Former Community – We Moved

🆕 Coached community here, for posts & feedback public community here.

ForumResources: Researches, Studies, TheoriesRandomSociology and ideology

Please or Register to create posts and topics.

Sociology and ideology

#1 · July 1, 2023, 7:23 am

Quote from John Freeman on July 1, 2023, 7:23 am
Hello,
yesterday I had a date with a social sciences PhD student. First, I will preface this that I respect social sciences and that there is a huge complexity to it.
I told her that what I was cautious of the influence of ideology in social sciences (and in gender studies). I think after having talked with a few social sciences graduates that the idea that makes me uncomfortable is the social determinism and the corollary to it is victim mentality. She admitted that she hates Macron’s ideology of self-enterprise but that her personal success is due to her viewing herself like that (self-management).
I understand that our social environment has a huge impact on us. Her argument was that we cannot put the responsibility on the individual (rough summary) as for instance as a poor person if one does not have access to a certain kind of education one cannot have the knowledge and therefore behave in a certain « smart/adequate » way. It’s a good point. However it removes agency and responsibility from the person.
I asked her what is the theory of people escaping their “social destiny”. She said that basically it’s when they meet teachers that help them along the way to compensate for their parents’ lack of education. In my case (I’m one of those especially for economical and family dysfunction reasons). My father was a teacher but never helped me with my homework. I had to work a lot both to overcome some failures because I had to do it all on my own. And also to earn money to study. Yes people helped me but just like everyone else had help. So I feel like it’s a bit simplifying and that social sciences is more about talking at the population level. The general trends. I’m not sure it takes into account enough personal effort, agency and internal resources (self-empowerment, self-introspection, willpower, intelligence).
Regarding the girl, she’s very pretty and smart. I was not attracted sexually to her and I understood why at this second date: she’s a feminist. As you probably guessed it. She’s smart but attracted to the idea that she does not have the same chances as a man in our society. Probably she had to work a lot and I believe that. Based on her knowledge she told me that for instance men who work among a majority of women rise through the rank faster. So any way you look at it we as men are advantaged, that is just one example she gave me. How does it frame me and other men? As not having deserved what we achieved. So it’s disempowering. To use the status game analogy in her game we have low status (because of unfair advantage). You can imagine how it made me feel: a bit cheated and irritated. It diminishes one’s effort and it’s an attack on my self-esteem and status. And the argument is: since you’re a man you were never aware of the advantages you got. In a way it’s true in another it’s demeaning knowing all the efforts I and others did.
Also she recognized that social class has more influence than gender on social “destiny”. I told her about Bill Burr’s joke about white women. That he says if I remember well: “what are you complaining about? you’re in the jacuzzi with me”.
For instance I like to pay for the bill. But with her I felt uncomfortable because I knew that it could be interpreted negatively. So I asked her what she wanted to do. She paid a little bit more than her half because I paid last time. I did not even remember it as for me it’s not important. Especially since I asked her out so now I take it on me to offer the meal. It’s a courtesy rather than showing any kind of superiority. And also because I did not notice that women take it as a honest signal in you wanting to invest in them. So they are more attracted.
As I was going home I thought about it and how Lucio as a social psychologist (if I’m not mistaken) has a different mindset. Hence this post.
My understanding is that in social sciences are not an experimental science in the sense that social psychology is. There are competing school of thoughts so theories are not as strong than in other sciences.
I want to stress that I do think that social sciences are a science of course. What I’m trying to understand is why it seems that (leftist) ideology seems so strong in that field. And I do think that it can often be disempowering
Also it has a built-in frame of “us vs them” so I find the conclusions dividing. I understand it’s about power and it’s taboo to talk about it or admit one wants it.
For instance she’s 28 years old and applying for a director position. She has an insider who helped her with her application from the inside. So who’s at an advantage really? So I think what makes me uncomfortable is the hypocrisy behind it: not accounting for one’s own advantages and exaggerating others’. Attacking others’ will to power while denying one’s own (“doing it for the team”).
For instance now the dominant ideology is the feminist one. At least that is what I encounter in my social circle and at work. So I told her how I have to self-censor and adapt to it. As we’re not allowed to think or say certain thing.
For instance the biological difference between men and women and the impact on their psychism.
So she admits there is a biological difference but that it is very small and cannot tell what it is. So it’s good to admit one’s own limitations in understanding. The reason being than in children many behaviours are taught (unconscious) by the parents based on the child’s gender. However then what is one to conclude? Nothing really. As then we cannot have a discourse on the natural desires and behaviours of each sex. I understand that this “natural” approach has to be criticized because it does not account for social constructs.
It’s a good thing we had this conversation as it opens my mind to new questions. However I do think that the social interpretation can rob the individual of his in-built personality and accomplissements. So I find it disempowering in this sense.
I have to admit that I take this perspective a bit personally as I struggled a lot to defeat a “social destiny”. I don’t come from poor background but I had to compensate a lot for my family’s deficiency.
As I wrote here it took me a long time to realize how I am discriminated unconsciously due to my origins and appearance in my society. However I’m not angry about it. It’s a fact of life (in group/out group bias). So the difference is that I don’t paint myself a victim. Even if free will and agency are illusions (“the user effect”? Real? Hoax?) it’s more empowering to believe we have agency that if we believe we don’t.
I knew it was going to be a long post and it is.
As you can imagine I’m quite curious to know what you think about these ideas.
PS: she also talked about how in a social sciences class all women denied when some research said that women on average desired a mate with more resources than them. There was apparently a “methodology bias”. It’s possible I did not look into it.

Hello,

yesterday I had a date with a social sciences PhD student. First, I will preface this that I respect social sciences and that there is a huge complexity to it.

I told her that what I was cautious of the influence of ideology in social sciences (and in gender studies). I think after having talked with a few social sciences graduates that the idea that makes me uncomfortable is the social determinism and the corollary to it is victim mentality. She admitted that she hates Macron’s ideology of self-enterprise but that her personal success is due to her viewing herself like that (self-management).

I understand that our social environment has a huge impact on us. Her argument was that we cannot put the responsibility on the individual (rough summary) as for instance as a poor person if one does not have access to a certain kind of education one cannot have the knowledge and therefore behave in a certain « smart/adequate » way. It’s a good point. However it removes agency and responsibility from the person.

I asked her what is the theory of people escaping their “social destiny”. She said that basically it’s when they meet teachers that help them along the way to compensate for their parents’ lack of education. In my case (I’m one of those especially for economical and family dysfunction reasons). My father was a teacher but never helped me with my homework. I had to work a lot both to overcome some failures because I had to do it all on my own. And also to earn money to study. Yes people helped me but just like everyone else had help. So I feel like it’s a bit simplifying and that social sciences is more about talking at the population level. The general trends. I’m not sure it takes into account enough personal effort, agency and internal resources (self-empowerment, self-introspection, willpower, intelligence).

Regarding the girl, she’s very pretty and smart. I was not attracted sexually to her and I understood why at this second date: she’s a feminist. As you probably guessed it. She’s smart but attracted to the idea that she does not have the same chances as a man in our society. Probably she had to work a lot and I believe that. Based on her knowledge she told me that for instance men who work among a majority of women rise through the rank faster. So any way you look at it we as men are advantaged, that is just one example she gave me. How does it frame me and other men? As not having deserved what we achieved. So it’s disempowering. To use the status game analogy in her game we have low status (because of unfair advantage). You can imagine how it made me feel: a bit cheated and irritated. It diminishes one’s effort and it’s an attack on my self-esteem and status. And the argument is: since you’re a man you were never aware of the advantages you got. In a way it’s true in another it’s demeaning knowing all the efforts I and others did.

Also she recognized that social class has more influence than gender on social “destiny”. I told her about Bill Burr’s joke about white women. That he says if I remember well: “what are you complaining about? you’re in the jacuzzi with me”.

For instance I like to pay for the bill. But with her I felt uncomfortable because I knew that it could be interpreted negatively. So I asked her what she wanted to do. She paid a little bit more than her half because I paid last time. I did not even remember it as for me it’s not important. Especially since I asked her out so now I take it on me to offer the meal. It’s a courtesy rather than showing any kind of superiority. And also because I did not notice that women take it as a honest signal in you wanting to invest in them. So they are more attracted.

As I was going home I thought about it and how Lucio as a social psychologist (if I’m not mistaken) has a different mindset. Hence this post.

My understanding is that in social sciences are not an experimental science in the sense that social psychology is. There are competing school of thoughts so theories are not as strong than in other sciences.

I want to stress that I do think that social sciences are a science of course. What I’m trying to understand is why it seems that (leftist) ideology seems so strong in that field. And I do think that it can often be disempowering

Also it has a built-in frame of “us vs them” so I find the conclusions dividing. I understand it’s about power and it’s taboo to talk about it or admit one wants it.

For instance she’s 28 years old and applying for a director position. She has an insider who helped her with her application from the inside. So who’s at an advantage really? So I think what makes me uncomfortable is the hypocrisy behind it: not accounting for one’s own advantages and exaggerating others’. Attacking others’ will to power while denying one’s own (“doing it for the team”).

For instance now the dominant ideology is the feminist one. At least that is what I encounter in my social circle and at work. So I told her how I have to self-censor and adapt to it. As we’re not allowed to think or say certain thing.

For instance the biological difference between men and women and the impact on their psychism.

So she admits there is a biological difference but that it is very small and cannot tell what it is. So it’s good to admit one’s own limitations in understanding. The reason being than in children many behaviours are taught (unconscious) by the parents based on the child’s gender. However then what is one to conclude? Nothing really. As then we cannot have a discourse on the natural desires and behaviours of each sex. I understand that this “natural” approach has to be criticized because it does not account for social constructs.

It’s a good thing we had this conversation as it opens my mind to new questions. However I do think that the social interpretation can rob the individual of his in-built personality and accomplissements. So I find it disempowering in this sense.

I have to admit that I take this perspective a bit personally as I struggled a lot to defeat a “social destiny”. I don’t come from poor background but I had to compensate a lot for my family’s deficiency.

As I wrote here it took me a long time to realize how I am discriminated unconsciously due to my origins and appearance in my society. However I’m not angry about it. It’s a fact of life (in group/out group bias). So the difference is that I don’t paint myself a victim. Even if free will and agency are illusions (“the user effect”? Real? Hoax?) it’s more empowering to believe we have agency that if we believe we don’t.

I knew it was going to be a long post and it is.

As you can imagine I’m quite curious to know what you think about these ideas.

PS: she also talked about how in a social sciences class all women denied when some research said that women on average desired a mate with more resources than them. There was apparently a “methodology bias”. It’s possible I did not look into it.

Kavalier, Power Duck and sillygoose9845 have reacted to this post.

#2 · July 1, 2023, 9:46 am

People understand intuitively that life is not fair and they have many things others don't and they don't have many things others have.

But the difference between high quality and average/low quality person is how they handle this knowledge.

High quality person accepts how the life is and they do what they can to use their advantages to the limit while diminishing and correcting things they are bad at.
Other people on the other hand accept their place when they see their skills are not special, resigning, blaming the world for being bad ( which can also end in deluding themselves, that they are great, it's just the world that holds them down, feminists are know to do that ).

She is completely right that environment, family and many other things not based on your choice decide how the masses will act, what they will do and how intelligent they are.
But you are not the masses.
If you believe in your skills, continually address your weak points and keep on growing, you will stand out, no matter the family or environment. It's true for example that poor people will be less intelligent, so poor person should use this knowledge and achieve what they want with it, them being poor doesn't mean the data defines them, it's just an another tool to exploit. One is not bound to any group, just as you said, those are only statistics, and statistics don't decide about individual.

Lucio Buffalmano, John Freeman and 3 other users have reacted to this post.

#3 · July 1, 2023, 9:49 am

Hey John,

That left-wing imprint on social science was strong and dominant for quite some time.

It is still the main idealogy, but not as strong as it used and the wing may be changing for several factors:

As it grew and turned extreme more curious minds simply couldn't buy into it, because it became just plain not true for most folks who wanted to uncover the truth
Growing and opposing evidence, from biology, evolutionary psychology, twin studies, etc.
Growing popularity of evolutionary psychology, that disproved many of the (false) philosophies of what Tooby referred as "Standard Social Science Model" (several left-wingers have a thing against evolutionary psychology and seek to discredit it)
Popular and influential opposing scholars, such as David Buss and Steven Pinker. Their books also helped. Pinker for example dedicates his all book The Blank Slate to this issue. Not a huge fan of Pinker, but at least on that front, he helped
Growing influence of power dynamics / red pill that shows that everyone is playing the power game chasing their interests, and that implies that women (or men, for that matter) are anything but passive victims of any other gender or group

As for feminism, agree it's confrontational and there are some threads we discussed this.

As for the date, if a guy is interested in the woman, I'd be strategic in how to approach these topics (but if you were not interested, cool).

And as for the "unfair privileges" this lady talked about, I find them so mentally poisonous and disempowering that they irritate me.
I think we talked about it somewhere, but since they're so popular these days I'm thinking if they may deserve a lager spot in either PU or Ultimate Power (or an article, even).
It'd be a bit off topic though, so if either you or anyone else is interested, better in a new thread.

John Freeman, Jack and 3 other users have reacted to this post.

Community, new content and Confidence University now available here.

#4 · July 1, 2023, 8:48 pm

Quote from John Freeman on July 1, 2023, 8:48 pm
Thank you DGX37 and Lucio, great points!
@DGX37
High quality person accepts how the life is and they do what they can to use their advantages to the limit while diminishing and correcting things they are bad at.
No covert bragging I hope: this is my philosophy. Whatever cards you received do the best with them. Some are at your advantage some aren’t. Some millionaires are unhappy some poor people aren’t. So our social class doesn’t determine our outlook on life.
But you are not the masses.

Boom. Powerful. Whatever agency we have a lot or little it’s up to us how we use it.
As it grew and turned extreme more curious minds simply couldn't buy into it, because it became just plain not true for most folks who wanted to uncover the truth
It’s very similar to the words I used. I’m interested in what is true. I’m going to listen to learn as long as it brings a more accurate description of reality.
Growing and opposing evidence, from biology, evolutionary psychology, twin studies, etc.
Not a particular topic and one on which I self-censor in most contexts now. Apparently the image it paints of women is not one many women identify with. I think it probably is because they think that it depicts women as « weak » and « venal » with which I don’t agree. I think women are strong, it’s just a different kind of strength than men. And wanting to have access to resources is nothing to be ashamed of. We all want it. For instance she thinks that accumulation comes from capitalism. I think humans always liked to accumulate resources. It makes total sense in a survival/thriving model.
Growing popularity of evolutionary psychology, that disproved many of the (false) philosophies of what Tooby referred as "Standard Social Science Model" (several left-wingers have a thing against evolutionary psychology and seek to discredit it)
I’m going to look it up thanks!
Popular and influential opposing scholars, such as David Buss and Steven Pinker. Their books also helped. Pinker for example dedicates his all book The Blank Slate to this issue. Not a huge fan of Pinker, but at least on that front, he helped
On my list, thanks!
Growing influence of power dynamics / red pill that shows that everyone is playing the power game chasing their interests, and that implies that women (or men, for that matter) are anything but passive victims of any other gender or group
Yes that’s what I learned here. I think every individual desires more power and resources. There’s nothing to be ashamed of. Some deny their will to power but them being humans they will unconsciously play it out in other ventures (virtue games for instance).
As for the date, if a guy is interested in the woman, I'd be strategic in how to approach these topics (but if you were not interested, cool).
Yeah you’re right. I was not interested in the first place before going to the date. I went to the date because I like her face and facial expressions. The intellectual exchanges were good. I feel she could be a buddy but not a lover. I’m not attracted to her: she’s not funny enough to me :(.
And as for the "unfair privileges" this lady talked about, I find them so mentally poisonous and disempowering that they irritate me.
I’m glad that we feel the same about this. Yes I think that if you have ideas and thoughts to share about this on my side I’m eager to know more about them. In my view an article seems the most fitting format.
Thank you guys!
For reference here is the clip:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3WTu7aLkFZg
The whole clip:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MLRITR2HG44&pp=ygUYQmlsbCBidXJyIG9uIHdoaXRlIHdvbWVu
I do feel like there is some hypocrisy which irritates me. I wouldn’t generalize, it applies to the complaining kind. A poor man is worse off than an upper class woman. The problem is that when you talk about men’s struggle (without going in victim territory) it’s actually disempowering to men. And I noticed that they love when I talk about my own challenges as a man. It’s like a secret revenge they revel in to hear my challenges (mostly as an individual which happens to be a man).

Thank you DGX37 and Lucio, great points!

@DGX37

High quality person accepts how the life is and they do what they can to use their advantages to the limit while diminishing and correcting things they are bad at.

No covert bragging I hope: this is my philosophy. Whatever cards you received do the best with them. Some are at your advantage some aren’t. Some millionaires are unhappy some poor people aren’t. So our social class doesn’t determine our outlook on life.

But you are not the masses.

Boom. Powerful. Whatever agency we have a lot or little it’s up to us how we use it.

As it grew and turned extreme more curious minds simply couldn't buy into it, because it became just plain not true for most folks who wanted to uncover the truth

It’s very similar to the words I used. I’m interested in what is true. I’m going to listen to learn as long as it brings a more accurate description of reality.

Growing and opposing evidence, from biology, evolutionary psychology, twin studies, etc.

Not a particular topic and one on which I self-censor in most contexts now. Apparently the image it paints of women is not one many women identify with. I think it probably is because they think that it depicts women as « weak » and « venal » with which I don’t agree. I think women are strong, it’s just a different kind of strength than men. And wanting to have access to resources is nothing to be ashamed of. We all want it. For instance she thinks that accumulation comes from capitalism. I think humans always liked to accumulate resources. It makes total sense in a survival/thriving model.

Growing popularity of evolutionary psychology, that disproved many of the (false) philosophies of what Tooby referred as "Standard Social Science Model" (several left-wingers have a thing against evolutionary psychology and seek to discredit it)

I’m going to look it up thanks!

Popular and influential opposing scholars, such as David Buss and Steven Pinker. Their books also helped. Pinker for example dedicates his all book The Blank Slate to this issue. Not a huge fan of Pinker, but at least on that front, he helped

On my list, thanks!

Growing influence of power dynamics / red pill that shows that everyone is playing the power game chasing their interests, and that implies that women (or men, for that matter) are anything but passive victims of any other gender or group
Yes that’s what I learned here. I think every individual desires more power and resources. There’s nothing to be ashamed of. Some deny their will to power but them being humans they will unconsciously play it out in other ventures (virtue games for instance).
As for the date, if a guy is interested in the woman, I'd be strategic in how to approach these topics (but if you were not interested, cool).

Yeah you’re right. I was not interested in the first place before going to the date. I went to the date because I like her face and facial expressions. The intellectual exchanges were good. I feel she could be a buddy but not a lover. I’m not attracted to her: she’s not funny enough to me :(.

And as for the "unfair privileges" this lady talked about, I find them so mentally poisonous and disempowering that they irritate me.

I’m glad that we feel the same about this. Yes I think that if you have ideas and thoughts to share about this on my side I’m eager to know more about them. In my view an article seems the most fitting format.

Thank you guys!

For reference here is the clip:

Video content available in Power University

The whole clip:

I do feel like there is some hypocrisy which irritates me. I wouldn’t generalize, it applies to the complaining kind. A poor man is worse off than an upper class woman. The problem is that when you talk about men’s struggle (without going in victim territory) it’s actually disempowering to men. And I noticed that they love when I talk about my own challenges as a man. It’s like a secret revenge they revel in to hear my challenges (mostly as an individual which happens to be a man).

Power Duck has reacted to this post.

#5 · July 3, 2023, 10:09 am

Quote from John Freeman on July 3, 2023, 10:09 am
I had an aha moment this morning.
One of her points was that if you hide children's faces features such as hair and only show the face to people, until the age of 5 people cannot distinguish boys from girls (apparently).
So the whole gender/feminist rethoric is about having no (or very little) differences between men and women. That is if there is no difference, then there should be no difference in status is probably implied. So it's a status game I believe. This rethoric also comes through opposition to the conservative rethoric that says that the difference between men and women justifies an imbalance (in status). So through this difference, it is implied that men are superior (physically for instance, see the whole debate about trans-gender people in women's sport). So there is an agenda on the conservative side as well to justify certain politics to keep the status quo in favour of males of course.
That's why I'm so dumfounded. Yes, there are differences. No it does not mean that one sex is superior to the other. It's crazy that this simple idea is not popular. And at the same time it's not crazy because it contradicts their political agenda (and therefore their self-interest).
In my experience, in the overwhelming majority of the time, you can observe the difference between girls and boys in newborns (physically and in behaviour, it's subtle but it's there). I examine them on a daily basis and have been for 5 years or so. However, I self-censor on this observation because it's considered discriminative nowadays. So just like Solomon Asch's experiment we have to pretend not to notice the obvious for conformity's sake (new norm).
That is also why thanks to this site I realized that feminism is not really about equality. It's about power. Equality means that we can appreciate difference in people independently of their value and/or rights.
It's a bit off-topic here but these ideas came to me following this conversation so I think it fits best here. It's tough for me to let go on this because to me I actually think that there is some hate in some of those speeches. I will though as it's not my problem. It's theirs. I'll make sure to connect in my social life with people who can appreciate others' differences without making a value judgment (on their value as a person) and avoid those who do.

I had an aha moment this morning.

One of her points was that if you hide children's faces features such as hair and only show the face to people, until the age of 5 people cannot distinguish boys from girls (apparently).

So the whole gender/feminist rethoric is about having no (or very little) differences between men and women. That is if there is no difference, then there should be no difference in status is probably implied. So it's a status game I believe. This rethoric also comes through opposition to the conservative rethoric that says that the difference between men and women justifies an imbalance (in status). So through this difference, it is implied that men are superior (physically for instance, see the whole debate about trans-gender people in women's sport). So there is an agenda on the conservative side as well to justify certain politics to keep the status quo in favour of males of course.

That's why I'm so dumfounded. Yes, there are differences. No it does not mean that one sex is superior to the other. It's crazy that this simple idea is not popular. And at the same time it's not crazy because it contradicts their political agenda (and therefore their self-interest).

In my experience, in the overwhelming majority of the time, you can observe the difference between girls and boys in newborns (physically and in behaviour, it's subtle but it's there). I examine them on a daily basis and have been for 5 years or so. However, I self-censor on this observation because it's considered discriminative nowadays. So just like Solomon Asch's experiment we have to pretend not to notice the obvious for conformity's sake (new norm).

That is also why thanks to this site I realized that feminism is not really about equality. It's about power. Equality means that we can appreciate difference in people independently of their value and/or rights.

It's a bit off-topic here but these ideas came to me following this conversation so I think it fits best here. It's tough for me to let go on this because to me I actually think that there is some hate in some of those speeches. I will though as it's not my problem. It's theirs. I'll make sure to connect in my social life with people who can appreciate others' differences without making a value judgment (on their value as a person) and avoid those who do.

Lucio Buffalmano, Kavalier and Power Duck have reacted to this post.

#6 · July 3, 2023, 3:50 pm

Correction: « …avoid those who don’t » of course.

Kavalier has reacted to this post.

#7 · July 3, 2023, 7:50 pm

Yeah, you can always find a shred of "evidence" for almost any otherwise lacking (social) theory.

That's almost any biased individual (or any marketer / idiot, etc.) can claim "science backing" while still sharing BS.

John Freeman, Jack and Kavalier have reacted to this post.

Community, new content and Confidence University now available here.

#8 · July 3, 2023, 8:23 pm

Thanks! Definitely, did not think about this.

Lucio Buffalmano and Kavalier have reacted to this post.

#9 · July 21, 2023, 7:26 am

This great article from Lucio explains a lot the dynamics with these individuals: guilt-tripping.

Kavalier has reacted to this post.

#10 · July 22, 2023, 2:24 am

Quote from Kavalier on July 22, 2023, 2:24 am
Hey, guys! I think it's a great question, and one that allows for an exchange of different perspectives here.
I think it's important to distinguish the scientific practice from the political/ideological practice. Scientific practice is "positive", in the sense that it aims at describing things as they are. Political/ideological practice is "normative': it aims at describing things as they should be (according to the person's or group's perspective) and/or acting in order to bring about the desired changes.
Of course, "normative" follows from the "positive". It's only after Major Tom (positively), a keen observer of the natural world, realizes that planet Earth is blue, that he can (normatively):
A: resign himself to the fact: "there's nothing I can do" (I should do nothing)
B: think the situation needs (or try to bring about) a change: "Planet Earth should be red"
Notice that Major Tom might be terribly mistaken when speaking normatively at the same time he's surgically precise when speaking positively. After all, Planet Earth is, indeed, blue. But even if it turned red, he would still be there sitting in a tin can far above the world...
So, where I want to arrive with this example is: the fact that your date is (politically, ideologically, normatively) a feminist doesn't really tell us much about her merits as a social scientist. At a general level, the fact that social scientists position themselves politically shouldn't really be a sufficient reason to make us cautious about social sciences.
After all, if one can reasonably conclude that social (gender, race, class etc) asymmetries are a real thing (scientifically, positively), it's perfectly legitimate that one (politically/"ideologically", normatively):
A: resigns oneself to the fact: "asymmetries are a part of life and therefore should remain as they are" (center/right wing)
B: think the situation needs (or try to bring about) a change: "not only they are asymmetrical, they are not asymmetrical enough" (far right wing) OR "asymmetries should be erradicated (far left wing) or at least minimized (center/left wing)".
Notice that A, be it in the case of Major Tom or the social scientist, is not any less normative, ideological, political, than B, just because there is an overlap between "how things are and "how things should be". The reasoning here would be similar to conclude that Biology deserves caution because biologists think diseases must be treated (microbia is just how things are, a fact of life), or that Physics deserve caution because physicists are in favor of aircrafts (gravity is a law for a reason, and it should be obeyed, no workaround).
My view is that the left is strong in the field because current evidence does corroborate the perception that such asymmetries exist (Lucio might disagree, but I think his text actually supports this, at least in the "positive" level. John's experience also gives further evidence, when he says above that [...] As I wrote here it took me a long time to realize how I am discriminated unconsciously due to my origins and appearance in my society. [...]. If patriarchy or racial discrimination/xenophobia should be dealt with, is up for discussion – at the political/ideological/normative level). And, in modern society, the majority of the people think that such asymmetries are a bad thing, which overlaps with the left stance (asymmetries should be erradicated or at least minimized). That's why, in my opinion, much of the manipulations in data, when they are practiced, are about exaggerating (f the manipulator is leftist) or minimizing asymmetries (if the manipulator is rightist). I'm yet to see a rightist exaggerating asymmetries in order to convince the public opinion that we should enlarge them or keep them as they are.
I disagree that feminism is about power only. It's certainly about empowering, and empowering is fair game when it's about bringing people to the same overall level. Feminism, historically, is about women having the same political, civil, economic, etc, rights as men do, to which they have historically been denied. And, of course, empowering can, sometimes, become overpowering - as in the extremist, but fringe currents that promote misanthropy. And, of course, even good ideas can be leveraged for drama, games and manipulation (which happen everywhere, it's not really a feminist's thing).

Hey, guys! I think it's a great question, and one that allows for an exchange of different perspectives here.

I think it's important to distinguish the scientific practice from the political/ideological practice. Scientific practice is "positive", in the sense that it aims at describing things as they are. Political/ideological practice is "normative': it aims at describing things as they should be (according to the person's or group's perspective) and/or acting in order to bring about the desired changes.

Of course, "normative" follows from the "positive". It's only after Major Tom (positively), a keen observer of the natural world, realizes that planet Earth is blue, that he can (normatively):
A: resign himself to the fact: "there's nothing I can do" (I should do nothing)
B: think the situation needs (or try to bring about) a change: "Planet Earth should be red"

Notice that Major Tom might be terribly mistaken when speaking normatively at the same time he's surgically precise when speaking positively. After all, Planet Earth is, indeed, blue. But even if it turned red, he would still be there sitting in a tin can far above the world...

So, where I want to arrive with this example is: the fact that your date is (politically, ideologically, normatively) a feminist doesn't really tell us much about her merits as a social scientist. At a general level, the fact that social scientists position themselves politically shouldn't really be a sufficient reason to make us cautious about social sciences.

After all, if one can reasonably conclude that social (gender, race, class etc) asymmetries are a real thing (scientifically, positively), it's perfectly legitimate that one (politically/"ideologically", normatively):
A: resigns oneself to the fact: "asymmetries are a part of life and therefore should remain as they are" (center/right wing)
B: think the situation needs (or try to bring about) a change: "not only they are asymmetrical, they are not asymmetrical enough" (far right wing) OR "asymmetries should be erradicated (far left wing) or at least minimized (center/left wing)".

Notice that A, be it in the case of Major Tom or the social scientist, is not any less normative, ideological, political, than B, just because there is an overlap between "how things are and "how things should be". The reasoning here would be similar to conclude that Biology deserves caution because biologists think diseases must be treated (microbia is just how things are, a fact of life), or that Physics deserve caution because physicists are in favor of aircrafts (gravity is a law for a reason, and it should be obeyed, no workaround).

My view is that the left is strong in the field because current evidence does corroborate the perception that such asymmetries exist (Lucio might disagree, but I think his text actually supports this, at least in the "positive" level. John's experience also gives further evidence, when he says above that [...] As I wrote here it took me a long time to realize how I am discriminated unconsciously due to my origins and appearance in my society. [...]. If patriarchy or racial discrimination/xenophobia should be dealt with, is up for discussion – at the political/ideological/normative level). And, in modern society, the majority of the people think that such asymmetries are a bad thing, which overlaps with the left stance (asymmetries should be erradicated or at least minimized). That's why, in my opinion, much of the manipulations in data, when they are practiced, are about exaggerating (f the manipulator is leftist) or minimizing asymmetries (if the manipulator is rightist). I'm yet to see a rightist exaggerating asymmetries in order to convince the public opinion that we should enlarge them or keep them as they are.

I disagree that feminism is about power only. It's certainly about empowering, and empowering is fair game when it's about bringing people to the same overall level. Feminism, historically, is about women having the same political, civil, economic, etc, rights as men do, to which they have historically been denied. And, of course, empowering can, sometimes, become overpowering - as in the extremist, but fringe currents that promote misanthropy. And, of course, even good ideas can be leveraged for drama, games and manipulation (which happen everywhere, it's not really a feminist's thing).

John Freeman and Gguwad have reacted to this post.