I thought that the Methods of Gathering Scientific Evidence helped me start to see what Dr. Bezio mentioned very briefly, the way that statistics can be problematic. There are so many different types of studies and methods of gathering evidence that all come with their different pros and cons. These different methods all show certain information and leave out other information. People that are unaware of the ways that different types of studies fall short could fall into different traps. For example, if people just read a one-sentence summary or a statistic that comes of out of correlational research they might mistake it for causation and take it to mean more than it actually does.
I thought that the second article gave a pretty good summary of the many different aspects of leadership you look at in 101 and 102. The sections on leadership in large-scale societies reminded me a lot of what we talked about last week with implicit biases. It seems like in small-scale societies they made better decisions about who should be a leader because they did not make as many decisions based on implicit biases. Though leadership in small-scale and large-scale societies has flaws, I feel like the main reason certain groups cannot become leaders in large-scale societies is because of these implicit biases that many people hold. Certain groups do not fit the image of traditional leaders we have had in the past and thus they have more difficulty becoming a leader.
I agree with your first paragraph. I took a statistics class in high school and was blown away at how one can manipulate statistics to persuade audiences one way or another. It has made me question every statistic I have seen since. Where is this information coming from? Does that person/organization have any reason to deceive me?
I am a business major and what you are saying relates to me a lot. I took an accounting class last year and the whole point was to make it look like you had as little money as possible and I think that this is the same idea. You can make it look one way when the reality is totally different.
In large-scale societies, it can be argued that individuals have used evolutionary reasons to argue why certain people perform better in working environments. These reasons have been misconstrued as hardened differences that exclude prospective members from gaining access. This has contributed to a culture that maintains a strong inner-group identity and is threatened by new methods or practices.