[DrDroop]

1. Only to the extend that this also benefits the the genes of a coerced female.

2. Maybe it is, but not sure if that needs to be a problem.

3. No, at least admittance rate of blacks vs asians would make one believe the opposite is true

4. Yes for the vast majority.

5. Probably, but most conservative philosophy is boring and backwards anyway.

6. Are we counting a history of oppression as part of racial biases here?

7. Euh yeah, how is this even controversial?

8. I don't/can't know, but it would surprise me if it was higher then 10%.

9. I would not classify epigenetic as a social influence, so no. (maybe use the word environmental here)

10. No, but unit cohesion can help performance a lot.

I hope this helps

[joeblubaugh]

This is the opposite of a: scientific b: the point of the study

[DrDroop]

I know, but that doesn't mean that I am not helping

[bilbo0s]

To be honest, you're not answering a lot of the questions.

That's not a criticism. That was the point of the post. That a lot of people read a question, and allow emotion to get the better of them. (I would argue that nearly all people do this.)

Just as a for instance, you answered "no" to 3. This was based on, again, according to you, "admittance rates of blacks vs asians". But if you read the question, it was about discrimination in "academia". Point being, you had your preconceived narrative, which would be confirmed if you took "academia" to mean undergraduate admissions. And people who answer "yes" have their preconceived narrative, which would be confirmed if you took "academia" to mean, say, hiring into academia from a pool of people who already received a PhD. (Even those receiving a PhD from the same department in the same school.)

The question as posed, is not answerable in an objective manner without qualifications. But you gave an answer, which will be taken as an answer without qualifications. Which evokes claims of bias and on and on and on. For instance, will you sit on a hiring panel for your department after such an answer? And, at root, the trouble is only due to the question being an unfocused question, calibrated to evoke an emotional reaction and an almost instinctual deviation from scientific rigor. Not really due to the biases or baser instincts of people offering an answer of yes or no to said question.

My recommendation:

We should stop with all the sensitivity training, and instead have yearly reinforcement training on the principles of scientific rigor. Training where we work through just these sorts of exercises so that people can see how easily they can be moved away from the scientific method if they're not paying attention.

[DrDroop]

Thanks for your help, we appreciated it a ton?

[red-iron-pine]

the fact it is getting considerable downvotes lends credence to one of the main points of the study. we're seeing that happen in real-time, via downvotes.

the point of the study is that there may be some -- emphasis on some -- evidence in favor of those controversial views, but attempting to air or even attempting a discussion about them leads to immediate backlashes.

[d0gsg0w00f]

The point wasn't the answers themselves. It was whether providing any answer at all would get you cancelled.

[TMWNN]

>It was whether ~~providing any answer~~ asking the question at all at all would get you cancelled.

FTFY

If someone were so uncouth to ask the question, there is a prescribed "correct" answer for others to immediately repeat, mantra-like, that will avoid social and professional opprobrium.