> Why would Harari's -- a historian's -- hot take be preferable to the consemsus ofof gender researchers and sociologists who actually study gender in experiments and statistical studies?
Everyone can decide for themselves. Speaking for myself, sociologists are notorious for downplaying the importance of genes to individual/group outcomes (something that, IMO, should be consensus) and I imagine they will try to push a blank slate agenda whenever they can. So I adjust my trust in them accordingly.
Everyone can be wrong for themselves, sure. I'll stick to the biologists, geneticists, and endocrinologists over a historian trying to sell books. That's adjusting my trust accordingly
> I'll stick to the biologists, geneticists, and endocrinologists over a historian trying to sell books.
You make it look like there's a consensus between them.
It's unfortunate that Harari gets this bad press. I've read his books and listen to a bunch of his podcasts and he looks very open-minded and scientific based. I see myself disagreeing with him a lot of times, but I don't get mad at him because he tries to speak the language of science, which is good enough for me.
I know sociologists, and I call bullshit on them downplaying the "importance of genes". Sociology looks at statistical evidence and argues about the mechanisms of societal outcomes based on that.
Even if we accept your comment that sociologists don't know what their talking about, Harari is not the right alternative to turn to. Harari is not a biologist, he is a historian. If you ask evolutionary biologists, they tend to agree with the sociologists.
Everyone can decide for themselves. Speaking for myself, sociologists are notorious for downplaying the importance of genes to individual/group outcomes (something that, IMO, should be consensus) and I imagine they will try to push a blank slate agenda whenever they can. So I adjust my trust in them accordingly.