CharonY

No doubt about that. It was really just a niggling thought at the back of my mind in terms of accuracy. But regarding impact and persecution it is of course not relevant. And luckily Germany lost all that talent! If they had been mindful about the way they expressed their ideology (as folks do nowadays), it could have ended way worse.

Not that it is important and (luckily) Germany lost a lot of Jewish scientists, but for some on the list, I am not sure whether they were really Jewish. Most did have some some connection to Judaism, and I may be misremembering stuff (as my infatuation with individual scientists faded a fair bit after high school) but: Niels Bohr had a Jewish mother, but the father was Lutheran, Erwin Schroedinger was in my memory had a somewhat pantheist view (not sure about household religion), Wolfgang Pauli had Jewish heritage but was raised catholic. Again, these are really just nitpicks without real relevance as they did face persecution because of their connections, regardless whether they were practicing Judaism or not.

Same here, though the time commitment is probably a bit of an issue. While the movie is presumably very good, one has to be a big careful about this bit: A movie about a person is probably a very bad way to learn about that person. A primary role of movies is to entertain and not to inform. It invariably is a dramatization of a particular interpretation of a person. A movie is story telling and stories do not have to be truths.

Another important element can be to check whether a person actually has expertise on a given field. Especially in modern sciences, fields tend to be fairly narrow and the more in detail the question is, the more specialist an expert has to be to provide meaningful insights.

One important step, and something that folks are slowly start to agree on (though some voices might say that it is because the opioid pandemic has now also decimated white communities) is that drug abuse should be seen primarily as a public health crisis, and not primarily a criminal one. That is why the measures outlined above make more sense, as they focus on intervention and treatment, rather than punishment.

A bit off topic, but fairly recently there have been many allegations against (male) elite players and chess coaches. A chess champion took the lead and apparently it opened up investigations regarding wide spread harassment and sexual misconduct in chess. I think the idea that cerebral folks are somehow above such behaviours should get tossed onto the pile of bad stereotypes (heck, open sexual harassment in the science community was fairly common for a long time, only to be replaced by covert, and only now may it actually see consequences).

There are a lot of papers out there on phantom traffic jams (i.e. jams by folks breaking which then perpetuates down the line)- a cursory search showed over 1k publications (at the very least). There are also many papers promoting suggestions, which mostly seem to focus on a collaborative system and/or technical devices that can simulate or promote such behaviour. However, the most interesting paper on traffic jam avoidance to me is this one here, for perhaps obvious reasons: https://elifesciences.org/articles/48945

There you have to be careful, too. One has to be very clear what one is actually testing with a given experiment. More often than not, infant experiments are behavioural tests and one uses them to check on developmental cues. The underlying biological basis is often not well understood. Take the mentioned Still-Face experiment, for example. It does indicate that early on infants are able to recognize and react to facial expressions (the first step in the experiment is about setting up a baseline that the infant learns and distinguishes from the neutral expression step). It does not tell us much about the biology except that infants are able to recognize and distinguish facial expressions and that they build up expectations based on interactions and do get distressed when these expectations are not met. How it actually works is unclear and as such the biological basis. A deviation from a particular behaviour does not necessarily mean genetic change, either. Taken from that, all we can basically just say that without training infants are able to: - identify faces - build up expectations based on interactions - have a mechanism to feel distress when expectations are met (I am sure one can break this down even finer, but the overall point is that these are really just general insights that are more conceptual still far removed from the underlying biological mechanisms). Even infant behaviour is often dynamic and responsive to cues and tracing them to a genetic basis (outside of reflexive behaviour) have proven to be very difficult to identify, and there is little in terms of actual "proof" to be found. I am not saying that all hypotheses in this regard are automatically wrong, but rather than we start to realize that that we need a higher level of evidence to actually identify the mechanisms. Especially in humans, these are often lacking.

I should have made it more clear what I thought about the paper, my bad. Similar to the others it does not offer any biological insights, but rather discusses the aspects on a conceptual level linking it to learned behaviour, which is still in the purview of psychological sciences. Towards the end it veers of quite a bit again into the just-so story region, which has become fairly common since the rise (and perhaps also through the fall) of evo-psych. But at least the first part is something that one could discuss about as it stays more within the purview of psychology (i.e. does not venture too far out into the bio realm.). I will also note that the Terrizzi & Shook as well as the Fessler paper have similar issues. I.e. there is a large conceptual framework, or narrative, but data that can be used to test or invalidate hypotheses are lacking (or are very crude and often not robust). In human genetics (in the biological realm) there is increasing realization that our genes alone are much less defining than originally anticipated (to large part caused by the increase of sequencing data and GWAS). As such the field of evo psych is still behind the curve. Again, there is good reason to believe that shame and other behaviour in a moral system can have important social functions. But introducing genetics without actual genetic data, is a big stretch that folks are increasingly skeptical about (and rightfully so). That is basically the issue, the studies speculate about it, but as far as I can see, there is no evidence. Beyond that the basic brain functions are involved. But that is a bit like saying that the system for pottery is genetic as it involves hands and eyes which have a genetic basis. It is not entirely wrong, but also so broad as to be meaningless.

This is most likely factually incorrect. First of all Tomkins is a psychologist and has not worked on any genetic studies that I am aware of. In fact, he is mostly a theorist from what I can see, so there is likely little to any experimental work. As such he can't possibly have confirmed the biological basis of shame. There is a much more appealing suggestion that these traits are part of cultural adaptation based on what some might call non-genetic evolution (i.e. learned behavior). See for example https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2781880/ for a discussion on that subject. Again, note the use of "evolution" in a non-genetic context.

There have been a lot of similar approaches, trying to leverage biology to modify behaviour. Most of these have failed, as the psychological underpinning are poorly understood. I would also advise against conflating psychology and evolution, the field of evolutionary psychology is in a big crisis, as it has largely failed to reproduce many of their claims and there are too many "just so" story arounds in that area. For sake of OP, I would also suggest to focus on one aspect first and really figure out how much we know about it, rather than trying to have large bucket with concepts and try to extrapolate from them. I think, trying to define shame and their origins might be a good start. As shame as a concept is deeply rooted in psychology, but to my knowledge is not really explored biologically, we should avoid confusion with evolutionary or genetic concepts at this point. It also seems to be a high-level concept associated with moral behaviour, suggesting that it might be a learned response.

This does not follow. Not every behaviour, even common ones are hard-coded in DNA. Fundamentally DNA does not carry that level of information density. Rather the whole system is an interplay between the components, that are encoded (e.g. receptors, hormone synthesis pathways etc.) but other elements (e.g. nutrition, but also developmental experiences and learning) affect how the system ultimately works. I.e. it is an oversimplification of many overlapping systems and the conclusions are therefore an overinterpretation. There are many systems involved, which we only partially understand (and which are outside my expertise). That being said, I am not even sure whether the existing framework are sufficiently specific. There are for example examples of altruistic behaviour in bacteria (essentially production of metabolites that are used like common goods or certain suicide pathways). But it is still under discussion whether these are good examples of altruism. Then in animals we got a whole discussion on reward systems in the brain, and how they affect individual behaviour and how they are connected to evolution of various traits. It gets complicated and messy very quickly. Perhaps the simplest criticism on OP could be fact that evolution nor DNA, does determine what things "ought" to be. Either they are or they are not. There is no driving force that determines what should be.

That does not seem like a good comparison, a faster computer is not very likely to accidentally (or purposefully) kill anyone. If the tradeoff to a slower or older CPU could somehow save lives, it may be another argument. I also seriously doubt that there are many folks happy with an old Pentium. Boot times alone are going to drive folks nuts. Also, at least with the early Pentium series, I am not sure whether you can get anything running on it that could access the web nowadays (maybe starting Pentium 4 there might be lightweight Linux distros). Ultimately, there are things that you cannot do with an old CPU anymore. Conversely, for the purposes outlined above (recreation, pest control, etc.) there is little difference between a single-action to a larger magazine rifle. And if lengthy shootouts are somehow part of life, moving may become more attractive at some point. The bigger point is that among certain conservatives in the US being somewhat irrational regarding guns has become part of their identity. The Overton window has shifted so much that reasonable gun control has become a no-go, and it is really not about the need of guns. Paradoxically, the NRA was a champion for gun safety and regulation before deciding to jump the shark (https://time.com/4431356/nra-gun-control-history/).

Renown means nothing, if it is outside their expertise. And in any given field there are established and capable scientists who are mostly unknown to the public.

Well, that is a matter of perspective- all it means is that the outcome of these events cannot be seen in isolation- it is the overall system that determines outcome. And usually there is a clear income-dependent situation. There are few diseases (if any) that affect poor and rich equally.

The issue is that it works quite well if folks have only minor health issues. But once it gets serious, folks are facing a double-whammy. The company might fire them because of lost work due to illness, (and the likelihood of being irreplaceable has been shrinking in modern companies), and losing the insurance can result in massive debt (there is plenty of statistics to show that). Before ACA, pre-existing conditions could also be excluded from coverage. So yes, if you have a good income, a great job with excellent coverage, it might not seem like a problem. But for everyone else, the situation kind of sucks and statistics do show the negative impact on overall public health, especially for those with lower income. That being said, public health is a team sport and if one lets someone suffer, sooner or later almost everyone will be affected negatively. It did discriminate, actually. Workers and other folks relying on work under unsafe conditions were way likelier to contract and die of COVID-19. Also related to that, countries with higher income inequality also suffered a higher health burden.

In gastronomy there is another issue at play. Salaries are typically the highest expense in a restaurant as the work is rather labor-intensive. In addition, the margins on food are often low, especially for freshly produced items. In most of North America (and increasingly elsewhere) there are more and more chains that that are simply more profitable as they have pre-cooked food and require less trained staff. At the lower price scale, often only family-run restaurants (which basically have cheap labor in form of family members) are likely to stay alive for a bit longer. This also means that there is a huge cultural loss to corporations here, which makes me rather sad (and supercharged by the pandemic). Also saves trained staff, similar to the actual restaurants. Also, insulin is dirt-cheap, if purchased in bulk by comparison. Finally even in non-profit systems, hospitals are run by administrators and not that frequently by medical experts. As such it is more about profit or balancing budgets (which is less bad but not by that much). There are a lot of stories from MDs who talk about how stupid administrative decisions interfere with their ability to care for patients. This is especially the case when it comes to atypical diseases. The delayed reporting and initial suppression of information during the early COVID-19 outbreaks is a bit of an administrative (though not operational) example of how checklists are taking precedence over medical judgement.

How did you figure out someone's sexual orientation in the past? How did you scientifically prove to yourself that you are a man? How does it related to categorization in sports, and if that is so confusing how did folks do that for cis-folks?

I don't think that this is a surprise and honestly, while paper mills might make it easier, it is not necessarily the driving force. The peer-review process is not well-suited to detect outright fraud. And a reason why folks are willing to risk their reputation is the insane competitive pressure in the field (especially leading up to tenure).

It reads to me that there is a conflation between gender identity and transition here. Folks that change their identity do not, as far as I know, get to choose under which category they can compete. In fact, there are athletes who have competed in different pre- and post transition. What research has been focused on is which physical changes are happening after gender affirming procedures. And I will again mention that while a small fraction, there are folks who are testosterone resistant. Meaning that with an XY karyotype they have body structures that are indistinguishable from a typical female. So they would be severely disadvantaged if they were sorted according to their genetic makeup rather than their physical.

I mean, ultimately it could, but if one manages to curb women's rights access to healthcare or venues of power, it might not actually solve the issue. It is rather difficult as the anti-abortion movement has many different facets. Some are plainly misinformed and at least on other emotional matters, direct engagement can help. But it requires time and effort. Others use abortion to push different sentiments, there are misogynist streaks (which, to be clear is not only found in men) with sentiments ranging from punishing women to have sex, especially outside of marriage, to securing the role of women in society (i.e. as child bearers, rather than career professionals, for example). These are ideological stances and not one borne of logic, and are much harder to address as they are connected to ones perceived identity and worldview.

In OP it was actually framed it rather stringently with a heavy focus on abortion, which is the source of my confusion. I think in high school, in the broader context of objective relativism. But I have no real recollection anymore.

The confusing part to me is that you anchor this on the reduction on abortion, rather than (what it rather seems to be) making it easier to have kids. These are not the same. Folks do not have abortion because having children is hard. It is because they got pregnant and don't want to be for whatever reasons (including medical necessity). This includes folks who never want kids regardless of how easy or hard it is, but also other forms of unwanted pregnancies. Logically it would make much more sense (to me at least) to frame the question around improving family care and encouraging having kids and not on abortion prevention, especially as the latter is (as discussed here) not the main means of birth control. The moment you look at abortion rates, you are looking at contraception rates. In your example, once you improve quality of life in low-income countries, birth rates go down. This does not happen magically, but rather it involves contraception. Improving the ability to have children still makes it a strategic decision (how many children, and when?) and again, the only realistic way to time it, is to use contraception. Again, if you do not want to have this discussion, it makes far more sense to frame it around promoting birth rather than preventing abortion.

I am not sure what the core thought here is, to be honest. Obviously having a child always has some impact, and it is impossible to entirely remove them from the equation, unless we are making a spherical-cow-in-vacuum type argument. Having a child always impacts health, even with the best care, for example. You always have to (want to?) spend time with it. At minimum, you have to take responsibility for another life, so there is no way to decouple having a child from these elements. The only true freedom from having to deal with a child, is, well, not having one.

Well that is the keystone to the whole issue, though. I.e. without contraception, you basically have no control when and if to get pregnant. And that will inevitably leave abortion as the only alternative if a child is not wanted. This is part is extremely complicated as it requires basically a complete overhaul in society. For example, if women want a career in a competitive field, it often means the end of it. Dropping out of a field and then getting back in after a while can be extremely hard. The main crutch that folks have been thinking about is better childcare, but even so, mostly women spend more time on children and household than men, for which children are less associated with progress in a career. There have been various attempts (including obligatory paternity leave) to even out the field and change perception, but it is a slow process with a lot of backsliding. But again, when it comes specifically to avoid abortion, the answer is obvious, improve control regarding when or if to get pregnant. If your question is how do you get folks to have more children that is a rather different issue.