FWIW a lot of the disability disclosure instructions for statistical purposes say stuff like "ever had cancer" and other qualifications that I find curious (because they don't really seems to be truly indicative of having a disability or not). (Not that it has anything to do with the main point of the article. Even in K12 a certain type of affluent family makes services into a game.)
Why are 38 percent of Stanford students saying they're disabled?
231–240 of 1001 posts
Re: Why are 38 percent of Stanford students saying they're disabled?
#232Earlier quoted context omitted.
I suppose cheating to get housing benefits is less of a dumpster fuck vs cheating to get ahead of other people in education.
I suppose stanford does optimize for cheating, but this still seems excessive
I use the word "cheating" like I use the word "hacking." The connotation can be either good or bad or contextually. You are defeating a system. The intent of the cheater/hacker is where we get into moral judgements. (This is a great sub-thread.)
Re: Why are 38 percent of Stanford students saying they're disabled?
#233American society is at the point where if you don't play these sort of games/tricks, you'll get out-competed by those who do. Bleak.
[flagged]
This newly (last 10 years) common talking point is very anti-american, we are both a nation of immigrants and the most successful country in the history of the world.
Re: Why are 38 percent of Stanford students saying they're disabled?
#234I think there's a non-malicious explanation for a percentage of this. As I grew up in the 80s, there were two kinds of gifted kids in school: The kind that would ace everything anyway, and the kind that, for a variety of reasons, lacked the regulation abilities to manage the school setting well, with the slow classes and such. A lot of very smart people just failed academically, because the system didn't work for the…
> The percentages of workers that are neurodivergent is much higher than usual Is it much though? 38%? I haven't seen one in 15 years across 5+ different companies. > there's a big cadre or neurodivergent people that are just in the line where they are very productive workers anyway Alternatively, it just became popular to label others or oneself that way. And tech elites have nothing better to do in free time. Also…
> And tech elites have nothing better to do in free time
This is it exactly. Programmers believe that we are God's special autists. 'Neurodivergent' is a nonfalsifiable label just like 'queer'
Re: Why are 38 percent of Stanford students saying they're disabled?
#235Earlier quoted context omitted.
The word "cheating" is loaded with a lot of values and judgement that I think makes it inappropriate to use the way you did. There's a point where it's not immoral to leverage systems available to you to land yourself in a better situation. Avoiding increasingly-overcrowded housing situations is I think one of them. If Stanford's standards for these housing waivers are sufficiently broad that 38% of their students qu…
The direct result of this thinking is that people who need the accommodation face difficulty in getting it. You don’t have to return your shopping cart. You don’t have to donate to the collection plate. You don’t have to give a coworker recognition. But when everyone has an adversarial “get mine” attitude the systems have to be changed. Instead of assuming good intent they have to enforce it. Enforcement is very expe…
The problem is that people simply have no investment in a community anymore. This is a direct consequence of globalization and capitalism. Travel to a foreign land, exploit the locals, and return home. Westerners are just now realizing that they're on the receiving end of it now.
Re: Why are 38 percent of Stanford students saying they're disabled?
#236I go to one of those elite universities now, and I get academic accommodations. I think some of the increase is truly from greater awareness about disabilities among teachers and parents. My mom was a teacher, and she was the one who first suspected that I had dyslexia. I repeated kindergarten, and I was privileged that my parents were able to afford external educational psychology testing. Socioeconomic status is a…
Yeah I suspect that people are being over-diagnosed, but I also suspect we're catching dramatically more cases than we were previously. An overcorrection if you will.
The "left handedness" graph change that occurred once we stopped punishing people for being left handed. Same sort of thing here. We'll stabilize once we get good at diagnosing it and stop stigmatizing it. We're in a period where the graph is changing, and that change is disruptive, but it'll level out.
Re: Why are 38 percent of Stanford students saying they're disabled?
#237Earlier quoted context omitted.
I suppose cheating to get housing benefits is less of a dumpster fuck vs cheating to get ahead of other people in education.
The word "cheating" is loaded with a lot of values and judgement that I think makes it inappropriate to use the way you did. There's a point where it's not immoral to leverage systems available to you to land yourself in a better situation. Avoiding increasingly-overcrowded housing situations is I think one of them. If Stanford's standards for these housing waivers are sufficiently broad that 38% of their students qu…
The problem is the promotion of values and behaviors that plague a low-trust society. I think making excuses for it is truly inappropriate and immoral.
Re: Why are 38 percent of Stanford students saying they're disabled?
#238Earlier quoted context omitted.
The word "cheating" is loaded with a lot of values and judgement that I think makes it inappropriate to use the way you did. There's a point where it's not immoral to leverage systems available to you to land yourself in a better situation. Avoiding increasingly-overcrowded housing situations is I think one of them. If Stanford's standards for these housing waivers are sufficiently broad that 38% of their students qu…
> There's a point where it's not immoral to leverage systems available to you to land yourself in a better situation. That sounds loaded with a lot of value judgment. I don't think it's inappropriate for you to suggest it, but I think you'll find that a lot of people who value equitability, collaboration, communalism, modesty, earnestness, or conservation of resources might not share that perspective with you. It tur…
I live in liberal cities. Nearly every car drive and bicycle rider has the attitude "F everyone else, I'm going to break every law if I find it inconvenient to myself. Who cares if it affects others"
This is not in alignment with "equitability, collaboration, communalism, modesty, earnestness, or conservation of resources"
People claim those values but rarely actually follow them.
Re: Why are 38 percent of Stanford students saying they're disabled?
#239Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
please... enough with the lazy stereotypes
Google: China Cheating. Stereotype or not, it's a well documented characteristic of some social systems. This isn't to imply a moralist view. This cultural phenomena is a recognized pattern of behavior across industries, as well as the education system. It's viciously pragmatic. A key part of their rapid industrialization and digital transition. It's not surprising, given the success, nor is it necessary to pretend otherwise.
Re: Why are 38 percent of Stanford students saying they're disabled?
#240Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cultures that dislike diversity are pretty low-trust. Russia, North Korea, Iran come to mind. White American conservatives don't trust anyone who isn't also them. And so on.
There are also cultures that aren't very diverse that are pretty high-trust: Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Japan, even China. Which goes to say, diversity likely has very little to do with whether a society is low-trust or high-trust. It's more about politics and policy.
This doesn't seem like a conclusion that's supported by the available evidence.
We have examples of homogeneous cultures that are high trust, and ones that are low trust.
We have examples of diverse cultures that are low trust, but none that I'm aware of that maintain high trust over time.
The best fitting hypothesis would be that homogeneity is necessary but not in itself sufficient for a high trust culture to be built.