undefined | Better HN

0 pointsdataviz10004y ago0 comments

> scientific consensus

We should be very careful with scientific consensus of a social science. Maybe we should say if you lead a horse to water, it doesn't drink, and you need that horse to work on the farm to grow food to feed your family, you are going to have a very bad time instead of what teachers told me time and time again, "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink." What type of person gives up on a horse that doesn't drink instead of figuring out what is wrong with the horse or understanding animal behavior to train the horse to drink and pull plows and stuff?

0 comments

1 comments · 1 top-level

travisjungroth4y ago

> What type of person...

Ones who aren't good at what they're doing. I'm sorry you had a bad experience with school.

I think some of the aversion to the "doesn't exist" claim is it seems to leave a hole. There are two ways of saying something doesn't exist / isn't real. You can say the cause isn't there or the effect isn't there. Take malaria. As you might know, the name means "bad air". People used to think bad air from swamps and jungles made you sick. If I didn't believe this I could say "swamp air can't make you sick, malaria doesn't exist". Which, sure, the disease doesn't come from the gas. But people do seem to get sick in a similar way at swamps that they don't get sick in dry areas. Isn't that real?

Another reason people will react to you with hostility is you're pattern matching people who have been hostile to them. People with depression get told "it's all in your head". Sure, that's where the brain is. "No, it's just the way you look at things". Sure, yeah, bad at looking at things. Still depressed. I don't think that "gently scolding" people has show up as effective treatment. But the point isn't to help. It's to dismiss and degrade.

You're also still only half way to looking at things holistically. You want to zoom out (based on what you've said about yourself and the horse example). But instead of looking at the system all together, you're pulling the blame from 100% on the student (something you got as a painful message) and putting it 100% on the teachers. Neither is representative of reality.

Is someone disabled if they can't see well enough to drive? What if they don't want to drive? What if they can drive with glasses? What if there aren't glasses good enough for them, is it that optometrists are disabled? What if they can't afford them? These are all really interesting social questions and there are no perfect answers. But if I get the sense that someone is trying to ignore the reality that some people can see fine and some people see poorly and suffer for it, and that any of this suffering is at all localized on the person who can't see, I'm going to think they're trying to pull one over on me.