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

561–570 of 906 posts

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

#561

Post by anon_123g987 »

sacrosancty wrote: post #509
peter422 wrote: post #482

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only issue with this is we can and have isolated clear mechanisms in which certain races are treated differently as compared to others (for example, names on resumes and interview rates, property assessments given a white looking household vs black looking household, pain management in hospitals for women of various races during childbirth, etc), and do I think it is fair to say that the expectation would be if t…

Quoted post unavailable.

I "just Googled" it:

> In recent decades, as understanding of human genetics has advanced, claims of inherent differences in intelligence between races have been broadly rejected by scientists on both theoretical and empirical grounds.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence

The article is full of references of primary sources that support this claim.

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

#563

Post by Ferrotin »

roywiggins wrote: post #541
Ferrotin wrote: post #519

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Uh, can't it? Stuff like lead exposure is higher in disfavored groups, and lead exposure is very bad for IQ. All sorts of environmental pollution is bad for child development, developing brains are pretty susceptible to this stuff, and guess which people end up having to live in more polluted areas? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_racism#Impacts_o...

That’s completely hypothetical and easily refutable by rural/urban breakdown, county-level breakdowns, outperformance by poor Asians, historical LA smog, etcetera.

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

#564

Post by kansface »

water-your-self wrote: post #538
peter422 wrote: post #521

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you believe that IQ alone is the most predictive metric for a person’s ability to what? Seriously who cares about a couple of IQ points?

IQ is generally thrown out entirely. Im shocked to see it treated as a legitimate metric on hacker news

The military still uses it because it is highly predictive. They also have a hard cutoff at the bottom which wasn’t always the case (see McNamara’s Folly for the history of when the army accepted literally retarded people - it didn’t end well). We also see a very strong correlation between eg IQ and occupation.

It is a legitimate metric of *something*.

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

#565

Post by peter422 »

water-your-self wrote: post #538
peter422 wrote: post #521

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you believe that IQ alone is the most predictive metric for a person’s ability to what? Seriously who cares about a couple of IQ points?

IQ is generally thrown out entirely. Im shocked to see it treated as a legitimate metric on hacker news

Only on HN would the prevailing thought be that leet-code interviews are stupid but IQ is a magical, unbiased metric of a person’s ability and potential.

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

#566

Post by [deleted] »

Ferrotin wrote: post #563
roywiggins wrote: post #541

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uh, can't it? Stuff like lead exposure is higher in disfavored groups, and lead exposure is very bad for IQ. All sorts of environmental pollution is bad for child development, developing brains are pretty susceptible to this stuff, and guess which people end up having to live in more polluted areas? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_racism#Impacts_o...

That’s completely hypothetical and easily refutable by rural/urban breakdown, county-level breakdowns, outperformance by poor Asians, historical LA smog, etcetera.

[deleted]

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

#567

Post by nilespotter »

leg100 wrote: post #477
nilespotter wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> in true communism the abundance of resources

heh

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

#568

Post by beowulfey »

darawk wrote: post #548
bjourne wrote: post #484

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

People love to cite this study as an example of absolute proof of discrimination, but it isn't. There is an obvious rational non-racist explanation for the outcome in question, and it is affirmative action. A black person, a white person, and an asian person with the exact same credentials mean extremely different things in terms of absolute rather than relative competence level, as a consequence of affirmative actio…

Take a moment to wonder at the implication of your observation. Why do you assume, if three people all went to the same university and had the same credentials, that one of those people is almost certainly at the top 1% of absolute test scores because of their race? Perhaps you may be experiencing subconscious biases without even realizing it?

Based on your other comment, you would claim "Affirmative Action" is why you think this. But it is important to realize that by making this assumption at all you are expressing biased judgements on these three humans entirely based upon their race.

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

#569

Post by jhoechtl »

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…

> For example that if the distribution of employees race does not match the general population then there must be a systemic cause for this.

The assumption alone is wrong yet any other assumption inevitably leads to stigmatisation and segregation.

Whatever study anyone comes up with it will inevitably turn into a discussion if either racism or discrimination.

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

#570

Post by orestarod »

pharrington wrote: post #530
pessimizer wrote: post #513

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Do you believe terrorists exist? If no, would you say that Osama Bin Laden was not a terrorist?

Are Palestinians terrorists?
Post reply on HN