In response to the recent deluge of articles printed in these pages on Professor Kanazawa, I have here below my comment on the issue.
Kanazawa says:50% of Muslims throughout the world applaud the actions of their fellow Muslims on 9/11, and presumably other murderous acts against westerners, while the other 50% actively condemn them. Yes, 50% is only half, not a majority, but it nonetheless represents 800 million Muslims worldwide. If we assume that 50% of them are male, and about 30% of them are young (between the ages of 15-30), then we are talking about 120 million ready suicide bombers worldwide. It took only 19 of them to kill 3,000 of us.
I say: It only took one of “us” to kill thousands more of “them”. Also, can I please view the survey from whence these numbers came? Because I’m sure they fail Assumptions 1 through 5 in Econometrics.
Kanazawa says: Of course, it is technically impossible to know for sure without actual survey data on other comparable groups within the United States. But that’s precisely my point. Nobody would dream of asking black Americans “Do you consider yourself to be black first or American first?” Nobody would dream of asking Catholic Americans “Do you consider yourself to be Catholic first or American first?” That would be absurd, to the point of nonsensical. Yet it is not an absurd question to ask of Muslims, and indeed half of American Muslims (and four-fifths of British Muslims) do consider themselves to be Muslim first.
I say: Why is it absurd? Why not collect survey data on this matter? That’s not too difficult to do. Go ask the black Americans and Catholic Americans,and any other “Americans”. Then at least you’ll have something to back up your claims. Even the truth needs some sort of backing to support it.
Kanazawa says: These generalizations appear to hold for most societies, cultures, races, ethnicities, religions, and languages, except for Muslims. For them, being a Muslim appears to be an all-encompassing, all-consuming identity that overrides and trumps everything else. For them, nothing else – their race, their nationality, their occupation, their language – matters except for being Muslim, which unites all Muslims in the world. (True, most Muslims speak the same language – Arabic – but not all; neither Indonesians nor Chechens speak Arabic. Nor do Iranians.)
I say: Sorry? A Muslim identity? What are you talking about? Many Muslims still identify with their race, nationality, occupation and language. Ask a Muslim investment banker and he will tell you he is an investment banker. Ask an Indonesian Muslim and she will tell you she is Indonesian, who speaks Indonesian. Or are you confusing Arabic Muslims with the rest of the Muslim world?
I know a lot of Christians, especially devout ones, who identify themselves as Christians first above anything else. It’s just that majority of Muslims actually follow their religion and therefore carry the identity that comes with it, just like the devout Christians… It is definitely not true that all Muslims speak the same language. For those of whom Arabic is not their native tongue, they may learn to read it to recite the Qu’ran but they do not in any way speak it or have the ability to.
In short, I’ve come to realise that the major problem with evolutionary psychology is that, after learning Social Science Research Methods for Management and Management Evidence, the data does not seem incredibly solid. MN101 part 1 does not match with what we learn in MN203 and MN200 part 2. I do not deny that the field of study is important in identifying that a lot of human behavior is innate, and that a lot (but not all!) of their discoveries make sense. But any sort of academic field needs to have room for debate, even mainstream science where evolutionary psychology claims it belongs. Mainstream psychology theories do find themselves displaced at times, and even biology, physics and chemistry. So why not evolutionary psychology? Or is the rest of the field actually open for debate, but Professor Kanazawa isn’t?
I’m not saying I did not enjoy his classes. I did. Like I said, there were some interesting insights. But a teacher should educate his students, encourage critical thinking and challenge them to think about the subject. He does not provide this for us. His book is law. What he says goes. This is the problem with Professor Kanazawa. He can say or write whatever he wants in my opinion, but in the classroom here at the LSE, he should try to teach rather than dictate. LSE should make sure that their teachers are doing what they should be doing: teaching. And that is the bottom line.
Related posts:
- Leaving on a jet plane
- Islam or liberalism?, School debate to ask
- Hayek – To debate or not debate
- Societies blast unfair room charges
- “Dismal” common room sparks petition
This entry was posted
on Wednesday, March 3rd, 2010 at 05:34 and is filed under Comment.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Leaving no room for debate
by Anonymous on 3 Mar 2010 in Comment
In response to the recent deluge of articles printed in these pages on Professor Kanazawa, I have here below my comment on the issue.
Kanazawa says:50% of Muslims throughout the world applaud the actions of their fellow Muslims on 9/11, and presumably other murderous acts against westerners, while the other 50% actively condemn them. Yes, 50% is only half, not a majority, but it nonetheless represents 800 million Muslims worldwide. If we assume that 50% of them are male, and about 30% of them are young (between the ages of 15-30), then we are talking about 120 million ready suicide bombers worldwide. It took only 19 of them to kill 3,000 of us.
I say: It only took one of “us” to kill thousands more of “them”. Also, can I please view the survey from whence these numbers came? Because I’m sure they fail Assumptions 1 through 5 in Econometrics.
Kanazawa says: Of course, it is technically impossible to know for sure without actual survey data on other comparable groups within the United States. But that’s precisely my point. Nobody would dream of asking black Americans “Do you consider yourself to be black first or American first?” Nobody would dream of asking Catholic Americans “Do you consider yourself to be Catholic first or American first?” That would be absurd, to the point of nonsensical. Yet it is not an absurd question to ask of Muslims, and indeed half of American Muslims (and four-fifths of British Muslims) do consider themselves to be Muslim first.
I say: Why is it absurd? Why not collect survey data on this matter? That’s not too difficult to do. Go ask the black Americans and Catholic Americans,and any other “Americans”. Then at least you’ll have something to back up your claims. Even the truth needs some sort of backing to support it.
Kanazawa says: These generalizations appear to hold for most societies, cultures, races, ethnicities, religions, and languages, except for Muslims. For them, being a Muslim appears to be an all-encompassing, all-consuming identity that overrides and trumps everything else. For them, nothing else – their race, their nationality, their occupation, their language – matters except for being Muslim, which unites all Muslims in the world. (True, most Muslims speak the same language – Arabic – but not all; neither Indonesians nor Chechens speak Arabic. Nor do Iranians.)
I say: Sorry? A Muslim identity? What are you talking about? Many Muslims still identify with their race, nationality, occupation and language. Ask a Muslim investment banker and he will tell you he is an investment banker. Ask an Indonesian Muslim and she will tell you she is Indonesian, who speaks Indonesian. Or are you confusing Arabic Muslims with the rest of the Muslim world?
I know a lot of Christians, especially devout ones, who identify themselves as Christians first above anything else. It’s just that majority of Muslims actually follow their religion and therefore carry the identity that comes with it, just like the devout Christians… It is definitely not true that all Muslims speak the same language. For those of whom Arabic is not their native tongue, they may learn to read it to recite the Qu’ran but they do not in any way speak it or have the ability to.
In short, I’ve come to realise that the major problem with evolutionary psychology is that, after learning Social Science Research Methods for Management and Management Evidence, the data does not seem incredibly solid. MN101 part 1 does not match with what we learn in MN203 and MN200 part 2. I do not deny that the field of study is important in identifying that a lot of human behavior is innate, and that a lot (but not all!) of their discoveries make sense. But any sort of academic field needs to have room for debate, even mainstream science where evolutionary psychology claims it belongs. Mainstream psychology theories do find themselves displaced at times, and even biology, physics and chemistry. So why not evolutionary psychology? Or is the rest of the field actually open for debate, but Professor Kanazawa isn’t?
I’m not saying I did not enjoy his classes. I did. Like I said, there were some interesting insights. But a teacher should educate his students, encourage critical thinking and challenge them to think about the subject. He does not provide this for us. His book is law. What he says goes. This is the problem with Professor Kanazawa. He can say or write whatever he wants in my opinion, but in the classroom here at the LSE, he should try to teach rather than dictate. LSE should make sure that their teachers are doing what they should be doing: teaching. And that is the bottom line.
Related posts:
This entry was posted on Wednesday, March 3rd, 2010 at 05:34 and is filed under Comment. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.