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

511–520 of 906 posts

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

#511

Post by Ferrotin »

Latty wrote: post #500
sacrosancty wrote: post #495

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

IQ is a deeply questionable metric to start with (I have yet to see good evidence IQ tests measure anything more than "how good at IQ tests you are", and as a child I obsessed over them and got very good at them by learning how to approach them, which means it very much isn't measuring something innate), tests are often (and in the case of the historic ones actually cited in the "evidence", all) culturally biased, an…

Lots of research has been done controlling for income, adoption studies, and such, showing your words to be completely untrue.

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

#512

Post by Latty »

sacrosancty wrote: post #503
Latty wrote: post #500

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IQ is a deeply questionable metric to start with (I have yet to see good evidence IQ tests measure anything more than "how good at IQ tests you are", and as a child I obsessed over them and got very good at them by learning how to approach them, which means it very much isn't measuring something innate), tests are often (and in the case of the historic ones actually cited in the "evidence", all) culturally biased, an…

Innate was too strong a word. I meant to say that it was pre-existing. Any discrimination in a job application is not the discrimination that causes low IQ, if any. That occurs in early childhood.

Even if we accept that (and I gave plenty of reasons above why IQ is deeply, deeply, flawed as a metric, and the link to race—both at all and in terms of amount—is deeply questionable, and just because there is some difference in early childhood doesn't mean all of what you claim is, so plenty of it could be later racism), you are still just arbitrarily saying that accounts for the disparity, when there is evidence that isn't the case, because tests have been done with matching candidates, or presenting the same applications with different photos, etc...

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

#513

Post by pessimizer »

lkrubner wrote: post #436
sneak wrote: post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fundamental attribution error. There are no reprehensible people, there are only reprehensible deeds.

I envy your innocence, but sadly, the world has many reprehensible people in it.

That's an excuse to dehumanize people. Labeling people rather than deeds is simply an announcement that you're willing to compromise your own ethics in order to attack that person. It's what's really happening when we label people as terrorists.

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

#514

Post by throwayyy479087 »

seattle_spring wrote: post #450
fareesh wrote: post #223

This is now firmly in religious territory. Is there much of a difference between this and halal/kosher certification?

Ironically, most of the people against DEI are also likely people who would be AOK with more Christianity in schools and academics.

Actual liberalism is when you think both are bad and worth stopping

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

#515

Post by pessimizer »

krapp wrote: post #397
pessimizer wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I can raise you book burnings and gulags and death camps galore. Yes, the famous events that come from letting everyone speak: book burnings and death camps. If we could just burn enough books, we could keep books from being burned forever. If we silence enough people, we can keep people from being silenced.

Quoted post unavailable.

Elaborate on your examples of how the powerful allowing the weak to speak leads to book burnings and death camps, and I'll give you something more detailed than a clear, concise response.

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

#516

Post by arein3 »

canadiantim wrote: post #217
concordDance wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Basically if your research is considered bad for the dominant DEI narratives you're going to be in for a bad time. E.g. if your research gets the "wrong" results regarding police shootings then anyone who defends your research will have to resign: https://infoproc.blogspot.com/2020/06/resignation.html?m=1 And anything regarding differences in crime numbers or IQ? Forget it.

Anyone else find it unsettling that the acronym the social justice crowd settled on was DIE (Diversity, Inclusion, Equality)?

It's equity not equality. In a way, the opposite of equality.

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

#517

Post by mhuffman »

bjourne wrote: post #484
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…

> How do you separate potential racism from cultural differences? By conducting studies where you study the effect of the race variable. This has been done many times over in multiple countries and the results have shown that colored people and racial minorities are discriminated against. But despite the vast amount of empirical data, people still refuse to believe that racial discrimination is a factor in the job ma…

>despite the vast amount of empirical data

Well, your examples seem pretty cherry-picked and not necessarily generally empirical (ie. lots of embedded subjectivity).

Now your first link is more interesting and is usually the one that everyone pulls out as "absolute proof" that discrimination is live and well in modern hiring against Black people.

I wonder, though, how much of this is in the bias of the experimenters when they selected "Black sounding names" and how much is just unfamiliarity with an "unusual" (and by this I mean rare) name and how much is the knee-jerk reaction to a name (basically real prejudice).

For example the actual most common names for Black children in the US are – Jacob, Emma, Michael, Ava, William, Emily, etc. And I suspect they are not choosing those names on purpose.

On the other hand, my ex's sister named their son "Air Jordan" (for his first name) and their daughter Cinnamon for her first name. And I personally have great uncles with the real first names of "Snapbean" and "Squawk" (I am not joking).

None of these people are Black, but how do you imagine their resumes are accepted at large (or small) companies?

So I am wondering how much is prejudice against the person and how much is prejudice against the name?

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

#518

Post by Eddy_Viscosity2 »

trention wrote: post #488
Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

so "restricting freedom of speech in any way" really means it can be restricted in some cases. This was your definition, not mine. Again interesting that you consider discrimination based on race in all cases as an acceptable position equal to no discrimination based on race. The unequal enforcement bit would mean that white neighborhoods should be given the same level of enforcement as minority ones. Is that really…

I consider "restrictions of freedom of speech" justified only in the context of employment, during work hours, where said restriction directly influences your working output. If public school teachers want to teach woke pseudoscience on their own premises, during their off hours, using their own money, that's OK. I have absolutely no problem with increasing policing in white neighborhoods. The risk to people who are…

So, "restricting freedom of speech in any way" is actually "restricting freedom of speech in any way unless during working hours and influences working output". This revised definition now supports the use of DEI in the OP article.

I will take your word that you'd be happy with increased policing even if it affected you personally, but I doubt that if you actually experienced it that you would be happy with the outcome.

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

#519

Post by Ferrotin »

sacrosancty wrote: post #503
Latty wrote: post #500

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IQ is a deeply questionable metric to start with (I have yet to see good evidence IQ tests measure anything more than "how good at IQ tests you are", and as a child I obsessed over them and got very good at them by learning how to approach them, which means it very much isn't measuring something innate), tests are often (and in the case of the historic ones actually cited in the "evidence", all) culturally biased, an…

Innate was too strong a word. I meant to say that it was pre-existing. Any discrimination in a job application is not the discrimination that causes low IQ, if any. That occurs in early childhood.

That is wrong. Discrimination doesn’t cause low IQ. Every major American race has a very high median income, by international and historic standards.

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

#520

Post by batch12 »

JohnHaugeland wrote: post #426
arthur5005 wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because a lot people disagree with you. It’s not a conspiracy, your take just isn’t popular.

Flagging a gentle and reasonable statement like "that isn't what I meant" isn't a practical way to handle disagreement, and doesn't follow HN's rules The punishment culture for not being part of the crowd has gotten too much here.

Just roll with it. These are fake internet points anyway. They don't have any value. You can't leave them to your kids (something a commenter said the other day that's still ticking my brain). Complaining only motivates people to poke at you with more downvotes because they know it bothers you.
Post reply on HN