Professor Votes With His Feet

[Kron3007]

IRB applications are about potential harm to subjects, not to researchers. So unless the research involves moving in with subjects for several hours a day over many months, there is much less scope for potential outcomes that might be harmful. Whereas for the lab itself, it's a different story. Research groups have lots of *informal interactions over many months, and all of those social interactions have the potential for someone to be upset by them. (There are many threads on here by grad students discussing the kinds of situations that they have found upsetting.) These difficulties happen even in homogenous groups, but as soon as the idea of "inclusion" arises, any problem that would have previously been considered just normal ups and downs of human groups now have the potential to be blamed on discrimination. To try to prove in advance that such a thing can't happen is impossible.


*For example, if someone in the group invites a bunch of people in the group to their house for a BBQ, does not inviting someone count as discrimination?

If you are the PI or in a position of authority, I would say that it would be inappropriate to invite a subset of the lab to your house for a BBQ, especially if the division was along the lines of gender or race.  My former advisor told me that her new dean held a "meat  and greet" BBQ where he only invited male faculty.  If you dont see an issue (or two) there, it is on you.

I agree that the PI has responsibilities beyond other members of the group. But for that example, what if it's not the PI, but one of the grad students hosting the party? Does the PI need to force the grad student to invite everyone, like the parent telling the kid "you can hang out with your friends, but you have to take your little brother along"? Is inviting a known vegan to a BBQ inclusive or insensitive?


If grad students are carpooling to a conference, and the car doesn't have room for everyone, is it the PI's job to ensure that the "new person" is in the carpool rather than someone else?

They have said that any public research lab/group has to be structured to prevent discrimination and promote an inclusive work environment. 

It's this last phrase that is so vague that it's not clear that it wouldn't be violated by the examples above.
It would be a truly oppressive environment if it prevented any kind of situation, at work or outside on personal time, from raising any of those kinds of issues.

When you submit your proposal, you simply have to tell them the specific things you have done/are doing to meet those standards.  Seems pretty straight forward really.  FOr the larger grants it goesa little too far IMO (as I have mentioned), but the basic premise seems reasonable.

Earlier I mentioned women ending up taking notes and you scoffed and said that no one has a rule that only women take the notes.  This is true, but if you ask female academics (especially if they are older) they will tell you that it is a problem. 

I have no doubt that those sorts of things happened, but again the issue of granularity matters. Other than having "inclusion inspections" at random times, it's hard to imagine how much could be codified in advance that wouldn't allow any number of small things that might be considered a failure to " promote an inclusive work environment."

What my students/staff do in their personal time is not my concern.  This issue is mostly a red herring.  For conference travel, if I am supporting travel, then I should help to ensure that everyone is included and provided equal access.  If they are paying their own way, that is out of my control and is their concern. 

As for the EDI "inspectors" etc., that is just silly.  No one has claimed that the EDI sections are perfect, or that they will eliminate all barriers.  I think the most useful aspect is actually the self reflection aspect, and putting these things down on paper.  Hopefully, down the road these things will all just be a given and there will be no need for it.

[mahagonny]

Whatever the truth is about all that, Kron and I agree the DEI culture goes too far, and the people who have to play their game in order to get their grant money and jobs are not going to do anything about it. That means, in my opinion, Jordan Peterson is doing something we need someone to do, namely, start the serious debate. Even if Para's all-out-attack on Peterson's reputation and work are true (and I certainly won't assume they are; after all Peterson was awarded tenure and subsequent promotions all the way to emeritus, which makes Para odd man out on the voting.)

[Parasaurolophus]

Even if Para's all-out-attack on Peterson's reputation and work are true (and I certainly won't assume they are; after all Peterson was awarded tenure and subsequent promotions all the way to emeritus, which makes Para odd man out on the voting.)

Trust me when I tell you that an all-out attack would involve tearing Maps of Meaning apart sentence by sentence, page by page. I'd be tempted to do it as a gift to The Fora (or indeed the world), but I have a hatchling and a book deadline, so it'll have to wait.

In the meantime, though, the guy just debunks himself:

Peterson: Well, that's 'cause there's no such thing as climate, right? Climate and everything are the same word, and that's what bothers me about the climate change types. It's like, this is something that bothers me about it, technically. It's like climate is about everything. Ok. But your models aren't based on everything. Your models are based on a set number of variables. So that means you've reduced the variables — which are everything — to that set. Well how did you decide which set of variables to include in the equation, if it's about everything? That's not just a criticism, that's like, if it's about everything, your models aren't right. Because your models do not and cannot model everything.

Rogan: What do you mean by 'everything'?

Peterson: Well that's what people who talk about the climate apocalypse claim in some sense. We have to change everything... The same with the word environment. That word means so much that it actually doesn't mean anything. Like when you say everything, like in a sense that's meaningless. What's the difference between the environment and everything? There's no difference. What's the difference between climate and everything? Well, there's no difference.

Yea, verily, a thought-leader for our times!

[marshwiggle]

Even if Para's all-out-attack on Peterson's reputation and work are true (and I certainly won't assume they are; after all Peterson was awarded tenure and subsequent promotions all the way to emeritus, which makes Para odd man out on the voting.)

Trust me when I tell you that an all-out attack would involve tearing Maps of Meaning apart sentence by sentence, page by page. I'd be tempted to do it as a gift to The Fora (or indeed the world), but I have a hatchling and a book deadline, so it'll have to wait.

In the meantime, though, the guy just debunks himself:

Peterson: Well, that's 'cause there's no such thing as climate, right? Climate and everything are the same word, and that's what bothers me about the climate change types. It's like, this is something that bothers me about it, technically. It's like climate is about everything. Ok. But your models aren't based on everything. Your models are based on a set number of variables. So that means you've reduced the variables — which are everything — to that set. Well how did you decide which set of variables to include in the equation, if it's about everything? That's not just a criticism, that's like, if it's about everything, your models aren't right. Because your models do not and cannot model everything.

Rogan: What do you mean by 'everything'?

Peterson: Well that's what people who talk about the climate apocalypse claim in some sense. We have to change everything... The same with the word environment. That word means so much that it actually doesn't mean anything. Like when you say everything, like in a sense that's meaningless. What's the difference between the environment and everything? There's no difference. What's the difference between climate and everything? Well, there's no difference.

Yea, verily, a thought-leader for our times!

Climate change isn't his specific area of expertise, so what he says on it doesn't matter that much. However, given that one of his points consistently is that people need to take responsibility for their own actions, then I would imagine a big part of his point is that many people supposedly concerned about climate change are not very careful about their own contributions, such as use of smartphones and bitcoin, but like to protest against governments, corporations, etc. If that's his point, I agree with it.

[Puget]

Even if Para's all-out-attack on Peterson's reputation and work are true (and I certainly won't assume they are; after all Peterson was awarded tenure and subsequent promotions all the way to emeritus, which makes Para odd man out on the voting.)

Trust me when I tell you that an all-out attack would involve tearing Maps of Meaning apart sentence by sentence, page by page. I'd be tempted to do it as a gift to The Fora (or indeed the world), but I have a hatchling and a book deadline, so it'll have to wait.

In the meantime, though, the guy just debunks himself:

Peterson: Well, that's 'cause there's no such thing as climate, right? Climate and everything are the same word, and that's what bothers me about the climate change types. It's like, this is something that bothers me about it, technically. It's like climate is about everything. Ok. But your models aren't based on everything. Your models are based on a set number of variables. So that means you've reduced the variables — which are everything — to that set. Well how did you decide which set of variables to include in the equation, if it's about everything? That's not just a criticism, that's like, if it's about everything, your models aren't right. Because your models do not and cannot model everything.

Rogan: What do you mean by 'everything'?

Peterson: Well that's what people who talk about the climate apocalypse claim in some sense. We have to change everything... The same with the word environment. That word means so much that it actually doesn't mean anything. Like when you say everything, like in a sense that's meaningless. What's the difference between the environment and everything? There's no difference. What's the difference between climate and everything? Well, there's no difference.

Yea, verily, a thought-leader for our times!

Climate change isn't his specific area of expertise, so what he says on it doesn't matter that much. However, given that one of his points consistently is that people need to take responsibility for their own actions, then I would imagine a big part of his point is that many people supposedly concerned about climate change are not very careful about their own contributions, such as use of smartphones and bitcoin, but like to protest against governments, corporations, etc. If that's his point, I agree with it.

How do you derive that point from the above? The above is word salad. It doesn't make enough sense to agree or disagree with. The above makes me seriously question whether he was high while doing this interview. This is the sort of thing I'd expect from a late night dorm conversation among high undergraduates.

[Parasaurolophus]

Climate change isn't his specific area of expertise, so what he says on it doesn't matter that much.

In addition to Puget's point, I'll just add that very few things are in his area of expertise, but it doesn't stop him from pronouncing on them. His tenure case was built around Maps of Meaning, which is about everything except his area of academic expertise. It's also word salad, and completely false and wrong when anything cogent is even discernible. Consider his arguments for God's existence, which rest on a total botching of Gödel's incompleteness theorems--the kind of botching that was common among non-mathematicians in the early twentieth century, but which undergraduates learn to avoid now.

But that shouldn't be surprising, because he's an academic psychologist who still believes Jung and Campbell got things mostly right. He may or may not have done substantive scholarship on alcoholism and addiction. None of the rest of it is, however. Choose a better Messiah.

[smallcleanrat]

Even if Para's all-out-attack on Peterson's reputation and work are true (and I certainly won't assume they are; after all Peterson was awarded tenure and subsequent promotions all the way to emeritus, which makes Para odd man out on the voting.)

Trust me when I tell you that an all-out attack would involve tearing Maps of Meaning apart sentence by sentence, page by page. I'd be tempted to do it as a gift to The Fora (or indeed the world), but I have a hatchling and a book deadline, so it'll have to wait.

In the meantime, though, the guy just debunks himself:

Peterson: Well, that's 'cause there's no such thing as climate, right? Climate and everything are the same word, and that's what bothers me about the climate change types. It's like, this is something that bothers me about it, technically. It's like climate is about everything. Ok. But your models aren't based on everything. Your models are based on a set number of variables. So that means you've reduced the variables — which are everything — to that set. Well how did you decide which set of variables to include in the equation, if it's about everything? That's not just a criticism, that's like, if it's about everything, your models aren't right. Because your models do not and cannot model everything.

Rogan: What do you mean by 'everything'?

Peterson: Well that's what people who talk about the climate apocalypse claim in some sense. We have to change everything... The same with the word environment. That word means so much that it actually doesn't mean anything. Like when you say everything, like in a sense that's meaningless. What's the difference between the environment and everything? There's no difference. What's the difference between climate and everything? Well, there's no difference.

Yea, verily, a thought-leader for our times!

Climate change isn't his specific area of expertise, so what he says on it doesn't matter that much. However, given that one of his points consistently is that people need to take responsibility for their own actions, then I would imagine a big part of his point is that many people supposedly concerned about climate change are not very careful about their own contributions, such as use of smartphones and bitcoin, but like to protest against governments, corporations, etc. If that's his point, I agree with it.

How do you derive that point from the above? The above is word salad. It doesn't make enough sense to agree or disagree with. The above makes me seriously question whether he was high while doing this interview. This is the sort of thing I'd expect from a late night dorm conversation among high undergraduates.

I've noticed people doing this on other threads (and IRL).

'Well, if this person was making a different point than the one they were quoted making it's actually quite reasonable.'

I would guess it's to do with giving someone the benefit of the doubt if you are sympathetic to their views. Or perhaps if you've heard them make reasonable arguments on other topics? But profs with celebrity status are frequently being asked (and offering) their views on things outside their area of expertise.

And people seem selective about when they apply arguments from authority. I doubt anyone who says Peterson   must know what he's talking about because he is an emeritus professor would take a similar stance regarding a prof whose opinion is favorable towards policies related to diversity and inclusivity initiatives, no matter how many honors and awards they can claim.

[mahagonny]

Even if Para's all-out-attack on Peterson's reputation and work are true (and I certainly won't assume they are; after all Peterson was awarded tenure and subsequent promotions all the way to emeritus, which makes Para odd man out on the voting.)

Trust me when I tell you that an all-out attack would involve tearing Maps of Meaning apart sentence by sentence, page by page. I'd be tempted to do it as a gift to The Fora (or indeed the world), but I have a hatchling and a book deadline, so it'll have to wait.

He's only one man, and he's retired now, so better that that waits than that a serious look at the Diversity
Industrial Complex tyrant and all of its wonderful effects waits.

[Kron3007]

Even if Para's all-out-attack on Peterson's reputation and work are true (and I certainly won't assume they are; after all Peterson was awarded tenure and subsequent promotions all the way to emeritus, which makes Para odd man out on the voting.)

Trust me when I tell you that an all-out attack would involve tearing Maps of Meaning apart sentence by sentence, page by page. I'd be tempted to do it as a gift to The Fora (or indeed the world), but I have a hatchling and a book deadline, so it'll have to wait.

In the meantime, though, the guy just debunks himself:

Peterson: Well, that's 'cause there's no such thing as climate, right? Climate and everything are the same word, and that's what bothers me about the climate change types. It's like, this is something that bothers me about it, technically. It's like climate is about everything. Ok. But your models aren't based on everything. Your models are based on a set number of variables. So that means you've reduced the variables — which are everything — to that set. Well how did you decide which set of variables to include in the equation, if it's about everything? That's not just a criticism, that's like, if it's about everything, your models aren't right. Because your models do not and cannot model everything.

Rogan: What do you mean by 'everything'?

Peterson: Well that's what people who talk about the climate apocalypse claim in some sense. We have to change everything... The same with the word environment. That word means so much that it actually doesn't mean anything. Like when you say everything, like in a sense that's meaningless. What's the difference between the environment and everything? There's no difference. What's the difference between climate and everything? Well, there's no difference.

Yea, verily, a thought-leader for our times!

Climate change isn't his specific area of expertise, so what he says on it doesn't matter that much. However, given that one of his points consistently is that people need to take responsibility for their own actions, then I would imagine a big part of his point is that many people supposedly concerned about climate change are not very careful about their own contributions, such as use of smartphones and bitcoin, but like to protest against governments, corporations, etc. If that's his point, I agree with it.

How do you derive that point from the above? The above is word salad. It doesn't make enough sense to agree or disagree with. The above makes me seriously question whether he was high while doing this interview. This is the sort of thing I'd expect from a late night dorm conversation among high undergraduates.

I've noticed people doing this on other threads (and IRL).

'Well, if this person was making a different point than the one they were quoted making it's actually quite reasonable.'

I would guess it's to do with giving someone the benefit of the doubt if you are sympathetic to their views. Or perhaps if you've heard them make reasonable arguments on other topics? But profs with celebrity status are frequently being asked (and offering) their views on things outside their area of expertise.

And people seem selective about when they apply arguments from authority. I doubt anyone who says Peterson   must know what he's talking about because he is an emeritus professor would take a similar stance regarding a prof whose opinion is favorable towards policies related to diversity and inclusivity initiatives, no matter how many honors and awards they can claim.

Are you saying that unconscious biases actually do exist?  Marshy would deny this, yet shows it to be true...

[mahagonny]

I'm not posting a piece about Dr. Peterson because I hope to win an argument by appealing to authority. I just posted it because it's interesting. I consider the Diversity Industrial Complex a menace by my own observation from a variety of sources, and I predict (and also hope) it will receive a hearty repudiation at the voting polls over the next few years. See, the lay public is not more informed or intelligent than academia. Just more honest.
ETA: What's been in short supply is not information. It's honesty.

[marshwiggle]

Even if Para's all-out-attack on Peterson's reputation and work are true (and I certainly won't assume they are; after all Peterson was awarded tenure and subsequent promotions all the way to emeritus, which makes Para odd man out on the voting.)

Trust me when I tell you that an all-out attack would involve tearing Maps of Meaning apart sentence by sentence, page by page. I'd be tempted to do it as a gift to The Fora (or indeed the world), but I have a hatchling and a book deadline, so it'll have to wait.

In the meantime, though, the guy just debunks himself:

Peterson: Well, that's 'cause there's no such thing as climate, right? Climate and everything are the same word, and that's what bothers me about the climate change types. It's like, this is something that bothers me about it, technically. It's like climate is about everything. Ok. But your models aren't based on everything. Your models are based on a set number of variables. So that means you've reduced the variables — which are everything — to that set. Well how did you decide which set of variables to include in the equation, if it's about everything? That's not just a criticism, that's like, if it's about everything, your models aren't right. Because your models do not and cannot model everything.

Rogan: What do you mean by 'everything'?

Peterson: Well that's what people who talk about the climate apocalypse claim in some sense. We have to change everything... The same with the word environment. That word means so much that it actually doesn't mean anything. Like when you say everything, like in a sense that's meaningless. What's the difference between the environment and everything? There's no difference. What's the difference between climate and everything? Well, there's no difference.

Yea, verily, a thought-leader for our times!

Climate change isn't his specific area of expertise, so what he says on it doesn't matter that much. However, given that one of his points consistently is that people need to take responsibility for their own actions, then I would imagine a big part of his point is that many people supposedly concerned about climate change are not very careful about their own contributions, such as use of smartphones and bitcoin, but like to protest against governments, corporations, etc. If that's his point, I agree with it.

How do you derive that point from the above? The above is word salad. It doesn't make enough sense to agree or disagree with. The above makes me seriously question whether he was high while doing this interview. This is the sort of thing I'd expect from a late night dorm conversation among high undergraduates.

I've noticed people doing this on other threads (and IRL).

'Well, if this person was making a different point than the one they were quoted making it's actually quite reasonable.'

I would guess it's to do with giving someone the benefit of the doubt if you are sympathetic to their views. Or perhaps if you've heard them make reasonable arguments on other topics? But profs with celebrity status are frequently being asked (and offering) their views on things outside their area of expertise.

And people seem selective about when they apply arguments from authority. I doubt anyone who says Peterson   must know what he's talking about because he is an emeritus professor would take a similar stance regarding a prof whose opinion is favorable towards policies related to diversity and inclusivity initiatives, no matter how many honors and awards they can claim.

Are you saying that unconscious biases actually do exist?  Marshy would deny this, yet shows it to be true...

When  have I said unconscious bias doesn't exist? Bias is very real, and my objection to ideas like "systemic" discrimination is precisely that such ill-defined terms allow the bias of people to find it everywhere they look. The way to reduce bias is to make objective criteria, and have them evaluated where possible by people who have as little idea as possible about who or what is being evaluated and why. Hence the "gold standard" in medicine of double-blind studies.

As far as people being consulted about topics beyond their areas of expertise, we live in a culture where celebrities are quoted on their views about virtually any topic, and people who agree with their views will hold up the celebrity status of the person as giving more weight to the view than they would to an average person on the street, or a celebrity with an opposing viewpoint.

As I said, Peterson's views on climate change aren't that important to me because it's not his field. So the context of the "word salad" doesn't matter a lot for that reason. If there are examples of word salad where he's talking about something like mental health, then I'd pay more attention.
 

[Kron3007]

OK, then you support the EDI requirements.  You basically wrote one and get a gold star!

As for climate change not being his expertise, neither are gender ID, or systemic barriers/discrimination...

[mahagonny]

Of course you never said unconscious bias doesn't exist, Marshy. Bias can be one of many factors that contribute to outcomes.
The purpose of the DEI complex is not what they claim though. It's political power strategy for the democrats, a way for universities to keep up with the Joneses (advertise they are vigorously competing with each other for the most cutting edge bias-sniffing techniques) and maybe one or two other duplicitous reasons. Government bloat is a useful counterpart to administrative bloat in universities. DEI teams consume academic research that would barely get read otherwise. All these probably have something to do with the strong reactions here.

OK, then you support the EDI requirements.  You basically wrote one and get a gold star!

As for climate change not being his expertise, neither are gender ID, or systemic barriers/discrimination...

Once everything is expertized, the experts will have total rule.

When  have I said unconscious bias doesn't exist? Bias is very real, and my objection to ideas like "systemic" discrimination is precisely that such ill-defined terms allow the bias of people to find it everywhere they look. The way to reduce bias is to make objective criteria, and have them evaluated where possible by people who have as little idea as possible about who or what is being evaluated and why. Hence the "gold standard" in medicine of double-blind studies.

Your method is boring, because it doesn't point a finger at a villain, 'the system' (code for 'white supremacy, white privilege' jargon) so it doesn't have any legs politically.

[Kron3007]

Of course you never said unconscious bias doesn't exist, Marshy. Bias can be one of many factors that contribute to outcomes.
The purpose of the DEI complex is not what they claim though. It's political power strategy for the democrats, a way for universities to keep up with the Joneses (advertise they are vigorously competing with each other for the most cutting edge bias-sniffing techniques) and maybe one or two other duplicitous reasons. Government bloat is a useful counterpart to administrative bloat in universities. DEI teams consume academic research that would barely get read otherwise. All these probably have something to do with the strong reactions here.

OK, then you support the EDI requirements.  You basically wrote one and get a gold star!

As for climate change not being his expertise, neither are gender ID, or systemic barriers/discrimination...

Once everything is expertized, the experts will have total rule.

When  have I said unconscious bias doesn't exist? Bias is very real, and my objection to ideas like "systemic" discrimination is precisely that such ill-defined terms allow the bias of people to find it everywhere they look. The way to reduce bias is to make objective criteria, and have them evaluated where possible by people who have as little idea as possible about who or what is being evaluated and why. Hence the "gold standard" in medicine of double-blind studies.

Your method is boring, because it doesn't point a finger at a villain, 'the system' (code for 'white supremacy, white privilege' jargon) so it doesn't have any legs politically.

Peterson is in Canada, speaking about Canadian EDI requirements, so I dont know that it is a democrat conspiracy. 

Experts are experts for a reason.  Discrediting expertise is the real problem.  You are feeding the Russians (or are they feeding you?)!

As for his method being boring, it is essentially what I have in my EDI section.  "...Applicants will be assessed based on objective, predetermined, criteria to mitigate unconscious bias...".  Like I said, Marshy basically started an EDI section in his response and already got the gold star.  You can very easily write a solid EDI plan even if you dont think barriers exist.  All you have to do is show what you are doing that makes this true. 

[mahagonny]

The new liberal orthodoxy is cross-continental; it thrives in Europe too although of the notable academics and 'experts' in such made-up fields as 'antiracism' are probably mostly American, so they should probably get most of the credit for the whole toxic plague. It's just in the United States where the democrats are the ones to cash in.
Nobody is particularly that expert on which set of genitalia you own.