[Fern_Blossom]

>From this perspective, your moral judgments about the insurrection, or about some racist or sexist policy, are viewed as objects of study rather than as candidates for truth or falsity. The scientist is not here engaging with philosophical issues about the potential accuracy of moral claims. The scientist instead approaches your judgments simply as psychological facts about you, causally traceable to various influences—just as with the thoughts and feelings that led to the social injustices you’re responding to.

Am I the only one terrified of this? This type of "study" has been abused very well in the past, phrenology being just one decent parallel. People have believed bad science in the past as "good" science. There's zero reason to imagine we're immune to it in this day. Some asshat out there is going to "prove" something about a demographic and use this as a means to enforce action. Just going to throw it out there, if they already dislike a demographic, they're going to prove how they should get arbitrary punishments or re-education because, "the science says so". It takes one shitty paper to fuck things up for a long time, cough cough anti-vaxxers cough cough. An average population is dumb as hell. It's even worse if they're convinced if something was scientifically proven, even though it wasn't. Take all the bad media reports on random papers released. That chocolate diet one fucking flooded the media even though it was total trash (yes, I know it was a hoax paper to prove the media is a dumpster fire). Just imagine the political party that doesn't like you get's ahold of this narrative. Fuck it, while we're at it, is it then better for your preferred party to wield the weapon first? Does that make it morally right for anyone to wield it or just who you approve of because you're perfect at deciding someone's character?