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

341–350 of 526 posts

Re: The Yale Problem Begins in High School

#341

Post by steve-howard »

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…

I've never liked appeals to a "silent majority" because it groups everyone who doesn't make their voice heard into a vague group that's assumed to be on the same page. I'm generally silent on these issues, for example, but my stance isn't as simple as "I disagree with those stupid college kids" or "all of you people are so privileged and ignorant."

You definitely got at the thrust of the issue, though. I don't really want to present an opinion that's going to trigger an avalanche of hate that might not even relate to what I'm saying. I don't post the vast majority of the comments I start typing.

Re: The Yale Problem Begins in High School

#342

Post by Retra »

coreyp_1 wrote: post #314
Retra wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 canno…

You're not the bad guy for expressing that discrimination is a problem, you're the bad guy for not doing so eloquently and revealingly.

But discrimination is not inherently a problem, it is only a problem when it leads to bad decision-making, especially in the long term. If I were very short (a factor I cannot control) and I was responsible for reaching high places, it would be discriminatory to deny me the position, but it wouldn't be a problem. There's no mistake reaching such a rational decision, if it is in fact, rational. Which in this case, would imply there is no access to height-boosting equipment or reach-extending tools.

>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.

CS can be an equalizer, but your accomplishments ARE limited by your starting position. Discrimination invalidates accomplishments precisely because it limits your starting position.

>Any single-issue outreach (like gender) is insulting, in that it ignores the rest of the person.

I don't see how that follows. If I build a ladder for short people, am I insulting tall people? Am I ignoring them? Am I reducing them to a number? Or would a tall person be reducing themselves to a number by objecting (needlessly) to the construction of ladders?

Re: The Yale Problem Begins in High School

#343

Post by erikpukinskis »

wildmusings wrote: post #199
BurningFrog wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The interesting part is not why these people do this, but why they are winning.

This is the most interesting part of the whole phenomenon. I think the answer is that everyone is scared to confront them. The modus operandi of this movement is to personally attack the character of anyone who disagrees with them. They've toppled university presidents, CEOs, and politicians. They got Rolling Stone to publish a completely unsubstantiated article falsely accusing a bunch of young men of a vicious gang…

I think they're winning because the overall premise is just correct. Black death and torture is one of the most serious moral issues the U.S. faces today.

There are some people with poor impulse control who get in the news a lot. The opposition promotes the hell out of those people (as we are doing right now) in order to try to discredit the leaders. The fact that the movement is still winning despite the countercampaign is because so many of the other people in the movement are extraordinary, grounded people speaking for truth.

Re: The Yale Problem Begins in High School

#344

Post by l33tbro »

My stock retort always is "Well, I find your narrow-mindedness offensive". Questions, logical and calmly asked, also swiftly dismantle those flapping on about misplaced social concerns.

Almost feel sorry for them, like these views are thinly-veiled insecurities about some aspect of themselves or trauma experienced.

Re: The Yale Problem Begins in High School

#346

Post by masterleep »

frotak wrote: post #319
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…

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…

Look, are you trying to help the bad people spread their bad ideas? You must be on the side of the bad people!

Re: The Yale Problem Begins in High School

#347

Post by venomsnake »

maratd wrote: post #92
DrJokepu wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a frequently repeated argument and I find it less and less convincing. It is true that America's constitution only guarantees the congress will not abridge the freedom of speech. However, an argument could be made that in a free society there's a fundamental right to have a dissenting opinion or voice; a right that is not codified by the constitution because it's simply irrelevant to a constitution. It seems…

> However, an argument could be made that in a free society there's a fundamental right to have a dissenting opinion or voice Since we're not talking about the constitution, which strictly relates to government and public property, then we're talking about private entities and private property. You do not have the right to speak on my property. Forcing that is in direct contradiction to a free society that has a conc…

>Since we're not talking about the constitution, which strictly relates to government and public property, then we're talking about private entities and private property.

Except a lot of private entities receive a lot of money from the federal government - either as subsidies, tax breaks or programs. So they should abide by the rules of the government too. Giving public money to entities that not view the first amendment as obligatory for them - that is wrong for me.

Re: The Yale Problem Begins in High School

#348

Post by ps4fanboy »

steve-howard wrote: post #341
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…

I've never liked appeals to a "silent majority" because it groups everyone who doesn't make their voice heard into a vague group that's assumed to be on the same page. I'm generally silent on these issues, for example, but my stance isn't as simple as "I disagree with those stupid college kids" or "all of you people are so privileged and ignorant." You definitely got at the thrust of the issue, though. I don't really…

Sorry I didnt mean to suggest that the silent majority has the same views more that the majority is silent, and I wanted to link that maybe they are silent because of the climate of going after people so aggressively for having the wrong brand (problematic) of views/beliefs.

I prefer a society where people can be challenged on their beliefs, when people refuse to have a rational discussion using logic and real facts they are exposing themselves for what they are, hateful.

Re: The Yale Problem Begins in High School

#349

Post by snowwrestler »

frotak wrote: post #319
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…

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…

I think the parent is on to something about the implications of the argument, although it is not how the post's author would look at it, of course.

To really understand an argument, one has to start with its subject. Are we talking about viewpoints or people? What the blog post author focuses on is people:

> Me: Now lets try it for politics. How many of you would say you are on the right politically, or that you are conservative or Republican?

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of how discourse is conducted and should be conducted. People are not on the right politically, conservative, or Republican. People are people, and each might hold or articulate viewpoints or opinions that are on the right politically or conservative. They might be a member of the Republican Party. All of these are elective and potentially temporary.

The whole point of discourse is that viewpoints, opinions, and memberships can change. So to start by framing those as elements of identity needing protection, feeds directly into a framework for discussion that is conflicted. If a discussion must validate and protect all viewpoints (conservative or liberal), then what is going to be discussed?

IMO the right way to approach this situation is to explore the potential consequences of voicing an unpopular opinion. Often, they are far less scary than teenagers might suppose. We should focus on how to give each individual student the mental tools to effectively evaluate arguments, and to manage their anxiety about going against perceived social norms.

Teaching kids to be brave in speaking up against prevailing opinion can help create positive outcomes throughout their lives. We want citizens who will speak up for what they know is right, even if they know they will face trouble.

Re: The Yale Problem Begins in High School

#350

Post by dragonwriter »

eli_gottlieb wrote: post #327
frotak wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the article Haidt makes it clear that he sensed the shift in the academic community and adjusted his patterns of teaching accordingly. Each example he cites subsequently involve those with a moral liberal or left-leaning set of ideas.

I don't see any more subsequent examples. He appears to cite other people who claim to have data showing there's a "social justice problem", but if his citations have such data, he doesn't present it.

> I don't see any more subsequent examples.

There's a fairly non-specific, second-hand example regarding a student which made complaints with an unspecified basis about offensive writings of Mark Twain and Edward Said that preceded the non-renewal of a (different) adjunct professor's contract, which the author relates resulted in the author expunging anything they thought might be perceived as offensive from their syllabus (the author doesn't explain how they "saw" this scenario unfold, and given the usual confidential nature of such contracting decisions, it seems unlikely as someone who was neither the subject nor the decision-maker that the author had the full picture of the discussions or the reason for the decision.)

Everything else is the description of the author's fears about what might happen, and repeating non-specific generalities from other sources.

So, there is one vague subsequent example, but nothing in it actually specifies the basis of the offense and ties it into anything left/liberal (or right/conservative, for that matter). I've seen both left- and right-origin complaints about both Twain and Said (in the latter case, often the exact same complaint, of his perceived-by-some anti-Semitism.)

Post reply on HN