Mandated diversity statement drives Jonathan Haidt to quit academic society • Hacker News Board

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

#441

Post by SpicyLemonZest » Sun, Oct 02, 2022, 5:28 PM UTC

fareesh wrote: post #376

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like most religious analogies in this area, I completely agree with it as a framework but don't really follow the conclusions. If it's a religion, surely part of living in a secular society is allowing people to practice it freely, even if that means that some conferences (or professors, or schools) adopt explicit creeds. I do worry, because I think this particular religion is factually wrong in ways that matter a lo…

> the idea that academics should never let their core beliefs impact their work isn't really realistic. I wanted to explore this a bit. Let's hypothesize that the academic is in some ISIL dominated region and the caliphate says that all research must further the goals of caliphate expansion and the spread of the religion. If an academic were to write an equivalent statement - is it their core belief, or are they simp…

As Haidt says, it's harmful to the extent that it contradicts the core telos of academic research, but I don't think it's so harmful that research becomes impossible. Quite a lot of foundational scientific work comes from medieval Christian and Muslim sources whose religious authorities executed people for heresy.

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

#442

Post by pas » Sun, Oct 02, 2022, 5:29 PM UTC

sgc wrote: post #204

mpweiher wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the de facto the purpose of a university is the furtherance of the intellectuals Yes, and unavoidably so. That is why it is society's task to structure the universities in such a fashion that those goals align with society's goals.

Ah yes, the always correct "society" should be heavy handed, to counter unnecessary heavy-handed university administration. That is just shifting the tyranny of the majority from an internal to a less qualified external source. Universities' end should be pursuit of the truth, not society's "goals". If society must intervene, it should be to uphold the pursuit of truth, not its own goals. That is a tall task, but let…

> society being ever more overrun by anti-intellectualism, that is diametrically opposed to higher learning.

This has been ongoing for ever. This happens because there's a big overlap between rich, powerful, and educated groups, and there's simply a fuckton of bad "us vs them" arguments that pick one easy to identify trait and attack anyone using that.

And of course the ongoing globalization led to a lot of job displacement. Whole regions suffered and continue to suffer heavily, and ... while the whole country reaps the benefits the affected areas only got a lip service. (And of course a lot of federal transfer payments.) This created a big group ripe for populist resentment, ready to project the drawbacks of free markets onto whatever Trump said. China. Mexico. Millenials. Green stuff. Welfare queens.

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

#443

Post by ip26 » Sun, Oct 02, 2022, 5:30 PM UTC

Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote: post #195

djohnston wrote: post #191

> because of a newly adopted requirement that everybody presenting research at the group's conferences explain how their submission advances "equity, inclusion, and anti-racism goals." Wow and I thought psychology was a pseudo-science before!

"Academic politics is the most vicious and bitter form of politics, because the stakes are so low."

Such a great generalized insight. I’ve added the other criteria is winner take all conditions. The infighting over a small pie grows in intensity when only one person gets to take it home.

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

#444

Post by ipaddr » Sun, Oct 02, 2022, 5:32 PM UTC

wcerfgba wrote: post #276

rhaksw wrote: post #173

Free Speech for Me--But Not for Thee: How the American Left and Right Relentlessly Censor Each Other (1992) [1] is a good read on how we got to a point where our ability to communicate across ideologies appears to be broken in many ways. For example, in 1963 Yale disinvited George Wallace, who was popular in the deep south, as a speaker. As a result, observers were deprived of a chance to hear opposing speakers' argu…

> Censorship is all these characters need to gain new followers. No, they also need a platform to make people aware of their existence, their views, and to recast their censorship to be in their favour. The whole point of no-platforming individuals is to make a statement that their views are seen as reprehensible and to stop them from being able to air those views to an audience. Not all ideological disputes are abou…

I find that all groups including non-racist groups use emotional rhetoric to attract and maintain group bonds. An anti racist group cannot exist without racist groups and racist groups have little reason to exist without non-racist groups. Deplatforming one side kills the other side and without that balance they go hunting for people in the middle.

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

#445

Post by hackerlight » Sun, Oct 02, 2022, 5:32 PM UTC

inglor_cz wrote: post #421

hackerlight wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was talking about whether censorship is effective at preventing the spread of specific ideas. You're talking about whether censorship is a good idea. Separate discussion.

OK, fair enough. I suspect that the answer is "it depends on the culture". China seems to have a lot more control over the spread of anti-CCP ideas than Iran has over the spread of anti-regime ideas, and it isn't because of Iranian censors trying less or having worse tools. But the Iranian population seems to be much less conforming and more ready to rebel.

It's still somewhat effective in Iran, it's just not sufficiently effective to prevent protests.

The US has a number of natural experiments that show that censorship is effective at silencing someone. Look at what happened to Trump and Alex Jones after they were deplatformed. Their reach was cut a lot and that wasn't even state censorship.

Russia had a natural experiment after Gorbachev lifted speech codes. People described the renaissance of new ideas being spoken that were previously stifled. Censorship worked.

It makes sense that it works given our understanding of social contagion. People aren't designed to believe facts. They're designed to join a team and believe whatever stuff their team believes in. Things like taboos or censorship or blacklists are effective, however repellent they may be.

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

#446

Post by nix23 » Sun, Oct 02, 2022, 5:34 PM UTC

somedude895 wrote: post #284

nix23 wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Switzerland it's illegal to make a difference between genders...however since a very short time woman's had to work not as long as men, now some woman cry it's unfair and blablabla, and there is still one or more thing, woman's don't have to go to military-service OR pay money for not going. But if you say that, some of them will tell you that they would do that if they earn the same as men, but that is already in…

It actually is legal in Switzerland to discriminate based on gender, if the administrative class decides that it's just: > Appropriate measures aimed at achieving true equality are not regarded as discriminatory. https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/1996/1498_1498_1498/de#ar...

>>Appropriate measures aimed at achieving true equality are not regarded as discriminatory.

So since Men have a shorter lifespan (even in country's where alcohol and drugs are a nogo...if someone want to come with that argument) Men should not work as long as Woman's ;) excellent!!

BTW: What are Appropriate measures?....that's a typical Swiss law, it just say's nothing..and everything ;)

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

#447

Post by solveit » Sun, Oct 02, 2022, 5:35 PM UTC

mkmk3 wrote: post #349

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have always made a distinction between things that are not the fault of the individual (skin color, gender, ethnicity) and things that are (speech and actions). Which seems perfectly reasonable to me.

Religion (/dressed up ideologies)?

As usual, this stops the conversation cold, because it doesn't fit anyone's narrative. Free speech advocates want to claim that the marketplace of ideas will lead people to good ideas, while people for restricting speech want to claim that it's possible to restrict speech without going full-on totalitarian dystopia. The case of religion shows quite starkly that both narratives completely fail to describe a central example with great historical and current relevance.

Free speech is a good idea for game-theoretic reasons. That's it. Free speech lets people fight it out with only the occasional riot and attempted overthrow of the republic. That's better than the alternative.

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

#448

Post by ip26 » Sun, Oct 02, 2022, 5:35 PM UTC

busterarm wrote: post #351

tsol wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Halal and kosher have very specific rules that must be abided by in order to fit, which do not change.

What's kosher or not has different interpretations depending on which group (Orthodox, Conservative, Reform) you're talking to. The situation w/ Cheese and source of rennet is a frequent one where you'll see different groups following different rules. Also gelatin is another one.

There might be disagreement on some details between groups, but at least within a group the agreed standard is both clear upfront and objective.

This DEI standard currently sounds totally subjective with no guidance on what will pass muster, which is ideal substrate for the worst forms of corruption, nepotism, and abuses of power. You know, the very things academia is thought to fundamentally oppose.

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

#449

Post by leg100 » Sun, Oct 02, 2022, 5:36 PM UTC

canadiantim wrote: post #364

plasticchris wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Equity, not equality. Big difference (almost the opposite meaning !)

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.)

Don't worry, they are pretty interchangeable, depending upon context. The dictionary definitions show both can be used for the same meaning, say for equal rights and for actual equal carving out of resources and means. Or something specific in the case of finance or law. And the woke crowd evidently have their own stricter definitions of both.

I'd avoid using either in any polemic for a better world, and stick to the original words of the communist manifesto, which have not been bettered: from each according to their ability, to each according to their need!

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

#450

Post by seattle_spring » Sun, Oct 02, 2022, 5:36 PM UTC

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.