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

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

#761

Post by hbrn » Mon, Oct 03, 2022, 5:49 AM UTC

DoingIsLearning wrote: post #599

brightball wrote: post #572

He’s right to do so. Statements that your research must be presented with a filter based on how it will advance political goals calls into question the integrity of all research. When people don’t “trust the science” this will be why. But further, I’d never seen the statement from antiracist before…wow. The idea that the only cure for discrimination is discrimination is akin to saying the only cure for violence is vi…

> The cure for discrimination is forgiveness. Too handwavy, the cure for discrimination is at the very minimum adequate public funding for primary and secondary education _everywhere_ (with adequate student to teacher ratios _everywhere_). Although the discussion is at NYU this problem is not limited to the US. The issue with this and other societal problems is that state governance is operated in 4 year cycles (much…

> the cure for discrimination is at the very minimum adequate public funding for primary and secondary education _everywhere_ (with adequate student to teacher ratios

You know that when you're describing a policy with vague words like "adequate" you are actually giving yourself an escape hatch in case the policy fails?

"The policy was great, it's just that funding wasn't adequate".

Which makes your policy unfalsifiable and almost religious in nature.

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

#762

Post by hbrn » Mon, Oct 03, 2022, 5:56 AM UTC

eyelidlessness wrote: post #722

brightball wrote: post #572

He’s right to do so. Statements that your research must be presented with a filter based on how it will advance political goals calls into question the integrity of all research. When people don’t “trust the science” this will be why. But further, I’d never seen the statement from antiracist before…wow. The idea that the only cure for discrimination is discrimination is akin to saying the only cure for violence is vi…

> The cure for discrimination is forgiveness. The cure for violence is forgiveness. The cure for hatred is forgiveness. > The only way anything stops is for people to have the humility and wisdom to say “this will stop with me.” This is how I used to think. It’s reminiscent of the thinking of the Dalai Lama, Gandhi, John Lennon, and countless others who have had noble idealism which sadly isn’t congruous with reality…

I don't mean to pick on your personal story, but it would only be relevant if you found your bullies 60 years later, punched them in the face, and that somehow fixed your broken character.

In the real world, your bullies are no longer the same people, and punching them 60 years later won't address your past or future problems.

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

#763

Post by JohnHaugeland » Mon, Oct 03, 2022, 6:07 AM UTC

batch12 wrote: post #520

JohnHaugeland wrote: post #426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Flagging a gentle and reasonable statement like "that isn't what I meant" isn't a practical way to handle disagreement, and doesn't follow HN's rules The punishment culture for not being part of the crowd has gotten too much here.

Just roll with it. These are fake internet points anyway. They don't have any value. You can't leave them to your kids (something a commenter said the other day that's still ticking my brain). Complaining only motivates people to poke at you with more downvotes because they know it bothers you.

On Reddit I do. They have consequences here

At any rate, I've learned that my commentary here is considered inappropriate, so I should probably drop it.

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

#764

Post by socialismisok » Mon, Oct 03, 2022, 6:12 AM UTC

mancerayder wrote: post #321

socialismisok wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's apply this to a material, concrete condition that exists in our world. We can all hopefully agree that: A) Redlining existed B) Redlining was explicitly racist C) Redlining has impacts that are still felt today Let's use an antiracist lens to talk about it and compare to a modern, liberal "just don't be racist" lens. The standard liberal response is, "well, redlining is over, and we know now not to do that. So,…

> and since you benefitted from it, We're getting now to one of the bigger problems with the philosophy you're describing: What's "you" here? Is "you" people in the same genetic category as the people who benefited from redlining. Those who happen to look like these people, but share actual no genetic ancestry (say, because they were immigrants) or perhaps do not share the privilege (say, because they were born poor…

It's totally fair to say, "wait, this person busted ass and bought in, having come from nothing. Maybe they shouldn't have to pay more." But also, the neighborhood has benefited, and that's reflected in better schools, better amenities, etc. Maybe we should find ways to ensure those better off areas help lift up the less fortunate ones.

Regarding your second point, that you belong to X, so you are the enemy. I agree. Except on economic class. For context, I made roughly $850k last year, and my taxes were paltry. It is because of people in my economic class and above they we have a lot of the problems we do.

If you make a million a year, you can absolutely afford to give more.

(I do this by spending my money on mutual aid projects, bail funds, debt relief, community owned housing, forest conservation, etc. I put about $350k into community projects that had little to no direct benefit for me. I say this only to deal with the inevitable, "why don't you put your money where your mouth is" comments I receive when I say we wealthy folks should be taxed much more.)

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

#765

Post by trention » Mon, Oct 03, 2022, 6:17 AM UTC

dillondoyle wrote: post #730

trention wrote: post #698

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>unless we are forced to listen to & give them a platform No, actually if you just don't explicitly engage in hiring practices on the basis of ideology. https://unherd.com/thepost/political-discrimination-is-fuell... >Several studies find that between 18 and 55% of academics would discriminate against a Right-wing applicant for a job or grant. I found that 40-45% of North American academics would not hire a Trump sup…

Jesus christ. these threads on hn have become so toxic this is pointless to engage. how tf is ethnic diversity harmful? also my comment had nothing to do with hiring. but to respond anyways: ideological diversity !== making room for racist, homophobic, christian nationalist or otherwise hateful people. and people have every right not to want to have to work and sit next to someone who is actively working to make thei…

No post body was provided.

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

#766

Post by eyelidlessness » Mon, Oct 03, 2022, 6:20 AM UTC

hbrn wrote: post #762

eyelidlessness wrote: post #722

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The cure for discrimination is forgiveness. The cure for violence is forgiveness. The cure for hatred is forgiveness. > The only way anything stops is for people to have the humility and wisdom to say “this will stop with me.” This is how I used to think. It’s reminiscent of the thinking of the Dalai Lama, Gandhi, John Lennon, and countless others who have had noble idealism which sadly isn’t congruous with reality…

I don't mean to pick on your personal story, but it would only be relevant if you found your bullies 60 years later, punched them in the face, and that somehow fixed your broken character. In the real world, your bullies are no longer the same people, and punching them 60 years later won't address your past or future problems.

Huh? Actual discrimination and hate and violence are also active and ongoing. That was my point. You can’t forgive someone for transgressions they’re determined to continue. I can forgive people for something that happened to me 25 years ago because it’s in the past. That’s the relevance of my story. I can’t forgive people who are going to do the same to me tomorrow. And no one forgiving them while they still pursue that aggression is going to “end” anything other than their own dignity or their own lives.

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

#767

Post by Red_Leaves_Flyy » Mon, Oct 03, 2022, 6:25 AM UTC

hbrn wrote: post #693

mushbino wrote: post #588

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.

> correct past wrongs by heavily investing in affected communities economically and afa education and health Which should eventually lead to forgiveness, right? The framework presented does not include forgiveness at all, the crimes are treated as unforgivable and atonement is eternal. Which clearly indicates that their goal is not to end discrimination.

Discrimination is but a small part of the otherization/dehumanization and subjugation disempowered groups are subjected to. To focus on discrimination without regard for the broader socioeconomic landscape different demographics find themselves in by luck of birth is to not see the forest for the trees.

Perhaps we should consider what crimes are treated by America as unforgivable as a way to establish common ground and then look at outliers from in groups and out groups for trends? There’s a lot of discussion here that is naive to how social work professionals routinely and successfully resolve these matters. I anticipate rich and colorful debate over the forgivability of rape, child abuse, and murder depending on the offenders demographics, assets, and associations.

Forgiveness is a process that victims undertake for themselves when they are out from the clutches of their abusers. Forgiveness is not a trophy for active offenders to carry as a spoil of their conquest, instead it a badge of shame they honor by being a better human than they were when they willingly harmed our caused others to be harmed tangibly or otherwise. Victims must be extraordinarily supported through their healing journey in any community truly invested in solving generational problems, which is not a process that can be scheduled or timed. Some people may never achieve this and accepting that is non negotiable if our goal is to heal. The offenders must work on themselves to, at minimum, become incapable of ever perpetrating these offenses again and be able to articulate the explicit details of their offenses while taking responsibility for their actions and making personal restitution to their direct and indirect victims. Only when both victim and perp have successfully achieved these ends can they be safely reunited. Those who are incapable or refuse to rehabilitate have no place in civil society, their status or demographics are irrelevant. This applies to gang banging murderers as it does to the architects and agents of slavery, the war on drugs/terrorism, or child abusers whether or not they hold status in their communities, etc.

Demanding forgiveness for ongoing abuses is laughable and shameful. No one is entitled to being forgiven for their wrongs, especially not if they keep doing the same horrible shit over and over and over again.

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

#768

Post by Red_Leaves_Flyy » Mon, Oct 03, 2022, 6:33 AM UTC

dudul wrote: post #738

mushbino wrote: post #588

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.

Isn't "correcting past wrongs" how wars usually start? Anti-racists don't want justice in the future, they want revenge for the past.

do you honestly believe every anti racist wants revenge?

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

#769

Post by xkcd1963 » Mon, Oct 03, 2022, 6:41 AM UTC

Psychology is not a science

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

#770

Post by EdwardDiego » Mon, Oct 03, 2022, 6:45 AM UTC

jimbob45 wrote: post #651

EdwardDiego wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand your objection to the Kochs, but I'm not sure that it invalidates the facts in question?

No, it doesn’t, but the article will still attempt to sensationalize the facts as much as it can. I’m going to add Reason to the sites I unilaterally ignore next to WaPo, NYT, and FOX.

I understand that, I tend to avoid them as much as possible also, but if it's the only place where certain facts are present, I'll read them.

But I ignore the emotive language or opinion dressed as reporting.

Which is something I noted while staying in LA recently - all the news shows I had access to on the hotel TV were "here's something that happened", which typically ran for 30 - 60 seconds, followed by 15 minutes of people offering opinions on it. And the channels that wanted to present as unbiased would give a Democrat aligned commentator and a Republic aligned commentator equal "this is how you should interpret this" time.

But yeah, blew my mind that so much of the "news" was talking heads telling you what to think about the news.