Jump to content

CharonY

Moderators
  • Posts

    11506
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    87

Everything posted by CharonY

  1. First of all you would need to define what you refer to. Peterson use it as a catch-all phrase of things he dislikes socially, so it is not particularly helpful. Marxism in the modern academic sense (I believe, it is not my field so I might get it wrong) incorporate some of thoughts of Marx, especially the issues of capitalism and its impact on society. It still rather influential and is one of the reasons why there are no purely capitalist systems without social components. I doubt that Peterson means that thought. If you refer to what many folks using that term mean is research and investigation of things we believe to be true without much evidence and potentially undermining deep-held beliefs. You know, science. Unless you refer to what students are doing. This is called being young.
  2. Peterson is a weasel and has cast himself in many, often opposing roles. And his understanding Nazism or Marxism is, let's say not necessarily mainstream. For example, he often uses the term cultural Marxism, which is actually an anti-semitic conspiracy theory. Wiki puts its root in the 90s (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory#Origins), but some academics have argued that it is just an updated version of the Judeobolshevik myth, which is at least 100 years old. But of course it is always impossible to ascertain whether Peterson just doesn't know something or knowingly pretends not to know. One of the few areas where he kind of makes a stance is subscribing to the idea that of a patriarchal world social order as the natural state of thing (where men bring and determine the order of things). Where the borders are blurry is because a lot of modern racist and fascist ideologies also have this strong man at the center of things type of ideology. So while there is not direct overlap, there is some adjacency that makes it quite appealing to the fringe. I think there is also some discussion to be had in terms of asking (or claiming) that some one is racist, sexist or any other short-hand label. It is quite possible to have ideological stances that would promote things like racial disparities without subscribing to any overtly specific racial theories. I think society is used to shut down the outliers (or hammering down the nail that sticks out, comes to mind). Historically this could be folks of with a given sexual orientation, non-mainstream ideologies, but also minorities who do not know their place. I therefore think we has society have never been good with dealing this types of nuances, but in the past it was easier to walk away or just to keep your mouth shut and no one will know. Or folks just accept it (e.g. they are one of the good guys) as positive personal interaction can override ideological issues. With interactions being much wider and increasingly impersonal that is no longer an option. The big issue that I see is that we then fail to educate each other of these nuances and discuss why certain things may or may not be harmful. In short, we do not have a pathway of change (or redemption). Going to Peterson, he might not be racist or at least from what little I have seen he does not openly promote clearly racist ideologies. However, he often rages against the idea of structural or systemic racism (without being specific enough to really nail down what he means with it, which is kind of his modus operandi). This leads (fake) academic credence to certain folks to discredit the quite well established understanding that there are structural elements in society that can lead to racialized outcomes. He then retreats to right-wing talking points that by talking about racism one only pits groups against each other. Implicitly the idea is that if we do not acknowledge the issue it somehow will vanish, which it clearly does not. Again, not saying that the ideology is racist, but it is valuable fuel for racists.
  3. I would need to go through all of them again, but most of the time income as a measure is used. That being said, there are a few studies looking at wealth separate from income and overall it seems that income had a higher effect on improving health outcomes rather than incorporating wealth. An older study showed that African Americans had a 67% higher likelihood of dying than White Americans when accounting for age sex and marital status. Including wealth reduced it to 54% and introducing income (without wealth) the difference was "only" 43%. So while wealth and income attenuate issues, it clearly does not come close to closing it. The other observation in other studies is that whenever there is an economic downturn, black folks are more vulnerable to these effects. That is an interesting question, and there is no clear answer, mostly as universal health care system differ quite a lot. In Canada provincial differences are huge and depending on racial composition it could be difficult to compare national data. However, I do expect that with improved access much of the bigger issues we see in the US to be attenuated. A lot will also depend on the characteristics of the non-white population. In the US native black Americans fare much worse than recent black immigrants, for example. And in the UK and Canada, recent immigration of highly educated folks with high income would need to be separated out from these issues. That being said, there are still erroneous assumption and mistreatments in happening in universal health care system even fairly recently (forced or coerced sterilization, for example), but I would need to see what is out there in literature. I should also add that for about the last 10 years the medical community has become more aware of racial inequities and also has allowed more research in that area to happen. As such, practices are (slowly) changing relevant to racial disparities and I know that these conversations are also happening in Canada. I would need to take some time to find numbers but I will say that in order to uncover issues, it would be necessary to conduct research that actually tries to quantify inequities. As an anecdote, when I was doing more research looking at biomarkers of health, several of my proposals were shot down because the area I had collaborations with serviced more black folks. The reviewers contended that those were not representative of the majority white population and were therefore not of interest. I am moderately sure that today I had a much better show to have this cohort included. It depends on the definition of racism, and I think you might think of something else. Racism in this context is refers to a system that does something that somehow results in different outcomes, depending on your race. It may or may not have roots in some racists ideology and it really does not matter for this. Often, it is a mix. As I mentioned, wealth or income affect the outcome, but do not explain it sufficiently. Others include things like living in an area with little to know medical services or with underfunded schools or any of the dozen positive factors that even poor white folks have access to. The way to think about it is that we have a black box (the complete system that affects health) and if we put a white person in and a black person with same income wealth and so on, we get different outcomes. This is the issue with systemic racism. It is not about someone being shitty to someone or even someone thinks badly about a race. It is a system (such as a medical algorithm) that somehow and even inadvertently creates inequity, even if it was not designed to so. As such race-blind measures require at minimum non-race blind analyses to figure out whether they do create equity. Historically, we have been really bad at it. Of course, not political party in pretty much any country is free from blame. I am not sure why it seems to be a kind of revelation to you. The main difference I would say is that at least in recent times Dems try to say they are better than that whereas the GOP has weaponized racism to rally their base. So I think the way to look at it is that there is a weak hope that the Dems are willing to undo some of the harm they have done and the GOP is hellbent not to, as it seems to be their new identity fetish. Not sure, but the GOP has shown how powerful identity politics is. You can do whatever you want and lie the heck out of it and still escape repercussions. Meanwhile, Dems have to acknowledge that black folks exist lest they lose their elections.
  4. In part this is brought up as some of the organizers of the recent trukcer or convoy protests (which involved rather few truckers) are white nationalists who have promoted the "anglo-saxon replacement" theory. So yes, we are in a territory where certain words are co-opted by racists. Now, it is entirely possible that Poilievre, who condemned the the replacement theory after the Buffalo attack, was not aware of these usages, which would that he is surprisingly badly informed about current happenings in Canada (I mean the convoy and its instigators were quite prominently in the news (and in the streets).
  5. Which also means that inequalities that specifically target folks because of their skin colour or gender have to be identified and addressed. Many attempts to develop systems that create fairness but do not adequately incorporate existing inequalities and inequities can, despite being race or gender blind, exacerbate said inequalities. Medical algorithms are such an example. They are widely used for diagnosis, assign care and things like prioritizing patients for certain treatments. One of the assumed benefits is that it could remove biases from said assignments (something minorities were often victim of and still suffer disproportionate effects from). But the issue is that at some point folks realized that the algorithm was systematically biased against black patients in a range of issues. For example they would assign black individuals to a lower need of care than white patients (for an example see https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.aax2342) or put them lower (or not at all) on organ recipient list. This is not necessarily caused by racial bias in the design of the algorithms (though sometimes they are) but also by simple facts that at given sickness less money is spent on black folks (even adjusted for income) which makes the algorithm think they need less money to maintain health. Conversely outcome in black organ recipients are often worse, because they cannot afford the best aftercare (even adjusted for income), so they are automatically put at a lower priority on the list, even if they physically are equivalent to their white counterpart. Race and gender blind measures have therefore a history of not working out well, if the existing biases are not considered.
  6. That was the point quite early on in this thread (i.e. more studies are needed). So far we only know that transition does change the physiology and but some data suggests that certain proxy measures (such as testosterone levels) might not be enough to ascertain whether certain transgender athletes maintain categorical advantages. Thus, the idea that was circulated in this thread is whether one could try to devise a panel of physiological parameters (in addition or instead of testosterone) that could be used to separate athletes in different competition groups. After all, the argument is that men have a different physiology that affects certain athletic performances, therefore physiological parameters should be measurable. After all, chromosomes and genitals are also also just used as proxies (like testosterone levels) for certain physiological and performance differences. Another, likely easier method is to measure performance. Again, the base argument is that men and women have different base performance. Hence, an athlete that is closer to a given distribution might be sorted into the one or the other group. Finally, there is also the notion of fairness. The example of horse riding is a case where sex or gender has not shown to have a clear advantage in terms of performance, yet the system clearly favours one.
  7. I think the pandemic has shown that personal sacrifice is now considered an extreme ideology. Obviously we still demand it from vulnerable folks, but that is about it.
  8. Perhaps worse, it has become a part of the identity of quite some folks. Any attempts to change will be seen as an attack on their belief system.
  9. Kendal Principles of Neuroscience was pretty good back in the days (good overview and easy to understand).
  10. Obviously the more appropriate way to approach these things is first to establish the level of evidence for these kind of assumptions. While it has been mentioned already, I think it is important to emphasize again that assumptions of "natural" often conflate physiological (biological) effects learned behaviour. Those are often difficult to discern from low resolution data and in many cases we are only starting to gather necessary information or trying out experimental approaches. It is one of the situations where narratives are much stronger than the available data. Edit: not wanting to move things too astray, but there is also a big push now to remove race/ethnicity- adjusted factors for medical diagnosis, mostly because assumptions of race-based medical factors were often based on limited data and overlaid with a lot of conventional wisdom assumptions (again, imbalance between strength of data and strength of narratives). As a result, especially for black folks misdiagnosis and -treatment has been a huge issue (compared to their white counterparts).
  11. But not a single current German beer on the list. You are really old if you remember when the Heineken family or the founders of the Tsingtao brewery were German (I guess you like Pilsner?)
  12. That would be reasonable start point, wouldn't it? And then if we actually start to observe differences between male and female riders, we would hypothesize that there might be something going on. However, as it is often assumed (also by some members of this board) that there must be a difference and then work their way backwards in order to satisfy their assumption. IIRC there was a paper looking at bet rates showing how folks underrate female jockey performance, which is a bit odd as folks make money with establishing good betting ratios. My conclusion is fairly simple. There is insufficient evidence that indicates a significant impact of the sex of the rider on the outcome. I have provided at least two references that have looked at it. So far your only counter-argument is that you do not believe it to be the case. Skepticism requires data and so far only one side has provided any. A no effect finding requires a lower burden of proof. If a homeopathic drug does not shown an effect compared to a placebo, we would not simply assume that the study was flawed and ask whether they used the correct dilution of nothing or whether the flasks had the right silica composition. If you have any evidence that for some reasons only the male jockeys were sickly, feel free to show it. Otherwise you cannot just selectively dismiss data. Using your approach I could simply dismiss every single study in existence by increasing the burden of proof until I find my bias confirmed. Note that if there is a follow-up that looks at more factors and finds certain associations, that would be a different matter. As it stands, there is no study I could find that contradict these findings. This does not make sense. Here they decide to go further than other studies (which looked at win ratio and could not find evidence of male dominance) and try to look at it mechanistically. Again, here is evidence and you still have provided nothing. In my world, data is crucial and trumps gut feeling. And as iNow explained yet again, one does not simply start with an assumption and then ignores all evidence to the contrary (or only looks for support). If I am generous the one supporting factor could be that there are male winners than female winners. But then we have seen that there many more male jockeys than female ones. So that makes a straight comparison a problem. The other issue is of course that horses are very important. If you put a great jockey on a weak horse, it is unlikely to suddenly turn into a winner. So some folks tried to account for horse rankings and then see if women who ride similar ranked horses as their male counterparts perform worse. But the data does not pan out (so we can not simply assume that it is happening). Then perhaps the effects are subtle and maybe men can slightly but significant improve or at least change how horses perform (does not have to be due to male physiology, for example, potentially men might treat horses differently resulting in performance differences). The last study did not find that, either, except for weak significance related to heart rate, which is difficult to translate into performance increases. So if there are sex specific differences between men and women, they appear to be weak or at least difficult to detect. From this dearth of data to get to the point where we not only assume a difference, but also think that it is due to physiology, is just straight up bad science. It basically has the same level of evidence as claiming that Asians are biologically better suited for maths.
  13. The kick-off for this part of the discussion is actually that despite the fact that it is difficult to assess (in either direction), male superiority in performance is assumed. However data to this effect are muddy at best (in contrast to other athletic performances, for example). I.e. despite a dearth of data, assumptions are being made with real-life impact. Some seem to have taken it as a crusade to establish either male or female superiority, but I see it more of an exercise to figure out where data is actually available to establish a significant impact of sex on performance where there isn't. I.e. how closely do existing narratives actually follow facts (and do we actually know the uncertainty?).
  14. I think you are, as I do not think that many of the criticism would affect the study design much. So to step back a bit, the question is whether rider physiology significantly affects horse performance. Specifically, physiological differences that are tied to sex would somehow improve, or at lest change the performance of the horse. The best study design, as mentioned, would be to have a set of horses ridden by male as well female riders, as obviously the horse itself will have a huge impact on the outcome. The data is actually slightly biased towards men, as among the registered jockeys only 8 were female and 35 were male- there is no paywall). So if anything, one could argue that there are more race-experienced men in the test group compared to the women. The other parameters of the riders that you mentioned should only have limited impact overall, as you have have strongly suggested that the effects would be sex-based. I.e. if a woman would be able to outcompete a man by just being somewhat more experienced or fitter, then it would imply that training and experience would be a stronger factor than sex. We can see it by certain athletic performance, such as running, where large groups of men outperform women and it is not necessary to look at the extremes (where a small group of men outperforms all women, but also almost all other men) to find significant differences. The biggest knock at the study is probably that it has not been peer-reviewed yet, but the basic study design makes sense to me. They also throw in a rather rough comparison between men and women in horse races which is a bit odd for the manuscript, but I suppose that might need a bit more cleaning up when they submit it for review (if it isn't submitted already). But yes, the study is the only one to my knowledge that looks at actual physiological (rather than race) outcomes and the impact of the rider on it. It follows somewhat the controlled design that I mentioned earlier, only that this was a retrospective study. Studies looking at performance by gender are quite a bit older but focus on races, where the comparatively low number of female jockeys can make things difficult. One could flip that on its head, of course and try to find evidence that being a man actually increases horse performance, but the data is even scarcer for that. I seem to recall also that for a given weight male jockeys seem to unhealthier than their female counterpart (due to more dietary restrictions, I believe) but I cannot recall the details anymore.
  15. I think you get a tank with liquid nitrogen with it. By freezing it solid instantly you prevent any from accidentally entering your mouth.
  16. Fair enough, I overlooked (or just forgot) that part. But yes, if we limit it to legal actions alone, which makes sense, it certainly is true. I do think the beecee's argument is based on social norms and pressures though, before Dim just ran with it (as he often does).
  17. It is not really the same, but there is the issue of social pressure, where it can be difficult not to drink alcohol. In Germany drinking age starts at 16 and I still remember vividly how teachers berated me for not having a beer with the others (I did not like the taste of beer). I think the attitude might have changed and being designated driver is a good excuse nowadays. But fundamentally there was significant pressure to conformity when it came to alcohol use behaviour. For most other drugs peer-pressure might still have existed, but it certainly was not that pervasive and limited to fairly small groups of folks.
  18. Almost as if harm reduction measures actually work.
  19. Based on this particular argument it really seem that in order to save lives we should do away with safe areas and rather go for decriminalization.
  20. That actually is also a bad example as studies back to the 80s (at least) show that overall deterrence reduces impairment-related accidents. It does not scale perfectly with severity of penalties and there are regional differences. However data suggests that it is working. However, the argument seems to be that if it does not prevent all adverse events, it is not working. This is of course silly as having perfect laws/policies that solve all the problems 100% are extremely unlikely to exist (with the exception of very simple matters, perhaps). Rather, the benchmark should be whether the situation gets better once it is implemented. If there is a better method to prevent DUIs (or drug-related harm) I'd be happy to see it implemented. Studies over the last 50 years or so have now coalesced to rather show a stark and negative outcome of the war on drugs. Not only does it not prevent drug use, it also created additional issues by exacerbating issues of poverty and related crime. Even the Cato institute and other conservative think tanks have come around to see the policy as failed https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/four-decades-counting-continued-failure-war-drugs Small wonder then that folks working in the medical field have changed the question to: how can we save lives (cynical voices have mentioned that this change in policy debate was connected to the rise of the opioid crisis in white communities). Experiments on a number of levels ranging from e.g. not charging individuals for possession or drug use if they call in overdoses to local measures (the mentioned safe drug sites) to larger scale decriminalization show that similar to DUI laws or seat belts, they do not solve all the problems, but for the most part they improve outcome.
  21. Actually it is legalized and there is an increasing shift in Canadian drug policing. The latter has been outlined in a well-written book (Busted: An Illustrated History of Drug Prohibition in Canada, by Susan Boyd). So the laws were a mix of real health concerns, but also quite a bit with moral judgement of certain folks (which, as often, incorporates good old racism). And the issue again is a matter of outcome. Do these policy of punishment reduce illegal drug use? Do they have any tangible benefits? A hundred years worth of data point toward no. If a policy does not manage to do what it intends to do, it is just bad policy. The fact that there are other bad policies out there does not change the issue that drug policies simply do not offer benefits, whereas alternatives save lives. From an entirely utilitarian perspectives I figure that a policy that is potentially cheaper and results in overall less dead people is better than one that is more expensive and ends with more folks dead. At least to me whether during the process folks are punished or not is secondary. I just like to see fewer folks dying, ill or otherwise increasing pressure on our health care system. Continuing to do something that just doesn't work with the hope that eventually it will is just not good policy. I am not sure why you think that this a clever remark, but police actions are aimed to contain violence in certain areas. Whether they work or not is a different matter. However, if you are able to develop some policy or law that would ultimately cut down on deaths (even if it remains non-zero) I would probably be in favour of it, unless there are other detrimental effects. As a whole there needs to be an overall cost/benefit analysis of it. And I think the real disagreement here might be that you seem to consider punishment of "bad" guys as a value in itself, which offsets the costs of detrimental health effects. And I simply disagree with that point. Instead I would like to see fewer folks taking harmful drugs to begin with and get those that are addicted away from it as the primary goals.
  22. Well, it is part of the political process and which is why cannabis is being legalized. Note that becee's argument for alcohol was based on majority rule (with a focus on Western society) but seemingly was more against legalization of cannabis, using the same criterion (~90% in USA and Canada were for legalization of cannabis for medical and recreational use, over 60% for recreational use in the US and a fair bit higher in Canada prior to legalization).
  23. It is not a matter of being woke, but rather which outcome you prefer. If you want your moral outrage satiated and punish folks for bad choices (as we did in the past) then we just have to live with more deaths and often also associated crime. If we want to fix it, the public health option seems to be the best way forward, but we would need to forgo some of our moral judgement in exchange. Consider punishing does nothing to reduce drug use I am not sure what such policy do except makes us feel better about not taking drugs and feel superior to those who do. I am looking at the issue entirely from the viewpoint of reducing public health risks. You may call that woke, but I call it sensible. I.e. if something works it works and I do not care much regarding the ideology behind it.
  24. That is broadly the conclusion that the medical community mostly has come around to. Basically re-allocating resources that are used for legal enforcement towards is likely to improve overall public health, relative to criminalization. Moreover, some advocate going a step further toward legalization (depending on how things are handled in various jurisdictions), not for broad commercial distribution, but in order to provide safe supplies of certain drugs to combat overdoses. The latter was mostly forced by the opioid epidemic, where harm prevention is now considered more critical (as criminal persecution did pretty much nothing to improve the situation). It is tricky business and also at the intersection between public health, legal challenges and moral judgement. Drug policies in the past were often passed based on moral judgement, but research has shown that it simply does not improve public health. To spin it positively, we should want a situation where everyone has access to help to get rid of addictions without stigma or prejudice (or fear of legal retribution), where inevitable drug use is at low levels but using safe substances and ideally in a controlled environment. This includes but should not be exclusive to alcohol.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.