Live data from Hacker News

Mandated diversity statement drives Jonathan Haidt to quit academic society

reason.com

671–680 of 906 posts

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

#671

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you if you mean that the individuals that first do the targeted group violence are the bad guys. But not if you generalize blame to the group. Just about any large group of people, whether defined by by race, religion, nationality, or creed, will have bad individuals in it. And so the bad guys can almost always point to people from the other group that "started it". When someone from the out-group commit…

Groups can do bad things. Some groups exist specifically to do bad things.

Sure, and those groups almost always believe they are the good guys, fighting against some group that does and exists to do bad things.

The point is, if you are going to write of a group (presumably, the other political party) as bad beyond redemption, you better have a damn good reason to think that you are the historical exception.

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

#672

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Q: Who gets to define "relatively harmless"? Each of us defines this for ourselves, using our own moral compass.

Quoted post unavailable.

"GloboHomo" makes clear what your agenda is.

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

#673

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah it looks like it's just an opportunity for "unusual" datasets and research by the "outsiders" to possibly break through academia's typical cronyism. Edit: it's actually sort of hilarious that Haidt's Moral Foundations Theory can't come up with any diversity angle. Is it foundational or not? It's got the smell of someone selling a Grand Unified Theory being annoyed that they're asked to check off whether and how…

Is DEI gravity? Imagine giving papers that described how they advanced Christendom priority. Ironically, "saluting" DEI in academic papers has the opposite of the ostensibly intended effect. Political alignment of professors favors the left by 9 to 1. If anything, favoring DEI will cement "academia's typical cronyism".

If you're shopping a general theory about morality that encompases Christian morality and non-Christian morality, I don't see what there's to be worked up about.

Unless you haven't actually explored the world beyond your backyard. I have typically found Haidt's moral foundations to be pretty interesting but because he's always sold it as cross-cultural. So this seems a bit odd, honestly.

Extremely likely to be a virtue-signaling publicly stunt, TBQH.

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

#674
post #141
post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "The telos of a knife is to cut, the telos of medicine is to heal, and the telos of a university is truth."

That sounds nice, but the de facto the purpose of a university is the furtherance of the intellectuals. The scientific method's purpose is to get closer to the truth. Some research does happen at universities, but academia in its current state is far from the ideal vessel for that. (Especially when it comes to softer sciences.)

These days, the purpose of a university is to make money.

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

#675

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

The problems often start historically when one group comes to believe that some other group wants to “eliminate open society and civility” (or so some other evil thing), and thus feel justified in using any means to oppose them. Never forget the bad guys almost always think they are good guys fighting evil.

100% except perhaps we don't agree on who is doing that.

Look at marjorie taylor green's most recent insanity.

"accusation in a mirror."

and it goes far beyond a handful of loud extremists who are given megaphones from the 'less-extreme' in their party (are they really the minority then?)

the Fox news led contingent have been screaming this 'under attack' narrative.

and they are openly setting the conditions for IRL violence.

Othering trans & queer people. freaking attacking drag queens which is SO silly..

claiming we are pedo groomers who give out hormones to tweens like candy. saying your identity will no longer be people like you in the future, straight & cis.

child abusers seem to be the one class that it's still acceptable to openly wish violence upon.

telling their audience to 'take a stand' or else lose their entire existence & identity produces extremism and prods armed extremists to show up in real life.

they are bringing guns to shut down libraries, ban books, pile into vans to go attack pride, passing discriminatory laws.

not even touching on poc, immigrants, & attacks on democracy/jan 6; i'm focusing on my identity since I can better speak to it. which btw funny how there is always an eminent caravan invasion (a specifically chosen word) right before the election.

we have always been victims of violence.

but this is a much bigger boiling kettle and one group is stoking the fire.

i clearly see this fear in the eyes of a large & heavily armed group.

they think they are under attack. what will they do to 'protect themselves and save our country'? what happens when the kettle boils over?

they're pointing those guns at me.

https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/xtbx7t/marjorie_t...

https://twitter.com/SethCotlar/status/1576377501424975872

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

#676
post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is, countering negative ideas with suppression does not work . Countering speech with more speech is better. Roger Baldwin, founder of the now gone-astray ACLU, may have put it best [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 w…

> The point is, countering negative ideas with suppression does not work. This is the core of your argument, and if true, it’s unassailable. However, I don’t believe it’s true. Do you have evidence that it is? I don’t mean well-crafted arguments by respected people, but actual evidence. For my part, I’ve seen evidence to the contrary. Elsewhere in this thread, there’s a study that cites the positive benefits of depla…

> This is the core of your argument, and if true, it’s unassailable. However, I don’t believe it’s true. Do you have evidence that it is? I don’t mean well-crafted arguments by respected people, but actual evidence.

> For my part, I’ve seen evidence to the contrary. Elsewhere in this thread, there’s a study that cites the positive benefits of deplatforming on Reddit.

I'm familiar with that study and I'm pretty sure they acknowledged that they only measured activity of individuals who remained on Reddit. It's really hard to definitively say what happens when groups move to private forums where you can no longer track their conversations. Also, what people say in public vs. private can be different [1] [2], and I think periods when that is true (such as right now) should be cause for consideration about whether or not censorship contributes to that. I'd argue that state or widespread cultural censorship does contribute to self-censorship by chilling conversations, and that people's views don't change when you block them from view. It's like sending someone to prison vs. rehabilitation. You might still argue that the views can't spread as easily, and I would argue against that too.

When groups are deplatformed, they find their own ways to communicate, either by joining private groups on services like Telegram or by creating their own platforms.

Then they are outside your sphere of influence and harder to reach. We are pushing them in this direction and I think we will end up regarding that as a mistake. But it's not like this is the first time that's happened.

You can join my talk next Wednesday, October 12th [3] to learn more about what I think with sources. It's the first one listed. This particular question is not the focus, but it is related. I'd also recommend listening to free speech defenders such as Ira Glasser, Nadine Strossen, Greg Lukianoff, and Jonathan Rauch, to name a few [4]. They've all spoken at length about this via many forms of media, books, podcasts, conferences, etc. Anyone interviewed on the So to Speak podcast is also great, particularly the earlier episodes where they bring in the older generations who've been defending free speech for their entire lives.

The evidence is there, but every time there is a new technology it takes time to collect. You can instead consider a principled approach based on what you know works between individuals. Jonathan Rauch makes a great case for this in his books and speaking.

> I’ve also observed that online forums invariably turn into cesspits if they aren’t moderated.

I think this is true! Yet, the more we censor, the more concentrated the echo chambers become, both the ones you agree with and the ones with whom you disagree. So IMO we must stop regarding "ugly" forums as a bad thing to be avoided. We all have difficult conversations in the real world, and I think curating the online world to look nice and pretty only provides more evidence to the idea that our current "solution" to online disagreements isn't working and appears to be infecting the real world.

> The larger the forum, the more aggressive that moderation has to be, to the point of banning and shadowbanning. HN does it.

That is evidence that it's popular, not that it is a good idea.

> (For that matter, downvoting is another form of deplatforming, in that it literally pushes other people’s opinions out of sight.)

I agree, and I think that has the unfortunate side effect of hiding some useful rebuttals, as I mentioned elsewhere in this thread [5].

> So there’s two points of evidence that make me believe that deplatforming is effective: one is academic; and one is the personal observation, that I think we’ve all shared, that moderated fora work better than unmoderated fora. What evidence do you have? Please summarize rather than just posting links.

I'd say the jury's out on how to effectively moderate fora. We're just at the start of this era and it's been quite a bumpy ride. Moderation, at the very least, should be transparent to the authors of the content, and that's not the case across all of the major platforms, including this one.

[1] https://youtu.be/-ByRjHwknbc?t=2892

[2] https://www.axios.com/2022/08/17/americans-voters-private-be...

[3] https://truthandtrustonline.com/pre-conference-workshops/

[4] https://www.reddit.com/r/reveddit/comments/wxfjvy/im_on_a_po...

[5] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33055630

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

#677
post #602

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're saying the only way to end discrimination is for the victims to forgive the perpetrators? How would that work exactly? IMO, the only way to move forward is to correct past wrongs by heavily investing in affected communities economically and afa education and health. What Haidt is being asked to do here does none of these things and is purely for show.

> IMO, the only way to move forward is to correct past wrongs by heavily investing in affected communities economically and afa education and health. As if we hadn't been doing that for past 60 years, with extremely underwhelming (in fact, arguably negative) outcomes.

The outcomes have been underwhelming because we (at least, the US) haven't actually been doing this, and we've just found new and arguably worse ways to maintain deeply racist policies.

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

#678

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is actually pretty simple (in this example anyway). If three candidates come to you with the same credentials, then do not assume one of them is the best candidate based on your interpretation of their background. You have to treat them all as equally likely candidates - interview all three. It is more work for you, but the effort is worth it, because it helps prevent the effect of possible biases.

Sure, I understand in that example what to do. But as a society, where do we draw the line? Why is it okay to apply affirmative action for selecting students but not okay when accepting employees (continuing the example from this thread)? Since we're trying to fix a systemic issue, we need a consistent response across society for it to be most effective. My point is this is a complicated problem with no perfect solut…

This is a really good point, and I appreciate you bringing it up. What I am saying directly conflicts with affirmative action itself, so in effect I am arguing against it. I don't really have a good answer to that. Thanks for pointing it out, I guess I'll ponder that for awhile.

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

#679

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm genuinely missing your point. It sou d like you're insinuating that the lack of a "normal" name is a good reason to disqualify someone from a job opportunity. That possibly implies that the resume screen uses someone's name as a discriminating factor and I don't think that it should be.

>I'm genuinely missing your point Yes, you are missing my point. I am not insinuating anything, I am stating directly that some people might be biased against unusual (to them) names. Names that are difficult to say, spell, etc. depending on the language, or just out-right stereotypical prejudice with a name (which is what these studies just assume). I am not saying that any of this is ok, people rarely get to pick t…

Reducing racial bias to solely and precisely "skin color", and not the cultural biases that come with it is itself missing the point.

Begin biased against Black skin is a problem (and is the important bit in some instances). Being biased against "Black" names is also a problem, even if you can devise situations where the name is attached to a person who doesn't have Black skin. And both are racism, because they are directed at people based on the assumption that they are in a particular ethnic group, even if that assumption is wrong.

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

#680
post #476
post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

> I guess it only applies to groups they like?

This has been the rule throughout human history, and it’s unfortunate that people (some in this thread even) are discovering the first principles for the first time for why we strive to apply the same standards to everyone, and not do carve outs. Unfortunately, politics is downstream from culture, and culture is downstream from power. When elite opinion makers decide that certain things are okay, those things are okay … like mass protests and rioting during a pandemic.

Post reply on HN