Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Yale Problem Begins in High School

heterodoxacademy.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 526 posts

Re: The Yale Problem Begins in High School

#241

Post by flopto »

anigbrowl wrote: post #195
lumberjack wrote: post #25

These people act this way because they are elitist. They think they know what should be better than anyone else and therefore there is no need for debate or for rights like free speech. I find that quite ironic because presumably, these people subscribe to left leaning ideologies. But maybe there isn't so much of a contradiction. They are simply more elitist than they are anything else. They don't really stand for eq…

Their argument is demonstrative rather than persuasive (although there is a persuasive component, but they expect interlocutors to be familiar with structuralist theory, which is not unreasonable in an academic setting). I'm not sure this is the most effective way to communicate their ideas, but the frustration and discomfort they are causing to other people is something that they have a lifetime's experience of, whi…

> Their argument is demonstrative rather than persuasive (although there is a persuasive component, but they expect interlocutors to be familiar with structuralist theory, which is not unreasonable in an academic setting).

I think this is spot-on.

> They are showing people what it feels like to be unexpectedly and unjustly placed into an out-group.

But I don't think this is the intent. Rather, the goal is to create a place where the structures they oppose are weaker/nonexistent. A consequence may be that people with privilege are made uncomfortable and/or put in an out-group, and that is fine because as you said this "is something that they have a lifetime's experience of." And that discomfort is even seen positively as a sign that the culture is going in the right direction, but it is just a symptom, not the goal.

Re: The Yale Problem Begins in High School

#242

Post by RodericDay »

ploxiln wrote: post #191
nickbauman wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with "balancing viewpoints" argument is that it isn't based on a critical ethos and so it cannot progress on the basis of logos. You can have a "balanced viewpoint" and still have debates about "whether the moon is made of the body of Vince Foster or not." There are certain ideas that just don't belong in a university setting because they are bunk and this has nothing to do with diversity of opinion. It s…

Indeed. Some stuff is really clearly not true, and we shouldn't need to work to make space and provide representation for it in schools and such. But how do we avoid the problem where if I suggest that maybe the moon isn't all Vince Foster all the time, I'm an evil person? (a racist, and oppressor of women?) Can we get to a place, not where we agree that the moon could be made of Vince Foster, but where one can sugge…

How do you think a history class should handle a student who wants to discuss Holocaust as a hoax? How about a law student who thinks rape is a victim-less crime?

My answer used to be "why, if you have the truth on your side, just prove 'em wrong and move on! so much the better for your standpoint!". However, it can get extremely tedious. A stubborn student can "plausible deniability" his way into extremely metaphysical arguments, about historical revisionism and psychology, and ultimately about epistemology itself.

I think it's important to phrase the argument not as "the students want these topics to not be discussed", but instead as "the students want these topics to be included in the actually already existing list of topics we don't discuss". And then take it topic-by-topic.

This idea that student-activism is largely composed of completely irrational anti-logic zealots is a caricature.

Re: The Yale Problem Begins in High School

#243

Post by mynameisvlad »

lern_too_spel wrote: post #231
mynameisvlad wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> just as there are certain hamburgers that are better than others There's nothing that objectively makes a hamburger better than another. It's all subjective, just as views are subjective. Some people like bread a lot, so they may want a really thick bun which could be overpowering to another person. Some people are vegetarian, while others cringe in disgust at a black bean burger. It doesn't make those hamburgers a…

It's exactly like hamburgers. At the top, there are actions that are hard to distinguish morally, just as there are hamburgers that are hard to distinguish quality-wise. But we can all agree that a hamburger with actual shit in it is worse than a hamburger from Smashburger, just as there are certain actions that are clearly morally wrong and don't need to be evaluated with some false fairness.

> But we can all agree that a hamburger with actual shit in it is worse than a hamburger from Smashburger

I'm sure that out of the 7 billion people living on our planet, at least one person genuinely likes the taste of shit. To them, this wouldn't necessarily be true (I've never had a Smashburger and I don't like the taste of shit, so I couldn't possibly make this comparison myself). Which is why it's not objectively worse. It's all based on the person eating the burger, because everyone has different likes and tastes. That's why there's never one burger option; everyone shockingly doesn't like the same things.

Re: The Yale Problem Begins in High School

#244

Post by coreyp_1 »

noxToken wrote: post #209
coreyp_1 wrote: post #137

This directly relates to us in tech. Specifically, there is a huge push to reach out to women and girls in CS. I am not opposed to females in CS at all. I will encourage males and females alike to pursue it, because I see CS as the great equalizer; the only thing that matters is what you produce. What I can't stand are these "Women in technology" conferences and workshops to "close the (gender) gap". Why? Because if…

>What I can't stand are these "Women in technology" conferences and workshops to "close the (gender) gap". Why? Because if you focus on one group, then you are actively not focusing on another. That's the problem though. Sometimes you need to give special attention to a group to ensure that their abilities and accomplishments are seen. You may not personally have this problem, but there are members of the "old guard"…

I'm a grad student (already have my masters, 3rd year into PhD). I've only had one CS prof make a gender-related disparaging comment, and he was talked to privately, and his contract was not renewed at the end of the semester (that was not his only indiscretion). I have never seen anyone question (publicly or privately) a student's or professor's abilities and achievements, regardless of gender, unless they were otherwise underperforming. Furthermore, in those situations, sexual activity was never implied, but nepotism was.

As for these "women" conferences, I have a colleague who has attended 3 conferences in the past year (on the University's dime) just because of her gender (she was not presenting). I have attended 0 conferences. I was not even able to attend a conference in which my paper was accepted (my advisor presented in my place) because there was not enough funds for travel.

And yet, when I speak out, I'm the bad guy...

Re: The Yale Problem Begins in High School

#245

Post by nerfhammer »

genericresponse wrote: post #162

Just for everyone's awareness, there is a broad astroturf and professional political push that has been happening for over a year by FIRE, a right leaning think tank. This is a concerted effort to bring controversy around campus free speech into the news. My perception is that this is an effort to weaken student's ability to speak freely, but is coded as a "free speech" issue. Similar to how many churches coded marri…

I don't think Jonathan Haidt is an astroturfer.

Re: The Yale Problem Begins in High School

#246

Post by sinxoveretothex »

lern_too_spel wrote: post #201
nine_k wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While their behavior was entirely legal and protected by the First Amendment, the problem lies elsewhere. It's in the utter lack of tolerance to the views not conforming to the group's, not unlike the reaction religious extremists would display. Can't help but quote: -- The Emperor summons before him Bodhidharma and asks: “Master, I have been tolerant of innumerable gays, lesbians, bisexuals, asexuals, blacks, Hispan…

You seem to have bought into fair and balanced horseshit. There are certain views that are morally superior to others, just as there are certain hamburgers that are better than others. Taking rights away from other people loosely based on ancient superstitions (the Bible says nothing about allowing gays to marry but says a lot about how to punish them -- the only reason Eich and his ilk aren't politically promoting t…

Why is it necessary to "come down hard" on people who express morally wreak (or even stupid) viewpoints?

Surely, putting forth a better argument or, at least, ignoring them is a far more morally superior response than suppressing their speech?

I've recently read about Bobby Sands (who was a IRA member who starved himself to death) and am reminded of that monk who lit themself on fire in protest.

I think an interesting question about these two people is why did their action have any impact? The authorities were against them and killing themselves doesn't "oppress" those authorities.

I think the opening paragraph of this book http://www.jstor.org/stable/3750951 is an interesting angle: martyrs against a cause illegitimize a cause.

If that is true, as I think it is, then it is crucially important to not victimize people no matter how wrong they may be. I think that the way to do that is, as I said above, to tolerate wrong viewpoints but respond to them or ignore them.

Re: The Yale Problem Begins in High School

#247

Post by ericjang »

Meta: In the last few weeks I've noticed that articles about the recent college protests trending up on HN, only to be flagged and vanish.

I'm struggling to understand why these articles should be flagged and removed, rather than downvoted or debated in the comments. Thoughts?

Re: The Yale Problem Begins in High School

#248

Post by asift »

redthrowaway wrote: post #130
lumberjack wrote: post #25

These people act this way because they are elitist. They think they know what should be better than anyone else and therefore there is no need for debate or for rights like free speech. I find that quite ironic because presumably, these people subscribe to left leaning ideologies. But maybe there isn't so much of a contradiction. They are simply more elitist than they are anything else. They don't really stand for eq…

I think "vanguardist" is a better term than "elitist". "Elitist" connotes a passive enjoyment of privilege, whereas these people see themselves much more as the enlightened few bringing the orthodox[1] to the unwashed masses by any means necessary. They share far more in common with Communists who viewed it as their duty to shepherd the proletariat towards social consciousness than with the Oxbridge set who merely ta…

>"Elitist" connotes a passive enjoyment of privilege

Any student on an Ivy League campus is among the most privileged human beings in the world (regardless of where they came from).

Re: The Yale Problem Begins in High School

#249

Post by jgord »

cespare wrote: post #229
jon-wood wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you, you've summed up the question of balanced journalism far better than I ever could. The current approach of sticking someone with an opposite opinion on the news, even if that opinion is clearly utter horseshit, really gets to me, but I wasn't able to properly describe why.

BTW the name for this is "false balance". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_balance

..thanks, this thought anti-pattern has become a cultural virus - having a name helps combat it.

Re: The Yale Problem Begins in High School

#250

Post by obrero »

It's difficult for me to twist my head around this as I plow through it. "The Yale problem" - like most people of the world, I can't conceived of what a Yale problem is, other than that Yale attendees are too privileged. Apparently the author feels they're not privileged enough. I'll get to that...our victims, according to the author, are heirs who go to presumably some $40,000 a year high school, "an elite private high school".

Then he goes on "I had a conversation with some boys who attend one of the nation’s top prep schools, in New England. They reported the same thing: as white males, they are constantly on eggshells".

Oh the humanity! Born to the manor white boys can't hear this sleazebags speech, the response to which were according to him "so you think rape is OK?"

The people who put these teachers in are the parents. Because they don't want their kids who were born with a silver spoon in their mouths to be complete insufferable brats incapable of holding together the family dynasty.

The attitude of most people in the world (including myself) is those of the Bolshevik soldiers who emptied their guns into the Tsar and his family. This is what we think of these parasites. This guy is doing battle against the last modicums of self-restraint this class of people have imposed on themselves.

I also see the majority of HN is going for this born to the manor white boy as victim turn. Well, most of the founders like Gates, Zuckerberg, Systrom etc. went to these elite private prep schools, we're just the programmers slogging dozens of hours a week of work to enrich them and their investors. And the horrors they had to hear someone talk about the rights of women, and blacks and such back in their school days.

These things turn around, thank god. The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with blood, and hopefully I will still be alive to witness that.

Post reply on HN