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

521–530 of 906 posts

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

#521

Post by peter422 »

Ferrotin wrote: post #511
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…

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

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?

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

#522

Post by ZeroGravitas »

chaxor wrote: post #507
ZeroGravitas wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Studies that show the genetic diversity of the continent of Africa are in fact "anti-racist". They truthfully reveal that the psuedoscientific 19th century ideas we refer to as race had no scientific basis. Some people really haven't taken this "truth" well though. They still try to fit every new fact into their old model. Like "West African Scorpios" are much more open to emotion, while "East African Scorpios" are o…

I don't understand the argument that genetics isn't correlated with race. I would imagine a better argument is that it's a spectrum - but the fact is that when plotting the principle components of any large scale set of human genetic data from around the world, self reported race actually clusters (PC isn't even a clustering technique) quite well. So the fact that the axes of tbe largest explained variance of the dat…

It's not a subtlety you're missing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization)

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

#523

Post by Latty »

Ferrotin wrote: post #511
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…

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

Please cite it. Every time someone claims this, they come back citing something laughably easy to disprove like The Bell Curve, which claims this, and is just an absolute mess of obvious nonsense:

Using deeply culturally and/or language biased IQ tests.

Using IQ tests that essentially just test the quality of education they received.

Sampling unrepresentative populations.

Using studies from an Apartheid state as an example of "a state without systemic racism".

Using tests that aren't IQ tests and the author explicitly say isn't equivalent and "converting" them with arbitrary systems. Literally just making up data.

Cherry picking the worst data from studies which the original study explicitly calls out as less likely to be accurate.

Every correlation vs causation mistake you can possibly make.

Just discounting every environmental factor except parental socioeconomic status.

Assuming environmental factors are a result of genetic factors (which is literally just assuming their conclusion).

Regularly citing a literally white-supremacist funded source as unbiased.

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

#524

Post by pharrington »

sneak wrote: post #419
lkrubner wrote: post #408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You're talking about destroying freedom of association and expression in order to root out reprehensible people with the wrong values We all have a strong moral obligation to root out "reprehensible people with the wrong values." If you think otherwise then you don't understand what the word "reprehensible" means.

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

Would you call someone who's primary goal is to due good deeds a "good person"? Would you call someone who's primary goal is to due reprehensible deeds a "reprehensible person"?

People certainly can change over time, but someone's state at a given time is what that person actually is at the time.

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

#525

Post by DuskStar »

pharrington wrote: post #430
jwarden wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The people who first do the targeted group violence are the bad guys.

Define "first", "violence" and for good measure "group". Do things ever reset, for instance? Are some wrongs too far in the past?

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

#526

Post by DuskStar »

hackerlight wrote: post #371
ianai wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is a pivot society ought to make in a larger extent very soon. Applies to things like “nuclear extortion” ala Russian in Ukraine too.

I am becoming more sympathetic to this, too. Real liberals (not necessarily leftists, although perhaps so) need to start punching back, hard . Slippery slopes are real and we're on one.

> Real liberals (not necessarily leftists, although perhaps so)

Leftists are 100% part of the problem here in the US, I'm not sure what you would need to be smoking to think otherwise.

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

#527

Post by mhuffman »

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…

>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.

They were doing this long before the Internet if that is what you mean! If you mean a platform as in showing up at a prestigious place, well being denied entrance is just as good, you just have your group stand outside and ask "What are they so afraid of? If our ideas are so bad/crazy/etc. can't they just easily shoot them down with social discourse?" and you get all the awareness and revision of the ideas that you want!

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

#528

Post by [deleted] »

pessimizer wrote: post #513
lkrubner wrote: post #436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

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

#529

Post by HyperSane »

pas wrote: post #489
HyperSane wrote: post #416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ibram X Kendi does.

I haven't read anything from him (except that one line, I assume, you quoted a few comments back), but now I'm interested. Can you cite the relevant parts?

Kendi argues that policy outcomes are central in measuring and effecting racial equity. He has said, "All along we've been trying to change people, when we really need to change policies." When speaking in November 2020 to the Alliance for Early Success, Kendi was asked if that even means abiding racist behavior and attitudes if it leads to winning an antiracist policy. Kendi answered with a definitive yes. "I want things to change for millions of people – millions of children – as opposed to trying to change one individual person."

Kendi provoked controversy when he tweeted about the relationship between Amy Coney Barrett, President Donald Trump's third Supreme Court nominee, and two of her seven children, who had been adopted from an orphanage in Haiti. Kendi said:

    Some White colonizers 'adopted' Black children. They 'civilized' these 'savage' children in the 'superior' ways of White people, while using them as props in their lifelong pictures of denial, while cutting the biological parents of these children out of the picture of humanity. And whether this is Barrett or not is not the point. It is a belief too many White people have: if they have or adopt a child of color, then they can't be racist.
His remarks were interpreted as criticizing interracial adoption. A substantial backlash against Kendi ensued. He later said his comments were taken out of context and that he does not believe that white parents of black children are inherently racist.

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

#530

Post by pharrington »

pessimizer wrote: post #513
lkrubner wrote: post #436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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