What if there really are racial/sexual differences between people?

[EvilRoy]

I don't want to seem like I'm piling on here, but I think the problem is more you and your buddy and the exposure you've had to science.

There are basically two very separate types of science, "people science" and "science science". "Science science" is the sort of heart of the field as other have described it above. People involved with this type either work in research and developement, or some kind of engineers, and they are the ones who typically read and write the technical papers and the odd thesis that gets filtered down to muggles. They typically disagree strongly with each other, all the time, and are constantly testing, questioning, nitpicking and so forth while producing paper after paper.

"People science" is more or less what you're talking about. It is made from the bits of "science science" that gets filtered down to the public eye. All of those papers are read by someone else, put into a "disagrees with me" or "agrees with me" pile, and then the person who did all the reading tells somebody else - a journalist or politician or philosopher - what they thought the "science science" means, and then that person finally makes a press release or writes an article, or a book on what they think their source thought the "science science" means.

And that is how you get all these politically charged, funded, amalgamated and socially conscious science that somehow all agrees with what we want to agree with. Its not that "science science" isn't doing the studies you're talking about, its just that since you trust people to find and present you with the information rather than seeking it yourself, you are being given what they presenters want you to see.

 

[Spartan448]

I believe there actually is generally accepted research that says on average females are smarter than their male counterparts.

 

[Olas]

I think you bring up an interesting issue OP, although I have to believe the scientific community has enough integrity to go with the evidence and facts, even if it would lead society to hate them and ruin their reputations.

How come whenever someone makes this kind of post, they don't propose what if white people are the intellectually inferior ones?

Is it because the OP is racist? Unfortunately I don't think any scientist is interested in proving such a hypothesis.

If you read OP's post carefully, you'll notice that he never specifies which race would be hypothetically less intelligent, he simply asks:

if there really were measurable differences between, say, the average intelligence of black people and white people,

If you assumed he meant that white people are smarter than black people, that's your own issue.

 

[lacktheknack]

but the belive that blacks were inherently inferor or that guys could be cured were all busted as psudo scienfitific werent they?

I'm assuming you meant "gays" could be cured.

Put it this way: Neuroplasticity is a thing. When neuroplastic techniques are applied to willing participants often and over long periods of time, it can and does alter the brain's disposition, and can "fix" certain mental instabilities, improve/degrade functions such as memory and reaction time, and change things such as personality, disposition and sexuality.

Basically, Lumosity IS based on an actual scientific process, it's just applied so poorly and inefficiently that most people don't notice a difference before and after.

General overview (I've read this one):
http://www.amazon.ca/The-Brain-That-Changes-Itself/dp/0143113100

Real life autobiographical example:
http://www.amazon.ca/The-Woman-Who-Changed-Brain/dp/1451607938

Scientific paper claiming to have made lasting impact to the brain in a mere half an hour:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100310114936.htm

It's taken a LONG time for scientists and society to even look twice at such an exciting development in neuroscience (Barbara Arrowsmith-Young is nothing short of a walking scientific revolution), and I bet you that the OP's statement that "science is beholden to the whims of society" is at least partly to blame. It's scary to defend gay people against anti-gay propaganda, saying "They can't change who they are!" when according to this new breakthrough, they actually can.

Of course, it requires willing participation over a long period of time to cause a change as drastic as sexuality reassignment, but it's still possible, according to this.

Just food for thought.

 

[wetnap]

No ones going to touch race.


I don't think society could handle the results of actual valid studies if they showed a difference.

But it doesn't matter because a good society need only allow for equality of opportunity, not of result. If our civilization ever advances enough to generically alter people on demand, any differences will be fixable.

Global warming concensus is at least based on some sound science, with some adherence to basic standards. On the other hand, the concensus on issues with gender is pretty terrible, as its based on nothing at all. The politically correct main stream is controlled by feminism, and they do not acknowledge science, reason or gender differences. Their views are even contradictory esp when it comes to lgbt issues...where suddenly inconvenient differences become "innate".


Gender difference is a thing, and the denial has created a lot of problems, many of which affect gamers and general nerd hobbiests because feminists who work on the assumption of denial of gender difference can only explain disparity of participation or interest in such things as evidence of "sexism".

Gender is a thing. Except when feminists need to explain every difference as the "patriarchy". But they really don't think things through. Did the patriarchy force gay men to act "fem"? Many gay men especially in the past in the west, and still in many parts of the world have to work hard to suppress their behavioral tendencies. Not just against their personal interest, but potentially dangerous, but many still cannot suppress it, so the idea of "patriarchy" brainwashing every person who must start off as some kind of blank slate is just ridiculous on its face. Feminists who constantly claim that its only societys sexism that makes women choose different choices from men really have to consider that if that is true, then clearly they should support things like the reprogramming of homosexuals or transexuals, if its just societal brainwash, you can make people into whatever you please.

Aurini's take "gender is genetic"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtxtwf1Oeis
and he has a point. Mother nature and evolution isn't concerned in modern ideas of "fairness". We are the products of millions of years of evolution, and the result is gender dimorphism in our species. The strategies for men and women are different. You don't experiment with the female, chances are most women get to reproduce by default, her job mostly is to safe guard her ability to pass on her genes, its not true for men since one man can impregnate many women. So mother nature experiments with men, and makes women closer to average, its not necessary to take risks as a woman. This is why men make up both the top scores and the lowest scores in tests like the SATs, they also fill the prisons to a degree where 90% of prisoners are male. The type of disparity feminists just can't deal with because it implies too much for them to acknowledge, so as you will notice, its rarely mentioned these people who are so fixated on shouting about disparities in other areas.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40dOAvccnt0
Bar bar has a point on women and geek interests. Its only since money came into the picture that women, especially feminist trouble makers have injected themselves into such events, whether it be gaming or comics. Before that point, women were happy to dismiss those interested in such things as losers. Now you have anita sarkeesian types, proven to not have any personal interest in video games causing trouble, accusing everyone else of sexism, unable to produce anything of substance themselves.


Here's adam savages man cave
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9AqYaSRjw0
The chances of that type of thing being built by a woman are miniscule.

Hell even in carpentry
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_J0_lIalJI
What are the chances that a woman would take that kind of geekery that far.

It goes in so many areas.

Since this is s gaming forum.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwST7leB0Sc
How many women build a gaming setup like that?

or this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJiYl2WAN-0&list=UUkWQ0gDrqOCarmUKmppD7GQ
custom hand formed hard acrylic tubes for water cooling

Its long been known by any of the tech sites, especially those dealing with pc hardware that their demographics are mostly male, it just comes down to a difference between the genders. No amount of changing their site would change that fact. Its like asking what could have oprah done to attract more male viewers. No amount of change in marketing strategy would get men interested in 50 shades of grey either.

Yet the feminists only explanation for such disparities is that these people all must be sexist, and that women only won't do such things because they've been scared away. Its quite perverse but its pervasive in current culture. Since feminists cannot acknowledge gender difference, they go around attacking innocent group after innocent group and then wonder why they get backlash...

 

[gargantual]

Thats why you go by what bill nye said wen he was having the creation debate with Ken Ham. The evidence should be in the earth. Among you and your peers. If people know themselves, can an incomplete thesis determine them? There's still much we havent even tapped in neurology or in quantum physics.

All the values show is that there is a lot of confirmation bias and not as much scientifically literate journalism as there should be. Like how the church needed Gaileo to be wrong.

The scientific method is always an unbiased process that some arent fully ready to mentally engage. Consider there was once a headline in the science section of google news saying that Cynicism will lead to Dementia in later life. Knowing that clickbait is a business in web health news like this, and that Web diagnosing can occasionally lead to higher stress and paranoia without a solid assessment, I kept reading the article to look for the middle ground. Exactly what the site wanted me to, and quotes from the scientists studying also gave the disclaimer that the findings could just be a correlation or trend among highly cynical studied personalities, people of a certain age who commonly had alzheimers etc, but NOT a full on flat human diagnosis saying you can't be cynical at all if you don't want to get alzheimers.

 

[Olas]

Put down your pitchforks and torches, I'm not saying there are. Hear me out.

Today I was chatting with a (philosophy major) friend and we got onto the subject of science and how it's not quite as infallible as we like to believe. He mentioned something that peaked my interest and the more I think about it, the more I think he's right.

His comment was that science is just as beholden to the whims of society as we are. That's a scary thought, but it's true.

No. He's full of it. Science is a process. Processes are inanimate, insubstantial, incorporeal, abstract concepts. They don't have whims, because they don't have neurological systems, let alone brains capable of conscious thought.

Thinking, conscious creatures (i.e. people) have whims. That means what people think science means may be wrong and beholden to public whims, but science itself is just science.

Whether the process of science itself is objective is irrelevant, because it's always going to be carried out by and for communities of people who will always be biased. Even under the assumption that the process itself is carried out in a purely mechanical fashion without bias towards results, the decision of what to investigate and research has to be based on something. If the scientific community is trying to suppress information about differences in gender/race/etc it's probably from a deliberate unwillingness to actually research the topic.

 

[PhiMed]

Or the belief amongst the medical community that the cause of anemia in women wasn't the same as the cause of anemia in men (the GI tract), it had to be because of menstruation and stuff, cause women are different. It was only very recently this was disproved.

I don't really understand what you're trying to say here.

Are you suggesting that someone has proven women cannot develop iron deficiency as a result of menstrual blood loss? I don't think that's a thing that happened.

Or are you saying that doctors used to believe women couldn't have GI bleeds?

And even more important: are you suggesting that the "belief" that blood loss can lead to iron deficiency is somehow discriminatory or prejudiced?

http://ermiliablog.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/inigo-montoya-what-you-think-it-means-meme.jpg?w=529

 

[Vault101]

It's taken a LONG time for scientists and society to even look twice at such an exciting development in neuroscience (Barbara Arrowsmith-Young is nothing short of a walking scientific revolution), and I bet you that the OP's statement that "science is beholden to the whims of society" is at least partly to blame. It's scary to defend gay people against anti-gay propaganda, saying "They can't change who they are!" when according to this new breakthrough, they actually can.
.

thats the thing though "born this way" only gets us so far...and in the end is appealing to people whos opinions shouldn't matter in the first place

if it were possible back when homosexuality was considered a sickness we may very well have seen people convert...would it have been eradicated completly? who knows, there would be people who wouldnt want to change even then

if it were possible and widley availible you might have people "go straight" not because of internalised homophobia but because its easyer in general, a woman could have her husband and 2.5 kids (if that were still the standard for "normal")....BUT what about the other way? people may want to explore that and many will tell you sexuality is fluid/a spectrum..a lot of that might be cultural baggae..mabye in the future we'll be gay once month and straight the next, it would bring the whole predjudice against bisexuality to a whole new level

 

[Vault101]

snip...

no ons is denying gender doesn't exist, but weather or not its inate doesn't matter..men and women should not be forced to conform to what society thinks men and woman do, lady wants to wear a dress and high heels? fine, little girl only wants to play with boys toys? cool, a guy wants to cross dress and take up knitting? go crazy! weather or not "girls things" and "boys things" are inate (and I seriously don't think you can dismiss society...if youre told from a young age that pink is for you your probably gonna belive it) CHOICE is the most important thing

and you think female nerds don't exist? HA they do.....you know where they are? they are on tumblr fan girling over Harry Potter or Dr Who or Welcome to nightvale or Firefly...you know why that is? because those properties don't actively make them feel uncomfortable/unwelcome, there are female "gamers" (by your arbitrairy standards) on this site, on a lot of other sites, they like batman, they like comics and always have even though those things don't like them back

and why the hell would somone be drawn to something that makes every concevable effort to say to them "YOU DON'T BELONG" why would I pick up a comic with a rediculous busty female on the cover?

I don't have a "man-cave" but my room is filled with action figures and prints pretaining and my gaming comptuer, so its close enough, you know mabye its sad I even feel the need to justify myslef to you but I am so fucking sick of being thourght of as invisible, hey guess what! I've even got the autism spectrum thing going on for me! am I legit enough for you huh?

If you think women "geeks" on the same level as male geeks don't exst or havent existed for some time, that their all the same cardboard cuts outs then [i/]you know nothing Jon snow[/i]

 

[Something Amyss]

When the whole global warming debate was going on a few years ago, I remember the deniers getting shouted down with research and threats. It is to the point now that we believe so strongly that global warming is happening, that any claim to the contrary is immediately rejected, regardless of its evidence (or lack thereof).

While I'm skeptical of this, it doesn't invalidate Global Warming or any other science because of the acts of fanatics. Science tends to refine over time, rather than progress strictly to societal whims, so I have trouble even accepting the premise here.

But what if this false premise existed?

Yes. Yes it would. Well, most likely. I mean, there would be a question as to how much popular coverage it get, but realistically, the notion that science follows cultural trends is less and less valid, and I mean, honestly, science was well ahead of the curve with things like race.

This sounds like the usual "scientists used to believe in global cooling and were calling for a new ice age" nonsense, though.

 

[wetnap]

snip...

no ons is denying gender doesn't exist, but weather or not its inate doesn't matter..men and women should not be forced to conform to what society thinks men and woman do, lady wants to wear a dress and high heels? fine, little girl only wants to play with boys toys? cool, a guy wants to cross dress and take up knitting? go crazy! weather or not "girls things" and "boys things" are inate (and I seriously don't think you can dismiss society...if youre told from a young age that pink is for you your probably gonna belive it) CHOICE is the most important thing

and you think female nerds don't exist? HA they do.....you know where they are? they are on tumblr fan girling over Harry Potter or Dr Who or Welcome to nightvale or Firefly...you know why that is? because those properties don't actively make them feel uncomfortable/unwelcome, there are female "gamers" (by your arbitrairy standards) on this site, on a lot of other sites, they like batman, they like comics and always have even though those things don't like them back

and why the hell would somone be drawn to something that makes every concevable effort to say to them "YOU DON'T BELONG" why would I pick up a comic with a rediculous busty female on the cover?

I don't have a "man-cave" but my room is filled with action figures and prints pretaining and my gaming comptuer, so its close enough, you know mabye its sad I even feel the need to justify myslef to you but I am so fucking sick of being thourght of as invisible, hey guess what! I've even got the autism spectrum thing going on for me! am I legit enough for you huh?

If you think women "geeks" on the same level as male geeks don't exst or havent existed for some time, that their all the same cardboard cuts outs then [i/]you know nothing Jon snow[/i]

Well actually the main stream concensus out there is based on exactly that denial, that gender doesn't exist(when convenient).

Its why you see women go straight to accusing everyone of sexism to explain disparities because they can't acknowledge even the possibility of gender being a thing.

No one is claiming that people should adhere to strict rules, but its actually the opposite that is happening, because denial of innate gender differences means any percieved differences are only explained as sexism, and thus must be "fixed" through force.(again only when convenient)

Dont' strawman me that quick. No one said female nerds don't exist, you might as well have said that gay people don't exist because men mostly are straight, its as absurd as that. But the fact remains that most men are straight, so anyone trying to rebut that fact by saying "oh yea! but some men are gay" would really just not be making any sense at all. And again, to repeat the point made by bar bar in that video, women flock in once there is money, once there is popularity. Harry potter and dr who are not obscure at this point,you aren't an "outcast" geek for liking these things, its about the most conformist thing one can do at this point. But as a whole for male interest subjects like gaming, most "geeks" are going to be male. Just look at who are the ones who run the servers, who are the ones who create the mods, the hardcore are mostly men, and it was mostly men who were interested long before there was any main stream acceptability or money in it.

Why would you expect comic books to appeal to women when they don't read them? You think men would read cosmo if they put matt damon on the cover instead of angelina jolie? Its a faulty premise that such a thing would work at all.

If women really were interested in comics they'd make their own, and serve their own market. Why are you demanding that men serve women as if they lacked the ability to serve themselves? Its almost patriarchal..... If there is a market there they should serve it themselves, after all who knows better what women want other than women themselves. In japan women do write comics for themselves, and guess what, the comics are different from those targeted at men. So the idea that you should serve women by destroying things made for men is rather close minded. And again it comes with a sort of patronizing attitude that women need to be served because they can't serve themselves. No one needs to feel "welcomed" btw, do womens magazines "welcome" men? Of course not, and thats fine. One has to ask why you think that mens interest need to be universal, but womens are just fine to be segregated. Again, thats another sign of society being based on female priviledge, not the other way around as claimed.

Btw there is nothing with busty females. If such things are enough to damage their delicate sensibilities, thats a personal problem they should deal with. Getting upset or jealous of a drawing is petty behavior, not to be encouraged. and it isn't for men, but for women who are coddled in the west, the expecation that they should be mature enough to handle a drawing of a busty female just doesn't exist. And again, its perfectly fine to appeal to the sensibility of males who like such things. Women's entertainment doesn't bother catering to male interests either, and thats fine as well.

And also, geeks and nerds being not exactly the "in crowd" are hardly the "you don't belong" types. Again, this is the problem with feminism, it smears everyone that doesn't deserve it. The only people who don't belong are the fakes, and its true nerds will rage about fakes, but that is only fair as those people make a mockery of their interests. And like it or not, the anita sarkeesian types are proven fakes. No one endoreses merit more than the nerds, they are outcast, and generally their interests are not seen as cool at all. and its not until the mainstream jumps in to co-opt the material that the fake nerd feminist types jump in to cause trouble.

No ones asking you to justify yourself, just an acknowledgement of reality that men and women are different and as such there will be far more of one gender displaying an interest in this or that than the other in many areas of life. If anything feminists pushing their agenda while smearing innocent people, lead by fakes like anita sarkeesian are the ones who make people more skeptical of any woman who claims to be a geek. Nerds being the outcasts only value merit, if you have the chops you have respect, and its been that way for the longest time.

The Apollo Saturn V Launch Vehicle Digital Computer (LVDC) Circuit Board Fran Blanche"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0ggqY7vnAw
Go look at that, she doesn't have to justify herself because its clear she has credibility.
And look at the comments. The way the mainstream feminist narrative goes, there should be nothing but male trolls in the comments, but this is clearly not true, and I'm sure most of her viewers are male.


Again, no one says they don't exist, but its far rarer that they do. Lets not kid ourselves.

 

[bug_of_war]

snip

I'm curious, is your point about how much faith we put into science to the point where in which we may be ignorant to any evidence suggesting a possible difference that could in effect give reason for segregation or gender/racial societal roles? Or is it that it's somewhat scary/confronting how much faith we put into science of today to the point where we may actually be wrong as shown in history?

 

[Jacco]

snip

I'm curious, is your point about how much faith we put into science to the point where in which we may be ignorant to any evidence suggesting a possible difference that could in effect give reason for segregation or gender/racial societal roles? Or is it that it's somewhat scary/confronting how much faith we put into science of today to the point where we may actually be wrong as shown in history?

Kind of both. We are so confident in our ability "to science" that we may not see the flaws in our methods. My example of science in 1899 showing that blacks were inferior to whites was making that point. They were just as confident then in their methods and research as we are in ours now. So who is to say that in 100 years, we will be looked back on as inferior scientists?

 

[Jacco]

When the whole global warming debate was going on a few years ago, I remember the deniers getting shouted down with research and threats. It is to the point now that we believe so strongly that global warming is happening, that any claim to the contrary is immediately rejected, regardless of its evidence (or lack thereof).

While I'm skeptical of this, it doesn't invalidate Global Warming or any other science because of the acts of fanatics. Science tends to refine over time, rather than progress strictly to societal whims, so I have trouble even accepting the premise here.

But what if this false premise existed?

Yes. Yes it would. Well, most likely. I mean, there would be a question as to how much popular coverage it get, but realistically, the notion that science follows cultural trends is less and less valid, and I mean, honestly, science was well ahead of the curve with things like race.

This sounds like the usual "scientists used to believe in global cooling and were calling for a new ice age" nonsense, though.

It's not meant to be an indictment of science or scientists. My point was that if society at large is unwilling to believe something, despite the evidence, then that evidence will fall on deaf ears and be buried. I'm not saying that global warming doesn't exist. I'm asking if, given the general consensus (even to the point of fanaticism) of society that it does, would evidence to the contrary really have a chance to be heard?

 

[Jacco]

When the whole global warming debate was going on a few years ago, I remember the deniers getting shouted down with research and threats. It is to the point now that we believe so strongly that global warming is happening, that any claim to the contrary is immediately rejected, regardless of its evidence (or lack thereof).

It's not "regardless". If there were any compelling evidence that it's not happening, the claim would be heard, but there isn't. Claims that lack any form of compelling evidence should be dismissed.

At the risk of sounding like a conspiracy theorist.... scientists need money to conduct research. If someone wants to push an agenda that global warming exists so they can sell electric cars or something, they might "fund" that research. Obviously, you and I and most people would hope that the scientists involved would have more integrity than that, but it has happened before (Wakefield) and I'm sure it still happens to some extent.

That was my point. That the powers that be, whether it's government, society, academia, etc, dictate what is researched or not and how it is done.

 

[Vault101]

And again, to repeat the point made by bar bar in that video, women flock in once there is money, once there is popularity. Harry potter and dr who are not obscure at this point,

same could be said about batman or starwars...women "coming in" when theres money is really a just a statment that doesn't seem to be based on much


[quote/]you aren't an "outcast" geek for liking these things, its about the most conformist thing one can do at this point. But as a whole for male interest subjects like gaming, most "geeks" are going to be male. Just look at who are the ones who run the servers, who are the ones who create the mods, the hardcore are mostly men, and it was mostly men who were interested long before there was any main stream acceptability or money in it.[/quote]
chicken and egg scenario....being told "this is for you" or "this is not for you" youre probably going to internalise it,


[quote/]Why would you expect comic books to appeal to women when they don't read them? You think men would read cosmo if they put matt damon on the cover instead of angelina jolie? Its a faulty premise that such a thing would work at all.[/quote]
theres a difference between being downright unapealing to anyone besides 14 year old boys and being "generall" appealing, why do you think Harry Potter is so popular?, granted I'm not saying things should be always made for wider appeal but comics themeslves are niche for anyone, regardless of gender...adding a whole lot of sexism on top of that (and cultural baggage) does help

[quote/]If women really were interested in comics they'd make their own, and serve their own market.[/quote]
well they do, but that doesn't mean creators shouldn't take into account how it treats female charachters

[quote/] So the idea that you should serve women by destroying things made for men is rather close minded.[/quote]
oh I'm sorry..is inclusivity "destroying" things? I didn't know

[quote/]And again it comes with a sort of patronizing attitude that women need to be served because they can't serve themselves.[/quote]
ah yes the [i/]no, see YOUR actually the one being sexist![/i] logical gymnastics.....no

[quote/]No one needs to feel "welcomed" btw, do womens magazines "welcome" men? Of course not, and thats fine. One has to ask why you think that mens interest need to be universal, but womens are just fine to be segregated. Again, thats another sign of society being based on female priviledge, not the other way around as claimed.[/quote]
1. I DONT think its good for women to be segregated...I think its BAD, the different is we live in a society where male is considered the default
2.no...it isnt..as I pointed out above

[quote/]Btw there is nothing with busty females. If such things are enough to damage their delicate sensibilities, thats a personal problem they should deal with.[/quote]
I could explain Objectification but then I could also bash my head against a brickwall. I'm not saying abolish it all..everything has its place no matter how dumb it is...

[quote/]Getting upset or jealous of a drawing is petty behavior[/quote]
yep....bitches be jealous...that explains it....the silly harpies /sarcasm

[quote/]not to be encouraged. and it isn't for men, but for women who are coddled in the west.[/quote]
*sigh*.....I don't even...no

[quote/]And also, geeks and nerds being not exactly the "in crowd" are hardly the "you don't belong" types.[/quote]
yes...yes they fucking are, the amount of sexism in amonsgt nerds and the tech industry is paramount


[quote/]Again, this is the problem with feminism[/quote]
its a problem with sexism


[quote/]it smears everyone that doesn't deserve it. The only people who don't belong are the fakes, and its true nerds will rage about fakes, but that is only fair as those people make a mockery of their interests.[/quote]
I don't give a flying fuck is jimmy the comic nerd was bullied in school..he has no right to act like a jerk based on sexist pre conceived ideas

 

[Something Amyss]

Scientific community doesn't. They listen, and nothing has convinced the community. In that regards, its no different than helisentric theory or evolution.

I'd like to point out, in agreement with this point, specifically that respected journals do publish papers that question global warming. This is far from the single-mindedness, the threats, the conspiracies alleged.

It's taken a LONG time for scientists and society to even look twice at such an exciting development in neuroscience (Barbara Arrowsmith-Young is nothing short of a walking scientific revolution), and I bet you that the OP's statement that "science is beholden to the whims of society" is at least partly to blame.

I think your own bias is showing. Looking up Barbara, her methodology seems to have failed to provide any significant results when prompted for testing. I mean, I don't know. Maybe it is revolutionary, but it seems like she's selling books and charging exorbitant prices for a method she cannot actually demonstrate, and that makes it seem no different from healing crystals. Actually, given Wikipedia notes some lawsuits regarding critical talk, she sounds more like Ray Comfort, the Atheist's Nightmare.

As for neuroplastic changes, why yes, that would be revolutionary, but hardly unthinkable. I can find Scholar entries for similar topics dating back more than ten years. What I can't find is any papers indicating further successes in this specific field, and that should be enough to raise an eyebrow. Maybe you have read several papers to this end, but I'm currently inclined to not believe it. Not because of some deep dogma, but because of a lack of evidence.

But just the fact that this field has been explored before should help refute the notion that science being "teh bias" has anything to do with it. Something like this really could change the way we look at the brain--which is one of the reasons we extensively scrutinise any such new claim. Just recently I saw an article about a neuroscientist who claims that fMRI shots of a brain at rest demonstrate activity dsoes not change as we previously thought. This is contrary to our current line of understanding, but its not being decried. Indeed, it appears it's already being studied.

I wouldn't ever trust a single paper on any subject. But if this is true, it will be a huge breakthrough.

Most fringe science fans like to complain that science is keeping down their pet theories, and I'm not sure this is any different. But hey, I'm open to evidence to the contrary. I'm just not sure it exists.

they are on tumblr fan girling over Harry Potter or Dr Who or Welcome to nightvale or Firefly...

Jeez, you just named most of the topics that brought me and my girlfriend together. I'm amused.

 

[Amir Kondori]

Well true science is not restricted in such a manner, by true science I mean work done using proper controls, and peer reviewed. I want to tread carefully here, as I really don't mean to promote any racist ideology here, but there is a score gap between African Americans and European Americans in standardized testing. Now how do you explain that gap? Some people tried to use this gap to justify their views of racial superiority. Of course these views are discredited by mainstream science today, yet the gap does still exist. So why the gap?
Even in the early 20th century there were scientists who proposed non-genetic factors as contributing to this score gap. There are many ways to interpret this data, and by using other factors than race one might find that socio-economic class is what really determines whether someone will score lower or not, and not race. To be clear I do not believe genetics are at play.
Here is an interesting NY Times article on this subject:
http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/j/jencks-gap.html

So keep in mind that in our effort to be progressive people that we don't gloss over facts that seem unpalatable. If we do that then we will never fix these problems. We must first understand what is causing the score gap for people of color before we can hope to close that gap.

EDIT: I forgot to address the broader implications of the post. There definitely are differences between races and genders. African-Americans are at higher risk to get heart disease. Only women can carry babies. Now a difference does not equate to a lower or higher value. In fact I think it is important to know about our differences, and to celebrate them.