you can also find studies showing compelling evidence that non-whites are less intelligent than whites, among many other studies supporting outcomes desired by those in power. often these studies - or the conclusions drawn from them - contradict each other, regardless of how reliable and "scientific" (i'm thinking of "the bell curve" and "the mismeasure of man" for example).
studies are always suspect; follow the money for starters.
ultimately, does it matter? if some convincing study demonstrated that the desire/need to rape is in fact a genetic human trait, would that make it acceptable?
ps: i like the questions asked by nihilist below. as well as one more: what is "human nature", if such a thing exists?
I don't see this study as conclusive of anything outside it's own circular discourse which, like all philosophical discourses (not simply 'philosophical' but scientific interpretation/explanation, politics- including anarchism, theology, etc), or if you prefer, (thought) worlds, the tendency to over-determine the "human" is quite strong. Personally I tend toward Laruelle's insistence (in context of racism) that, "If there is a radical argument against racism, it is this: mankind is indeterminate." It seems to me similar with 'innate' hierarchy.
This doesn't mean we can't learn something from studies like this, but that your interlocutor believed he sealed his argument (Philosophy, once again) with this one is a case in point of over-determination cutting lived humans conceptually and building upon that through policy, policing, etc. After all, we can't even think/imaging ourselves for fuck's sake, only cuts and pieces, and so much of the time believe our thoughts are sufficient.
edit for clarity
yes, inference should raise questions if one is using the sciences. something those believing in Science so often forget (great swaths of the 'secular age' it seems), which seems to include StS099 and their presumed interlocutor.
my point about definitions pertains to the rather nasty habit of their becoming enclosed, once again, in another discourse and used accordingly: as authoritarian, rather than 'communized' material in the World. in other words, another way to conceptually dismember, cut, lived humans even when in the name of 'anarchy.'
edclear:"Language isn't authoritarian in any way, that's like saying a knife is authoritarian."
who are you responding to here? it can't be me, since i said nothing of the sort.what i did say :"what i do refuse, however, is their (words) authority and the authority of discourses which gird them". its seems obvious i wasn't speaking of language in toto, but the authority given (and taken as given) to words-in-discourse.
i'm done conversing with you at this time. best.
Trolling, never been fishing in my life. If you mean the more modern meaning, not so. When someone comes out with "words have no basic meaning", I think the obvious has to be stated. Dictionaries would not exist, teachers of language would not exist, etc. Indeed, we'd just be grunting, pointing, and generally leaping around trying to make ourselves understood. One second thoughts, maybe a shared language doesn't exist.
Yep, I know the feeble attempts at justification for all manner of issues, large and small, but they'll always be just that... attempts.
"Authority"... "Authoritarian", same difference, one leading naturally to the other.