Comments on: Anthropology Patrons http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/08/anthropology-pa.html Overcoming Bias is economist Robin Hanson’s blog, on honesty, signaling, disagreement, forecasting, and the far future. Sat, 11 Feb 2012 23:23:58 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3 By: David J. Balan http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/08/anthropology-pa.html#comment-398791 David J. Balan Mon, 11 Aug 2008 17:57:31 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2008/08/anthropology-patrons.html#comment-398791 Robin, the claim is not that the gun guys are more biased (though they might be), but rather that their bias is more dangerous. Robin, the claim is not that the gun guys are more biased (though they might be), but rather that their bias is more dangerous.

]]> By: Robin Hanson http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/08/anthropology-pa.html#comment-398790 Robin Hanson Sun, 10 Aug 2008 23:35:45 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2008/08/anthropology-patrons.html#comment-398790 David, is there any evidence that people who use guns have a more biased worldview? David, is there any evidence that people who use guns have a more biased worldview?

]]> By: David J. Balan http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/08/anthropology-pa.html#comment-398789 David J. Balan Sun, 10 Aug 2008 17:29:38 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2008/08/anthropology-patrons.html#comment-398789 I'm with mtraven and the objecting anthropologists. There's a pretty clear danger in having our understanding of people in other countries be heavily influenced by the agendas of an organization whose primary task and reason for being is to kill people in other countries. That's not as big a dig at the military as it sounds like; we need a military for some purposes. But the kinds of people who are attracted to being in the military are exactly the kind of people who we should suspect of being inclined to see everything through the sight of a gun, and those are the last people who should be involved in determining the agenda of social science. To say that other possible funders have biases too is true but doesn't cut it. Nobody else has a bias like this; they might be equally likely to be wrong, but they're nowhere near equally likely to be dangerous. I’m with mtraven and the objecting anthropologists. There’s a pretty clear danger in having our understanding of people in other countries be heavily influenced by the agendas of an organization whose primary task and reason for being is to kill people in other countries. That’s not as big a dig at the military as it sounds like; we need a military for some purposes. But the kinds of people who are attracted to being in the military are exactly the kind of people who we should suspect of being inclined to see everything through the sight of a gun, and those are the last people who should be involved in determining the agenda of social science. To say that other possible funders have biases too is true but doesn’t cut it. Nobody else has a bias like this; they might be equally likely to be wrong, but they’re nowhere near equally likely to be dangerous.

]]> By: Robin Hanson http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/08/anthropology-pa.html#comment-398788 Robin Hanson Wed, 06 Aug 2008 12:15:28 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2008/08/anthropology-patrons.html#comment-398788 Daniel, yes i suspect they are not giving their real objections. Daniel, yes i suspect they are not giving their real objections.

]]> By: billswift http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/08/anthropology-pa.html#comment-398787 billswift Wed, 06 Aug 2008 11:34:01 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2008/08/anthropology-patrons.html#comment-398787 "This makes sense, given that anthropology owes its origin to colonialist exploitation and bears serious historical guilt for facilitating colonial administration." Somebody needs to actually read history rather than modern PC crap. "can you see in the abstract how an anthropologist might make the decision to prioritize the safety of a group of people ahead of the US military's need for information?" Actually, the only people whose safety could be helped by denying info to the military would be those actually attacking said military. If driven to extremes, for example, by lack of information, the military could always fall back on "kill anything that looks like it could be a threat". “This makes sense, given that anthropology owes its origin to colonialist exploitation and bears serious historical guilt for facilitating colonial administration.”
Somebody needs to actually read history rather than modern PC crap.

“can you see in the abstract how an anthropologist might make the decision to prioritize the safety of a group of people ahead of the US military’s need for information?”
Actually, the only people whose safety could be helped by denying info to the military would be those actually attacking said military. If driven to extremes, for example, by lack of information, the military could always fall back on “kill anything that looks like it could be a threat”.

]]> By: Hopefully Anonymous http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/08/anthropology-pa.html#comment-398786 Hopefully Anonymous Wed, 06 Aug 2008 11:15:48 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2008/08/anthropology-patrons.html#comment-398786 " This makes sense, given that anthropology owes its origin to colonialist exploitation and bears serious historical guilt for facilitating colonial administration." "but can you see in the abstract how an anthropologist might make the decision to prioritize the safety of a group of people ahead of the US military's need for information?" This seems like a status hierarchy play to me. Anthropologists today above anthropologists of the past, anthropologists today above the US military today. ” This makes sense, given that anthropology owes its origin to colonialist exploitation and bears serious historical guilt for facilitating colonial administration.”

“but can you see in the abstract how an anthropologist might make the decision to prioritize the safety of a group of people ahead of the US military’s need for information?”

This seems like a status hierarchy play to me. Anthropologists today above anthropologists of the past, anthropologists today above the US military today.

]]> By: Leo Zimmermann http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/08/anthropology-pa.html#comment-398785 Leo Zimmermann Wed, 06 Aug 2008 09:49:01 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2008/08/anthropology-patrons.html#comment-398785 TGGP, The HTS does employ cultural anthropologists, but many cultural anthropologists seem not to consider their work up to par. Furthermore, I have to take issue with Gene Expression's contempt for cultural anthropology. Yes, that wing of anthropology appears to no longer prioritize the prediction and control of human behavior. This makes sense, given that anthropology owes its origin to colonialist exploitation and bears serious historical guilt for facilitating colonial administration. A contemporary anthropologist thinking Iraqis could, entirely reasonably, disagree with Gene Expression's claim that "in the end they are animals to study." Yes, this requires an ethical intervention that ultimately relies upon axiom, as would the idea that the collection of facts supersedes all other considerations. The debate over whether working for the military beats letting the military just do whatever is being had by the anthropologists... but can you see in the abstract how an anthropologist might make the decision to prioritize the safety of a group of people ahead of the US military's need for information? TGGP,

The HTS does employ cultural anthropologists, but many cultural anthropologists seem not to consider their work up to par.

Furthermore, I have to take issue with Gene Expression’s contempt for cultural anthropology. Yes, that wing of anthropology appears to no longer prioritize the prediction and control of human behavior. This makes sense, given that anthropology owes its origin to colonialist exploitation and bears serious historical guilt for facilitating colonial administration.

A contemporary anthropologist thinking Iraqis could, entirely reasonably, disagree with Gene Expression’s claim that “in the end they are animals to study.” Yes, this requires an ethical intervention that ultimately relies upon axiom, as would the idea that the collection of facts supersedes all other considerations. The debate over whether working for the military beats letting the military just do whatever is being had by the anthropologists… but can you see in the abstract how an anthropologist might make the decision to prioritize the safety of a group of people ahead of the US military’s need for information?

]]> By: Hopefully Anonymous http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/08/anthropology-pa.html#comment-398784 Hopefully Anonymous Wed, 06 Aug 2008 09:35:42 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2008/08/anthropology-patrons.html#comment-398784 What can we in the overcomingbias community learn from the academic discipline of anthropology? What can we in the overcomingbias community learn from the academic discipline of anthropology?

]]> By: TGGP http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/08/anthropology-pa.html#comment-398783 TGGP Wed, 06 Aug 2008 06:32:48 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2008/08/anthropology-patrons.html#comment-398783 Didn't the DOD also recruit a lot of anthropologists when we were involved in Vietnam? My suspicion is that the DOD may be getting a raw deal. Gene Expression had <a href="http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/12/malthus-innovations-friend.php" rel="nofollow">discussed</a> a split between cultural and physical anthropologists. Do they also split over this issue? Didn’t the DOD also recruit a lot of anthropologists when we were involved in Vietnam? My suspicion is that the DOD may be getting a raw deal.

Gene Expression had discussed a split between cultural and physical anthropologists. Do they also split over this issue?

]]> By: Daniel Humphries http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/08/anthropology-pa.html#comment-398782 Daniel Humphries Wed, 06 Aug 2008 02:23:25 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2008/08/anthropology-patrons.html#comment-398782 I second mtraven's objection, and renew a charge of being disingenuous on Robin's part. I think the fault is that the anthropologists' objections quoted here do seem to be concerned with the independence of the scientists, in which case Robin's point is totally legitimate. But obviously the larger objection is that the Defense Department engages in large-scale killing of humans on a regular basis whereas the other institutions presumably do not. If that's their objection, then they SHOULD just come out and say it. They seem to be guilty of hedging about their true motives (perhaps out a fear of appearing "unpatriotic" if they called the DOD killers?), but not guilty of a true double standard. So this strikes me as more of a gotcha! post ... they are simply not being honest about their reasons. Surely, Robin, you don't really think there is no possible difference to be made among the above institutions and the moral implications of aiding them? I second mtraven’s objection, and renew a charge of being disingenuous on Robin’s part. I think the fault is that the anthropologists’ objections quoted here do seem to be concerned with the independence of the scientists, in which case Robin’s point is totally legitimate.

But obviously the larger objection is that the Defense Department engages in large-scale killing of humans on a regular basis whereas the other institutions presumably do not. If that’s their objection, then they SHOULD just come out and say it. They seem to be guilty of hedging about their true motives (perhaps out a fear of appearing “unpatriotic” if they called the DOD killers?), but not guilty of a true double standard.

So this strikes me as more of a gotcha! post … they are simply not being honest about their reasons. Surely, Robin, you don’t really think there is no possible difference to be made among the above institutions and the moral implications of aiding them?

]]>