Do you agree with the signatories of this letter on justice and open debate? (https://harpers.org/a-letter-on-justice-and-open-debate/)
Yes.
Great statement.
Which is why, sadly, it will be ignored completely by the media and many (most???)
academics.
Quote from: marshwiggle on July 08, 2020, 04:08:22 AM
Great statement.
Which is why, sadly, it will be ignored completely by the media and many (most???)
academics.
Given that it is covered by NYT today.....
Quote from: nebo113 on July 08, 2020, 04:22:28 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on July 08, 2020, 04:08:22 AM
Great statement.
Which is why, sadly, it will be ignored completely by the media and many (most???)
academics.
Given that it is covered by NYT today.....
Where? I looked all over the homepage, and searched the page for "justice", and didn't find it.
Quote from: marshwiggle on July 08, 2020, 04:33:05 AM
Quote from: nebo113 on July 08, 2020, 04:22:28 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on July 08, 2020, 04:08:22 AM
Great statement.
Which is why, sadly, it will be ignored completely by the media and many (most???)
academics.
Given that it is covered by NYT today.....
In today's WaPO Morning Mix also. Home page.
Where? I looked all over the homepage, and searched the page for "justice", and didn't find it.
Quote from: marshwiggle on July 08, 2020, 04:33:05 AM
Quote from: nebo113 on July 08, 2020, 04:22:28 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on July 08, 2020, 04:08:22 AM
Great statement.
Which is why, sadly, it will be ignored completely by the media and many (most???)
academics.
Given that it is covered by NYT today.....
Where? I looked all over the homepage, and searched the page for "justice", and didn't find it.
NYT: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/07/arts/harpers-letter.html
There's already a movement afoot to fire Matthew Yglesias for his contribution to the effort. He probably won't be the only one. Indeed, the letter may end up being a good test of where one is in one's career. If you're too big to cancel (Helen Vendler), sign away! If you're already on thin ice for previous crimes (Francis Fukuyama, every white man on the list), watch out.
As for the text itself, I'm annoyed that they couldn't resist sprinkling some ridiculous anti-conservatism on top of an otherwise solid argument. "But resistance must not be allowed to harden into its own brand of dogma or coercion—which right-wing demagogues are already exploiting."
Tell me, please, how the Right could push back against the Left's excesses in a manner that couldn't be characterized as "exploiting" them.
Quote from: writingprof on July 08, 2020, 06:40:24 AM
As for the text itself, I'm annoyed that they couldn't resist sprinkling some ridiculous anti-conservatism on top of an otherwise solid argument. "But resistance must not be allowed to harden into its own brand of dogma or coercion—which right-wing demagogues are already exploiting."
Tell me, please, how the Right could push back against the Left's excesses in a manner that couldn't be characterized as "exploiting" them.
I consider it simply a reflection of the fact that the statement is aimed mostly at people on the far left, who, at the moment, are most against free speech, and so it's a reminder that extremist behaviour on one end of the spectrum fosters extremism at the other end as well.
Nothing free doesn't cost anything.
M.
Quote from: writingprof on July 08, 2020, 06:40:24 AM
There's already a movement afoot to fire Matthew Yglesias for his contribution to the effort. He probably won't be the only one. Indeed, the letter may end up being a good test of where one is in one's career. If you're too big to cancel (Helen Vendler), sign away! If you're already on thin ice for previous crimes (Francis Fukuyama, every white man on the list), watch out.
As for the text itself, I'm annoyed that they couldn't resist sprinkling some ridiculous anti-conservatism on top of an otherwise solid argument. "But resistance must not be allowed to harden into its own brand of dogma or coercion—which right-wing demagogues are already exploiting."
Tell me, please, how the Right could push back against the Left's excesses in a manner that couldn't be characterized as "exploiting" them.
That may be a reference to David Horowitz and Turning Point USA.
I think it's the usual whiners whining their usual whines. Every single one of the people who signed that letter has access to a major platform, and boy, do they ever use it. They're not being silenced; they never shut the fuck up. They're not concerned about restrictions on speech, they just don't like being criticized when they say stupid or awful things. We need to stop pretending that every "take" is as valuable as every other. The journalism of takes isn't journalism. That's what I think.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on July 08, 2020, 08:23:34 AM
I think it's the usual whiners whining their usual whines. Every single one of the people who signed that letter has access to a major platform, and boy, do they ever use it. They're not being silenced; they never shut the fuck up. They're not concerned about restrictions on speech, they just don't like being criticized when they say stupid or awful things. We need to stop pretending that every "take" is as valuable as every other. The journalism of takes isn't journalism. That's what I think.
So I take it you disagree, but can only come up with an ad hominem argument. Not compelling.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on July 08, 2020, 08:23:34 AM
I think it's the usual whiners whining their usual whines. Every single one of the people who signed that letter has access to a major platform, and boy, do they ever use it. They're not being silenced; they never shut the fuck up. They're not concerned about restrictions on speech, they just don't like being criticized when they say stupid or awful things. We need to stop pretending that every "take" is as valuable as every other. The journalism of takes isn't journalism. That's what I think.
Seems like a very uncharitable interpretation of the words of the letter. The idea is that they are not particularly writing about defending their own freedom, since most of them already have plenty of power and security. They are defending other people.
Whatever their intentions, the central issue is whether the claims of the letter are plausible. And they are.
Quote from: Treehugger on July 08, 2020, 08:34:32 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on July 08, 2020, 08:23:34 AM
I think it's the usual whiners whining their usual whines. Every single one of the people who signed that letter has access to a major platform, and boy, do they ever use it. They're not being silenced; they never shut the fuck up. They're not concerned about restrictions on speech, they just don't like being criticized when they say stupid or awful things. We need to stop pretending that every "take" is as valuable as every other. The journalism of takes isn't journalism. That's what I think.
So I take it you disagree, but can only come up with an ad hominem argument. Not compelling.
I was asked for my opinion, not an argument. Even characterized as an argument, however, it's not an ad hominem. The ad hominem is an informal fallacy, which means that you can't identify it based on its form alone; you need to consider the content. It's a fallacy of relevance, meaning it's only instantiated when the content presented is irrelevant. For an ad hominem, that means that the personal attack must be immaterial. That's patently not the case here.
I believe what you actually mean is that I've constructed a straw man. I don't think that's the case either, but it's a better fit for the facts.
Quote from: downer on July 08, 2020, 08:42:27 AM
Seems like a very uncharitable interpretation of the words of the letter. The idea is that they are not particularly writing about defending their own freedom, since most of them already have plenty of power and security. They are defending other people.
Whatever their intentions, the central issue is whether the claims of the letter are plausible. And they are.
You're right, I'm not being very charitable. That's because I'm pretty sure I've seen the same content bandied about endlessly for years now, and not to laudable ends. I look at the signatories, and all my flags are raised. They have not earned my trust; in fact, they've almost all earned my
distrust. It's not at all clear to me that they're defending the "freedom" of the disempowered. It's not clear to me because (1) they're parrotting the same old narrative we've seen trotted out for years now as part of an explicit effort to legitimize absolutely shit ideas (many of them long-debunked), (2) it's mostly (although I'll grant it's not entirely) the same people who spend their columns promoting their shit ideas to "teach the controversy", (3) the letter is such vaguely worded pablum that it's hard to discern much concrete content beyond the concern for both-sidesism that I know (from their previous work) most of its authors are worried about, and (4) so, so many of the signatories spend their time and power punching down on these issues.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on July 08, 2020, 08:56:58 AM
Quote from: Treehugger on July 08, 2020, 08:34:32 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on July 08, 2020, 08:23:34 AM
I think it's the usual whiners whining their usual whines. Every single one of the people who signed that letter has access to a major platform, and boy, do they ever use it. They're not being silenced; they never shut the fuck up. They're not concerned about restrictions on speech, they just don't like being criticized when they say stupid or awful things. We need to stop pretending that every "take" is as valuable as every other. The journalism of takes isn't journalism. That's what I think.
So I take it you disagree, but can only come up with an ad hominem argument. Not compelling.
I was asked for my opinion, not an argument. Even characterized as an argument, however, it's not an ad hominem. The ad hominem is an informal fallacy, which means that you can't identify it based on its form alone; you need to consider the content. It's a fallacy of relevance, meaning it's only instantiated when the content presented is irrelevant. For an ad hominem, that means that the personal attack must be immaterial. That's patently not the case here.
I believe what you actually mean is that I've constructed a straw man. I don't think that's the case either, but it's a better fit for the facts.
Quote from: downer on July 08, 2020, 08:42:27 AM
Seems like a very uncharitable interpretation of the words of the letter. The idea is that they are not particularly writing about defending their own freedom, since most of them already have plenty of power and security. They are defending other people.
Whatever their intentions, the central issue is whether the claims of the letter are plausible. And they are.
You're right, I'm not being very charitable. That's because I'm pretty sure I've seen the same content bandied about endlessly for years now, and not to laudable ends. I look at the signatories, and all my flags are raised. They have not earned my trust; in fact, they've almost all earned my distrust. It's not at all clear to me that they're defending the "freedom" of the disempowered. It's not clear to me because (1) they're parrotting the same old narrative we've seen trotted out for years now as part of an explicit effort to legitimize absolutely shit ideas (many of them long-debunked), (2) it's mostly (although I'll grant it's not entirely) the same people who spend their columns promoting their shit ideas to "teach the controversy", (3) the letter is such vaguely worded pablum that it's hard to discern much concrete content beyond the concern for both-sidesism that I know (from their previous work) most of its authors are worried about, and (4) so, so many of the signatories spend their time and power punching down on these issues.
You know the work of all one hundred writers who signed it? Or are you just giving free reign to your own preconceptions?
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on July 08, 2020, 08:56:58 AM
(3) the letter is such vaguely worded pablum that it's hard to discern much concrete content beyond the concern for both-sidesism that I know (from their previous work) most of its authors are worried about
The nerve of people, thinking that one should actually listen to both sides of an argument. Cut that off at the knees ASAP.
Parasaurolophus -- it sounds like you are mainly thinking of Pinker and Haidt. Maybe Gladwell. I was struck that Kathy Pollitt and Michelle Goldberg signed. I haven't heard of most of the signatories.
Anyway, there is the question of whether the letter will accomplish anything other than spur a lot of tweets. Maybe most will have forgotten about it by Sept. Too much other stuff going on. But I will definitely recall it as a significant moment.
Quote from: Treehugger on July 08, 2020, 09:21:44 AM
You know the work of all one hundred writers who signed it ... or are you just giving free reign to your own preconceptions.
I didn't realize this was actually a Gish Gallop and I had to be familiar with the work of every author before I could formulate an opinion on their vague letter.
Mea culpa. I imagine you're familiar with all of their work, then?
Sarcasm aside, I am familiar with the work of 41 of the signatories, which I think is good enough. People I trust are familiar with the work of many of the others.
Quote from: marshwiggle on July 08, 2020, 09:33:33 AM
The nerve of people, thinking that one should actually listen to both sides of an argument. Cut that off at the knees ASAP.
There aren't always two equally viable sides. This is especially true when we're talking about well-established knowledge or hate speech. For example, flat-earthers and young-earth creationists don't deserve equal consideration, and neither does the KKK.
Sure. How can you disagree with it? Everybody agrees intolerance is on the rise until you give names.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on July 08, 2020, 09:50:17 AM
Quote from: Treehugger on July 08, 2020, 09:21:44 AM
You know the work of all one hundred writers who signed it ... or are you just giving free reign to your own preconceptions.
I didn't realize this was actually a Gish Gallop and I had to be familiar with the work of every author before I could formulate an opinion on their vague letter. Mea culpa. I imagine you're familiar with all of their work, then?
You are missing the point. Unlike you, I don't need to have read all the signatories because I don't happen to believe that
who wrote something is more important than
what they wrote. I believe that ideas should stand or fall on their own. I don't happen to care about the gender, race, ethnicity or other characteristics of the writers, but I am betting you do. Hence
you should know them all before dismissing their argument, but I don't have to be familiar with them all to support it.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus link=topic=1537.msg36781#msg36781 date=1594227017bThere aren't always two equally viable sides. This is especially true when we're talking about well-established knowledge or hate speech. For example, flat-earthers and young-earth creationists don't deserve equal consideration, and neither does the KKK.
Right because there is only the academic humanities party line (critical race theory & theoretical cousins — all founded on similar questionable assumptions) and hate speech. That's it, right?
Besides, I don't think the signatories are in the KKK or go around "hating" large groups of humanity.
Also why just two sides? One of the points is that complexity is being reduced to a simple two-sided power struggle. Reality is a lot more complex and, frankly, beautiful than that.
And finally just because something counts as "well-established knowledge" in the academia humanities does not at all mean it is the incontestable truth. Far from it. To take but one example, you do realize that most of Derrida's work is just a bunch of sophistical tautologies and has been proven to be such and yet he is still taught in lit theory classes.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on July 08, 2020, 09:50:17 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on July 08, 2020, 09:33:33 AM
The nerve of people, thinking that one should actually listen to both sides of an argument. Cut that off at the knees ASAP.
There aren't always two equally viable sides. This is especially true when we're talking about well-established knowledge or hate speech. For example, flat-earthers and young-earth creationists don't deserve equal consideration, and neither does the KKK.
First of all, two sides don't have to be "equally viable" in order to both be useful. In a traffic accident, for instance, a court may find one party 25% responsible and the other 75% responsible. That's way different than simply assigning all of the blame to one party.
Second, flat-earthers are supporters of what was once "well-established knowledge"; if round-earthers had been silenced when a flat earth was "well-established knowledge" it would have prevented any progress ever.
Finally, "hate speech" is anything but well-defined; the definition morphs according to whoever uses it, and most recently many people use it for anything that makes someone "uncomfortable". (Unless the person about whom it is said is
privileged, in which case it's OK to say basically anything, no matter how derogatory and/or dishonest; it stil won't be called "hate speech".)
i'm so sorry you didn't like my negative opinion of the editorial. But when you ask for opinions, you get opinions.
Quote from: Treehugger on July 08, 2020, 10:15:08 AM
You are missing the point. Unlike you, I don't need to have read all the signatories because I don't happen to believe that who wrote something is more important than what they wrote. I believe that ideas should stand or fall on their own. I don't happen to care about the gender, race, ethnicity or other characteristics of the writers, but I am betting you do. Hence you should know them all before dismissing their argument, but I don't have to be familiar with them all to support it.
I don't actually care about their gender, race, ethnicity, etc. What I care about is the views I've seen them espouse, and the bullshit concern-trolling I've seen them perform in the public arena. In other words, I care about how their past content informs this current, vacuous, piece of content.
Quote
Right because there is only the academic humanities party line (critical race theory & theoretical cousins — all founded on similar questionable assumptions) and hate speech. That's it, right?
...no? You're making an awful lot of assumptions and projecting all kinds of stuff onto me.
I do think there's a right and a wrong analysis of the so-called "free speech crisis", and I think that the voices which cry about it the loudest consistently and persistently (even willfully) misdiagnose it, even in spite of the evidence.
Quote
Besides, I don't think the signatories are in the KKK or go around "hating" large groups of humanity.
I didn't say that. Although I know it's true of at least one signatory (she's not in the KKK, but there is one largeish group of humanity she absolutely loathes).
Quote
Also why just two sides? One of the points is that complexity is being reduced to a simple two-sided power struggle. Reality is a lot more complex and, frankly, beautiful than that.
I didn't say there were only ever two sides. What I said was that there aren't always
two equally viable sides. On some issues there may be three or four, but on a great many of the issues that the 41 signatories I know of care about, there just aren't. There's one, and then there's a lot of bad faith, disinformation, and stupidity.
In other words, sure, other opinions are available, but some opinions are better than others. When it comes to matters of fact, we shouldn't privilege uninformed opinion over evidence. In other other words, I'm not a Millian about free speech, and I don't think that the evidence supports Mill's idealism.
Quote
And finally just because something counts as "well-established knowledge" in the academia humanities does not at all mean it is the incontestable truth. Far from it. To take but one example, you do realize that most of Derrida's work is just a bunch of sophistical tautologies and has been proven to be such and yet he is still taught in lit theory classes.
Wrong target, buddy. I'm an analytic philosopher: I don't know anything whatsoever about Derrida (although I'm willing to bet there's more to his thinking than you're willing to grant, if not as much as cultural or literary theorists might like--I'm not as hostile to continentals as others of my ilk are, though I do share the same broad attitude).
I'm also not talking about views in "theory", metaphysics, epistemology, language, etc. I don't know where you got that idea.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on July 08, 2020, 10:45:29 AM
i'm so sorry you didn't like my negative opinion of the editorial. But when you ask for opinions, you get opinions.
Quote from: Treehugger on July 08, 2020, 10:15:08 AM
You are missing the point. Unlike you, I don't need to have read all the signatories because I don't happen to believe that who wrote something is more important than what they wrote. I believe that ideas should stand or fall on their own. I don't happen to care about the gender, race, ethnicity or other characteristics of the writers, but I am betting you do. Hence you should know them all before dismissing their argument, but I don't have to be familiar with them all to support it.
I don't actually care about their gender, race, ethnicity, etc. What I care about is the views I've seen them espouse, and the bullshit concern-trolling I've seen them perform in the public arena. In other words, I care about how their past content informs this current, vacuous, piece of content.
Quote
Right because there is only the academic humanities party line (critical race theory & theoretical cousins — all founded on similar questionable assumptions) and hate speech. That's it, right?
...no? You're making an awful lot of assumptions and projecting all kinds of stuff onto me.
I do think there's a right and a wrong analysis of the so-called "free speech crisis", and I think that the voices which cry about it the loudest consistently and persistently (even willfully) misdiagnose it, even in spite of the evidence.
Quote
Besides, I don't think the signatories are in the KKK or go around "hating" large groups of humanity.
I didn't say that. Although I know it's true of at least one signatory (she's not in the KKK, but there is one largeish group of humanity she absolutely loathes).
Quote
Also why just two sides? One of the points is that complexity is being reduced to a simple two-sided power struggle. Reality is a lot more complex and, frankly, beautiful than that.
I didn't say there were only ever two sides. What I said was that there aren't always two equally viable sides. On some issues there may be three or four, but on a great many of the issues that the 41 signatories I know of care about, there just aren't. There's one, and then there's a lot of bad faith, disinformation, and stupidity.
In other words, sure, other opinions are available, but some opinions are better than others. When it comes to matters of fact, we shouldn't privilege uninformed opinion over evidence. In other other words, I'm not a Millian about free speech, and I don't think that the evidence supports Mill's idealism.
Quote
And finally just because something counts as "well-established knowledge" in the academia humanities does not at all mean it is the incontestable truth. Far from it. To take but one example, you do realize that most of Derrida's work is just a bunch of sophistical tautologies and has been proven to be such and yet he is still taught in lit theory classes.
Wrong target, buddy. I'm an analytic philosopher: I don't know anything whatsoever about Derrida (although I'm willing to bet there's more to his thinking than you're willing to grant, if not as much as cultural or literary theorists might like--I'm not as hostile to continentals as others of my ilk are, though I do share the same broad attitude).
I'm also not talking about views in "theory", metaphysics, epistemology, language, etc. I don't know where you got that idea.
Ok, points taken. You mention the "trolling" that some of the signatories have done without naming names. That's OK. They are public figures. You can name names so we know what you are talking about.
I know that many in the academic humanities have problems with Steve Pinker. I read his
Blank Slate and found it incredibly refreshing. I'm sure his arguments are not without their flaws, but after having survived 10+ years of social constructivist dogma, it was nice to had the "other side" explored. And I have a hard time believing the whole book is just 100% wrong.
In contrast to the main debaters on the thread, I only recognize half a dozen names on the list, and don't have any strong opinion about those I do recognize. So my reaction to the letter is largely about what the text says and what's going on in my sphere.
Going to the tldr;, I get the gist to be
- "The way to defeat bad ideas is by exposure, argument, and persuasion, not by trying to silen]ce or wish them away.
- we need a culture that leaves us room for experimentation, risk taking, and even mistakes
We need to preserve the possibility of good-faith disagreement without dire professional consequences"
Those all appear to be reasonable values. There has always been desire by those whose arguments are weak to silence the counterarguments. That is not good for reasoned debate, so the signatories are encourage those are persuaded that their values are correct that they should strengthen their arguments rather than undermine those making a counterargument or finding weaknesses that need addressing.
At my place, the old faculty are strongly pro free speech, even speech with which they vehemently disagree. Younger faculty are more conservative. Students, being less mature, seem to want their own view to prevail without opposition. If we are responsible faculty, we disabuse them of that notion.
It's especially ironic that this letter is being published in Harper's, since their previous editor was fired for being critical of an anti-Me-Too essay by Katie Roiphe. It was a bad essay, and pretty viciously reactionary, but commissioned by John MacArthur, the magazine's president and publisher (and a signatory of this letter!). James Marcus, the editor at the time, objected to the essay and did not think it was fit to publish. MacArthur overrode him and fired him. Free speech!
And while I'm at it, Bari Weiss (another signatory) has a very, very, very, very long history of trying to get people fired for being critical of Israel (and Muslim). Free speech!
Likewise, Cary Nelson was a prominent voice arguing that Stephen Salaita should have his job offer at Illinois revoked for his tweets. So, again, free speech!
Fight bad speech with good speech! Ra ra ra!
Quote from: Treehugger on July 08, 2020, 04:21:16 PM
Ok, points taken. You mention the "trolling" that some of the signatories have done without naming names. That's OK. They are public figures. You can name names so we know what you are talking about.
I know that many in the academic humanities have problems with Steve Pinker. I read his Blank Slate and found it incredibly refreshing. I'm sure his arguments are not without their flaws, but after having survived 10+ years of social constructivist dogma, it was nice to had the "other side" explored. And I have a hard time believing the whole book is just 100% wrong.
Funny--I thought that Parasaurolophus was referring to JK Rowling who is decidedly critical of trans people's right to exist. I actually quite enjoy Pinker's writing, and have read just about all of his popular books, but I also think that many of his ideas come from a position of unexamined privilege. Most recently, I was struck by his response to the whole NIPS/Neuro-ips debacle, in which he basically said that people were too peal-clutchy about the possibility of the name NIPS evoking nipples---when in fact the issue was that the people at NIPS conferences were
already making crude jokes about it, causing explicit discomfort to those who subsequently complained.
If you've never been made uncomfortable by these issues, or excluded because of them (or forced to choose between dealing with them and excluding yourself---self-deportation, if you will) it's easy to think that the complainers are too uptight and sensitive and should just let free speech reign. I find myself repeatedly reminded of the overlap between anti-mask gun rights folks (mah FREEDOMS) vs. those who complain about BLM (how DARE they!).
I've been seeing the expression 'consequence culture' on Twitter. If you have the right to express an opinion, then other private institutions and private individuals have a right to criticize it and refuse to associate with you. That seems reasonable to me. I find it hard to see where the oppression lies when Harpers is happily giving its platform to people who feel oppressed by the lack of a platform elsewhere.
Treehugger, speaking of cancel culture and Pinker...
Larry Summers got "cancelled" (resigned the Harvard presidency, returning to econ department) for just MENTIONING Pinker's work in a context that got people upset. For those who weren't following this, the comments involved why more females are not in STEM fields. The "short" oversimplification is that while average cognitive ability between males and females is similar, there is a wider variability for males while females are less variable. There are as such more males at the extreme levels of cognitive ability needed to achieve at the highest levels of STEM, but also many more homeless and incarcerated males than females. Is this really controversial? Apparently it is so controversial that you can get a third party fired for proposing your hypothesis as a potential explanation when asked directly about the topic. What should Larry have said? Sexism and bias are of course the only "allowed" answers.
The funny thing regarding this is that Steven Pinker isn't even "the other side" of the argument. To say something isn't entirely a blank slate is not to take a particularly deterministic viewpoint. If you want to see heads actually explode, go to Charles Murray who has offended nearly everyone who has not read the Bell Curve or Coming Apart. Anyone who thinks this guy is some radical simply hasn't read a single word he's said, yet he's the poster child for racism in the academy for including one section in a text on cognitive ability the implications of differences among ethnic groups. This is definitely a topic that is not allowed, not even because the Middlebury mob crowd cares about the race per se. You're HAVE to say everything is due to environment because if anything is heritable or innate, that leaves no room for a government "solution."
Quote from: financeguy on July 09, 2020, 02:54:05 AM
Treehugger, speaking of cancel culture and Pinker...
Larry Summers got "cancelled" (resigned the Harvard presidency, returning to econ department) for just MENTIONING Pinker's work in a context that got people upset. For those who weren't following this, the comments involved why more females are not in STEM fields. The "short" oversimplification is that while average cognitive ability between males and females is similar, there is a wider variability for males while females are less variable. There are as such more males at the extreme levels of cognitive ability needed to achieve at the highest levels of STEM, but also many more homeless and incarcerated males than females. Is this really controversial? Apparently it is so controversial that you can get a third party fired for proposing your hypothesis as a potential explanation when asked directly about the topic. What should Larry have said? Sexism and bias are of course the only "allowed" answers.
I do in fact remember the whole Larry Summers and sexism scandal, but didn't know (or had forgotten) that it was his mention of Pinker that triggered the whole episode.
I actually agree with Pinker/Larry Summers and believe that biological difference is largely behind the lack of women not in STEM per se since there are a lot of women in medicine and the biological sciences, but specifically in math, physics, computer science and engineering. But it's not just that there are more men at the extremes of intelligence, as LS was pointing out, but also that when women are very intelligent, they tend to be intelligent in different ways than men. They definitely tend to be more verbally and less mathematically intelligent. (Also, it is pretty clear that women are way worse at spacial relations than men.) If a women is smart enough to succeed in a STEM field, then in all likelihood she is even better in the humanities and why would anyone choose to specialize in an area of relative weakness and let their other gifts go unused?
Interestingly, there is little gender inequality in computer science in Eastern Europe. (https://www.zdnet.com/article/women-in-tech-why-bulgaria-and-romania-are-leading-in-software-engineering/) But why is this? Is this because women are freer and happier in Eastern Europe? Nope. It is precisely because they were both less free and less wealthy than their American counterparts. First, back in the day, the Soviets forced women into CS and engineering (they were certainly not allowed just to stay home and be mothers, even if that is what they wanted to do). Then, after the fall of the Soviet Union, work in CS was one of the clearest paths out of poverty.
Clearly, if we want more women in STEM, we should just force them into STEM or impoverish them so much that they prefer spending 60+ hours a week sitting in front of a screen coding to being homeless.
QuoteIf you want to see heads actually explode, go to Charles Murray who has offended nearly everyone who has not read the Bell Curve or Coming Apart. Anyone who thinks this guy is some radical simply hasn't read a single word he's said, yet he's the poster child for racism in the academy for including one section in a text on cognitive ability the implications of differences among ethnic groups. This is definitely a topic that is not allowed, not even because the Middlebury mob crowd cares about the race per se. You're HAVE to say everything is due to environment because if anything is heritable or innate, that leaves no room for a government "solution."
To be honest, I haven't read Charles Murray precisely because I had heard such bad things about him and his work. However, I probably should given that I do think that it is highly unlikely that there aren't cognitive differences among ethnic groups. It feels incredibly politically incorrect to even write this, but it just makes sense. It is widely recognized, on the one hand, that there are significant physical differences between races (it's not just all about skin color, but difference races are more susceptible to different diseases and have differing physical/athletic abilities) and on the other that the mind/brain is actually just another part of our physical body (unless you are religious or a dualist which many scientists are not). So what conclusion can we draw?
Quote from: Treehugger on July 09, 2020, 04:19:48 AM
QuoteIf you want to see heads actually explode, go to Charles Murray who has offended nearly everyone who has not read the Bell Curve or Coming Apart. Anyone who thinks this guy is some radical simply hasn't read a single word he's said, yet he's the poster child for racism in the academy for including one section in a text on cognitive ability the implications of differences among ethnic groups. This is definitely a topic that is not allowed, not even because the Middlebury mob crowd cares about the race per se. You're HAVE to say everything is due to environment because if anything is heritable or innate, that leaves no room for a government "solution."
To be honest, I haven't read Charles Murray precisely because I had heard such bad things about him and his work. However, I probably should given that I do think that it is highly unlikely that there aren't cognitive differences among ethnic groups. It feels incredibly politically incorrect to even write this, but it just makes sense. It is widely recognized, on the one hand, that there are significant physical differences between races (it's not just all about skin color, but difference races are more susceptible to different diseases and have differing physical/athletic abilities) and on the other that the mind/brain is actually just another part of our physical body (unless you are religious or a dualist which many scientists are not). So what conclusion can we draw?
To be honest, Charles Murray makes heads explode (for people who haven't read his work) because the very idea of innate differences in certain abilities bothers them. (Ironically, these people have no problem accepting that
character qualities are
entirely determined by skin colour, sex, etc.)
Definitely worth reading. (And of course, no matter how many times it's pointed out, the fact that small, measurable differences in the means of distributions tell you virtually nothing about individuals it doesn't suit the narrative of the detractors so gets ignored entirely.) Case in point: even though my wife and I were both STEM people, she had WAY better spacial reasoning than me.
Quote from: Hibush on July 08, 2020, 05:19:49 PM
At my place, the old faculty are strongly pro free speech, even speech with which they vehemently disagree. Younger faculty are more conservative.
Hibush, the usual thing is to call revolutionaries "conservative" only after they win formal governing power and entrench themselves for a few generations. Hence the American progressive tendency to apply that word to, e.g., Konstantin Chernenko. The old villain would have been surprised to hear himself described as a man of the right!
What you're doing is either rank ignorance or gaslighting. Your "old faculty" clearly have a conservative attitude toward free speech, irrespective of whether they are Democrats or Republicans. Your "younger faculty" are more
progressive.
Or do you really want to argue here that it's conservatives who are driving cancel-culture, shouting down speakers, equating free speech with "violence," etc.?
Pinker and Murrey are terrible scientists who willfully misconstrue data to make the points they want to make. The fact that some people with opposite views do the same doesn't excuse it or make them any less wrong. Pinker was a bad psycholinguist before he became a bad pseudo-scientific public intellectual. I know less about Murrey's history but his views are also pseudo-science not backed up with sound scientific reasoning or current data. I could give you the whole undergraduate lecture on bias in IQ testing and misinterpretation of group differences on IQ tests, but I doubt that would make a difference for those who want to believe otherwise. You have no reason to feel bad for either of them-- they have both majorly cashed in.
Quote from: writingprof on July 09, 2020, 06:31:58 AM
Quote from: Hibush on July 08, 2020, 05:19:49 PM
At my place, the old faculty are strongly pro free speech, even speech with which they vehemently disagree. Younger faculty are more conservative.
Hibush, the usual thing is to call revolutionaries "conservative" only after they win formal governing power and entrench themselves for a few generations. Hence the American progressive tendency to apply that word to, e.g., Konstantin Chernenko. The old villain would have been surprised to hear himself described as a man of the right!
What you're doing is either rank ignorance or gaslighting. Your "old faculty" clearly have a conservative attitude toward free speech, irrespective of whether they are Democrats or Republicans. Your "younger faculty" are more progressive.
Or do you really want to argue here that it's conservatives who are driving cancel-culture, shouting down speakers, equating free speech with "violence," etc.?
I meant little-c conservative in that they are less inclined to provide something in favor of conserving it for themselves.
Quote from: marshwiggle on July 09, 2020, 04:50:48 AM
Quote from: Treehugger on July 09, 2020, 04:19:48 AM
QuoteIf you want to see heads actually explode, go to Charles Murray who has offended nearly everyone who has not read the Bell Curve or Coming Apart. Anyone who thinks this guy is some radical simply hasn't read a single word he's said, yet he's the poster child for racism in the academy for including one section in a text on cognitive ability the implications of differences among ethnic groups. This is definitely a topic that is not allowed, not even because the Middlebury mob crowd cares about the race per se. You're HAVE to say everything is due to environment because if anything is heritable or innate, that leaves no room for a government "solution."
To be honest, I haven't read Charles Murray precisely because I had heard such bad things about him and his work. However, I probably should given that I do think that it is highly unlikely that there aren't cognitive differences among ethnic groups. It feels incredibly politically incorrect to even write this, but it just makes sense. It is widely recognized, on the one hand, that there are significant physical differences between races (it's not just all about skin color, but difference races are more susceptible to different diseases and have differing physical/athletic abilities) and on the other that the mind/brain is actually just another part of our physical body (unless you are religious or a dualist which many scientists are not). So what conclusion can we draw?
To be honest, Charles Murray makes heads explode (for people who haven't read his work) because the very idea of innate differences in certain abilities bothers them. (Ironically, these people have no problem accepting that character qualities are entirely determined by skin colour, sex, etc.)
Definitely worth reading. (And of course, no matter how many times it's pointed out, the fact that small, measurable differences in the means of distributions tell you virtually nothing about individuals it doesn't suit the narrative of the detractors so gets ignored entirely.) Case in point: even though my wife and I were both STEM people, she had WAY better spacial reasoning than me.
But, not to keep score, I notice the age old theory off 'women's intuition' (which I have recently heard attributed to a woman's ability to use both sides of the brain in concert more effectively than a man's whereas a man is able to use one side or the other predominantly to better effect; sorry, no citation) doesn't seem to offend.
Quote from: Hibush on July 09, 2020, 07:26:20 AM
Quote from: writingprof on July 09, 2020, 06:31:58 AM
Quote from: Hibush on July 08, 2020, 05:19:49 PM
At my place, the old faculty are strongly pro free speech, even speech with which they vehemently disagree. Younger faculty are more conservative.
Hibush, the usual thing is to call revolutionaries "conservative" only after they win formal governing power and entrench themselves for a few generations. Hence the American progressive tendency to apply that word to, e.g., Konstantin Chernenko. The old villain would have been surprised to hear himself described as a man of the right!
What you're doing is either rank ignorance or gaslighting. Your "old faculty" clearly have a conservative attitude toward free speech, irrespective of whether they are Democrats or Republicans. Your "younger faculty" are more progressive.
Or do you really want to argue here that it's conservatives who are driving cancel-culture, shouting down speakers, equating free speech with "violence," etc.?
I meant little-c conservative in that they are less inclined to provide something in favor of conserving it for themselves.
I apologize? However, I am searching the world's dictionaries in vain for the assertion that "conservative" can mean "less inclined to provide something in favor of conserving it for themselves."
Quote from: Puget on July 09, 2020, 06:55:25 AM
Pinker and Murrey are terrible scientists who willfully misconstrue data to make the points they want to make.
So that's where my admins got it from. I've always wondered . . .
I am familiar with a number of the signatories, mostly by reputation, not through deep reading of their work. The text of the letter seems reasonable, though the matter seems somewhat complicated. On the one hand, I have grown more and more frustrated with cancel culture, especially involving academics who are putting forth ideas that others find unpalatable. It seems there has been an increase in attempts to get individuals fired for their unpopular stances or for not speaking up or not doing so "correctly". That does not seem very scholarly to me. On the other hand, I think that there are some who are well known for trying to draw conclusions from their research that support particular agendas (e.g., there are differences between the races or sexes in IQ, therefore [something bad for the purported lower IQ group]).
I keep up (superficially) with a lot of different areas of research, and these kinds of studies that are poorly designed or executed and/or rely on bad data but that draw conclusions or make implications that have negative effects on (usually) marginalized groups keep popping up and being rebutted and/or retracted. Sometimes, it seems as though the retractions are a result of a very quick piling on and shaming due to the implications of the results, but so far I have not personally seen any studies in this category that didn't seem as though they should be retracted (there could be some, of course). Therefore, while I agree with what the letter seems to be supporting overall (robust academic dialogue, even on topics that may not be "politically correct"), I think there are some underlying factors that are causing a lot of disagreement with it, and rightfully so.
Does it matter who signed it? Objectively, maybe it shouldn't. However, if you are familiar with the work of some of the signatories or the work they prop up and support, it might seem as though this is some manifesto for encouraging more of the lousy and irresponsible research that has been put forth. In case you didn't see it, one of the signatories apologized for signing the letter after realizing who some of the other signatories were after the fact. I am torn... there are certainly some scholars I would not want to be associated with. But maybe a bipartisan (?) letter supporting more freedom of academic dialogue is a good thing, especially if it is supported by individuals with disparate ideologies. Some pointed out on social media that it's ironic to sign a letter effectively taking a stand against cancel culture and then apologize for it so that you yourself won't be canceled. Anyway, having seen a lot of flare ups and attacks on academics due to their studies or opinions, I think the situation is complicated. I like the surface idea of the letter but am a bit wary of the intentions behind some of the signatories.
The list of signers of that letter was a mixed bunch, but all were basically liberal.
Who would sign a similar letter also signed by Charles Murray or Jordan Peterson? Probably not many. Is that because their views are too right wing or crazy, or that they are not good academics? Hard to say. Most people would say both.
Are there "respectable" right wing academics with whom liberals would be happy to co-sign a letter on academic freedom? I'd think of some Catholic scholars.
Quote from: ab_grp on July 09, 2020, 09:11:43 AM
Does it matter who signed it? Objectively, maybe it shouldn't. However, if you are familiar with the work of some of the signatories or the work they prop up and support, it might seem as though this is some manifesto for encouraging more of the lousy and irresponsible research that has been put forth. In case you didn't see it, one of the signatories apologized for signing the letter after realizing who some of the other signatories were after the fact. I am torn... there are certainly some scholars I would not want to be associated with. But maybe a bipartisan (?) letter supporting more freedom of academic dialogue is a good thing, especially if it is supported by individuals with disparate ideologies. Some pointed out on social media that it's ironic to sign a letter effectively taking a stand against cancel culture and then apologize for it so that you yourself won't be canceled. Anyway, having seen a lot of flare ups and attacks on academics due to their studies or opinions, I think the situation is complicated. I like the surface idea of the letter but am a bit wary of the intentions behind some of the signatories.
That to me is one of the most pernicious things about cancel culture, that rather than evaluating an argument based on the evidence, there is a preliminary "motive purity" test that has to be implicitly passed. Research may be done for all kinds of reasons, but if the methodology is sound, then the conclusions should be debated
on their merits. The best way to challenge someone's agenda is not to dismiss their research out of hand, but to point out alternate interpretations of their data which are equally valid.
As Steven Pinker has pointed out, when research is supressed because people object to the agenda of the researchers, it's only a matter of time until curious people find the results, and get even
more obsessed with it
because it was supressed.
Data are neutral. Ideology which cannot incoporate it needs to change.
I would agree that research should not be dismissed out of hand just because it doesn't fit within a particular ideology. If a study is well designed and executed, the data are sound, and the methods used are appropriate, it should be evaluated on its own merits. Those criteria are not always (or maybe even usually) the case. Data may be neutral (if you mean that they do not make any claims or conclusions on their own), but they may not be representative, accurate, or the result of a well designed data collection for other reasons. Similarly, we know that there is a fair amount of data misuse or misrepresentation. It can be difficult to evaluate some of these studies without examining the data, and journal articles also do not always provide the amount of detail required to do a rigorous evaluation. That seems clear given that some have made it through peer review (presumably rigorous, probably not in all cases). Scholars don't always get it right.
I don't think it's right to suppress research just because individuals or groups might agree with or like the outcome, but if you are going to publish something controversial, you should expect that an intense discussion and evaluation in the public sphere might arise. From my own experience, I have worked on a lot of research that has the potential to have negative outcomes for my organization. The policy was absolutely not to quash that research despite any consequences. If the research is done well, it should stand.
In mentioning the agendas of the signatories, I was referring to my impression that the letter's content seems (superficially) like something most or all scholars might be prone to agree with. Academic freedom and robust discussion are crucial. We can't shy away from (well founded) outcomes that don't fit with our ideologies just because we don't like them. But, not all of the signatories are scholars, and even among those who are, I do wonder whether this is some attempt to defend something other than what it seems on the surface. I have not mentioned specific signatories because I think this is a larger issue than who in particular signed it or what they might or might be know for espousing. I absolutely agree that there is too much cancel culture going on. There are topics that cannot even be broached without a complete flame war resulting. As I said before, I do not think that's very scholarly. In fact, it has made me hesitant to even get involved in academic discussions, and this is true for even non-controversial topics!
Quote from: writingprof on July 09, 2020, 08:22:06 AM
Quote from: Hibush on July 09, 2020, 07:26:20 AM
Quote from: writingprof on July 09, 2020, 06:31:58 AM
Quote from: Hibush on July 08, 2020, 05:19:49 PM
At my place, the old faculty are strongly pro free speech, even speech with which they vehemently disagree. Younger faculty are more conservative.
Hibush, the usual thing is to call revolutionaries "conservative" only after they win formal governing power and entrench themselves for a few generations. Hence the American progressive tendency to apply that word to, e.g., Konstantin Chernenko. The old villain would have been surprised to hear himself described as a man of the right!
What you're doing is either rank ignorance or gaslighting. Your "old faculty" clearly have a conservative attitude toward free speech, irrespective of whether they are Democrats or Republicans. Your "younger faculty" are more progressive.
Or do you really want to argue here that it's conservatives who are driving cancel-culture, shouting down speakers, equating free speech with "violence," etc.?
I meant little-c conservative in that they are less inclined to provide something in favor of conserving it for themselves.
I apologize? However, I am searching the world's dictionaries in vain for the assertion that "conservative" can mean "less inclined to provide something in favor of conserving it for themselves."
You are the writing professor, so I have to give this observation consideration. Irregardless (https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/is-irregardless-a-real-word-heh-heh) though, I should have Merriam Webster update their definition to reflect my usage. But it does seem to fit within the
fiscal conservative use.
Mahaggony, I've heard that example as well, which I believe is usually explained by the need of males in hunter/gather societies to have extreme focus on a single thing (the animal they intend to kill, for example) rather than balance multiple competing interests. (Multiple children under care, for example.)
Take a more macro view of this and you might explain the under performance of your boys in k-12 education, a system almost specifically designed against their presumed biological preference for "short duration intense work" followed by leisure as opposed to "low intensity consistent work" which can be more associated with female experiences through evolution. Going to war is short term high intensity. Maintaining a household is long term low intensity. There's something to be said about the male simultaneous stereotypes of the aggressive alpha behavior and the lazy Homer Simpson caricature. These are not mutually exclusive. To ignore these innate traits is exactly how we get a generation or two of young boys put in the least biologically advantageous environment (the M-F 8 hour classroom), largely led by an industry of female instructors. Is it any wonder why so many are on attention related medication for ADD, ADHD, etc? Neither high intensity/low duration or low intensity/long duration are preferable predispositions independent of context, but we've decided boys need to have their biology rejected and medicated into being week betas as soon as they enter a class room.
Why is the stereotype of the uncle at Thanksgiving rather than the aunt the one who delights in bringing up controversial subjects? Well, if you have to "make things work" in the world like building a bridge, curing a disease, winning a war, then what's true matters regardless of how someone feels about it. If you are largely disabled by pregnancy and not allowed to work outside the home, what the tribe THINKS of you matters independent of what is true. This can explain women's high desire for social cohesion and low tolerance for social judgement/shaming or ostracism exists. This is not necessarily bad, but it is certainly relevant to a social media age in which silencing dissent and critiquing acts such as "slut shaming, body shaming, xyz shaming, etc" are prioritized.
Quote from: financeguy on July 09, 2020, 01:54:36 PM
Mahaggony, I've heard that example as well, which I believe is usually explained by the need of males in hunter/gather societies to have extreme focus on a single thing (the animal they intend to kill, for example) rather than balance multiple competing interests. (Multiple children under care, for example.)
While there are some sex differences in cognition, this, like most pop science evolutionary psychology, is a load of hokum.
It is true that boys on average are several years behind girls in certain aspects of brain development during adolescence-- this is most likely tied to the fact that a lot of these changes are linked to puberty, which is later on average in boys than girls. Notice I say "on average" in both cases-- there is generally more variation within than between groups on all of these variables.
My broader point is that nothing good comes of non-experts mixing up half-understood and misinterpreted data with an agenda and coming out with things like explanations of why woman are underrepresented in some STEM fields. This is not an "opinion" which deserves equal billing with other "opinions", it is bad science and should be denounced as such. Take the "hear out all sides" argument to its natural conclusion and you have the people who want creationism taught alongside evolution in public schools.
Quote from: Puget on July 09, 2020, 02:23:16 PM
Quote from: financeguy on July 09, 2020, 01:54:36 PM
Mahaggony, I've heard that example as well, which I believe is usually explained by the need of males in hunter/gather societies to have extreme focus on a single thing (the animal they intend to kill, for example) rather than balance multiple competing interests. (Multiple children under care, for example.)
While there are some sex differences in cognition, this, like most pop science evolutionary psychology, is a load of hokum.
It is true that boys on average are several years behind girls in certain aspects of brain development during adolescence-- this is most likely tied to the fact that a lot of these changes are linked to puberty, which is later on average in boys than girls. Notice I say "on average" in both cases-- there is generally more variation within than between groups on all of these variables.
My broader point is that nothing good comes of non-experts mixing up half-understood and misinterpreted data with an agenda and coming out with things like explanations of why woman are underrepresented in some STEM fields. This is not an "opinion" which deserves equal billing with other "opinions", it is bad science and should be denounced as such. Take the "hear out all sides" argument to its natural conclusion and you have the people who want creationism taught alongside evolution in public schools.
Yup, we want the experts, and only the experts to make decisions for us! Who determines who is expert? The experts, of course!
Who will guard the guardians?
An additional irony: Jenny Boylan tweeted an apology for signing the letter once it became clear to her who else had signed it. Yashca Mounk, Malcolm Gladwell, and J.K. Rowling then took to Twitter to mock and shame her for doing so. "An intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming" indeed.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on July 09, 2020, 02:37:52 PM
An additional irony: Jenny Boylan tweeted an apology for signing the letter once it became clear to her who else had signed it. Yashca Mounk, Malcolm Gladwell, and J.K. Rowling then took to Twitter to mock and shame her for doing so. "An intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming" indeed.
Yep, that was the apology I was referring to above, although it wasn't just those individuals responding critically to it (they may be some with the largest platforms, though).
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on July 09, 2020, 02:37:52 PM
An additional irony: Jenny Boylan tweeted an apology for signing the letter once it became clear to her who else had signed it. Yashca Mounk, Malcolm Gladwell, and J.K. Rowling then took to Twitter to mock and shame her for doing so. "An intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming" indeed.
More than one person took their names off the list of signatories, on account of the other signatories. That is ironic.
Now, Mounk described this as embarrassing. Gladwell said that he knew that there were other signatories with whom he disagreed. Rowling's twitter list shows attacks on her, but that's all I found.
There is no intolerance here.
There is apparently a counterletter being circulated, but I have only found partial text so far. Anyone come across the full text yet?
Quote from: dismalist on July 09, 2020, 02:31:21 PM
Quote from: Puget on July 09, 2020, 02:23:16 PM
Quote from: financeguy on July 09, 2020, 01:54:36 PM
Mahaggony, I've heard that example as well, which I believe is usually explained by the need of males in hunter/gather societies to have extreme focus on a single thing (the animal they intend to kill, for example) rather than balance multiple competing interests. (Multiple children under care, for example.)
While there are some sex differences in cognition, this, like most pop science evolutionary psychology, is a load of hokum.
It is true that boys on average are several years behind girls in certain aspects of brain development during adolescence-- this is most likely tied to the fact that a lot of these changes are linked to puberty, which is later on average in boys than girls. Notice I say "on average" in both cases-- there is generally more variation within than between groups on all of these variables.
My broader point is that nothing good comes of non-experts mixing up half-understood and misinterpreted data with an agenda and coming out with things like explanations of why woman are underrepresented in some STEM fields. This is not an "opinion" which deserves equal billing with other "opinions", it is bad science and should be denounced as such. Take the "hear out all sides" argument to its natural conclusion and you have the people who want creationism taught alongside evolution in public schools.
Yup, we want the experts, and only the experts to make decisions for us! Who determines who is expert? The experts, of course!
Who will guard the guardians?
Seriously? Do you want to do some bridge engineering too since who are the engineers to tell you you don't know what you're doing? I'm sorry, but I'm sick and tired of people with no knowledge of neuroscience or psychology thinking they can spout this nonsense, since how hard can it be anyway? Experts are people with actual training and knowledge in a field. Its really not that hard to define.
Quote from: Puget on July 09, 2020, 03:57:11 PM
Seriously? Do you want to do some bridge engineering too since who are the engineers to tell you you don't know what you're doing? I'm sorry, but I'm sick and tired of people with no knowledge of neuroscience or psychology thinking they can spout this nonsense, since how hard can it be anyway? Experts are people with actual training and knowledge in a field. Its really not that hard to define.
If only the experts all agreed....
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on July 09, 2020, 02:37:52 PM
An additional irony: Jenny Boylan tweeted an apology for signing the letter once it became clear to her who else had signed it. Yashca Mounk, Malcolm Gladwell, and J.K. Rowling then took to Twitter to mock and shame her for doing so. "An intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming" indeed.
Gladwell's comment was "I signed the Harpers letter because there were lots of people who also signed the Harpers letter whose views I disagreed with. I thought that was the point of the Harpers letter." That is neither mocking nor shaming. It it being critical.
I often agree with the aims of the woke crowd, and for a long time I had little time for complaints about people like that ass Jordan Peterson being given a hard time when they went to campuses to speak. There are times when I'm fully in favor of powerful people with repugnant views and repugnant histories being shouted down and deplatformed.
But over the past few years I have found that the deplatforming and cancel culture is also aimed at anyone who doesn't toe the current woke line, whether they are powerful or not. It certainly has a chilling effect on people exploring ideas. I know I've had discussions about possible academic conference topics, and we have decided to avoid topics that are going to rile up the woke crowd. And while Twitter is a sewer where you basically expect the worst, it is still appalling how people there try to organize campaigns to get others fired for expressing views they disagree with, or even just airing ideas. There is persistent wilful misinterpretation, and people are very quick to accuse others of hate speech for expressing ideas they don't like. I've found that most people on my FB feed don't really care much about the Harper's letter, but some of the people criticizing it just make the usual lazy claims about it being about the mainstream people not liking criticism. I saw the same problems in Jessica Valenti's Guardian piece about it yesterday.
This has the effect of making me less sympathetic with the claims of the woke crowd and much more critical of their causes. Their uncharitability in interpretation and dialog is infectious and divisive. It's am empirical question whether it is a more effective strategy to achieve progress, but I'm pretty sure it is counterproductive.
Quote from: Puget on July 09, 2020, 03:57:11 PM
Quote from: dismalist on July 09, 2020, 02:31:21 PM
Quote from: Puget on July 09, 2020, 02:23:16 PM
Quote from: financeguy on July 09, 2020, 01:54:36 PM
Mahaggony, I've heard that example as well, which I believe is usually explained by the need of males in hunter/gather societies to have extreme focus on a single thing (the animal they intend to kill, for example) rather than balance multiple competing interests. (Multiple children under care, for example.)
While there are some sex differences in cognition, this, like most pop science evolutionary psychology, is a load of hokum.
It is true that boys on average are several years behind girls in certain aspects of brain development during adolescence-- this is most likely tied to the fact that a lot of these changes are linked to puberty, which is later on average in boys than girls. Notice I say "on average" in both cases-- there is generally more variation within than between groups on all of these variables.
My broader point is that nothing good comes of non-experts mixing up half-understood and misinterpreted data with an agenda and coming out with things like explanations of why woman are underrepresented in some STEM fields. This is not an "opinion" which deserves equal billing with other "opinions", it is bad science and should be denounced as such. Take the "hear out all sides" argument to its natural conclusion and you have the people who want creationism taught alongside evolution in public schools.
Yup, we want the experts, and only the experts to make decisions for us! Who determines who is expert? The experts, of course!
Who will guard the guardians?
Seriously? Do you want to do some bridge engineering too since who are the engineers to tell you you don't know what you're doing? I'm sorry, but I'm sick and tired of people with no knowledge of neuroscience or psychology thinking they can spout this nonsense, since how hard can it be anyway? Experts are people with actual training and knowledge in a field. Its really not that hard to define.
Well, in engineering it's simple: If their bridges fall down, don't hire them again! Non-experts make the decisions.
How are we to know what is correct in sociology, say? The alternative to a priestly class is competition of ideas. That requires free speech.
Quote from: dismalist on July 09, 2020, 04:07:36 PM
Well, in engineering it's simple: If their bridges fall down, don't hire them again!
That standard sounds like a disparate-impact lawsuit waiting to happen.
Puget, it would be great to believe "experts" if they didn't have such a long history of selling out to the person with the biggest bank account or gun. There's a great portion of Galbraith's Crash of '29 book that tells of how all of the firms would "get an academic" to promote whatever investment strategy the firm (or assembled "unit trust" at the time) was trying to tout. Sure enough, they were always able to find someone! I'm sure the monetary compensation had no effect on any statements given, just like "expert witnesses" never go along with whatever prosecutor or defense attorney happens to have hired them. Every attorney I've ever known has said 100% of "expert" witnesses were total prostitutes who would say whatever the side hiring them wished, otherwise they wouldn't be there at all to be referred to as experts.
This is before we even get to the field of Psychology which has perhaps one of the most questionable pasts regarding expertise. Wasn't it political pressure rather than field consensus that led to the end of conversion therapy or the fact that gender dysphoria or homosexuality are no longer considered "mental disorders?" You really have no good way to look at this. Either the field's "experts" got it wrong and needed government pressure to change, thus implying that same pressure could be used for ill intent in a field or you believe the entire field of experts got these (and many other things) wrong the entire time, in which case why are we exclusively listening to them?
I don't even think you need to "hear out" all sides. The decision to hear someone is a much different on than the decision to allow or disallow them to speak at all.
Quote from: downer on July 09, 2020, 04:06:14 PM
Gladwell's comment was "I signed the Harpers letter because there were lots of people who also signed the Harpers letter whose views I disagreed with. I thought that was the point of the Harpers letter." That is neither mocking nor shaming. It it being critical.
I agree it's being critical. In context, it's a sharp rebuke. And, as far as
I'm concerned, that's OK. But it's pretty clear that many of the signers
don't think that's OK when it's directed at them in a public forum, however. Rowling is unhappy that people are critical of her (even mean) on Twitter. But she gives as good as she gets, and to my mind that's perfectly reasonable. It's clearly not how she sees it, however.
Similarly, the "incidents" they oh-so-vaguely refer to don't survive scrutiny--the opposition was perfectly reasonable. For example: "Books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity" sounds bad until you find out it's probably referring to
American Dirt which, uh... was not withdrawn and is a bestseller, although the book's POV was criticised and the author came in for some fire for deciding, in 2016, that maybe they were Hispanic after all thank to a distant relative being Puerto Rican. "Editors are fired for running controversial pieces" is probably James Bennet, who ran Tom Cotton's OpEd calling for the military to kill (euphemistically: "crush"; also: "no quarter for insurrectionists, anarchists, rioters, and looters") BLM protesters. Bennet went on to say
he hadn't even read the essay before publishing it. He then
resigned. The criticism was sharp, and entirely appropriate. And Bennet's lapse in judgement was a serious one, and the failure to perform his editorial duties at all is staggering. He wasn't fired, but he
should have been; the consequence of his actions was entirely apt.
Quote from: financeguy on July 09, 2020, 06:34:54 PM
Puget, it would be great to believe "experts" if they didn't have such a long history of selling out to the person with the biggest bank account or gun.
But you and Puget talking about the seriously unsophisticated evolutionary psychology gobbledegook you posted earlier, and the talk of group differences in IQ that preceded it. We know what's what on those scores. It's not a case of two or more equally compelling analyses battling it out. And the people going around parroting them here are pretty clearly seriously misinformed about the results (and consensus) in these fields.
So, for example, group differences in IQ are real; what counts as a "group", however, is problematic, and--counter to the usual assumption--far from homogenous. That's because the way we classify groups has nothing to do with deep genetic structure; it's purely on the basis of phenotypical similarities. Likewise, we know that a significant component of IQ-strength comes from genetics, but that most emphatically
does not mean that the genes which control a person's phenotype
also control their IQ (in fact, it's pretty preposterous to think so). That's an entirely spurious connection, and yet laypeople tend to think of it that way (and that's been on display in this thread, too).
(With apologies to Puget for bringing it up again, because I'm also not the appropriate expert here, and it's clearly not a discussion they're interested in wading into in their free time. I thought the example might be helpful, but I may well have misjudged.)
Quote
This is before we even get to the field of Psychology which has perhaps one of the most questionable pasts regarding expertise.
Different branches of psychology are in different states. Some have a more robust relation to their empirical results, others don't. Even inside one of the more troubled branches, you'll find some results that are quite robust, and others which are dodgier. On the whole, however, even the dodgy areas have done a pretty good job of cleaning up after themselves over the last while.
Regardless, I'm not sure that an expert on finance is best placed to cast these particular stones.
Quote
I don't even think you need to "hear out" all sides. The decision to hear someone is a much different on than the decision to allow or disallow them to speak at all.
I think you'll find that the overwhelming majority of the incidents these people are concerned about feature people who were perfectly able to speak their speech, actually. They were just upset that some people took ire. (There are actually a fair few incidents where this hasn't been true, but they don't fit the political narrative at work here so they're ignored.)
How do open letters like this get passed around to so many different people in different locations? Is this like a private club or clique? I suspect that they would have gotten thousands of signatures if there was a wider dissemination.
Quote from: Anselm on July 09, 2020, 10:35:11 PM
How do open letters like this get passed around to so many different people in different locations? Is this like a private club or clique? I suspect that they would have gotten thousands of signatures if there was a wider dissemination.
I would have been happy to sign as long as I wasn't invited to.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on July 09, 2020, 06:50:09 PM
Quote from: downer on July 09, 2020, 04:06:14 PM
Gladwell's comment was "I signed the Harpers letter because there were lots of people who also signed the Harpers letter whose views I disagreed with. I thought that was the point of the Harpers letter." That is neither mocking nor shaming. It it being critical.
I agree it's being critical. In context, it's a sharp rebuke. And, as far as I'm concerned, that's OK. But it's pretty clear that many of the signers don't think that's OK when it's directed at them in a public forum, however. Rowling is unhappy that people are critical of her (even mean) on Twitter. But she gives as good as she gets, and to my mind that's perfectly reasonable. It's clearly not how she sees it, however.
Similarly, the "incidents" they oh-so-vaguely refer to don't survive scrutiny--the opposition was perfectly reasonable. For example: "Books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity" sounds bad until you find out it's probably referring to American Dirt which, uh... was not withdrawn and is a bestseller, although the book's POV was criticised and the author came in for some fire for deciding, in 2016, that maybe they were Hispanic after all thank to a distant relative being Puerto Rican. "Editors are fired for running controversial pieces" is probably James Bennet, who ran Tom Cotton's OpEd calling for the military to kill (euphemistically: "crush"; also: "no quarter for insurrectionists, anarchists, rioters, and looters") BLM protesters. Bennet went on to say he hadn't even read the essay before publishing it. He then resigned. The criticism was sharp, and entirely appropriate. And Bennet's lapse in judgement was a serious one, and the failure to perform his editorial duties at all is staggering. He wasn't fired, but he should have been; the consequence of his actions was entirely apt.
Quote from: financeguy on July 09, 2020, 06:34:54 PM
Puget, it would be great to believe "experts" if they didn't have such a long history of selling out to the person with the biggest bank account or gun.
But you and Puget talking about the seriously unsophisticated evolutionary psychology gobbledegook you posted earlier, and the talk of group differences in IQ that preceded it. We know what's what on those scores. It's not a case of two or more equally compelling analyses battling it out. And the people going around parroting them here are pretty clearly seriously misinformed about the results (and consensus) in these fields.
So, for example, group differences in IQ are real; what counts as a "group", however, is problematic, and--counter to the usual assumption--far from homogenous. That's because the way we classify groups has nothing to do with deep genetic structure; it's purely on the basis of phenotypical similarities. Likewise, we know that a significant component of IQ-strength comes from genetics, but that most emphatically does not mean that the genes which control a person's phenotype also control their IQ (in fact, it's pretty preposterous to think so). That's an entirely spurious connection, and yet laypeople tend to think of it that way (and that's been on display in this thread, too).
(With apologies to Puget for bringing it up again, because I'm also not the appropriate expert here, and it's clearly not a discussion they're interested in wading into in their free time. I thought the example might be helpful, but I may well have misjudged.)
Quote
This is before we even get to the field of Psychology which has perhaps one of the most questionable pasts regarding expertise.
Different branches of psychology are in different states. Some have a more robust relation to their empirical results, others don't. Even inside one of the more troubled branches, you'll find some results that are quite robust, and others which are dodgier. On the whole, however, even the dodgy areas have done a pretty good job of cleaning up after themselves over the last while.
Regardless, I'm not sure that an expert on finance is best placed to cast these particular stones.
Quote
I don't even think you need to "hear out" all sides. The decision to hear someone is a much different on than the decision to allow or disallow them to speak at all.
I think you'll find that the overwhelming majority of the incidents these people are concerned about feature people who were perfectly able to speak their speech, actually. They were just upset that some people took ire. (There are actually a fair few incidents where this hasn't been true, but they don't fit the political narrative at work here so they're ignored.)
Thanks Parasaurolophus you got that all about right, and I wouldn't have had the patience to explain it all here.
There is a lot more that could be said about all the ways in which group differences in IQ tests have been misconstrued because the misconstruer is ignorant of the genetics, the psychology, or both, or just has an agenda and distorts the data to fit it. I do a whole 50 min of this in class, but I'll just add one thing here.
IQ test are created by humans, and as such are subject to all sorts of (unintentional but often rather obvious) cultural and socioeconomic biases (which are confounded with race). A classic example would be an item asking children to point to the picture of "saucer"-- children from lower SES backgrounds are very unlikely to have encountered cups with saucers, which doesn't make them stupid. The older IQ tests the quack theories rely on evidence from, in particular, are certainly not culture-fair. Since then, there have been good efforts to make more culture-fair tests, but it is important to keep in mind that the testing context (rapport with the tester, comfort in the testing situation, familiarity with standardized tests) also has a big effect. Short version-- differences in performance on IQ tests does not necessarily equal differences in intelligence.
OK, I'm done trying to explain the science, because financeguy, dismalist et al. (if these guys are both economists it explains a whole lot about economic "science") clearly don't care about the science, or science at all. That shows in the suggestion that experts clearly have no expertise if theories and recommendations change over time-- you do realize that's how science works right? Things change as new data becomes available. Do you think Newton was not an expert because physics has advanced past him? Experts are the ones with the best available current knowledge, which is all we can ever have. And I for one certainly don't want to wait for a bridge to fall down to decide that the people building it aren't experts!
Yet another today.
QuoteOK, I'm done trying to explain the science, because financeguy, dismalist et al. (if these guys are both economists it explains a whole lot about economic "science") clearly don't care about the science, or science at all.
There is no science apart from predicting how bridges DO NOT fall down. Everything else is religion.