Clever people believing silly things

[Awayfromitall]

Hi, disillusioned humanities academic here. I went into my profession because I liked research and wanted to be surrounded by clever people.

So how can I square that with a colleague telling me that intersex conditions prove humans are not a dimorphic species, and then coming up with the killer line "You could be XXY and not even know it." (XXY=meaning Klinefelter Syndrome, usually resulting in fertility problems and small testicles in males, some scientists don't even believe this should be classed as 'intersex'). I am a female who has given birth.

How can you hold forth on intersex conditions and not even bother reading the wikipedia page?

We wouldn't let our students get away with it. No matter what your politics, even your view on self-ID, this is just dumb, stupid, unworthy and it drives me mad. Sorry for rant.

Personally for me Pineapple there is absolutely no benefit to me in holding the opinions I do on the subject, far less any material benefit to me. It is simply to position I come to when I consider all the facts in line with my principles and worldview. And by worldview I don't just mean my point of view, I mean what I see as being for the good and bad of other people whose points of you I am trying to empathise with. I have no other motivation.

I can't speak about the example given in the OP, but don't you ever think if people you know to be clever and logical can reason through an argument and come to a different conclusion to yourselves that theirs might be a perfectly valid logical conclusion to come to? Even if it's not the same conclusion you come to? It's not like that never happens, it really is completely possible.

I completely agree. But, it’s true to say that there are some people in academia now who simply won’t critically appraise evidence, and will run straight to their dogma, and refuse to discuss other points of view. A couple of years ago I’d have never thought this possible. But I’ve come across several examples in the last six months.

Oh, I believe you NameChange! But wouldn't those people exist on both sides of the debate, both in academia and elsewhere?

And already you;ve tried to frame this as being about sides.

Precisely, Crow. Pick your side, then your facts.

I apologise if you disagree with the perceived framing Upstart, but I can tell you I framed it in no particular way deliberately. How else would you prefer I framed it when the point of the discussion seems to be that some very clever, logical people follow an argument they come to conclusion A, and when others do the same they come to a conclusion B, which is incompatible with A? And that were they to debate their two positions they would be on opposite "sides"?

I don't really understand the root of your issues with the "framing", or indeed your proposed alternative.

When intelligence is within Vs when intelligence is without.

Some people express their intelligence with a demonstration of what they can learn by rote and repeat, and they cannot independently reason with facts that disrupt their learned narrative. Their position is arrived at by choosing a peer group and then adopting that group's position wholesale.
Peer group think > logic, facts, reasoning.

Others arrive at their position through an internal logic and reasoning process. Facts that challenge their narrative are beaten to within an inch of their life to see if they can still stand up. Facts that survive strengthen the position, facts that crumble result in a change of position. If internal reasoning is robust, the position will stand the test even if the entire peer group rejects that position, and the individual who holds it is the only one left.
Logic, reason, facts > peer group think

If my entire peer group thinks something at odds to me, I feel discomfort, but it makes me want to analyse my own reasoning more. It doesn't result in me abandoning my position, but in testing it harder. If I am committing a logical fallacy, I want to find it and change my position.

The person in the OP who argued that a woman who has given birth 'might be XXY' has failed to reason intelligently. Facts instantly demonstrate their position is false. And this appears not to disturb them at all.
This is not actual intelligence.

What pineapple said.

Pick your side, then your facts
Vs
Test the facts, discover your 'side'

*Peer group think > logic, facts, reasoning.

Logic, reason, facts > peer group think*

Good summary. Not everyone sticks to one camp all the time, but properly intelligent people would at least be aware of the pitfalls.

How do various pressures affect our beliefs. What are those pressures; social, fear, financial, perceived threats.

Do people really believe the statements they make, or are they virtue signalling. Why do we behave this way?

Such an interesting discussion to be had, lets not reduce it to conflict based thinking; side A vs side B.

Group think is a pretty common thing, in cog sci terms. No-one is immune to it. Questioning your beliefs and why you have them is always helpful, especially if it's a bit uncomfortable.

Recent article by Tricia Frasman 'Science Facts not Science Fiction':

'Do intersex women have penises?'
(extract)
"Among the greatest proponents of the “Sex Spectrum” idea are Transgender Activists who insist that the existence of Intersex conditions “prove” that sex is mutable. There are many wonderful people on Twitter who are striving hard to promote a scientific understanding of sex, and defending the rights of Intersex people. One of these is the wonderful mrkhtake2.
With her permission, I have put together one of her threads in which she explains that Intersex people do not have both sets of genitalia. The original thread can be found here.
Do intersex women have penises?
I’m seeing this thrown around a lot, so let’s address it. Firstly, as ever, let’s all remember that intersex =/= trans, and he conflation is harmful and ignorant. Now let’s get on with some science… "(continues)

sciencefactnotfiction.wordpress.com/2018/09/16/do-intersex-women-have-penises/

I'm a lawyer and some of the "cleverest" people I know, very experienced lawyers with huge brains, believe that TWAW and have (what is, to my mind) an incorrect understanding of the law.

I don't understand where their critical thinking has gone.

I don't understand where their critical thinking has gone.

Absolutely & this is such an important question.

I think it helps to be autistic. We’re not nearly so susceptible to “group think” or peer pressure - we’re stubborn, literal, factual, and perfectly used to not fitting in!
I find it difficult to understand how any woman would want to throw away women’s safety, rights, privacy, language and dignity, in order to support a tiny minority of aggressive trans activists instead. Especially when those activists are celebrating women’s “erasure” in a feast of hate filled misogyny, and demanding that convicted rapists be housed in women’s prisons.

Tell him that it is very easy: the very fact that the great majority of people (99%?) are either XX or XY proves that humans are a dimorphic species. The preservation of overwhelmingly XX and XY genetic sets throughout evolution proves that the dimorphism is an indispensible prerequisite of reproduction, on which life depends.
Intersex conditions are reproductively speaking dead ends. They my happen in every new generation, but the do not propagate (infertility).

If your colleague was right, the overwhelming binary of genetic conditions (XX vs XY at 99% or so) would not exist, but instead all kinds of chromosome sets or subsequent diferentiation would be pretty much evenly distributed, as evolution would not have had any selection pressure to keep up the genetic binary. But they are not, proving that the sex binary is at the core of human existence.

It was I think langcleg who I first saw pointing this out but it’s fabulously to the point:

if he believes there’s more than two sexes, where are the other gametes?

I hear well educated, intelligent religious people making well constructed arguments about aspects of religion. However all their reasoning is based on their belief that God exists. Consequently I discount all they say because I don't personally hold this belief.

When I was young, I was told that it was perfectly OK to question my religion - "ask hard questions!" they said. So I did, only to find it was really only OK if you then accepted the approved answers.

Much about the trans debate is so familiar to me.

Plenty of clever people believe in the supernatural, too. Belief in the supremacy and reality of gender identities is just like a religion and I think people follow it for much the same reasons and resist logical arguments for the same reasons as well. I also knew a Christian who had studied evolution at the university level and the elaborate flips he had trained his brain to perform to reconcile these two things were incredible.

I suppose like most people I like to think that I am reasonably intelligent and able to think critically, but I know I have accepted lots of things at face value because I liked or respected the person saying them or simply because they confirmed something I already thought. I don't really believe that very many people are truly immune to this, if any at all - we all have our blind spots, though they will be in different areas. I can explain my own thought processes as an ex-woke wrt trans issues. I used to make my own brain do flips in a desperate effort to make trans ideology make sense because I really wanted to be a 'good feminist' and an 'ally' and my nagging thoughts that it didn't make sense and was damaging to women were threatening that identity. Finding out more about radical feminism gave me permission, if you like, to really properly step out of that box because then I could do it without thinking of myself as hateful or anti-feminist. Though I am still very much aware that a lot of people would still see me in those terms. Perhaps all this simply means I am intellectually weak - I'm certainly no genius - but as I say I think we all have our blind spots and this was definitely one for me. As a contrast, Christianity was not a blind spot because I had none of my image of myself tied up in it (raised nominally C of E but nothing hardcore), so I was easily able to think my way out of that in childhood.

We take many short cuts in deciding what we think about things, often not arguing them out fully (I had done this with trans-acceptance before I peak-transed) and therefore I will only respect the opinion of someone who can logically argue their case and back it up with scientific evidence which is widely corroborated. So far I have seen none of that from the TWA viewpoint, just an assertion of ‘feeling’ trumping biology.

I think many supporters of TWAW have not argued it through. In my jobs it has just been blurrily hurried though as if very similar to homosexuality, so of course we unthinkingly go ‘gosh yes gay men and lesbians were treated badly in the past, we must make sure we respect all.’ It is only when we start to look at the details that we realise the difference.

As regards religion, again I think most TWAW supporters are being polite, tolerating something they don’t think is actually true, just as many people are polite about those who believe in God or ghosts or homeopathy (a belief that science doesn’t support and can’t be proved). Some people seem to be able to have the cognitive dissonance to take it further. I used to be a Christian who could balance a kind caring God with random appalling acts of nature and humans, so I can sort of see how it’s possible but only if you elevate your belief (in religion or in gender) to the point of saying it can’t be questioned because it is beyond our understanding.

Here's a clinical report on A New Female Case with 47,XXY Karyotype and SRY. www.omicsonline.org/open-access/a-new-female-case-with-47xxy-karyotype-and-sry-2167-0250-1000157.php?aid=71945 It cites a previous reported in which the woman was female. The truth is, it actually is possible. As someone with another rare intersex condition I've met a wide range of others and learned it is wise to keep an open mind. Weird exceptions are extremely rare, but we do exist. Someone I know found out when she was researching her symptoms and ran across a research paper that turned out to be about HER by her own doctor! The doctor had refused to tell her the truth. Another turned out to have had one leg of her Y chromosome transposed with a leg of chromosome 17, giving her symptoms that usually occur in xy females but she was xx.

I got ahead of myself typing. The other case cited was a FERTILE XXY female: "In the literature, different cases with 47,XXY karyotype and clinical features have been reported. Most of these cases were diagnosed androgen insensitivity syndrome while the others were reported in ranged from the infertility to the completely fertile female case." Sorry for the oversight. I'd track down the report on the fertile woman, but I need to get back to work (I'm a librarian)

I have a female brain, a female liver, female skin and female kidneys, in fact female everything. That’s because I am female and have been since conception. I also have a degree in Maths, good spatial awareness and I can read maps. I have worked in an industry where there are very few women, and which requires considerable physical strength and good mechanical skills. I have given birth to two children and cared for my parents in their later years. Sometimes I dress in a very feminine way, sometimes I wear jeans and boots. All of this is entirely consistent with my being a woman.

Very interesting, drmartin, but how is it relevant to the main point of this discussion?