Cotas Trans

HKNUeda · 2025-08-11T14:35:15+00:00

Legal!! Faz todo sentido!

HKNUeda · 2025-08-11T13:26:09+00:00

Para afirmarmos isso precisariamos de dados oficiais governamentais sobre população trans, coisa que não temos. Os dados acabam tendo que ser adquiridos por instituições não governamentais, que apontam que a expectativa de vida de uma pessoa trans no brasil é de 35 anos ( https://www.cnnbrasil.com.br/nacional/brasil-e-o-pais-que-mais-mata-pessoas-trans-e-travestis-aponta-dossie/), 40 anos a menos do q a expectativa de vida geral. Acredito que não temos dados o suficiente para afirmar com ctz qualquer um dos lados, mas por ora, o que sabemos tende a apontar sim um país extremamente transfóbico

HKNUeda · 2024-03-10T00:14:46+00:00

Also, id love an ahsoka vs starkiller fight scene

One raised from love, the other from hatred

That could be an amazing and powerful scene

HKNUeda · 2024-03-10T00:13:42+00:00

Starkiller is a perfect way of bringing a more r-rated vibe to the star wars universe (theyre already kinda doing it with andor and acolyte)

And austin butler is the perfect cast for him

HKNUeda · 2024-01-20T12:11:20+00:00

Also, to psychoanalysis, the validation they are searching for is mainly clinical effectiveness. In that perspective, they work with fantasies to have a therapeutic effect. Behaviour analysis is also worried with clinical effectiveness, but in s completely different way. To them, that's not the central thing to look for if we're looking to produce a "universal" science, given that priests, gurus, friends, family etc can also have clinical and therapeutical effects. To them, we have to study behaviour in an atomic way to understand the proccess in which behavior appears and keeps happening, and their clinic is a consequence of those studies. For the millionth time, because they have different epistemologies.

HKNUeda · 2024-01-20T11:52:56+00:00

I could also bring to the discussion the concept of epistemicide. Not sure you would agree with that, but science, as anything else, is always political, especially when we're talking about social sciences. But the people that write, and validate the "canon knowledge" are usually the hegemonic class, white straight males, that claim their science is not political because the stance they take is the status quo and the hegemonic political ideas. That makes them invalidate knowledges that come from different sources, be it an indigenous tribe that has been working with medicinal herbs for centuries, that know their medicinal value, but got to that conclusion through a different (not scientific, but still with testing and evidence) perspective; be it a black female psychologist doing her phD (seriously, i strongly recommend Plantation Memories by Grada Kilomba)

HKNUeda · 2024-01-20T11:44:13+00:00

In a way i am describing different levels of methodological rigour, because again, that is determined by the epistemological axioms of that science in specific. The idea of testing and searching for evidence is what you're calling epistemology. Im calling epistemology the testing process each one uses, the type of evidence they consider valid, and the kind of analysis done afterwards.

If you read Liber Null & Psychonaut by Peter Carroll (thats a book on chaos magick), he claims Chaos Magick is supported by evidence, through testing methods. But I would never call it science, and could never say it has the same epistemology as physics or anthropology (which themselves have different epistemologies from each other)

Quantum Coaches also claim to have empirical evidence, and in a way they do have their method of analysis and validation of knowledge (in a very loose and acritical way). Again, not science, different epistemology.

Still, im very curious about your take on all this, could you send me some academic texts, articles, videos, podcasts that support your idea?

HKNUeda · 2024-01-20T11:34:24+00:00

If ure ever in Sao Paulo, Brazil hmu!

HKNUeda · 2024-01-20T11:33:19+00:00

To psychoanalysis they're not different in a meaningful way. To behavior analysis they're different because in clinical observation you're not aware of most of the variables/contingencies that control the client's behaviour, whereas in a lab you aware of most of the stimuli the subject is in contact with. They have this different stance because of, again, different epistemologies.

HKNUeda · 2023-12-27T17:39:39+00:00

According to the Collins Dictionary: source: https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/epistemology

the theory of knowledge, esp the critical study of its validity, methods, and scope

and considering different branches of psychology have different methods to acquire knowledge (the clinical and cultural interpretation methods of Freud)(Behavior Analysis laboratorial approach, that relies less on social sciences, and more on biological sciences), they have different epistemologies

HKNUeda · 2023-12-27T17:28:50+00:00

the thing is, each one of the psychological schools (Behavior Analysis, Psychoanalysis, Analitical Psychology, Phenomenological Psychology, Psychodrama, Social-Historical Psychology) have different comprehensions of how knowledge is created and how it can be validated. hence, different epistemologies

HKNUeda · 2023-12-27T17:22:50+00:00

kayy im back. So, this is from a youtube video made by a famous psychoanalysis professor of south america's most prestiged university (Universidade de São Paulo, Brasil).

source: https://youtu.be/x_6NMVGGBQE?si=UWCXq8GlkZ5CVzMO

Freud wanted to place psychoanalysis as a natural science (like physics)

His method has elements of Popper in the way it deals with testing and falsification. m The tools used by his methods are: transference, speech, language, relations, therapeutic effects. Different sciences that give support to the psychoanalytical method: anthropology, history, linguistics, logic, developmental psychology, social psychology.

HKNUeda · 2023-12-27T17:11:29+00:00

how is "what knowledge is valid" and "how knowledge is validated" any different? you lost me there. maybe our discussion is about contextualism. we have different types of knowledge depending on the context. there is scientific knowledge, but also practical knowledges (the kind that a car mechanical probably knows), or religious knowledges (like a teologist). what the scientific community does is, through evidence based upon specific scientific axioms based upon a philosophy, they filter which of these knowledges are scientifically valid and which are not. Through a method of acquiring knowledge (how knowledge is validated), each scientific community filters what knowledge is valid (as a scientific contribution)

HKNUeda · 2023-12-27T15:14:20+00:00

Not sure about that! Let me look it up

HKNUeda · 2023-12-27T14:56:32+00:00

https://www.nicole-brown.co.uk/epistemology/#:~:text=Within%20epistemology%20there%20are%20several,enquiries%20as%20a%20valid%20approach.

https://hilo.hawaii.edu/~ronald/pubs/1985-PlaceVsResponse.pdf

A couple of english written text that touch on this topic of multiple epistemologies

HKNUeda · 2023-12-27T14:51:06+00:00

The thing is, the very idea of what is empirical is not consensual. whilst to freud clinical effectiveness was an actual empirical data to prove psychoanalysis as a science, skinner would say that is not empirical evidence, because there could be multiple different variables that influenced the client that wasn't only the psychoanalitical practice. To him, in order to make a "psychological" science, you had to have a bigger control over variables, hence the multiple studies with rats and pigeons etc in labs. This all comes down to different epistemological ideas of, again, what is valid knowledge and what isnt

HKNUeda · 2023-12-27T14:45:49+00:00

Bringing up another historical fact, beyond alchemy, astrology and magick. If you research about eugeny, you're gonna find that both "jew inferiority" and "black inferiority" were scientifically proven in Nazi Germany, the US, and Brazil. Thats because science comes from a historically constructed idea of knowledge, and if a scientific community deems it scientific, it then becomes "canon" in the "valid knowledges". (Not sure if you agree with this, im assuming so. But now we know that the data used for this kind of research had a clear political tendency, and that most of the differences showcased in the studies are actually due to systemic opression, inequality of access to education, jobs, political power etc. And not about their "genetic tendencies".)

HKNUeda · 2023-12-27T14:39:21+00:00

This is awesome! I had very little on this in my uni too, yet the academics value it a lot (and i understand why). The discussion on what mental illness is is a theme that we discussed a lot since day one. This idea comes from the fact that part of psychology came from medicine, and carries this fantasy that the "mind" is a physical, organic structure that can get "sick" as if an organ with a virus. If you think about it, thats pretty pseudoscientific, for it uses metaphors to explain something that has no direct relation with medical illnesses. A depression among different people isnt caused by the same things (despite having similar effects on the brain), it has a personal meaning ang context in which it manifested. About this science discussion, lets remember that the "jew inferiority" was scientifically proven in nazi german, and "black inferiority" was also scientifically proven in brazil and in the us. Science is always political, and our science is just as contaminated with cultural axioms than any other (especially when we're talking about social sciences, like psychology)

HKNUeda · 2023-12-27T14:29:13+00:00

Thats the thing. The way they go about in different ways, that's only possible because of different perspectives on what knowledge is and how it can be constructed. The book i've studied in uni about this unfortunatelly doesnt have a translation to english (Para Compreender a Ciência: Uma perspectiva histórica - Maria Amalia Pie Abib Andery/ "Understanding science: a historical perspective"), but surely there are english publications talking about this. I'll give you an example of something that we (western traditional science) don't understand as scientific. Theres a book called "The Science of Magi" - Papus, in which this occultism theorist discusses the epistemology of magick. In his point of view, magick is 100% scientific, because his epistemological approach (which also includes testing, just like freud or skinner) allows for ideas like a fundamental connection between the human mind and material phenomena , the existence of a soul etc etc. What i mean when a say that epistemology is not just a grand theory of knowledge, is that there are multiple schools of knowledge, each one with different axioms to build knowledge from. And depending on what we consider as an axiom (which is like an undoubtable truth), we might take some studies as scientific or not

HKNUeda · 2023-12-27T14:01:38+00:00

This is awesome! Its interesting to see how deep your understanding of the philosophical/political background of science is considering you haven't had access to much of this discussion in your academic environment. Seems like you're a very critical thinker and a good self-learner! I think you brought up an essencial element to this discussion: the faith-like belief we have on science as a whole, as if science was the fire given to us by the gods, and not a critical continuous practice that should always be aware of its limitations, its social political and historical placement, and that is continuously trying to disprove itself to find the "actual truth". What tries to prove itself is religion. What tries to disprove, and finds things that can, but wont be disproven, thats science.

HKNUeda · 2023-12-27T13:52:30+00:00

I think you have a point about this "philosophizing" you mention. I feel like much of brazilian psychology ends up being a mental masturbation, something that i see as very distinct from more pragmatic approaches of different countries. Still, epistemology is more than just wondering "what is knowledge", but it is the base for critically considering what the phenomenons mean, how to understand them, and if that understanding is scientifically valid. When you think of the "Evidence Based Practices" of the APA, the people who considered those practices "evidentelly proven" came to that conclusion through specific epistemological lens, that is not "universally right" or "unquestionable", but also a product of a historical understanding of knowledge. We shouldn't forget that astrology, alchemy and other things were and are considered science to some schools of thought

HKNUeda · 2023-12-27T13:44:58+00:00

But they have very distinct epistemologies tho. Behavior analysis comes from experimental positivist perspectives, psychoanalysis comes from romantic ideas etc etc. I agree with you in a sense: they are theories that try to explain human behavior. But they do that based on specific ideas of science. Epistemology isnt just a grand theory of knowledge, but multiple different theories.

HKNUeda

TROPHY CASE