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

Mandated diversity statement drives Jonathan Haidt to quit academic society

reason.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

471–480 of 906 posts

Re: Mandated diversity statement drives Jonathan Haidt to quit academic society

#471

Post by nequo »

mlyle wrote: post #322
socialismisok wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I... This seems pretty different than what Haidt is painting it as. This is saying sociology research should communicate if it engaged with communities that haven't been a part of this sort of research in the past.

Well, it's explicitly giving an advantage to submissions that engage with these diversity goals. Favoring research of understudied populations makes a lot of sense and is necessary. Favoring researchers based on their own personal diversity metrics is controversial. Favoring research whose findings support specific diversity-related desired outcomes is dangerous (and the policy may do this in practice).

> Well, it's explicitly giving an advantage to submissions that engage with these diversity goals.

I honestly don’t understand your problem with this.

Historically, the majority of humanity was not a part of social science study. For example, economics has a tradition of drawing conclusions about the labor market based on data only on American white males (literally). This has been changing and it reveals blind spots in our previous understanding of the economy.

All that this policy change seems to be doing is encourage researchers in social psychology to work with a wider subpopulation than, for example, American undergraduates aged 18 to 22. It does not mandate anywhere what their findings should be.

What is so bad about this?

Re: Mandated diversity statement drives Jonathan Haidt to quit academic society

#472

Post by xctr94 »

Slava_Propanei wrote: post #468
curioushacking wrote: post #465

My understand for how we measure systemic racism issues seems to typically be predicated on assumed outcomes. For example that if the distribution of employees race does not match the general population then there must be a systemic cause for this. What I don’t understand is why that is assumed true. If we want to encourage many different cultures to live together wouldn’t it naturally make sense that different cultu…

Quoted post unavailable.

This isn’t Reddit. Sarcasm adds nothing to GP’s question.

Re: Mandated diversity statement drives Jonathan Haidt to quit academic society

#474

Post by Tr3nton »

hackerlight wrote: post #432
andrew_ wrote: post #417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not surprised, but continually amazed that people actually and truly think this way; that there's only one insidious group that are the problem, and only they will be the cause of disaster. Take the blinders off, there's more at work here that petty tribalism.

Sometimes there is only one truly insidious group, and to suggest otherwise is the false balance fallacy. That group's supporters will think of themselves as just, and even see themselves as victims. It's always like that with authoritarian movements.

No post body was provided.

Re: Mandated diversity statement drives Jonathan Haidt to quit academic society

#475

Post by trention »

chowells wrote: post #412
CrazyPyroLinux wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I already can't commit to a master branch or have a master key, because reasons.

Quoted post unavailable.

It seems to me that the real snowflakes are those who got out of their way to have the convention changed. But then again, I am just a slav who thankfully doesn't have to live in the shithole that is contemporary usa (or the valley).

Re: Mandated diversity statement drives Jonathan Haidt to quit academic society

#476

Post by Izkata »

rhaksw wrote: post #228
bluejekyll wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

> When one group wants to eliminate open society and civility, how is possible to have an open and civil debate with them? Roger Baldwin, founder of the now gone-astray ACLU, said this [1], > Host: "What possible reason is there for giving civil liberties to people who will use those civil liberties in order to destroy the civil liberties of all the rest?" > Roger: "That's a classic argument you know, that's what the…

> > "Well that is contrary to our experience. In a democratic society, if you let them all talk, even those who would deny civil liberties and would overthrow the government, that's the best way to prevent them from doing it."

There's a much shorter version of this sentiment that people loved to use during the 2020 riots: "violence is the language of the unheard"

I guess it only applies to groups they like?

Re: Mandated diversity statement drives Jonathan Haidt to quit academic society

#477

Post by leg100 »

nilespotter wrote: post #386
canadiantim wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is equity if not equality then? (Honest question, as I just assumed it was equality as generally that's something we've been historically striving for.)

Opportunities and rights on the one hand, outcomes on the other. e.g. - Equality: We are both free to operate in an open market to secure the best outcomes for ourselves - Equity: You made $1000, I made $100, we both get $550 Wokes will bend over backwards to paint equality as an impossible project, claiming that it is doomed because of historical white supremacy, generational oppression, moon phases, etc. We're aske…

> ...equity is literally communism.

That's incorrect. The goal or schema of communism is not "equal outcomes". That might be the crude rubric of some state capitalist societies of the past, e.g. equal wages regardless of rank, but in true communism the abundance of resources permits anyone to have their needs met and for anyone to realize their full abilities.

One can criticize its naivety. But please do not conflate it with the mean and frankly misanthropic world view of the woke crowd, in which large swathes of humanity are condemned to endless self flagellation.

Re: Mandated diversity statement drives Jonathan Haidt to quit academic society

#478

Post by pasquinelli »

elefanten wrote: post #272
ZeroGravitas wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He was challenged by most, but not all, newspapers. It clearly didn't work as we're still dealing with the same BS 60 years later. But sure, the real problem is Psychologists trying to adress systematic racism in their field. That's worth resigning about. Because they're trying to hide the truth, but also we should let them speak, in our academic Psychological publications, because it's obvious nonsense.

Just want to point out that you became unilaterally unhinged over the course of this exchange while. the other commenter wrote calmly. Also, how do you propose to convince people of this clearly-objective “truth” that you know, if you silence them from questioning and debating it? Do you think that’s ever worked?

they don't seem unhinged to me.

Re: Mandated diversity statement drives Jonathan Haidt to quit academic society

#479

Post by JohnHaugeland »

mellosouls wrote: post #139
JohnHaugeland wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

Haidt quit because the university said "we want a more diverse staff." Those quotation marks would disagree...

No post body was provided.

Re: Mandated diversity statement drives Jonathan Haidt to quit academic society

#480

Post by yakshaving_jgt »

boucher wrote: post #395
yakshaving_jgt wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The question of course is then at what point do reparations end? My heritage is Polish. How much do the Germans owe me?

Germany paid Poland $8b in reparations in 1992: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_reparations

A sibling comment highlights the problem I'm driving at — how can we agree that the amount paid is sufficient? Who can definitively say that?

This is true for historical systematic oppression of any kind.

Post reply on HN