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

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

#821

Post by kenjackson » Mon, Oct 03, 2022, 5:58 PM UTC

mpweiher wrote: post #820

kenjackson wrote: post #812

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s a lot here that is wrong, but you clearly won’t admit it. That said for others still reading here is a good article: https://www.vox.com/2014/8/7/5978551/study-racism-criminal-j... I know it doesn’t sell well, but most whites do, at some level, prefer blacks not to do well. Not because they necessarily hate blacks, but in aggregate it means they’ll do less well (in aggregate). So you talk about facts, but the…

> There’s a lot here that is wrong, but you clearly won’t admit it. No there's not. And you're perfect at the old Russian tactic of "accuse the other side of the thing that you are doing". You've been proven wrong at just about every turn, but you can't admit it, and then you ... drumroll ... double down. And if it's Vox, it is almost certainly misrepresented. Which, drumroll, it is. From the original study: "We foun…

You haven’t cited any data. Review the Vox article and linked study within it. You won’t address any of this.

Edit: what’s your point about gender bias? That’s a reasonable point to raise — in a different discussion. Maybe you can next talk about biases due to height and looks too? Also irrelevant.

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

#822

Post by kenjackson » Mon, Oct 03, 2022, 6:08 PM UTC

mpweiher wrote: post #820

kenjackson wrote: post #812

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s a lot here that is wrong, but you clearly won’t admit it. That said for others still reading here is a good article: https://www.vox.com/2014/8/7/5978551/study-racism-criminal-j... I know it doesn’t sell well, but most whites do, at some level, prefer blacks not to do well. Not because they necessarily hate blacks, but in aggregate it means they’ll do less well (in aggregate). So you talk about facts, but the…

> There’s a lot here that is wrong, but you clearly won’t admit it. No there's not. And you're perfect at the old Russian tactic of "accuse the other side of the thing that you are doing". You've been proven wrong at just about every turn, but you can't admit it, and then you ... drumroll ... double down. And if it's Vox, it is almost certainly misrepresented. Which, drumroll, it is. From the original study: "We foun…

Your take away from the original study was fear of crime? Now I understand what our problem is — your basic logic skills. This is like a basic LSAT question you got wrong.

Edit: the quote is right on. Your statement that it wasn’t racism missed the point of the authors quote. Try again and see if you can see where you missed.

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

#823

Post by mpweiher » Mon, Oct 03, 2022, 6:08 PM UTC

kenjackson wrote: post #821

mpweiher wrote: post #820

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There’s a lot here that is wrong, but you clearly won’t admit it. No there's not. And you're perfect at the old Russian tactic of "accuse the other side of the thing that you are doing". You've been proven wrong at just about every turn, but you can't admit it, and then you ... drumroll ... double down. And if it's Vox, it is almost certainly misrepresented. Which, drumroll, it is. From the original study: "We foun…

You haven’t cited any data. Review the Vox article and linked study within it. You won’t address any of this. Edit: what’s your point about gender bias? That’s a reasonable point to raise — in a different discussion. Maybe you can next talk about biases due to height and looks too? Also irrelevant.

Racial bias leads to 10% longer sentences:

https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/677255

Gender bias leads to 60% longer sentences:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2144002

60% / 10% = 6x.

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

#824

Post by mpweiher » Mon, Oct 03, 2022, 6:10 PM UTC

kenjackson wrote: post #822

mpweiher wrote: post #820

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There’s a lot here that is wrong, but you clearly won’t admit it. No there's not. And you're perfect at the old Russian tactic of "accuse the other side of the thing that you are doing". You've been proven wrong at just about every turn, but you can't admit it, and then you ... drumroll ... double down. And if it's Vox, it is almost certainly misrepresented. Which, drumroll, it is. From the original study: "We foun…

Your take away from the original study was fear of crime? Now I understand what our problem is — your basic logic skills. This is like a basic LSAT question you got wrong. Edit: the quote is right on. Your statement that it wasn’t racism missed the point of the authors quote. Try again and see if you can see where you missed.

Note the quotation marks. The finding is that of the study authors, not mine, easily verified if you check the link.

Of course Vox didn't report that.

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

#825

Post by jdlshore » Mon, Oct 03, 2022, 6:19 PM UTC

rhaksw wrote: post #676

jdlshore wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 t…

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. You didn't actually answer my request for evidence, though.

I think is the study we've been discussing: https://seclab.bu.edu/people/gianluca/papers/deplatforming-w...

This is my understanding of their analysis, based on a fairly shallow read:

> Are accounts being created on an alternative platform after being suspended?

A: Yes, 59% of Twitter users and 76% of Reddit users moved to Gab.

> Do suspended users become more toxic if they move to another platform?

A: Reddit users became more toxic on Gab. 60% of Twitter users became less toxic and 20% became much more toxic, although the most toxic posts contained hatred against Twitter and complaints that their free speech and rights had been denied. (Toxicity was determined using Google's Perspective API.)

> Do suspended users become more active if they move to another platform?

A: Yes. A manual inspection determines that at least some of that increased activity is complaints about being suspended.

> Do suspended users gain more followers on the other platform?

A: Although users tend to become more toxic and more active after they move to the alternative platform, their audience decreases.

I think you could read this either way. Deplatforming is ineffective because it "radicalizes" those have been deplatformed. Or; deplatforming is effective because it reduces the spread of toxicity. Your post above is mainly focusing on the former; my post focused mainly on the latter.

The jury's still out, as you said. Personally, I'll continue to lean in favor of moderation, if only for the selfish reason that unmoderated communities are nasty places, and I want to participate in communities that "bring me joy," to indulge in a Kondo-ism. I think we've shown pretty conclusively, though, that your argument "The point is, countering negative ideas with suppression does not work" is premature at best.

I'll let you have the last word. Best wishes.

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

#826

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Oct 03, 2022, 6:28 PM UTC

renlo wrote: post #616

anon_123g987 wrote: post #561

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I "just Googled" it: > In recent decades, as understanding of human genetics has advanced, claims of inherent differences in intelligence between races have been broadly rejected by scientists on both theoretical and empirical grounds. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence The article is full of references of primary sources that support this claim.

Wikipedia articles for contentious subjects tend to be ... opinionated. Is there anything more contentious than race?

[deleted]

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

#827

Post by sacrosancty » Mon, Oct 03, 2022, 6:35 PM UTC

anon_123g987 wrote: post #561

sacrosancty wrote: post #509

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

I "just Googled" it: > In recent decades, as understanding of human genetics has advanced, claims of inherent differences in intelligence between races have been broadly rejected by scientists on both theoretical and empirical grounds. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence The article is full of references of primary sources that support this claim.

Look at the actual research that supposedly leads to the rejection of that idea. There doesn't seem to be any, except for a bunch of unsupported speculation. A notorious example is the Minessota Transracial Adoption Study or something along those lines. They actually found what was clearly an inherent difference according to their experiment's design, then after they got this uncomfortable result, they found another variable they'd forgotten to control for and attributed it to that, without any further evidence. The science in this field is full of fraud because it's dominated by leftists who will be punished by their peers for publishing politically incorrect findings.

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

#828

Post by hbrn » Mon, Oct 03, 2022, 6:38 PM UTC

MisterBastahrd wrote: post #815

hbrn wrote: post #807

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would you know it's not a self-fulfilling prophecy? Have you considered that giving the talk and installing the idea that "cops are your enemy" might cause your kids to run away or resist the police, thus unnecessarily escalating what could be a perfectly civil interaction?

Because people aren't pulling themselves over and and shooting themselves. They aren't invading their own homes and shooting themselves. They aren't kneeling on their own chests and asphyxiating themselves. And the simple fact of the matter is that this is a RESPONSE to how cops have treated minorities for generations. Pretending that educating children on how to act around people who have a preconception that the co…

> Because people aren't pulling themselves over and and shooting themselves. They aren't invading their own homes and shooting themselves. They aren't kneeling on their own chests and asphyxiating themselves

Are you aware that for every example you brought up (Rayshard Brooks, Breonna Taylor, George Floyd) there's a recent example of the exact same thing happening to a white person and getting no national attention whatsoever?

Your cherry-picking and emotional response is what leads to polarization in society.

> how cops have treated minorities for generations

No, this is how cops treated everyone.

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

#829

Post by janef0421 » Mon, Oct 03, 2022, 7:17 PM UTC

hbrn wrote: post #818

janef0421 wrote: post #558

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not unreasonable to think that cultural preferences might influence job roles in academia, but in a country with a strong and poorly addressed history of racism, the assumption should be that it results from discrimination. Cultural factor should only be considered if there is strong evidence for them, otherwise they would be used as a rhetorical justification for maintaining discriminatory systems.

> in a country with a strong and poorly addressed history of racism Is there a diverse country that doesn't have a strong history of racism? Is US worse than India, with it's caste system? Is US worse than China, with it's Uyghur genocide? Is US worse than Russia with it's Slavs-only rental ads? Mind you, those are not the examples of past discriminations. Is it possible that the reason you know more about discrimina…

Nothing about my comment indicated any sort of comparison to any other country.

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

#830

Post by Jochim » Mon, Oct 03, 2022, 7:24 PM UTC

philosopher1234 wrote: post #817

Jochim wrote: post #804

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't say the left aren't allowed to have aggression. However, I do think it needs to be directed at the right people. My point was that the right are much more likely to look past things they might disagree with rather than excluding that person entirely. The most obvious example of this being evangelical support for Trump (and other Republicans) despite his numerous affairs. I'm in no way saying that going that…

> My point was that the right are much more likely to look past things they might disagree with rather than excluding that person entirely. Like women who have abortions? Gay people? Trans people? Liberals? Communists? I'm not against flexibility, but IMO the left is far too forgiving, and needs to be much more aggressive. the Trump right is a fascist party, and the left needs to openly recognize that.

> Like women who have abortions? Gay people? Trans people? Liberals? Communists?

Yes. The right are quite ready to entirely ignore pretty much all of that if you're in agreement with them on whatever other issue is currently at hand. Plenty of women on the right have had abortions. Some fairly prominent gay figures would be Dave Rubin and Milo Yiannopoulos. I don't think Blair White needs much introduction either. Ben Shapiro is quite clearly Jewish and regularly reposted by the same kind of guys that were chanting "Jews will not replace us" in Charlottesville. The right are practical beyond the point of hypocrisy when it comes to the topic of the moment.

> I'm not against flexibility, but IMO the left is far too forgiving, and needs to be much more aggressive. the Trump right is a fascist party, and the left needs to openly recognize that.

The left needs to be aggressive in the right way. The right are extremely effective at being extremely hateful while also guiding relatively normal, if sometimes problematic, people down a path that takes them much farther right. From what I've seen, leftists doing the same work to reach out to the uninformed and apathetic are often attacked for a perceived lack ideological purity. I've not seen that kind of behaviour from the right and I think it plays a big part in pushing people away.

Besides, elements of the left are already aggressive, in the wrong way. Personally I think allowing race to supplant class as the primary talking point has been a huge mistake. You essentially alienate a great many people who would otherwise share a common interest by allowing the issue to be morphed into a blame game with fingers pointed across racial lines.