There's a reason why effect sizes are generally small in social science: that's because universal generalizations are almost entirely absent
Show this thread
Ah, you almost had me there! Pretty much no one holds any of these all 'X are Y'-views for any important X group or Y trait.pic.twitter.com/yqlfJh3I72
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
One could define membership based on a plurality of characteristics being present. This is what psychiatrists do for mental illnesses.
-
Would be silly to claim that e.g. biological sexes don't exist because very tiny minority (intersex disorders) are hard to classify.
-
But this is all, well, semantics, and mostly unrelated to the usual anti-stereotype nonsense.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
I'm impervious to these philosophical arguments. I spent years studying analytic phil and I'm now recovering from the damage. :p
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.