-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
/
Copy pathfisher.html
82 lines (77 loc) · 7.18 KB
/
fisher.html
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html lang="en">
<head>
<meta charset="UTF-8">
<meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0">
<title>Fisher's Perspective on Population and Sustainability</title>
<link rel="stylesheet" href="fisher.css">
</head>
<body>
<header>
<h1>Fisher's Perspective on Population and Sustainability</h1>
</header>
<main class="content-wrapper">
<!-- Introduction -->
After the devastation of the Second World War, the world vowed, "Never again," determined to rebuild a more equitable future. Yet, amid this global resolve, R.A. Fisher—one of the most influential statisticians of the 20th century—stood firm in his controversial beliefs, carrying forward the eugenicist ideologies of Galton and Pearson. Fisher’s groundbreaking contributions to statistics, including analysis of variance (ANOVA), maximum likelihood estimation, and experimental design, revolutionized genetics, biology, and the social sciences. But these same tools were wielded to classify and rank human populations, perpetuating the dangerous logic of categorization.
</p>
<p>
Fisher argued that humanity’s future depended on encouraging the reproduction of groups he considered genetically advantageous to ensure sustainability and avoid the depletion of resources. To him, this was not just a scientific endeavor but a moral imperative. He framed selective reproduction as essential for protecting Earth’s balance, casting eugenic policies as rational solutions to global challenges. Like Galton’s statistical insights and Pearson’s categorical frameworks, Fisher’s methods lent scientific credibility to ideas that divided human populations and prioritized certain groups over others, embedding these biases into the very tools that continue to shape modern science.
</p>
<blockquote>
“The practical international problem is that of learning to share the resources of this planet amicably with persons of materially different nature, and that this problem is being obscured by entirely well-intentioned efforts to minimize the real differences that exist.”
</blockquote>
<p>
Fisher’s argument reflects a worldview where differences between human groups are not only emphasized but seen as central to managing global challenges. By framing these differences as "real" and critical to resource sharing, Fisher used the veneer of scientific reasoning to justify policies that prioritized categorizing and ranking populations. His logic assumes that recognizing and acting on such distinctions is essential for maintaining balance—a perspective that shaped his belief in eugenics as both a moral and practical solution. </p>
<!-- Visualization Explanation -->
<h2>An Experiment in Subjective Weighting</h2>
<p></p>
<p>
Below, you will find an interactive tool designed to explore how subjective weights influence outcomes. The industries represented—Big Pharma, Oil Industry, Tech Industry, Industrial Agriculture, and Luxury Goods—are often perceived as contributing to global challenges in distinct ways. Consider why someone might criticize each:
</p>
<ul>
<li><b>Big Pharma:</b> High drug prices and perceived exploitation of vulnerable populations.</li>
<li><b>Oil Industry:</b> Environmental degradation and resistance to renewable energy initiatives.</li>
<li><b>Tech Industry:</b> Data privacy concerns and monopolistic practices.</li>
<li><b>Industrial Agriculture:</b> Environmental damage and poor labor conditions.</li>
<li><b>Luxury Goods:</b> Wasteful production practices and reliance on sweatshop labor.</li>
</ul>
<p>
Adjust the sliders to assign weights to these variables. Observe how the bar chart to the left dynamically updates, reflecting the weighted values for each industry. Below the chart, a horizontal bar chart shows the total scores for each industry, highlighting which one appears to be the most problematic based on your subjective inputs.
</p>
<p>
For an optimal viewing experience, consider opening the visualization in a new tab:
<a href="https://fisher-statistical-app-o6a2yfdseq-uc.a.run.app" target="_blank">Open Interactive Visualization</a>.
</p>
<p>
The exercise demonstrates how subjective choices can manipulate outcomes—even when backed by complex mathematical models. The same logic and statistical reasoning that once categorized races can be applied today to industries or other groups, shaping narratives to fit preconceived notions. As you explore, ask yourself: Are the results reflecting reality, or merely your own perspective?
</p>
<div class="visualization-container">
<iframe
src="https://fisher-statistical-app-o6a2yfdseq-uc.a.run.app"
width="100%"
height="700"
style="border: none;">
</iframe>
</div>
<p>
For a mathematical example of how Fisher's Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) can be manipulated through subjective weighting of variables,
<a href="fisher-math.html" style="color: purple;">click here to explore the mathematical breakdown.</a>
</p>
<h2>Reflecting on Your Choices</h2>
<p></p>
<p>
As you adjusted the sliders, did you notice how easily the narrative could shift? By emphasizing certain variables and minimizing others, the outcomes likely changed dramatically, potentially casting one industry as the clear "villain" while letting others appear less culpable. This exercise isn’t just about the industries themselves—it’s about understanding how subjective choices influence what we perceive as truth.
</p>
<p>
What you’ve just experienced mirrors how subjective weights are applied in real-world frameworks. Whether it’s ranking nations in the World Happiness Report, evaluating industries for their social impact, or determining which populations should be prioritized for resources, the act of weighting variables has immense power. These decisions shape public opinion, inform policy, and define what is seen as progress or failure. </p>
<p>
<p>Consider this: were your weightings driven by personal biases, media narratives, or cultural values? Did the visualization make it easier to rationalize certain outcomes because they aligned with your expectations? This exercise demonstrates how statistical models, even when rooted in robust mathematics, are not immune to manipulation. The tools themselves may be neutral, but the narratives they produce reflect the values and priorities of their creators—or, in this case, their users</p>
Continue reading: <a href="world-happiness-report.html" style="color: purple;">The World "Happiness" Report</a>
</p>
<div class="navigation-buttons">
<button onclick="history.back()">Back</button>
<a href="index.html"><button>Home</button></a>
</div>
</main>
</body>
</html>