> but the biology of gender - including gender dysphoria - is established science
Maybe my education is just getting out of date, but isn't the biological side of that topic sex while gender is generally referring to more of the social constructs like expected social roles and behaviors?
I though body or gender dysmorphia would in fact be tied to gender rather than sex because it is more of a psychology question than a biological one.
If by "sex" you mean physical characteristics, it's not what we learn in school books but not all people have only two XX or XY chromosomes. There are other (rare) combinations.
XXY (Klinefelter syndrome),
X (Turner syndrome),
XXX (Triple X syndrome),
XYY (Jacob’s syndrome),
If we think in terms of genes, the situation is further complicated, and hormones also influence the sexual phenotype during fetal development.
There’s also chimeras who can have some XY cells and some XX cells due to the fusion of a male and female fertilized zygotes in the early stages of prenatal development.
Resulting in genetic tests of gender to result in different outcomes depending on which cells are sampled.
There’s a women in the medical literature (I have read the original paper, but can’t lay my hands on it right now) who had multiple children & was discovered to be a 99% XY / 1% XX chimera IIRC.
(edit) This is probably the case paper I was thinking of: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2190741/ It was her ovaries that were 99/1% proportions. Other parts of her body had varying levels of mosaicism.
> XXY (Klinefelter syndrome), X (Turner syndrome), XXX (Triple X syndrome), XYY (Jacob’s syndrome),
While this is true, it's completely irrelevant to the discussion. These conditions are extremely rare - certainly much rarer than gender dysmorphia - and most transgender people are either XX or XY.
Klinefelter syndrome: one to two per 1,000 live birth
Turner syndrome: 1 in 2,000 to 5,000 female births
Triple X syndrome: approximately 1 in 1,000 (female)
Jacob’s syndrome: 1 in 1,000 males
Mosaicism affecting sex determination: 1 in 10,000 to 1 in 50,000
Swyer syndrome: ~1 in 80,000–100,000 births
SRY translocation to X or autosome: ~1 in 25,000–30,000
Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome: 1 in 10,000–50,000
So there are ~0.3% of people who have an unusual sex determination because of genetics. As another poster said that means there are 900,000 people with these conditions in the USA. That's half of the transgender population in the USA.
Yet I agree that does not prove that a significant portion of the transgender population has some genetic variation affecting their sex determination, but definitely it proves that the situation is more complex than many think.
I think the point is the bad-faith effort to erase trans people by asserting that chromosomes are all that matter falls down because obviously there are people running around with unusual chromosomes, so if it was an actual good faith effort they would be defining new (rare) genders to map to these chromosome patterns.
But it’s not good faith, and nobody really believes that chromosomes are the most important definition of gender. It’s just a convenient way to erase trans people.
Nobody serious is claiming that chromosomes are "all that matter", but while you complain about bad-faith efforts to dismiss trans people, you seemingly ignore all of their bad faith efforts to dismiss the importance and reality of sex.
> nobody really believes that chromosomes are the most important definition of gender
I don't understand how you reach this conclusion given the fact that for >99% of the world's people, their gender matches their sex. Who is this "nobody" you speak of?
> I don't understand how you reach this conclusion given the fact that for >99% of the world's people, their gender matches their sex.
What is the significance of this in this context? 100% of the world's people are not lions, does that mean lions don't exist? Some people don't fit neatly into one of the two gender/sex categories. This is scientifically very clear. Why is it important to have hard categories, and why should we legislate that only two categories exist?
> 100% of the world's people are not lions, does that mean lions don't exist
No, 100% of the world's people are not lions, therefore people are not lions.
> people don't fit neatly into one of the two gender/sex categories
Don't conflate gender and sex. All people fit into sex categories because all people have a definite sex, and sex allows for a range of development, even malformed ones.
As for "gender", if it's defined separately from sex, then I don't know what it means because it hasn't been defined. My response was that the vast majority of people don't distinguish between gender/sex, because not only have they never encountered a person where these are distinct, they don't even have any inclination that this is even a thing. That's why I'm confused by the original claim that "nobody" thinks gender comes down to sex. It's just a bizarre claim. If you go to remote tribes in the Amazon, even they think gender and sex are the same.
If you go to remote tribes in the Amazon, you'll find a lot of things modern day society tries to distance itself from, like kidnapping women and beating them until they're docile. You have literally no idea what those people were to think of themselves, given the freedom to do so. Ancient is not the same as good.
> Here's some other "ancient" stuff, that can be used to say the opposite of your point
Yes, native Americans had gay people too, and slightly varying ideas of division of labour. I'm not sure how you think this proves the notion that distinguishing gender and sex is or was some dominant mode of thought.
Just look up transgender history on Wikipedia, literally the opening paragraph says these concepts were invented in the 1950s.
> All people fit into sex categories because all people have a definite sex
I mean, no? Not really? There's a whole history of people who do not have a definite sex, and even then, there are lots of people who appear to have a definite sex but their body is varied massively from the "baseline". Such people are actually more numerous than red-headed people or albinism, within society. All of this is pretty trivial in terms of talking points and very well supported within the encompassing scientific literature, which is why I don't actually feel the need to cite myself here — any introduction to biological psychology, or the general subject of sex/gender, from a biological or sociological view, will very easily get you up to speed on this.
> I mean, no? Not really? There's a whole history of people who do not have a definite sex
Phenotypical sex characteristics do not define sex, and developmental disorders tied to one's sex do not somehow refute one's sex. This talk of "appearances" is exactly the kind of confusion I've been trying to argue against. Biology has a more rigourous definition for sex to avoid exactly these confusions. I do acknowledge that even some biologists have fallen into this trap lately, to our detriment.
The tl;dr of it is "the bimodal sex distribution model is really bad at a lot of the things we use it for, including predicting results to prescribed medication, or questions about who can give birth". There's some links to actual papers included in the gallery, if you want to follow this up further.
> I do acknowledge that even some biologists have fallen into this trap lately, to our detriment.
From 'knowing people in the field of biology', I can say rather clearly that it's less "some biologists are mistaken/foolish" and more "the majority of biologists who are up to date have decided to revise their beliefs about sex in line with current research".
That seemed clear? Meaning: there is a population of people who believe gender is abstracted from chromosomes by factors including psychology, and there isn’t a population who claim the believe that gender is 1:1 with chromosomes, but who handwave away the inconvenient < 1% who have a chromosome pattern not mapped to a gender.
Thus, nobody actually believes this. It’s just rhetoric to support an ideological position. There are 8B people on earth; no serious scientific or political position can be built on “if you ignore millions of people who don’t fit”
> Meaning: there is a population of people who believe gender is abstracted from chromosomes by factors including psychology, and there isn’t a population who claim the believe that gender is 1:1 with chromosomes, but who handwave away the inconvenient < 1% who have a chromosome pattern not mapped to a gender. Thus, nobody actually believes this.
I don't think this is true at all. I actually think the population that really believes there is some abstract distinction between gender and sex is relatively a tiny minority, mostly in Western nations.
Edit:
>There are 8B people on earth; no serious scientific or political position can be built on “if you ignore millions of people who don’t fit”
To clarify, nobody ignores people who "don't fit". Prior to the spread of transgender awareness, feminism spent a lot of time and effort breaking down stereotypes of what it means to be one sex or the other, in order to allow anyone to express any kind of behaviour or presentation. Taking the position that you have a definite sex regardless of your behaviour or presentation is not "ignoring people who don't fit", it's just recognizing the reality of sex and letting people do what they want, while avoiding a commitment to some completely undefined, fluid notion of "gender".
> I don't think this is true at all. I actually think the population that really believes there is some abstract distinction between gender and sex is relatively a tiny minority, mostly in Western nations.
The opening paragraph literally says, "The modern terms and meanings of transgender, gender, gender identity, and gender role only emerged in the 1950s and 1960s. As a result, opinions vary on how to categorize historical accounts of gender-variant people and identities."
Applying these labels to historical peoples is projection at best. The whole problem with "gender" is that it is either undefined or it has no universal definition, therefore it's meaningless to apply it historically.
To say someone was "gender-varying" at the time is to say they didn't conform to the typical roles associated with their sex in that culture, because there was no notion of gender as we know it, nor is there even a universal definition of gender that we can apply retroactively.
> To say someone was "gender-varying" at the time is to say they didn't conform to the typical roles associated with their sex in that culture[...]
You agree that similar concepts have existed across the globe and in other eras, but want to have a semantic (and convenient for your argument) position that there must be a universal definition for some reason. Are there any societal or cultural concepts that actually do have a universal definition?
> You agree that similar concepts have existed across the globe and in other eras, but want to have a semantic (and convenient for your argument) position that there must be a universal definition for some reason.
I don't think I did. I said historians noted that cultures often had roles and duties divided along sex lines, but that some people did not strictly conform to those divisions of labour. In what way does that entail that they had some notion of gender that was abstracted from sex?
> Are there any societal or cultural concepts that actually do have a universal definition?
Law. Government. Trade. Religion. Gods. These all have a definition by which we can look at a system and say, "that was a religious belief", or "that was not a law but a local custom", "this was a deity they worshipped". They're not "universal" in the sense that they are identical in all cultures, they are universal in the sense that you can look at the definition and use that definition to classify cultural characteristics in a meaningful way.
I’ve lost interest in the “obv gender equals sex, because sex defines gender” nonsense, but your question is interesting.
Murder comes to mind, but lots of asterisks there (it’s not murder if it’s an honor killing). I’m hard pressed to think of universal mores. Respect for elderly maybe? Or unacceptability of theft?
The people passing laws and executive orders trying to define "male" and "female" by chromosomes, and thus deny people human rights and/including medical care, are pretty serious.
> the importance and reality of sex.
The what and what? Just because it's "important" to a bunch of extremist religious fundamentalist bigots doesn't mean what's in someone's pants or genes is important to anyone but said someone.
"Reality"? FFS.
Stay in your lane and stop fixating on how other people lead their lives or their self identity. The only degree it affects you is that you're bothering yourself about it.
Those account for a number half the size of trans populations. Are you saying trans is also exceedingly rare and irrelevant, yet they are under attack?
I am sorry but I am specifically speaking of cases where the phenotype contradicts the genotype. For example, there are cases where an individual has an XY karyotype but develops female traits due to a mutation in the SRY gene.
The word "sex" is ambiguous, do we speak of phenotype (sexual traits/appearance) or genetic characteristics? And if you categorize people by their appearance, how do you categorize people with atypical genitalia (~1/5000)?
> Your sex is defined only by the gamete size you produce.
So you have no sex until puberty? After menopause women stop being women? Infertile people also have no sex? What about euneuchs and people who have their ovaries removed?
Your definition seems to create more problems than it solves. It creates billions of new sexless humans.
> So you have no sex until puberty? After menopause women stop being women? Infertile people also have no sex? What about euneuchs and people who have their ovaries removed?
Don't be obtuse, you know perfectly well that's not what it means.
You've made a lot of strong, specific assertions here that contradict my own understanding. For example, you seem to be dismissing some troubling questions regarding sex assignment at birth based on on-the-spot judgment calls. It's probably a good idea for you to provide links to some objective sources.
The fact that you're confused about this most basic biological fact is exactly what I've been trying to communicate is the problem with gender activists in this space. They've spread considerable misinformation on this topic.
"Sex assigned at birth" is one example of the kind of misinformation I'm talking about. They're equivocating on the term "sex", because doctors are not determining biological sex, but making a determination of legal sex. If they had argued for "gender assigned at birth" for legal purposes, and argued that both sex and gender be determined and recorded (because sex is important medically), there would be no such confusion.
Legality is what we're talking about, though. The government decided, against all reason, that this was something they needed to get involved with. So that means what whatever your definitions of sex and gender are, or whatever definitions the Wikipedia editors are accepting this week, they should not be used to discriminate against any individual, no matter how uncommon their physical traits and sense of identity may be.
I don't know why you think we're talking about legality when this whole thread was about biology. The legal status of one's sex is supposed to follow from biology, but the point is that this is an imperfect process at this time.
As for the legal issues, nobody supports "discrimination" in an abstract sense, but the point is that there's a strong difference of opinion on what counts as "discrimination". If "sense of identity" is all that's needed to trigger some discrimination clause, a quality that cannot be verified physically in any way at this time, then that's a recipe for abuse by bad actors.
fMRI studies have found differences in the brain that are highly correlated with gender dysmorphia. So while we may treat it as a psychological condition, it, like many other psychological conditions, also has an underlying biological basis.
Correlation still doesn't tell us too much though. In general its nearly impossible to find likely causation for psychological conditions. That doesn't mean the links aren't there, its seems likely to me that there is a biological factor, its just really hard or impossible to design proper studies for causation.
Sure but the point of research is to improve understanding. Today there is correlation, tomorrow we find causation.
Are you suggesting we should stop looking for a physical cause of depression? Many neurologists believe that psychological conditions map onto physical structural or chemical differences. Maybe that is the case, maybe that’s not the case but we use the tools we have to do that research so that we can better understand, and if necessary treat, these conditions.
I'd be very curious to see how causation may be found for most psychological conditions. I'm sure there are ways I haven't seen or considered, but it seems really difficult to structure a study that would lead towards potential causation.
Traumatic brain injuries are one standout, though even then I think its just correlative as no one is going to attempt a study that intentionally causes TBIs in the test group.
> fMRI studies have found differences in the brain that are highly correlated with gender dysmorphia
No they haven't, that study was debunked. There is currently no physically detectable way to identify gender dysmorphia or trans identity, there is only self-report.
Sure, so to clarify, the study that claimed to find differences in trans brains:
* Did not control for sexual orientation (same-sex attracted people exhibit preferences and behaviours of both sexes, and many adolescents who start as trans desist and come out as gay)
* Did not control for whether the person was on HRT or puberty blockers (people on opposite sex hormones start developing behaviours and preferences of the opposite sex)
* Did not control for body perception disorders (body dysmorphia results in distorted perceptions of one's own body)
> many adolescents who start as trans desist and come out as gay
Citation needed. The actual hard evidence with respect to regret rates with GICs are very clear that "desistance", using your word for it, is vanishingly low (less than 1-2%, c.f. knee surgery with 20-30%), and that lack of social acceptance is a huge factor in deciding if someone desists or not — the less social acceptance, the less likely someone is to be able to comfortably transition socially, the more likely they're going to "desist".
In other words — not only is the "desistance rate" for treatment vanishingly small, there isn't a straight line between "desisting" and "not being transgender", and one of the most recurring explanations for "desistance" in the study groups basically boiled down to "society has bullied them into hiding themselves".
> people on opposite sex hormones start developing behaviours and preferences of the opposite sex
Citation needed. In the 70s - 80s there were experiments to try and treat both intersex people and transgender people by giving them the "correct" (cis) hormone, and the subjects involved found it so intolerable they committed suicide.
> body dysmorphia results in distorted perceptions of one's own body
Correct! And given that you know this, you should also know that treatments for body dysphoria do not work for gender dysphoria, and that for almost 100 years now, the only effective treatment for gender dysphoria has been transitioning.
> Citation needed. The actual hard evidence with respect to regret rates with GICs are very clear that "desistance", using your word for it, is vanishingly low (less than 1-2%, c.f. knee surgery with 20-30%)
No, the actual detransition rates are completely unknown because gender researchers had crappy long-term follow-up with patients, eg. they stopped tracking individuals beyond only a few years, and simply dropped people from the data entirely if they ceased communication, which is a clear bias towards favourable stats for transition. The poor quality of the evidence in this field is why virtually all Western nations are taking progressively stricter approaches to trans care to improve the quality of the long-term data.
Furthermore, this 1% regret rate number doesn't even pass a basic sniff test. The regret rate for literal live-saving surgeries, like artery bypass, are upwards of 25%. A 1% regret rate is just completely implausible and I honestly can't believe anybody swallowed it.
The desistance I was referring to are cohorts that experience gender dysphoria for various reasons and then ultimately desist. A large subset of this cohort are gay, sexually confused or uncomfortable with puberty for various reasons, and throw in a bunch of other comorbidities and the affirmative model is a recipe for disaster. The lawsuits from detransitioners have just begun, and I think they will only increase for a few more years. Only the will we have a better picture.
> In the 70s - 80s there were experiments to try and treat both intersex people and transgender people by giving them the "correct" (cis) hormone, and the subjects involved found it so intolerable they committed suicide.
This causation for their suicide is conjecture (trans people have many mental health comorbidities), but I don't see how this is even relevant to the point I was making. Do you really need a citation that testosterone and estrogen supplementation changes behaviours and neurology in accordance with the sex to which those hormones is primarily associated? Just because it does so, doesn't mean it would solve whatever ailed the trans or intersex people, and I never claimed it would.
The point was that hormones alter your neurology closer to that sex, so if you perform an fMRI on cis women, trans women on HRT for a number of years, and trans women not yet on HRT, then those on HRT will look different and closer to females than those not on HRT. This confounds any fMRI analysis that purports to show that "trans brains" have some innate structural similarity to their gender.
> No, the actual detransition rates are completely unknown because gender researchers had crappy long-term follow-up with patients, eg. they stopped tracking individuals beyond only a few years, and simply dropped people from the data entirely if they ceased communication, which is a clear bias towards favourable stats for transition.
There are multiple longitudinal studies of trans people many years after transition, and their numbers fit the already-existing numbers known by GICs — but I'm sure given your predisposition for research on this topic, you've already seen them and disagree with them. I'd agree that more research is fine, but the fact that the vast majority of trans people report feeling way more comfortable after 5 years of transitioning, to me makes it very clear. Who follows up with knee surgery patients after 10 or 20 years? Do we have long term data that 30 years after a bypass surgery someone isn't regretting having it? The existing data we have for trans people is comparative in length and scope to the followups performed on said people with life-saving surgeries. I'd agree that more data = better, sure. But I really doubt that you're actually going to find the smoking gun here that you're so blatantly looking for.
Also, it should be said that, again, the main reason we don't have very, very long term data on trans people is because most of the trans people that transitioned in the 1920s - 1980s kept it very, very close to their chests and later went stealth. It is literally only the last 10 or so years that acceptance of trans people has hit a point that many don't feel an impetus to go stealth in the first place. Wanting very, very long term data is like asking "Where are all the studies on old gay people, if being gay is natural" and ignoring that the AIDS pandemic happened — it's ignorance of social factors precluding data gathering.
> The lawsuits from detransitioners have just begun, and I think they will only increase for a few more years. Only the will we have a better picture.
To be honest, I'd wait another 30 years for the anti-gender cult[1][2][3][4] to run it's course first, before we start getting actual data :)
> Do you really need a citation that testosterone and estrogen supplementation changes behaviours and neurology in accordance with the sex to which those hormones is primarily associated?
Yes, I'll take the citation please.
What you said was "people on opposite sex hormones start developing behaviours and preferences of the opposite sex". Which is dubious in terms of the evidence available for that position in relation to humans, as the majority of evidence for that in terms of sex hormones were done on rats — which, notably have a very different psychology to humans. There is a phenomenon where some trans women realise that they are straight and attracted to men, after transitioning, but it's very unclear whether or not that's simply the case that they feel able to be attracted to men — occam's razor kicks in here, I think. Regardless, it would be difficult to get figures on this because speaking from personal experience, the vast majority of trans women I have met and been in contact with (probably a couple of hundred or so) are dating (cis and trans) women.
> The point was that hormones alter your neurology closer to that sex, so if you perform an fMRI on cis women, trans women on HRT for a number of years, and trans women not yet on HRT, then those on HRT will look different and closer to females than those not on HRT. This confounds any fMRI analysis that purports to show that "trans brains" have some innate structural similarity to their gender.
But you should already know, Sandro, that for the last ten years multiple authors doing fmri studies on trans people have been performing them on non-hormone treated, and hormone treated trans people. The data is already there and collected.
If someone started grinding up those pill things and putting them in your salt shaker, you wouldn't be able to prove that you didn't like the results - unless we can believe self-reports.
Believing swlf-report for an n of 1 question of personal preference is very different from trusting a self-report survey meant to extrapolate the results of one cohort to a larger audience.
Sex-segregated spaces for one. For another, is anyone obligated to call a Catholic priest "father" simply because his beliefs give him a special title? Of course not. Clearly gender is not treated this way.
I don't agree with how Trump and his administration are going about this, but it has been interesting to see how quickly it has pushed democrats back to a more federated approach.
After the election many started looked to state's rights type issues to make change locally before Trump took office.
Changes like this could very well push research back out of the centralized government back to more of a free market and federated or decentralized approach. That would at least be a silver lining in my opinion, though to a potentially very dark cloud.
The free market doesn't support most research. Research usually doesn't end in something that's marketable, and even if it does it's often on a too long time scale to do so for companies to justify. And even if there is, it might never get published lest competitors gain anything from it. This is bad for science. At best states might step in but I imagine many won't.
This is bad for science, if you mean the deletion of data. Moving away from centralized authorities may be net positive though, time will tell.
You're also touching on the problem of research as an industry. Papers should be published regardless of economic value, and research should be done for the sake of curiosity. Sometimes outcomes are useful or functional, but that shouldn't be the only, or even primary, driver.
That's the conventional argument for government funded research, but is it true? The AI space is a good example of very long term research, funded almost entirely by the private sector without any clear idea of how the results would be marketed, they publish and - the key part - the work actually replicates. Nor is the AI space unique. XEROX Parc was another famous example, Big Data/Cloud has come entirely out of private sector research. Not unique to computer science either: the research work that led to Ozempic was being funded by Novo Nordisk as far back as 1998.
> Research usually doesn't end in something that's marketable
It usually does, even in academia. That's why they count citations. It's just that the thing that's marketed is either policy advocacy (marketed to governments) or the claims in and of themselves, marketed either to the general public in TED talk style advocacy or to other academics as work they can build on to get more grants. A lot of people don't recognize the existence of things like the profit motive, lobbying or marketing in government funded research, imagining that they don't exist, but they do. In some fields, it's common for lobbying to be like 50% or more of the word count.
There's a long tail of papers that research things that nearly nobody cares about, yet perhaps one day they might. These are the "we studied some obscure fish in the Amazon and found a cure for cancer" type stories that crop up from time to time. But such claims often don't quite work out, and the private sector is easily able to fund this sort of exploratory work too.
Yet at the same time we keep seeing startups bringing innovation, while the big enterprises do not bring that much original innovation. Instead, those big enterprises rather kill innovation by buying those startups. Not seldom to just cancel the whole product together.
This is almost a secret, but __most innovation come from the small players__.
Those small players benefit from open access and academic progress. It is a very fruitful cooperation.
But the tragedy is that in the US the meaning of "the free market" is being loudly distorted.
What they actually mean is a cozy climate for oligarchs, protected by the mountains of tariffs and deregulation. In the US society, the idea of competition has deformed into "killing competition", and they clarify it now with "by all means possible". Those extremists HATE competition. Nobody arrived likes being disturbed and having to work to keep competitive. Rent extraction is way simpler.
Especially HN should think a little longer about what that all means for aspiring entrepreneurs.
That is not actually what happens with most acquisitions, especially not in the drug and biotech space. Big enterprises buy promising startups at the phase 1 or 2 stage fully intending to bring them to market. But still many fail to ever make it through phase 3 and gain FDA approval. That's not an innovation problem it's just the nature of the business.
I am not sure if this applies here, but Regulatory Capture is a certain way to block the small players from growing. I understand that drugs are a special case, so I do not know if that applies there.
Also, the fact that a product fails post-acquisition is precisely what happens a lot in regular business too. They can be seen as a threat to other fiefdoms in the behemoth, or they lose their autonomy. Doesn't always mean the product or idea was flawed beyond repair.
Well, in the AI space at least that's not really true. Google, NVIDIA and Meta have all made huge contributors. So has Microsoft, in their own way. It's a real mix of big old companies and smaller upstarts.
Even in this example it is a yes and no. Remove academic development in the AI, including the paths we left, and your examples would not have any AI at all.
The problem is a little bit more nuanced than that though. It is not that big companies do not make inventions. Often, these inventions do not survive politically in the behemoth. That is why some companies decide to create a spinoff, knowing that their own body would be trying to kill the growth of their offspring.
Even in the early days AI was heavily funded by the private sector. Symbolics machines were partly promoted as a way to do AI research, back in the logic era. And the AI winter was mostly a grant funding phenomenon. When it became unfashionable in universities the field rebranded as ML and became commercially driven by (mostly) different people. Companies like Google invested in advanced ML research from day one.
Nowadays it's been rebranded back to AI due to the switch to neural methods, but there's been funding for AI from the computer industry for as long as the field existed.
I'm pretty sure AI would exist as a field and be in a similar place to where it is now, even if governments had never funded it at all.
Even more, a significant portion of the researchers at industrial labs got their start as graduate students, largely funded by government grants. Even if somehow no actual fundamental research transferred from academia into industry, the people sure do.
It has never been the case that one party was for centralization and one was for decentralization. Neither of these are goals. Both are instead methods of achieving goals. Both parties will use claims of federalism when they want to oppose federal policy they don't like and have done so for decades and decades.
Sure, that seems to be what drives the two parties flipping and it seems to be happening now. While your team is in charge you like federal powers, when the other team is in charge you like state powers.
It is generally true, though, that one of the two parties is for decentralization at any given point in time.
I don’t know about “parties” but political movements absolutely are divided by centralization (or not). Collectivism is literally the centralization of wealth.
States rights will be in the crosshairs soon enough. States that support public health, be that reproduction, vaccines, sex ed, weather, or simply just fact-based research, could see thier federal funds dry up. States still need to biuld infrastructure, something that almost always taps federal funds. Everyone who works in science or research is afraid at the moment, irrespective of where they think their funding comes from.
I know a guy measuring tree growth, with an eye to whether tree planting is effective post-fire. Much of the study is on federal lands. He has no idea whether the project will still exist come spring.
When the federal government takes somewhere between 50% and 100% of the income tax payed by a state's citizens simply to give it back to the state with strings attached, that is a straightforward undermining of the state being able to act on its own.
In general, it's amazing how reliably crypto-authoritarian points are prefixed with "I don't see how". It exploits our natural advantage to assume good faith and difficulty understanding, rather than a willful ignoring of coercion.
Sure, but the GP you were replying to was focused on the risk of states losing federal funding and how that leverage is making many act differently in response.
Companies are bad about doing this on purpose. If they set out to build AGI and accomplish something novel, just call that AI and go on fund raising from people who don't know better (or more likely don't care and just want to gamble with others' money).
Many of us here are engineers. Similar to our work, databcollected by scientists will eventually get to "good enough" in that interpretations are nearly indistinguishable from the truth. We don't need to understand every atom in the atmosphere to predict rain coming soon, for example. We don't need to do a full body scan to see visible breast cancer lumps.
I agree with you, but that wasn't my point. The post I replied to simply said the answer is more data. Without any more context about what kind of answer it is or how it should be used, it seemed important to me to remind whoever passes by that data alone does not make truth and its always worth keeping in mind that what we "know" today may be considered false tomorrow.
What you're talking about is more a question of scape, impact, and how accurate a prediction really needs to be. Of course we don't need to measure every atom to predict the weather - weather predictions are wrong all the time and rarely is that more than an inconvenience.
Naturally, garbage in, garbage out. Anyone who's worked any job should under stand that. And no data is ever perfect when measuring nature.
But I'm giving a best faith interpretation that the ones collecting the data are competent and have goals on what the data is collected for. We have too much talent flowing to assume the worst. We'll see how the next 4 years challenges my assumptions, though.
>What you're talking about is more a question of scape, impact, and how accurate a prediction really needs to be
Yes. That goal of data is to approximate the truth. More (good) data helps those who can interpret it to make better guesses. So the base truth of "we need more data then" is true. With a good faith interpretation.
I think the problem there is the powers granted to government rather than how today's people decide to wield it.
Facts are never really decided, things can always change if we learn something new or just consider what we know from a different angle.
The problem here is that anyone in charge can decide what they believe is fact and make very real, very impactful changes that they force on everyone else.
> The problem here is that anyone in charge can decide what they believe is fact and make very real, very impactful changes that they force on everyone else.
Sure, such is the nature of power. Thus has it always been.
What's novel is not that people in charge can broadcast their favored view of facts, but that anyone can broadcast their favored view of facts, which has to led to the current demoralization crisis: in the presence of conflicting authorities, no one believes any facts anymore.
Of course, some of the "facts" being broadcast are not, in fact, facts. The problem is that the flood of misinformation is so large, the force of echo chambers so strong, and the cynicism of consumers so great, that it is infeasible to produce persuasive evidence sufficient to make the truth more appealing than lies.
> but that anyone can broadcast their favored view of facts
Some blame, if not a majority, belongs on whoever actually hears those views and facts though. Knowing someone's intent is extremely hard, it really shouldn't matter whether they intend to mislead or believe what they are saying. Just because someone shares what they may honestly believe to be a fact doesn't mean we have to take it as fact.
We lack critical thinking and somehow landed in a spot where we're highly skeptical of anyone in charge but completely believe what a random person writes online. It honestly doesn't matter what facts are being shared or whether they are accurate, without critical thinking and the ability to discern for ourselves how could this ever play out well?
> Some blame, if not a majority, belongs on whoever actually hears those views and facts though. Knowing someone's intent is extremely hard, it really shouldn't matter whether they intend to mislead or believe what they are saying. Just because someone shares what they may honestly believe to be a fact doesn't mean we have to take it as fact.
I don't think that casting blame on individuals here is productive. I agree, lack of critical thinking skills is a major factor. Who is responsible for ensuring that a plurality of the population of a democracy learn critical thinking? We've gotten by without critical thinking for so long because we mostly don't need it: when you get all your news from Walter Cronkite, what good could come of further analysis?
So it's not an individual failure, but a societal one. Susceptibility to misinformation is like a plague, or a meteor strike, or some other natural catastrophe that we just haven't prepared for. Maybe we'll find a solution; maybe we won't, and the future of humanity belongs to those with the boldness to lie most effectively.
Oh there are societal issues here as well, no argument there. They all roll down hill from individuals' choices though.
Society didn't force Walter Cronkite on us. People chose to listen to him and a small number of other trusted sources, and they began choosing to take what was said by those sources at face value. I'm not even saying that was a bad thing or wrong, at the time news did seem to be reported in better faith.
We choose our sources though, and we choose how deeply to consider what they say. I don't see how this could have started as a societal issue rather than individual choice first.
> I don't see how this could have started as a societal issue rather than individual choice first.
really? I'd say it's clearly a matter of education. Critical thinking and media analysis just isn't part of American public schooling. If anything, people are taught to believe authority figures.
Regardless of how it "started", blaming the individual isn't helpful, because that suggests there's nothing to be done. "Well," you say, "folks made a bad decision, c'est la vie." Instead, we should be looking for solutions to media illiteracy, and that solution is certainly social in nature.
Sounds like we just have a very different view the relative merits of individual vs collective (or societal) approaches.
I very much shy away from control, and that generally means trusting the individual to generally do what is best or at a minimum accept that the result of that will at least be more resilient than the result of a collectivist or top-down approach. Both have risks for sure and there are absolutely times where individualism are a bad idea in my opinion, this just doesn't meet that bar for me.
Since we're talking about the functioning of democracy, which necessarily requires a plurality of people, I don't see how anything other than group- or society-level action could possibly make any difference.
Oh we were a very individualistic nation for much of our history. That does come and go over the years, and like anything it has pros and cons, but it can be done.
If group or societal solutions are the only viable option we might as well cut to the chase and go full socialist. I don't mean that derogatorily, if collectivism is the only solution when individual choices inevitably lead to bad outcomes why bother trying individual at all?
The challenge with individuals making choices that ultimately move in us a better direction is fear. That is really embracing uncertainty and trusting the average person to do what they think is best or "right." Its my opinion that we should absolutely embrace that uncertainty and trust people, but that doesn't land well for most people today.
A group or collectivist solution sounds much safer. As long as we have a good plan and trustworthy people in charge, we just need to empower them to do what they know we need. That can run into just as many, and just as dangerous, end points as an individualist model.
Both are risky. Both can work, and both can go horribly wrong. I just prefer the one where I get to trust myself and everyone around me to think for themselves and do what they think is best. I also personally prefer the bad result of reaping what we sow rather than it going wrong because the well intended leader was wrong or the ill intended leader was right (I.e. got what the evil end they wanted).
This whole chain was you pushing back on the relative merit or feasibility of an individualist approach to this problem. You mentioned education very briefly a few posts up but that didn't seem to be the main point of that comment and definitely not of this back and forth.
This isn't a new problem unfortunately. Data and research during the pandemic response was being horribly mishandled, largely by the Democrats at the time.
This isn't a one party or one person problem. It sure seems like a problem more correlated with our government structure and/or climate, or authority structures themselves.
There not being another pandemic during the information age to compare with, it's hard to say whether The Democrats mishandled it or not. Perhaps one could look at aspects where there was consensus within at least one of the opposing parties about what should happen (before the outcome of any path could be known) and compare that against hindsight. If you have specific examples where others clearly knew better than the ruling party, that would be relevant to consider if it's chance or a pattern, but otherwise it feels like the age-old opposing of the current ruling force
I’m sorry, I’m no fan of the dems but if you think Trump isn’t above and beyond when it comes to lying and twisting truth you’re either a shill or just ignorant
Oh he is bad about it, don't get me wrong. That doesn't excuse other politicians though, and attempting to weigh and compare the relative lying and truth twisting seems like an extremely difficult thing to do.
Bush Jr blatantly lied to the country and rallied us around a war that killed hundreds of thousands of people minimum. How do we weigh that with Trumps ridiculous lies?
Nope, it was not. But 2020 is when it was first addressed by the US federal government (through various means including the CARES Act), and the US federal government was run by one Donald Trump. So it seems disingenuous of you to place the blame specifically on Democrats without citing what the Democrats did wrong but Donald Trump did right.
Numbers alone will always lack context. You can absolutely verify where the numbers came from, weren't altered, and the math was done right. What you can't do is verify the numbers alone accurately portray what was happening in the real world, or what has happened in the real world since the snapshot of those numbers was taken.
Numbers are extremely useful, but numbers alone mean absolutely nothing.
True, numbers alone mean nothing. And the surrounding context alone also doesnt paint a sufficient story. You need both, for without both you can't be effective.
Unless said data/context is fabricated, trying to suppress either seems like a clear case of acting in bad faith.
Sure, I didn't mean to say data is unimportant or not needed at all. My point was just that data solves nothing without context (among other things, pike discernment and critical thinking).
I don't believe that is a one party issue. Life is messy and politicians attempt to smooth that over with grandiose, but hollow, visions for the future and data points taken out of context to paint a picture.
It's a fundamental problem of scale, you either become so bogged down in details and nuance that you get nothing done or you lose so much context that your statements are false without a massive list of caveats.
> Life is messy and politicians attempt to smooth that over with grandiose, but hollow, visions for the future and data points taken out of context to paint a picture.
Your point is: politicians lie. Of course they do. They always have.
What's new in our era is not the lying, but the utter contempt for facts. A study in contrasts:
* A "traditional politician" will lie. If they are caught, with plain evidence that contradicts their claim, they will evade, or reframe, or apologize, or blame someone else.
* A "Trumpian politician" will lie. If he is caught, with plan evidence that contradicts their claim, he will flatly oppose the facts. He'll invoke a vague conspiracy of evildoers who concocted the alleged facts. People believe him because he is charismatic and he talks like a regular person. He gaslights: believe me, he says, not your common sense and lyin' eyes.
So we're in a conundrum where many people have lost their ability to believe in facts, and instead believe a con-man. The problem is not just dishonesty, it is demoralization (in the psychological warfare sense of the word[1]).
EDIT: I read somewhere that Trump's superpower is lack of shame. A weaker politician concedes to facts out of respect for his audience: to deny a plain truth would be embarrassing.
> People believe him because he is charismatic and he talks like a regular person.
I'm not so sure many people really believe him very often. I live in a part of the country that heavily supported Trump, even diehard fans of his that I talk to consider him a shit talker and support him only because he throws a wrench in the system.
Even those I know who do seem to believe him cave pretty quickly when asked any slightly substantive question. They know tariffs raise prices for example, that we aren't going to buy Canada or take over Greenland, and that Trump in fact had no plan to end Russia's war on day one.
I guess I can't understand an attitude that leads you to want to destroy your own country.
The voters that call themselves "conservatives" these days will saw off their feet at the ankles, if it means that a member of a class they hate loses their legs.
Really? Maybe its my bias showing through, but my memory of the last couple decades is largely an exercise in most people looking to outside authorities (governments, corporations, titled experts, etc) to fix problems rather than dealing with it individually.
Well in an attempt to at least show where the bias, if that's what it is, comes from:
- Affordable Care Act
- the entire Covid response
- GDPR
- the "TikTok Ban" act
To name a few, those are all examples of us having granted larger powers to the government in hopes that they will fix problems for us that we won't fix ourselves.
Let’s take the ACA. That was designed to fix the problem “healthcare in the US is insanely expensive and insurance companies can deny coverage if you have a pre-existing condition.” How could you fix that problem individually?
My argument there wasn't actually that all of those could have done bottom up, only that they are examples of us granting the government more power and asking for a collectivist solution. That isn't always a bad thing, but it does point to the trend that I recognize (potentially due to my bias as pointed out above).
Personally I think the US going from extremely hyper-individualistic to the point of self-destruction to slightly less hyper-individualistic is not a sign of a shift, but rather a return to normalcy.
We forget that the US has been far, far more collectivist in the past, particularly from the 20's - last 70's. The shift towards hyper-individualism is, in my opinion, a wealth extraction mechanism masquerading as a strength. It is highly beneficial to every wealthy person to have low regulations and low requirements for care. The ACA is just common sense - the reason we didn't have it isn't because of individualism, but rather because by not having it you can make a lot more evil and consequently make a lot more money as an insurer.
I'd argue that it isn't possible to write thousands of pages in a single bill or budget proposal and have it actually be coherent.
reply