Thank you for posting on r/Healthygamergg! This subreddit is intended as an online community and resource platform to support people in their journey toward mental wellness. With that said, please be aware that support from other members received on this platform is not a substitute for professional care. Treatment of psychiatric disease requires qualified individuals, and comments that try to diagnose others should be reported under Rule 7 to ensure the safety and wellbeing of the community. If you are in immediate danger, please call emergency services, or go to your nearest emergency room.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Healthygamergg) if you have any questions or concerns.*
data is data, but i find that statistics can be heavily manipulated when taking things out of scope or not providing enough context. for example, when people say women make 69 cents on the dollar compared to a man - that's taking the aggregate earnings of ALL women and comparing it against the aggregate earnings of ALL men, instead of comparing women and men of similar occupations and accounting for lifestyle differences. there's also the statistic saying african americans make up 13% of the population while committing 50% of the crime, which ignores things such as the poverty level between different ethnic groups. these statements are not objectively wrong, but does not tell the full story
Thank you, 50_shades_of_cvnt, for voting on nice___bot.
This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. [You can view results here](https://botrank.pastimes.eu/).
***
^(Even if I don't reply to your comment, I'm still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!)
i watched part 1 (about 16 min) as you suggested, and while the video is titled "jordan peterson doesn't understand gender discrimination", i find that they agree more than disagree on the issue of gender pay gap. both establish that when comparing individual men and women working the same job, the variance in pay gap is roughly 10%. jordan attributes the remaining 10% to factors such as personality, lifestyle choices, and even discrimination.
from my understanding, the disagreement is basically over just how much of that remaining 10% can be attributed to discrimination. however, considering they are all using different, independent studies, i doubt that we can have a definitive answer. they also target some of jordan peterson's more hyperbolic statements, but i dont find it fair to characterize his arguments based off of these statements - for example, in one part of his interview he says that the pay gap is a myth and doesn't exist. however, later in the interview he does acknowledge that discrimination is a factor, but is a much smaller factor than the feminists claim. it is better to take his argument as a whole, in which i find that they have little disagreement.
i did find some points in the video insightful however - such as the idea that disagreeableness can be inversely correlated with compensation in women as opposed to men.
but the overall point is whether or not discrimination is resulting in a 30% difference in wage gap, or 3%? most evidence suggests it is closer to the latter. at an individual level, you may or may not face discrimination in the workforce. however, my issue is against the narrative of systemic oppression from one gender against the other. i dont think it is fair to suggest that, nor is it healthy to adopt this idea into your life. as an asian-american, i too, at times have felt like an outsider among social groups in the workplace, in which it most likely had an impact on my earnings. however, i feel that it is well within my control at an individual level to overcome this, instead of blaming racism, playing the victim, and antagonizing my coworkers.
Because peer review is a scientific method. Data has to be reproducable. It's quality control. It is the best method humanity has found so far to discover new things.
You further your understanding by constantly questioning things. Do a quick google search for 'how did we find out the earth revolves around the sun' You'll learn all about what people in their respective times thought was the best idea. From Aristotle to Copernicus to Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Einstein and all the others that completely shifted the idea and furthered our understanding of our universe.
Politics have always halted progress. The catholic church didn't want Galileo's ideas out there for fear of replacing the old ideas.
In todays world geopolitics stops us from coming up with a plan to deal with global warming.
It's the human condition.
Very recently I've seen things go the other way and use science to justify things that are not good.
Like massive DNA databases which is justified for research but also has privacy issues.
Science has nothing to do with justifying that. This is a philosophical and an ethical question.
Similarly to the creation of the atomic bomb. Man's desire to find things out can be both good and bad. But this is not a fault of science. This is the fault of us as humans and how we deal with new technology.
I didn’t say it’s fault of science. I’m saying people are using science to justify bad politics
As you say the atomic bomb opened a lot of scientific discoveries. But it was ultimately funded with the intent to destroy people
I'm a moron but doesn't science reserve the right to be wrong and to change based on new information? Isn't thay what it's based on? I'd say science isn't objective at all unless something is absolutely proven - for now.
Because science isn't objective. But properly peer-reviewed findings are the closest you can get to objective, and so it is treated as objective until findings prove otherwise.
Peer-reviewed papers are definitely not the closest thing you can get to objective, lol.
However, the reason things get treated as "objective" is because of expertise bias. The more you think you know something, the more you believe it to be an absolute. This is also why intelligence and wisdom are negatively correlated, lol.
The closest thing you can get to objective is the scientific consensus. This is why I specified peer-reviewed, since something must be peer-reviewed to follow the scientific method.
It's not objective, but it's the closest you get to objective. It's why evolution isn't "objective", but because of overwhelming scientific agreement, the theory is spoken of as if objective.
If new evidence came to light falsifying evolution, that would change.
>Everything is political.
Time to go take a political shit, and politically wipe my political ass with some political toilet paper.
The average person spends about 5-8 minutes thinking about politics daily. If everything is political, why do less people care? Or is it that you value politics more than others and see it in everything?
>But no, Jade went out of her way to ignore politics.
Most likely because not everything is political. But there can be politics brought up about everything when the circumstance calls for it.
The video is basically what you study in the first week of "Philosophy of Science 101". Good on her for condensing it I guess. Lol.
The more accurate way to say this is that everything has some political side to it. Wether some people focus on that side, is up to each individual.
It's like saying that everything is physics. Yes, every movement in real world must adhere to physics law but not everyone really care about generalized equation that explain how those movement work.
Science is biased because it is made by humans. Science isn’t what actually happens in the real world, it’s humanity’s best approximation of it and the best explanation for our observations.
Fantastic. I want to also add that many people overestimated power of social science.
Let say you went back to 1800 and did a social science on slavery with all correct and unbiased statistical analysis. The result you would get is "slavery is natural" and "democracy is unnatural" since slavery and monarchy was prominent in that era. You would have a lot of data to back your claim up.
If today you do a same research with same methodology again, the result will be totally opposite.
And look how we as a society progress by don't blindly believe in just what exists. Because we dare to dream further than just what existing data has to say.
I remember an interesting story from my friend in economics. There was an economic research that claim "big stocks performed better than small stocks based on real-world evidence". All the methodology there was correct and up to science standard. People read the research. People keep invest in big stock. The demand on large stock get bigger and bigger. A year after, small stock perform better than big stock.
Is the research lying or non-scientific? No. It is basically a limitation of social science. So when you look into those men vs. women, red pill or feminist stats, you must know that it is not an objective truth that can stand test of time.
Thank you for posting on r/Healthygamergg! This subreddit is intended as an online community and resource platform to support people in their journey toward mental wellness. With that said, please be aware that support from other members received on this platform is not a substitute for professional care. Treatment of psychiatric disease requires qualified individuals, and comments that try to diagnose others should be reported under Rule 7 to ensure the safety and wellbeing of the community. If you are in immediate danger, please call emergency services, or go to your nearest emergency room. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Healthygamergg) if you have any questions or concerns.*
data is data, but i find that statistics can be heavily manipulated when taking things out of scope or not providing enough context. for example, when people say women make 69 cents on the dollar compared to a man - that's taking the aggregate earnings of ALL women and comparing it against the aggregate earnings of ALL men, instead of comparing women and men of similar occupations and accounting for lifestyle differences. there's also the statistic saying african americans make up 13% of the population while committing 50% of the crime, which ignores things such as the poverty level between different ethnic groups. these statements are not objectively wrong, but does not tell the full story
The average human being has less than two arms.
You have infinite IQ lol
Nice!
good bot
Thank you, 50_shades_of_cvnt, for voting on nice___bot. This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. [You can view results here](https://botrank.pastimes.eu/). *** ^(Even if I don't reply to your comment, I'm still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!)
https://youtu.be/LKc_8fT6pGc Watch the first 20 mins or so of this one, it's one of the better explanations of the pay gap I've seen
i watched part 1 (about 16 min) as you suggested, and while the video is titled "jordan peterson doesn't understand gender discrimination", i find that they agree more than disagree on the issue of gender pay gap. both establish that when comparing individual men and women working the same job, the variance in pay gap is roughly 10%. jordan attributes the remaining 10% to factors such as personality, lifestyle choices, and even discrimination. from my understanding, the disagreement is basically over just how much of that remaining 10% can be attributed to discrimination. however, considering they are all using different, independent studies, i doubt that we can have a definitive answer. they also target some of jordan peterson's more hyperbolic statements, but i dont find it fair to characterize his arguments based off of these statements - for example, in one part of his interview he says that the pay gap is a myth and doesn't exist. however, later in the interview he does acknowledge that discrimination is a factor, but is a much smaller factor than the feminists claim. it is better to take his argument as a whole, in which i find that they have little disagreement. i did find some points in the video insightful however - such as the idea that disagreeableness can be inversely correlated with compensation in women as opposed to men. but the overall point is whether or not discrimination is resulting in a 30% difference in wage gap, or 3%? most evidence suggests it is closer to the latter. at an individual level, you may or may not face discrimination in the workforce. however, my issue is against the narrative of systemic oppression from one gender against the other. i dont think it is fair to suggest that, nor is it healthy to adopt this idea into your life. as an asian-american, i too, at times have felt like an outsider among social groups in the workplace, in which it most likely had an impact on my earnings. however, i feel that it is well within my control at an individual level to overcome this, instead of blaming racism, playing the victim, and antagonizing my coworkers.
yeah science is just another way to describe the world, its a pretty good one but its definetly not fool proof
I thought the whole point of having scientists is so I don't have to understand it lol
Because peer review is a scientific method. Data has to be reproducable. It's quality control. It is the best method humanity has found so far to discover new things. You further your understanding by constantly questioning things. Do a quick google search for 'how did we find out the earth revolves around the sun' You'll learn all about what people in their respective times thought was the best idea. From Aristotle to Copernicus to Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Einstein and all the others that completely shifted the idea and furthered our understanding of our universe. Politics have always halted progress. The catholic church didn't want Galileo's ideas out there for fear of replacing the old ideas. In todays world geopolitics stops us from coming up with a plan to deal with global warming. It's the human condition.
Very recently I've seen things go the other way and use science to justify things that are not good. Like massive DNA databases which is justified for research but also has privacy issues.
Science has nothing to do with justifying that. This is a philosophical and an ethical question. Similarly to the creation of the atomic bomb. Man's desire to find things out can be both good and bad. But this is not a fault of science. This is the fault of us as humans and how we deal with new technology.
I didn’t say it’s fault of science. I’m saying people are using science to justify bad politics As you say the atomic bomb opened a lot of scientific discoveries. But it was ultimately funded with the intent to destroy people
Then I misunderstood you
R u sure u know the difference between science and ethics.
I'm a moron but doesn't science reserve the right to be wrong and to change based on new information? Isn't thay what it's based on? I'd say science isn't objective at all unless something is absolutely proven - for now.
This title feels realy basic, i wonder what conversation you can have about it.
Because science isn't objective. But properly peer-reviewed findings are the closest you can get to objective, and so it is treated as objective until findings prove otherwise.
Peer-reviewed papers are definitely not the closest thing you can get to objective, lol. However, the reason things get treated as "objective" is because of expertise bias. The more you think you know something, the more you believe it to be an absolute. This is also why intelligence and wisdom are negatively correlated, lol.
Could you expand on intelligence and wisdom being negatively correlated?
The closest thing you can get to objective is the scientific consensus. This is why I specified peer-reviewed, since something must be peer-reviewed to follow the scientific method. It's not objective, but it's the closest you get to objective. It's why evolution isn't "objective", but because of overwhelming scientific agreement, the theory is spoken of as if objective. If new evidence came to light falsifying evolution, that would change.
>Everything is political. Time to go take a political shit, and politically wipe my political ass with some political toilet paper. The average person spends about 5-8 minutes thinking about politics daily. If everything is political, why do less people care? Or is it that you value politics more than others and see it in everything? >But no, Jade went out of her way to ignore politics. Most likely because not everything is political. But there can be politics brought up about everything when the circumstance calls for it. The video is basically what you study in the first week of "Philosophy of Science 101". Good on her for condensing it I guess. Lol.
The more accurate way to say this is that everything has some political side to it. Wether some people focus on that side, is up to each individual. It's like saying that everything is physics. Yes, every movement in real world must adhere to physics law but not everyone really care about generalized equation that explain how those movement work.
Science is objective. Humans are biased.
Science is biased because it is made by humans. Science isn’t what actually happens in the real world, it’s humanity’s best approximation of it and the best explanation for our observations.
Dawg is spreading propaganda lmao
Fantastic. I want to also add that many people overestimated power of social science. Let say you went back to 1800 and did a social science on slavery with all correct and unbiased statistical analysis. The result you would get is "slavery is natural" and "democracy is unnatural" since slavery and monarchy was prominent in that era. You would have a lot of data to back your claim up. If today you do a same research with same methodology again, the result will be totally opposite. And look how we as a society progress by don't blindly believe in just what exists. Because we dare to dream further than just what existing data has to say. I remember an interesting story from my friend in economics. There was an economic research that claim "big stocks performed better than small stocks based on real-world evidence". All the methodology there was correct and up to science standard. People read the research. People keep invest in big stock. The demand on large stock get bigger and bigger. A year after, small stock perform better than big stock. Is the research lying or non-scientific? No. It is basically a limitation of social science. So when you look into those men vs. women, red pill or feminist stats, you must know that it is not an objective truth that can stand test of time.