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

311–320 of 526 posts

Re: The Yale Problem Begins in High School

#311

Post by ps4fanboy »

astroalex wrote: post #230
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…

I might agree that "CS is the great equalizer" if everyone is given an equal opportunity to pursue it. But I don't think they are. Boys are given the focus by default: just watch any Hollywood movie with a "hacker" -- are they a man or a woman? I believe girls are taught from a young age that CS isn't for them. How many potentially brilliant female computer scientists are we missing out on as a society because our me…

I was the only kid at my school who was interested in computers and was actively bullied because of it, I will never understand this narrative of privilege and encouragement, it really doesn't fit with my experiences or the experiences of my peers.

Re: The Yale Problem Begins in High School

#312

Post by Double_Cast »

lukeschlather wrote: post #215
TeMPOraL wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's actually our biggest hope of getting rid of SJW phenomenon. The underhanded methods they use means also that as they grow, they start to turn on each other. The cancer gets cancer, and dies before it can grow too much. I think the general population will slowly realize that being evil is not the best strategy for making others better people.

The post you replied to described "bitter, spiteful, demanding, insecure, Us-vs-Them types." I think there are people in various leftist movements that can fairly be described in that way. But I also think it's a good description for anyone who describes a desire for social justice as a cancer.

Temporal was referencing what's remembered as the Whale Cancer post [0]. The metaphor is meant to (rather than insult) describe a social dynamic by analogy of a biological mechanism.

[0] http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/06/14/living-by-the-sword/

Re: The Yale Problem Begins in High School

#313

Post by [deleted] »

flopto wrote: post #277
Pyxl101 wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because (at least in part) they commit crime at far higher rates per capita. Black men commit about half of all murders in the USA, despite being about 13% of the population. The statistics are similar for many other crimes. 39% of people arrested for murder, manslaughter, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault were black from 2011-2013 per FBI statistics [1] [3]. In 2010, 62,593 blacks were victims of white violence,…

Policing perpetuates poverty and thus crime by forcing poor, black men to deal with the criminal justice system from an early age. Court fees, court appearances, civil asset forfeiture, jail time, and property damage from police searches are all burdens that poor, black, law-abiding people bear, not to mention wrongful conviction. Edit: missed this line in your comment before: > Why this is the case is an interesting…

[deleted]

Re: The Yale Problem Begins in High School

#314

Post by coreyp_1 »

Retra wrote: post #177
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…

>I don't care about the men/women ratio. I don't care about clothing styles, but if you dress very strangely, I'll judge you just the same. You know why? It's because dressing strangely means you do care about style, and even though I don't care about style, I do care about priorities, and I might find your prioritizing of style to be counter-productive and off-putting. So yeah, I actually do care about style, becaus…

You completely misunderstand what I am saying.

1. I care about people, and believe that they have unlimited potential. If anything, this fundamental belief is the core of all of my interactions with my students.

2. I do not believe in bias against someone else because of something they cannot control. We call that discrimination.

3. What, then, do we call bias in favor of someone, also because of something they cannot control? By definition, it is equally a bias against everyone else who does not have that same attribute (again, something that they cannot control). Therefore, it, too, is discrimination.

4. I abhor discrimination, because it invalidates the accomplishments of everyone involved. This is true both those whose achievements were marginalized by the discrimination, as well as those whose achievements were enhanced by it.

5. I do not argue that people come from unequal backgrounds. What I am arguing, however, is that CS is the equalizer, based on your accomplishments, and your accomplishments ARE NOT limited by your starting position. This is true regardless of gender, race, sexuality, disability, or familial history.

6. Any single-issue outreach (like gender) is insulting, in that it ignores the rest of the person. It reduces them to a number as it relates to that issue. It is demeaning to the individual, and I refuse to participate in it. It is not just that I dislike it, but that I fundamentally disagree with the nature of its being.

When I praise my students, it is because they earned it and they deserve it. If I were to suggest that perhaps CS is not right for them (which I have never done to any of the ~200 students that I have taught), it would also be because that was the right advice for that individual.

This is why I disagree with these types of conferences. And yet, still, I am perceived as the bad guy...

Re: The Yale Problem Begins in High School

#315

Post by ps4fanboy »

AngrySkillzz wrote: post #50
kod wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, social norms that - you're not allowed to show emotion (unless it's anger) - you must get all of your emotional needs met through first your mother, and then your girlfriend / wife are what creates dysfunctional men.

It could be both; that when young men have "traditional masculinity" exposed as bullshit (which I agree with) and pulled out from under them, they have difficulty understanding themselves in a world without such a framing device.

That statement is no more ridiculous than calling femininity bullshit, why are you so hateful.

Re: The Yale Problem Begins in High School

#316

Post by eli_gottlieb »

jseliger wrote: post #12

I've taught at two colleges and based on my (purely) anecdotal experiences and attention to the climate, I'd say that the number of students and faculty interested in stifling or censoring ideas is small but also very, very noisy. They also have no sense of humor and college administrators as a group have no sense of humor or perspective, and they're chronically worried about accusations of indifference or insensitiv…

>Edit: Also, almost all of the censorship calls and nasty behavior / comments came from students on the left. Vox's "I'm a liberal professor, and my liberal students terrify me" (http://www.vox.com/2015/6/3/8706323/college-professor-afraid) is congruent with my experiences.

I've read that article. At least in the article, the only student ever to actually cause trouble in-class was right-wing, and accused the professor of being a Communist because he doesn't blame the 2008 Global Financial Crisis on black people taking mortgages they couldn't pay. The professor's administration also knew this charge of Communism was utter bullshit.

That doesn't sound to me like the problem is a left-wing regime of censorship and extremism.

Re: The Yale Problem Begins in High School

#317

Post by redthrowaway »

asift wrote: post #248
redthrowaway wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Sure. I'm not sure how that addresses the topic at hand, though. We were talking about what drives these kids to behave in the way they do. The GP described their ideology as elitist, whereas I view it more as vanguardist. I'm not sure how these kids' privilege relates to that discussion.

Re: The Yale Problem Begins in High School

#318

Post by untilHellbanned »

ps4fanboy wrote: post #282

HN suffers from this problem, and I have found it increasing over time. Sometimes I am afraid to upvote certain stories or comments as I fear the hidden moderators can see what people are voting on and punish them accordingly. I know that this is irrational but still those feelings creep in. Every time the hate mob takes someone down professionally and the more ridiculous the circumstances the more people self censor…

very important comment. Should get more notice.

Re: The Yale Problem Begins in High School

#319

Post by frotak »

nickbauman wrote: post #127
jseliger wrote: post #12

I've taught at two colleges and based on my (purely) anecdotal experiences and attention to the climate, I'd say that the number of students and faculty interested in stifling or censoring ideas is small but also very, very noisy. They also have no sense of humor and college administrators as a group have no sense of humor or perspective, and they're chronically worried about accusations of indifference or insensitiv…

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…

You're missing the thrust of the argument entirely.

The author does not advocate validating factually invalid statements - see his anecdote in the second article linked in GP regarding "whether or not the economic collapse was caused by poor black people":

"I gave a quick response about how most experts would disagree with that assumption, that it was actually an oversimplification, and pretty dishonest, and isn't it good that someone made the video we just watched to try to clear things up? And, hey, let's talk about whether that was effective, okay? If you don't think it was, how could it have been?"

In other words - in the case of "bunk" it can be summarily dismissed with a proper basis. Which is entirely different from vilifying and personally attacking a person for their beliefs or thoughts which are doing no actual harm to anyone else. People can have bogus ideas and those bogus ideas can be completely harmless no matter how much you might find them distasteful.

Viewpoint diversity is entirely about bringing different perspectives and experiences to bear on a subject.

It works in the hard sciences: https://www.quantamagazine.org/20151124-kadison-singer-math-...

Why shouldn't it similarly be applied in areas of morality, ethics, social science, etc?

Re: The Yale Problem Begins in High School

#320

Post by slapshot »

lern_too_spel wrote: post #224
refurb wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are certain views that are morally superior to others Whose morals? Back in the 1800's in the South it was generally viewed as moral to have slaves. Was that right?

Secular morals. Owning slaves obviously doesn't pass the test. As a secular person, your main purpose is to live a long healthy life because that's all there is -- secular people don't get brownie points in the afterlife for the bodycount of heathens they've racked up. You will live a longer life if you live in a society of educated people who can do the science to keep you healthy and don't want to kill you (because…

> Owning slaves obviously doesn't pass the test.

You're at best begging the question here. In the South there were (horribly wrong) people who honestly and truly believed (incorrectly) that not only was it morally permissible to own slaves, but that it was morally necessary. They (wrongly, racistly) believed that the only way the "African race" could be saved from "savagery" was to be in captivity.

This argument is clearly stupid and wrong from a 21st century perspective. But it was honestly believed. Under your framework, a slave owner in 1800 would be correct to "come down hard" on an abolitionist. After all, the abolitionist would be promoting "clearly wrong" morals.

The idea that a majority should "come down hard" on dissenting ideas is inherently a conservative (if not reactionary) move. In the 1950s, a vast majority of the country (wrongly) thought that homosexuality was a toxic sin that could (stupidly) infect children who were exposed to it. If you gave that majority the power to "come down hard" on dissenting views, the gay rights movement would never have happened. (Yes, I'm aware that lots of people in the gay rights movement were punished by the majority -- that was bad and we shouldn't encourage it).

So long as you get to decide what's right and wrong it's easy. But imagine George Bush got to decide. Or ISIS. Or some other group you don't like.

Post reply on HN