After recent criticism of him because of his views and academic publications Satoshi Kanazawa is – rightfully – only voicing his opinion
Free media: a small phrase with large implications. On a superficial level, all it preaches is that media should have the freedom to observe and broadcast the “truth”, whatever it may be. On a much deeper level however, it also means sharing all sides of the story with readers, hence giving them the freedom to judge and opinionate accurately. On this basis, students of Management class of 2011, feel the Beaver has not been an embodiment of free media with regards Satoshi Kanazawa. Compiled below are a list of comments, by students who have read Satoshi Kanazawa’s many works and attended his lectures and classes, on why firing Kanazawa would be LSE’s worst academic decision to date:
I am writing this comment, because I feel that, like any other subject, the whole Kanazawa issue deserves a well-researched balanced discussion. Presenting one side of the argument only, I believe, is what is called bad journalism.
Since you are students yourselves, you should know that those who liked a teacher never have much to say, whereas students who feel the need to blame someone for bad examination grades always seem to have plenty. Therefore the comments you have received so far are very biased towards the negative. However, if you had done your research, you would have discovered that there are just as many students who absolutely loved Kanazawa as a teacher. There are two main points I want to address below: first of all, I think that the course taught by Dr Kanazawa was the most interesting one I have attended so far. I found it extremely stimulating; it gives you something to really think about and form your own opinion and for that reason not only friends but also family enjoyed both, debates about Evolutionary Psychology findings and Kanazawa’s book.
Secondly, the papers the beaver refers to which are supposed to be “racist” are not part of the course syllabus of MN101 and the whole discussion about racist teachers at LSE is therefore irrelevant. Kanazawa did not say anything racist in our classes or lectures. And at no point he meant to offend anyone. As a scientist he is entitled to publish whatever results his research tells him. He does not say that this is necessarily the truth; he says these are his findings and the interpretation of those findings. Yes, I agree some of his statements are controversial, and yes I felt offended by some of them, but only until I realized that — whether I like it or not — they do capture some reality. Also, Evolutionary Psychology is a whole new field of study, the theses are not Kanazawa’s alone but the one of many many researchers.
On a concluding note I would also like to say that it is pathetic that an LSE newspaper is creating such a hate campaign against another person who is just trying to do their job.
***
Satoshi Kanazawa is different. He isn’t the stereotypical LSE professor, nor does he want to be. His thoughts are different, his science proposes different things, he teaches differently. As a result, he is often misunderstood by outsiders—he seems extreme and sometimes even crazy. But the students that have had the privilege to take his class, they know differently. For his course MN101, no student could deny its interesting nature. Some students may not like the findings as they are often slightly controversial, but they never left with hatred or disgust. They always left with new things to think about.
Satoshi never taught his most controversial subjects. What he writes about in his own time is his business, and he does not force this on his students. The LSE cannot fire him for something that he writes about externally. Sure, some topics may seem extreme, but if one were to take the time to get to know Satoshi, he does not mean any individual harm. He is not racist. Evolutionary Psychology is a new science and therefore comes under fire because it goes against normal thought.
It would be a travesty to fire him from the school. His course is the one course students tend to apply to general life, and it is the one course we all still discuss. It is fascinating. Sure, it is different. Sure, it goes against the investment-banking norm of the LSE, but that is what is needed. It brings a new dimension to students. It stops us from thinking in a homogenized manner. Do not let Satoshi get fired!
***
Expressing the outcomes of scientific studies and personal disagreements about them, without making reference to the reasoning or explanation provided behind them, is in my view naive. No matter how racist or discriminatory these results may sound to some people, they are backed up with evidence; they are, under the evolutionary psychology reasoning, true. What has been studied as part of our course was Evolutionary Psychology, a theory, a way of thinking, a basis for thought and discussion. The aim of the course was not to impose any beliefs as students complained to do so. For those who consider it provocative, the blame should not be on Dr. Kanazawa, there are hundreds of evolutionary psychologists out there with the same beliefs, backed-up by logic, evidence, and scientific studies. For what it’s worth, I have to admit it was one of the (if not the) most interesting modules I have ever studied.
***
The aim of Satoshi’s course was to give first year management students an idea of why people do what they do, above and beyond tautological economic concepts of “utility maximization.” In this, it would be confusing, if not impossible, to give an account of how one would like the world to be; hence he did not, nor has he since. Through his course, BSc management students have gained an invaluable perspective on human motivation, providing a basis on which to formulate real-world strategy, which many of the cohort will have to do at some point in our careers. I wholeheartedly support Satoshi Kanazawa and hope that this experience will not deter him from continuing to teach this fascinating course.
***
Kanazawa is a scientist, not a politician. He is neither racist nor discriminative as all claims he makes are based on masses of data.
I agree to an extent that the way in which Kanazawa presents his findings, for example the titles of his papers can seem outrageous at first glance but I strongly feel that one cannot dismiss his work without fully understanding the branch of science known as Evolutionary Psychology. In the first class of his infamous course last year, I can remember naively thinking that Kanazawa’s claims were otherworldly, nonsensical and rather inventive; however, after reading his book and allowing myself delve further as a ‘neutral’ student, I regret making these assumptions. This course is just as credible as any other social science.
Kanazawa should be respected, as are all the other academics are at the LSE. If you choose not to accept his claims, you are battling against science. Kanazawa’s motto runs: “If the truth offends, it is our job to offend”. Free media, at its innermost core, runs on the very same concept. Censorship should have no place at the LSE, and we sincerely hope the Beaver uses its freedom to publish our side of the Kanazawa story.
Related posts:
- Satoshi Kanazawa defends the “science” behind his views
- Personal perspective: Defending human rights
- Editorial: BS101: Theories in Evolutionary Bullshit
- Leaving no room for debate
This entry was posted
on Tuesday, March 9th, 2010 at 05:58 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.
Defending Kanazawa
on 9 Mar 2010 in Comment
After recent criticism of him because of his views and academic publications Satoshi Kanazawa is – rightfully – only voicing his opinion
Free media: a small phrase with large implications. On a superficial level, all it preaches is that media should have the freedom to observe and broadcast the “truth”, whatever it may be. On a much deeper level however, it also means sharing all sides of the story with readers, hence giving them the freedom to judge and opinionate accurately. On this basis, students of Management class of 2011, feel the Beaver has not been an embodiment of free media with regards Satoshi Kanazawa. Compiled below are a list of comments, by students who have read Satoshi Kanazawa’s many works and attended his lectures and classes, on why firing Kanazawa would be LSE’s worst academic decision to date:
I am writing this comment, because I feel that, like any other subject, the whole Kanazawa issue deserves a well-researched balanced discussion. Presenting one side of the argument only, I believe, is what is called bad journalism.
Since you are students yourselves, you should know that those who liked a teacher never have much to say, whereas students who feel the need to blame someone for bad examination grades always seem to have plenty. Therefore the comments you have received so far are very biased towards the negative. However, if you had done your research, you would have discovered that there are just as many students who absolutely loved Kanazawa as a teacher. There are two main points I want to address below: first of all, I think that the course taught by Dr Kanazawa was the most interesting one I have attended so far. I found it extremely stimulating; it gives you something to really think about and form your own opinion and for that reason not only friends but also family enjoyed both, debates about Evolutionary Psychology findings and Kanazawa’s book.
Secondly, the papers the beaver refers to which are supposed to be “racist” are not part of the course syllabus of MN101 and the whole discussion about racist teachers at LSE is therefore irrelevant. Kanazawa did not say anything racist in our classes or lectures. And at no point he meant to offend anyone. As a scientist he is entitled to publish whatever results his research tells him. He does not say that this is necessarily the truth; he says these are his findings and the interpretation of those findings. Yes, I agree some of his statements are controversial, and yes I felt offended by some of them, but only until I realized that — whether I like it or not — they do capture some reality. Also, Evolutionary Psychology is a whole new field of study, the theses are not Kanazawa’s alone but the one of many many researchers.
On a concluding note I would also like to say that it is pathetic that an LSE newspaper is creating such a hate campaign against another person who is just trying to do their job.
***
Satoshi Kanazawa is different. He isn’t the stereotypical LSE professor, nor does he want to be. His thoughts are different, his science proposes different things, he teaches differently. As a result, he is often misunderstood by outsiders—he seems extreme and sometimes even crazy. But the students that have had the privilege to take his class, they know differently. For his course MN101, no student could deny its interesting nature. Some students may not like the findings as they are often slightly controversial, but they never left with hatred or disgust. They always left with new things to think about.
Satoshi never taught his most controversial subjects. What he writes about in his own time is his business, and he does not force this on his students. The LSE cannot fire him for something that he writes about externally. Sure, some topics may seem extreme, but if one were to take the time to get to know Satoshi, he does not mean any individual harm. He is not racist. Evolutionary Psychology is a new science and therefore comes under fire because it goes against normal thought.
It would be a travesty to fire him from the school. His course is the one course students tend to apply to general life, and it is the one course we all still discuss. It is fascinating. Sure, it is different. Sure, it goes against the investment-banking norm of the LSE, but that is what is needed. It brings a new dimension to students. It stops us from thinking in a homogenized manner. Do not let Satoshi get fired!
***
Expressing the outcomes of scientific studies and personal disagreements about them, without making reference to the reasoning or explanation provided behind them, is in my view naive. No matter how racist or discriminatory these results may sound to some people, they are backed up with evidence; they are, under the evolutionary psychology reasoning, true. What has been studied as part of our course was Evolutionary Psychology, a theory, a way of thinking, a basis for thought and discussion. The aim of the course was not to impose any beliefs as students complained to do so. For those who consider it provocative, the blame should not be on Dr. Kanazawa, there are hundreds of evolutionary psychologists out there with the same beliefs, backed-up by logic, evidence, and scientific studies. For what it’s worth, I have to admit it was one of the (if not the) most interesting modules I have ever studied.
***
The aim of Satoshi’s course was to give first year management students an idea of why people do what they do, above and beyond tautological economic concepts of “utility maximization.” In this, it would be confusing, if not impossible, to give an account of how one would like the world to be; hence he did not, nor has he since. Through his course, BSc management students have gained an invaluable perspective on human motivation, providing a basis on which to formulate real-world strategy, which many of the cohort will have to do at some point in our careers. I wholeheartedly support Satoshi Kanazawa and hope that this experience will not deter him from continuing to teach this fascinating course.
***
Kanazawa is a scientist, not a politician. He is neither racist nor discriminative as all claims he makes are based on masses of data.
I agree to an extent that the way in which Kanazawa presents his findings, for example the titles of his papers can seem outrageous at first glance but I strongly feel that one cannot dismiss his work without fully understanding the branch of science known as Evolutionary Psychology. In the first class of his infamous course last year, I can remember naively thinking that Kanazawa’s claims were otherworldly, nonsensical and rather inventive; however, after reading his book and allowing myself delve further as a ‘neutral’ student, I regret making these assumptions. This course is just as credible as any other social science.
Kanazawa should be respected, as are all the other academics are at the LSE. If you choose not to accept his claims, you are battling against science. Kanazawa’s motto runs: “If the truth offends, it is our job to offend”. Free media, at its innermost core, runs on the very same concept. Censorship should have no place at the LSE, and we sincerely hope the Beaver uses its freedom to publish our side of the Kanazawa story.
Related posts:
This entry was posted on Tuesday, March 9th, 2010 at 05:58 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.