I was denied admission to a PhD program because of my perceived political views • Hacker News Board

Re: I was denied admission to a PhD program because of my perceived political views

#371

Post by rdancer » Sun, Dec 20, 2015, 2:58 PM UTC

droidist2 wrote: post #347

rdancer wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

France does[1], Germany does[2], and so does the whole rest of the EU. So does Russia[3]. Is there any country in Europe that doesn't? [1] http://france.angloinfo.com/healthcare/health-system/health-... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Germany#Public_i... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Russia

I think you may be confusing universal healthcare with socialized medicine, it's a common mistake.

Residents pay tax (insurance) into a common pot, and get universal healthcare. The government pitches in with contributions from the general budget. How is that not socialized healthcare?

Re: I was denied admission to a PhD program because of my perceived political views

#372

Post by tangled_zans » Mon, Dec 21, 2015, 6:09 AM UTC

garrettgrimsley wrote: post #368

tangled_zans wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes I think I've already reached an understanding with the OP, but thanks for chiming in.

You're welcome! One last thing, I noticed that you referred to OP using a gendered pronoun. Given that women (and other genders too!) are allowed to use the Internet in many countries [0] it is best to not gender pseudo-anonymous entities who have not explicitly signaled their gender or preferred pronouns. Unlike in Portuguese, Spanish, or whatever your native tongue may be, in English there are gender-neutral pronou…

I referred to the OP with a gendered pronoun because he misnamed Caitlyn and it is well known that men are more likely to mislabel trans women, as well as more likely to be trolls online - as you are being now, so I assume that you are male too. I will leave you to it now, well done for your little essay.

Re: I was denied admission to a PhD program because of my perceived political views

#373

Post by droidist2 » Mon, Dec 21, 2015, 12:59 PM UTC

rdancer wrote: post #371

droidist2 wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you may be confusing universal healthcare with socialized medicine, it's a common mistake.

Residents pay tax (insurance) into a common pot, and get universal healthcare. The government pitches in with contributions from the general budget. How is that not socialized healthcare?

Universal healthcare doesn't always work that way though, it's just basically the idea that every citizen is guaranteed some minimum standard of coverage. For example in Japan there's a mandate that all residents are required to have health insurance, but most people have it through their employers. It's not single payer or socialized healthcare. In many countries there's a mix of private and public and a portion of the population is covered by a system like you're talking about, like in the US with Medicare and Medicaid.

Re: I was denied admission to a PhD program because of my perceived political views

#374

Post by talmand » Mon, Dec 21, 2015, 6:54 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #91

talmand wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But I don't necessarily think that's a fair comparison. I look at it in terms of what politicians say they want to do and what they eventually do versus what the people say they want and what they accept. In the long run, the rhetoric from politicians and the effect of the resulting laws on the people seem really similar. But as someone else pointed out elsewhere on the page, I guess it depends on how you define left…

> In the long run, the rhetoric from politicians and the effect of the resulting laws on the people seem really similar. The space occupied by the rhetoric might be similar, but the distribution within that space is not; more significantly, the substantive policy outcomes are not similar, particularly on economic/labor/welfare issues. (Consider things like government policies on healthcare, paid sick leave, paid fami…

I agree on the difference in distribution, but not on the desire to have those things. All those items you listed, Americans want them to. The difference is the desire to attempt to do so with little or no government involvement. The reason is because in our own short history that it is quite evident that on a national scale the government attempting to do such things almost always ends in spectacular failure. Of course, it's sold as "almost" working so, of course, more money is required to get it right this time.

In many ways, those items are being addressed on the US state level, as they should. I, for one, have all the things you list available to me. Are some more expensive then they should be? Sure, but most likely if you dig into the truth of the matter it's because of government interference.

In the end, most people want the same things regardless of their government.

Re: I was denied admission to a PhD program because of my perceived political views

#375

Post by talmand » Mon, Dec 21, 2015, 6:56 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #105

talmand wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, that's a mild punishment for not praying at a school event. That is not forcing you to pray, you can continue to refuse to pray in that case. Were you somehow forced to pray once you got to the principal's office? There is always a higher power to appeal to unless the head of your country's government and legal system agrees with the sentiment. I agree it's a hard path to take, but the option is there. I guess in…

> No, that's a mild punishment for not praying at a school event. That is not forcing you to pray Imposing punishments for failure to comply is coercion, and fairly described as forcing, or at least attempting to force, someone to do the act toward which the coercion is directed.

So, going to the principal's office is a punishment so severe that it forces the student to pray when said student doesn't want to? I mean, if they were beating the child I could agree, but a trip to the principal's office? I fail to see how that can force anyone to do anything.

Re: I was denied admission to a PhD program because of my perceived political views

#376

Post by talmand » Mon, Dec 21, 2015, 6:57 PM UTC

deciplex wrote: post #195

talmand wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, that's a mild punishment for not praying at a school event. That is not forcing you to pray, you can continue to refuse to pray in that case. Were you somehow forced to pray once you got to the principal's office? There is always a higher power to appeal to unless the head of your country's government and legal system agrees with the sentiment. I agree it's a hard path to take, but the option is there. I guess in…

You seem to be suggesting that he wasn't "forced" to pray, because could have, and did not, appeal his mild (according to you) punishment all the way to the Supreme Court. That's, ah, unconvincing, to put it lightly.

That's funny, that's not what I said at all. You're combining two different points in response to the post in an attempt to make it seem I said something other than what I said.

Re: I was denied admission to a PhD program because of my perceived political views

#377

Post by talmand » Mon, Dec 21, 2015, 7:24 PM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #126

talmand wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, that's a mild punishment for not praying at a school event. That is not forcing you to pray, you can continue to refuse to pray in that case. Were you somehow forced to pray once you got to the principal's office? There is always a higher power to appeal to unless the head of your country's government and legal system agrees with the sentiment. I agree it's a hard path to take, but the option is there. I guess in…

So we're not forced to pay taxes or refrain from murdering people?

No, you are not.

Years back the head of the IRS famously made the statement that the US federal tax system is voluntary. You volunteer to pay it in the manner they describe.

Now, I agree that if you refuse to pay it then there will be consequences for failure of payment. But that's not the same as someone beating you to force you sign the check.

It seems that people are doing their best to impose their definition of being forced to do something without bothering to see what it is I mean by my original statement.

Here's a simplistic view of it. If I do some sort of negative thing to you before you do/don't commit an act I don't/do want you to make, then I'm forcing you; "ex: I'll stop hurting you when you do this!" If I do some sort of negative thing to you after you do/don't commit an act I don't/do want you to make, then I'm punishing you; "ex: You did this and now I'll hurt you!" There's a difference between those two things, but I agree the line dividing them is very fine.

I hope I got those do/don't and don't/do parts right and it's understandable.

So, for the kid refusing to pray in school. Being sent to the principal's office after refusal is not forcing the student to do anything. So far the student hasn't prayed, therefore not forced. If the student views being sent to the office as punishment and decides to pray from then on to avoid going to the office again, you could have the view that the kid is being forced with threats of future punishments. I don't necessarily agree with that but I can understand the thinking.

The reason I don't agree with it is because if I rob a bank and get caught, I go to jail. I've been punished. I know that if I rob another bank I'll likely go to jail again, therefore with that logic I'm somehow being forced to not rob another bank if I choose to not do so. But, I can easily rob another bank to face possible punishment afterwards.

To force a student to pray in school can simply be paddling the student and then demand they pray so the paddling shall stop. In the story I responded to, the student was punished (possibly repeatedly) for not praying.

Re: I was denied admission to a PhD program because of my perceived political views

#378

Post by jolux » Tue, Dec 22, 2015, 9:36 PM UTC

nkurz wrote: post #293

midwest1 wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe the number is somewhat less than 99 percent. If you are referring to the Cook study, the study borders on fraudulent, to be kind. Hard to type using my phone, I have a couple of posts from 70 days or so ago explaining my problem with that study. No one really knows how big that consensus is, or what the consensus even is. Too much noise in the way.

Jose Duarte, the author of the post being discussed, has written compellingly on why he feels the Cook article is outright fraud, and that the correct percentage (if there is one) is closer to 80%. Here's an entry point, but you might need to follow the links for context: http://www.joseduarte.com/blog/correction-counting

And here's an entry point as to why he's wrong:

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/08/denier-weirdness-97-irony...

Re: I was denied admission to a PhD program because of my perceived political views

#379

Post by jolux » Tue, Dec 22, 2015, 9:50 PM UTC

13thLetter wrote: post #339

jolux wrote: post #151

"Why would they? There's been lots of noise lately about how conservatives don't respect science or the intellectual sphere. Why would they? They know we're politically biased." This is where it took a turn for me. I'm basically in agreement with everything else, and it's personally eye opening to gain a greater understanding of these kinds of biases, but when you take a few bad apples in the social sciences (literal…

"point blank denial of facts" ...such as the relative safety of nuclear power and GMO foods? Or the potential effectiveness of missile defense? Ideology of all stripes can, and does, frequently come hand-in-hand with flat denial of inconvenient facts.

The difference is that the American right is ideologically homogeneous and the American left is a mess of different ideologies that agree on a few things and so elect candidates from the Democratic party.

And furthermore, you're implicitly and explicitly misrepresenting the arguments against all of those things which you claim leftists hawk as evil. Nuclear power is powerful, sure, I don't think anyone denies that. But it leaves us with piles of toxic waste and very few ways to rid ourselves of it, so it's not as if it's a done deal. Especially not when sources like solar and wind have many of the same benefits without the toxic aftereffects.

As for GMO foods, I'm an aspiring synthetic biologist myself and I can say that there's nothing inherently dangerous with the scientific side of it, nor does there seem to be anything explicitly awful going on with commercial GMOs right now. The problems I have with GMOs are more what I see as potential problems, specifically that the companies creating them have less than sterling reputations for concern of public safety. I'm also generally wary of deregulation of industry, because historically it has not ended well. I think people shouldn't trust large companies implicitly, especially when these large companies are saying "please trust us".

I should highlight that none of these constitute point blank denial of science in the way the denying global warming does.

As for complaints with the potential effectiveness of missile defense, you'll have to be a bit more specific.

Re: I was denied admission to a PhD program because of my perceived political views

#380

Post by pvaldes » Thu, Dec 24, 2015, 1:34 AM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #133

dd36 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You had someone be rude to you because you know how to fix a car? As you said, that's a far easier skill to learn than say programming. However, I have never encountered such an attitude and have lived on both coasts. I think people greatly appreciate skilled mechanics, tradesmen, etc. all over the country. The best can usually charge a premium. That's no different on the coasts. I doubt this will be a popular opinio…

> Frankly, I think belief in the supernatural should be screenable in an employment application If you apply this fairly, it would exclude a lot of people. For example, I meet a lot of people folks here on HN that believe in "human rights" or "natural rights" that don't arise out of legal documents. But if you cut someone open, you can't find any "natural rights" in there, nor has anyone provided experimental evidenc…

This is a logical fallacy. Lets say.

A) Scientists believing in the supernatural should not be hired.

This statement could be correct or not.

B) supernatural events can not be explained with the laws of physics. There is not any experimental evidence of any supernatural event.

This is true.

C) "natural rights" can not be explained with the laws of physics. There is not any experimental evidence of any "natural right" inside a human body. If you cut someone open you can't find any "natural rights" in there.

This seems true, but is false in fact *

D) Thus, we conclude that people believing in natural rights should not be hired.

Not. This is a fallacy because C is not related at all with neither A, nor B. Thus your example can not teach us about if A is false. Is not a proof of anything.

To suggest that people "believe" in a paper with something written on it is equivalent to people "believe" in god is wrong. You can sacrifice a chicken and them put its corpse in a fridge, but you are not trying to make the fridge happier or less angry. Is not a god. Fridges, as laws, are just created by humans to improve the life inside human societies. A law is just a pact, a paper with something written on it its origin and creation can be explained perfectly without to breaking any natural rule. Laws can seem esotheric, but this is not remotely equivalent to such thing as "a supernatural event".

* Yes, C is false. If you cut someone open that believe in natural rights you could find some copies of those "natural rights" of course, as chemical traces saved in the cells that hold the memory and culture of this people. At least for a while.