>>Advancing knowledge and understanding is a fundamental public good. In some cases, however, potential harms to the populations studied may outweigh the benefit of publication<<
Are they really advocating for self censorship in the sciences? And when the whims of societal taste turn or, God forbid (and yes, I put this with all irony intended), Twitter decides it doesn't like an opinion for five minutes... does science self censor then as well?
> Shor, citing research by Princeton political scientist Omar Wasow, suggested that these incidents could prompt a political backlash that would help President Donald Trump’s bid for reelection. At the same time, he noted that, historically, nonviolent protests had been effective at driving political change “mainly by encouraging warm elite discourse and media coverage.”
The galling thing about this was that he was fire by a white-controlled organization for saying “people think rioting is bad.”
Rioting continued and democrats didn’t stand up and say “rioting is bad,” and as a result of that rioting the criminal justice movement was set back a decade.
I have a white friend who once asked me “why do you always sound like you’re defending my racist uncle?” (I think I made some comment about understanding where Trump voters are coming from re: immigration since people in my own home country would think the same way.) And I’m thinking “why do your views on race and immigration seem to be a proxy for your conflict with your uncle?”
If people are truly worried about electing people like Donald Trump they'll broaden education and, in particular, education in the hard sciences like maths and computer science to bolster critical thinking and logic. At that point we won't elect reality show hucksters who blatantly lie and foment sedition.
We should get past the belief that those who aren’t on our political side are just lacking education and not thinking properly.
You might despise the candidate (and to my opinion most candidate can be despised in many ways), but that doesn’t put all their voters at the candidate’s level, nor preclude supporters from “using” their candidates to push a specific aspect.
To me that’s the lesson times and times again, when we think some candidate is obviously non viable and we’re just dumdfounded as they’re elected.
Indeed. This religionization of political beliefs where everyone must be without sin lest they be thrown into the pit has time and again handed elections to awful people and driven wedges further between people who really aren't all that different.
I understand your point and it's well taken. Just to point out, as I feel I misspoke or was mischaracterized by my statement, because I hold the Republicans in disdain doesn't mean I hold any less disdain for the Democrats. I haven't seen any shortage of political hucksters on the stage, "he who must not be named" (for fear of moderation) is just the latest example.
Sorry if I came off as a single sided zealot =) I, like most people, just want a little compromise and moderation, and most of all respect out of my politicians. What I don't want is fealty to a political party first, like a bunch of gang bangers.
That's a fascinating paper. There are a couple of issues I take with it. Their dismissal of recruitment of engineers because they use them recklessly in terror attacks doesn't seem to hold much water. If They were recruited on the promise of heaven by Jihad, then logically, they would want to die by Jihad. And the small sample size, plus their own mentioned Saudi Exception seem to flaw their own paper, even to them.
But it's still fascinating and a great paper, thank you for sharing! Plus the over representation of both Nazis and Islamist terrorist groups is fascinating. I'm completely geeked out! Thanks again!
There could be straightforward explanations, such as: People from poor countries are more likely to study fields that are seen as pragmatic, meritocratic, and lucrative, and where jobs don't require things like mastery of English, or family connections.
Perhaps, but I suspect that the orderly personality type that often contributes to people studying engineering can, in excess, lead to a totalitarian world view.
"If people are truly worried about electing people like Donald Trump they'll broaden education and, in particular, education in the hard sciences like maths and computer science to bolster critical thinking and logic. At that point we won't elect reality show hucksters who blatantly lie and foment sedition."
If our choices at election time continue ro be between a shit sandwich and a shit sandwich without the bread, we will continue to have similar issues. Lesser of two evils and all that.
Ps which one has the bread is just a matter of perspective for each individual.
The only reference to Twitter on the page is in the footer "Follow us on Twitter" which links to https://twitter.com/NatureHumBehav. Where are you getting this Twitter stuff from?
Are they really advocating for self censorship in the sciences? And when the whims of societal taste turn or, God forbid (and yes, I put this with all irony intended), Twitter decides it doesn't like an opinion for five minutes... does science self censor then as well?