of legal matters, as well as the private lives of students.
I was saying that out that many people would either disagree with it out of reflex or view it with great skepticism simply because it came out of Betty DeVos’s mouth instead of someone else.
[quote=“EyeDentist, post:190, topic:222217, full:true”]
Perhaps I should just accept your stated opinions as true. Is that what you’d do?[/quote]
What did I write to earn this kind of hostility? Is it because I wrote that I doubt that you read people’s posts?
I’ve seen people in my family (me included) be given the wrong prescription by doctors/pharmacists on several occasions. I’ve seen the doctor accidentally type the wrong medicine into the computer and then catch it afterwards, and I’ve seen harried pharmacists give the wrong medicine outright.
At the very least, I make sure I know what the medicine I’m being given is supposed to do instead of taking it on blind faith.
You yourself wrote in some other thread that someone you were teaching/mentoring made a simple math error when it came to prescribing dosage on some medicine.
On matters that I don’t really care all that much about, I will take an expert’s opinion on things. On matters that I do care about, I will second guess everyone afterwards.
Even if I don’t apply this correctly in my lifestyle 24/7, I it something that I try to adhere to. I’m not sure why a personal opinion/lifestyle choice of mine is something for you to have such an opinion on.
Well, that was a hostile thing to write. But no, what I wrote wasn’t intended to be hostile in return. (I was amused, not offended.) I was simply pointing out the irony that, as someone who declares they consider all opinions invalid until proven otherwise, you reacted very defensively when someone treated your opinion in similar fashion.
Wasn’t my intention for this to feel so personal for you. My argument about the acceptance of opinion concerned people in general, not you in particular (except insofar as you qualify as an element in the set ‘people in general’).
I have no interest in generating ill-will between us. Happy to drop the entire thing if you’d like.
That’s not exactly what you are thinking. If you think an opinion is invalid then why bother trying to validate it? You actually think an opinion may be valid, not invalid, but require further evidence.
Just because I think an opinion is invalid doesn’t mean that it’s actually invalid right? So, if it’s something I’m interested in, then I try to find other opinions that may change my mind.
I may have phrased it incorrectly. I mean that I try not to give any opinion any credence until I either find supporting evidence or learn that it is supported by people who are more learned than I.
[quote="EyeDentist]
That seems reasonable. But if you expect me to believe you consider all opinions, regardless of source, to be equally valid prior to your research, well…Let’s just say I’m very, very skeptical.[/quote]
[quote="EyeDentist]
Must suck to be your doctor.[/quote]
Given these, it was clear to me from the onset that you were talking about my personal beliefs regarding how I deal with opinions, and not the general public at large.
I don’t mind discussing my personal beliefs/opinions, and I fully admit that what I’m writing here is likely a bunch of hot air. Plenty of people claim they believe in something but utterly fail at actually doing that and I’m no exception.
But you made this personal from the the very start. Please don’t go trying to backtrack out of it. If you have an issue with my personal opinions, then stick to it.
When YOU made your opinion the topic of conversation, I had no choice but to respond about it. That’s not ‘getting personal’ so much as it is ‘staying on topic.’ And I stand by my skepticism that you treat ALL opinions as equally (in)valid–no human does this, I’d wager. As for the ‘doctor’ comment, it was simply an easy counterexample of a situation where you obviously DON’T treat all opinions equally–because if you did, why on earth would you go to a doctor (literally, a professional opinion-giver) in the first place?
That’s surprising to hear, because it sure seems like you do.
I’m not backtracking. My issue has not been with your opinion so much as it has been with your attitude towards opinions.
Look, if you have a specific question regarding something topical I’ve posted, feel free to ask–I can see how some of it might be misconstrued or misunderstood, and may have started us on this bizarre derail. But outside of how they relate to the topic at hand, I truly do not give a rat’s ass about your personal opinions, and thus have no interest in discussing them further.
And this is very powerful. I’m going to be optimistic.
Agree. With regards to protecting the young men who were being accused, the thing had already developed HUGE cracks long before Trump and Devos inherited it.
This is likely to hold more sway for people on the left.
In 2014, the ACLU issued a statement to Tom Harkin, Chair of the Health, Education, and Pensions Committee in the US senate. Here’s part that addresses the lack of due process.
Need for Greater Guidance on the Due Process Rights of the Accused
“OCR has made great progress in providing guidance to schools on the rights of students who report experiencing sexual harassment and sexual violence. In guaranteeing those rights, OCR should also give clear guidance on the due process rights and other rights of the accused. OCR acknowledged the rights of the accused in its 2001 Guidance by referring to confidentiality concerns of the accused, due process rights of the accused, and First Amendment issues when “speech or expression are involved.” Additional guidance issued by OCR has briefly mentioned the rights of the accused as well. However, OCR guidance does not describe such rights with the level of detail that would inform students and institutions about the rights to which the accused is entitled.Guidance from OCR regarding guaranteeing the accused’s rights, in a manner that preserves the protections afforded to the complainant, would ensure that all parties involved have access to justice.”
These progressives have come down on the wrong side of the ACLU on free speech issues recently, too. I wish the ACLU would do and say more because at least people on the left don’t assume the ACLU is a right wing PAC! Haha.
It’s terrifying to me, too.
Stories like the one in the first article, about the young Black man studying Chemical Engineering at UMass (Bonsu). That kind of thing is very compelling and sympathetic. You’d think that any reasonable person would not want to be responsible for ruining that young man’s life. In her own words (the accuser), that was consensual. Her own testimony should have dismissed it. Just terrible.
In terms of political party, we’ve entered a weird world. I’m not sure any of these labels mean anything these days.
This stuff does make me want to watch To Kill A Mockingbird with my kids this Christmas. Related to these issues. Fairness. Justice. Innocent until proven guilty. Atticus Finch is such a great hero.
Pat, I was going to try to respond to this and I thought of this lecture by Jonathan Haidt.
He hits on a couple of interesting things about science in the last 10 minutes. About minute marker 49 to the end. Including a brief part about the APA at about minute marker 51:50.
@ Psychology and the Social Sciences. There are a lot of good people doing interesting and valuable research. And on the clinical/ therapeutic practice end the same is true. Yes, there are some really wacky people doing some WooWoo therapies, but I do not intend to imply that it’s everybody or even a majority. I have never felt like I had to compromise my values. I’m also over in a very practical field and I’m mostly very interested in kids with learning difficulties, so it’s a lot less of a WooWoo area.
There are issues with so many studies in the social sciences NOT being reproducible, and that’s sort of another issue. As an example, I put up a link awhile back in the Science Thread about the popularity and prevalence of the Implicit Association Test. It’s been used a lot to show implicit racism, and we’ve found that it’s problematic in so many ways. The professors who came up with it have had to retract a lot of their claims, and conclusions, but it’s still cited by politicians like Hilary Clinton most recently that I’m aware of. Politicized.
Certainly I’ll agree with you and with people like Haidt when he says that we have some real problems talking scientifically about hot issues like intelligence, gender or sex differences, and race. Also, with the proliferation of publications in really obscure journals that nobody every reads or cites again. Some of it’s pure nonsense. Literally, embarrassing.
With regard to IQ, gender, or race - I have seen a lot of this evolve since the early 90s. Now there seems to be a swinging of the pendulum again as so many new studies point out neurological and important behavioral differences.
I’m a bit hopeful that situations like the Google, James Damore memo where he got demonized, called a misogynist and so forth, will help bring us back around to being able to talk more reasonably about some of these issues. There are often many factors at work when we look at something like a gender pay gap. This is a really nice link to some of the discussion of the science related to the Google Damore Memo, if you’re curious.
@ Charles Murray. Haidt does a really good job at talking about why someone like Murray has been wrongly labeled as a racist or an alt-right figure, or something of that nature. Also about why conservatives are often assumed to be the following things by progressives. A) Self-interested people defending their privileges B) Racists C) Just Stupid.
This is an excellent analysis Puff. I watched the last 15 minutes of that video and kept feeling like I was getting hit right on the nose.
I don’t want to address each point you bring up as it takes to long. My problem, was the baggage people brought in. And it isn’t the average Psychologist I had a problem with, but the power structure enforcing it’s will. 'This is what you will study, this is what you will not do any research on." ← that type of thing. I was like, I thought this was science. We’re not supposed to bring in our baggage, we’re supposed to isolate and observe and crunch data.Like studying homosexuality, big no-no. Why? Mainly, because the APA leadership at the time was largely gay. But it doesn’t mean it’s not worth studying. As a scientist, you aren’t there to make judgments on the data, your trying to discover the mechanisms that make someone choose to live in a way that is quite frankly, a couple standard deviations outside the norm.
Imagine the good that could come from studying, with a firm grasp on science, transgender? There are people making life altering, permanent, irreversible decisions about their body because they don’t necessarily understand what’s going on with their wiring. And we have very little scientifically neutral data on it. But I think it would be a great help to someone, to understand what is going on with them before they enter a series of very painful surgeries. Not ‘feel their pain’ but give them information, useful information. It could change lives, for the better. Maybe some choose to love who they are, rather than surgery. Those skewed the most, can get the surgery, but at least everybody knows a little bit more than they did before and can make better informed decisions.
I think I hit it right when the sea-change was occurring in the '90’s. I was particularly enthralled by abnormal psychology. Not pathology per se, but the part where ordinary people went to extra-ordinary extremes to protect themselves from abuse. It was evident to me, at least, that anybody given enough stress, can crack.
It’s an impossible thing to study if you cannot take into account gender, IQ, and initial genetic conditions.
There are so few Social Psychologists because people like me ran like hell. And personally, I became much more interested in Philosophy. I liked it’s durability. You cannot change truth…
I intend to watch or at least listen to this whole lecture. He seems to know what he is talking about and isn’t afraid to say it.
