by liberal japonicus
I'm a bit late with this, but I have a few thoughts about Tucker completing his collection of pink slips (CNN, MSNBC and now Fox) It seems to me that rather than an outlier, Carlson's path was, in hindsight, rather predictable, and is a path that others take as well, though none as flamboyantly as him.
This is not about the external, though I would note that there are a number of different theories as to which straw it was, and a quick list would be:
- It was discovering what Carlson had actually said
- It was Tucker finding religion
- He wasn't making that much money for them
- He was too vulgar for the network
However, it seems like a shit-ton of straw. But I'm thinking that the path Tucker followed is not some kind of unique trip, but a sadly common one.
This Atlantic article (I think, it is now behind a paywall, but I think this is the one I read) wondered how a person who was essentially raised within that Washington bubble and someone who could have, with a little more finessing, easily played the role he started out on, as token conservative who was 'just asking questions'. To me, there's an interesting tendency at the bottom of that. People like Carlson back in the day, wanted to be able to simultaneously stand apart from the majority, but wanted to be lauded by it. While we have gotten a Tucker's greatest hits album, with him touching on wokeness, white replacement theory, CRT and a host of other boogeypersons, that's describing where he ended up. This article, discussing Carlson's reporting of George Bush's mocking of Carla Fay Tucker's appeal, is interesting in that regard. Here's what Carlson wrote:
In the week before [Karla Faye Tucker’s] execution, Bush says, Bianca Jagger and a number of other protesters came to Austin to demand clemency for Tucker. “Did you meet with any of them?” I ask. Bush whips around and stares at me. “No, I didn’t meet with any of them,” he snaps, as though I’ve just asked the dumbest, most offensive question ever posed. “I didn’t meet with Larry King either when he came down for it. I watched his interview with [Tucker], though. He asked her real difficult questions, like ‘What would you say to Governor Bush?’ ” “What was her answer?” I wonder. “Please,” Bush whimpers, his lips pursed in mock desperation, “don’t kill me.”
The article writes that Carlson then ran away from that reporting, and it was never mentioned again. But what interests me is that there was Tucker was tapping into, and seemed to want credit for tapping into liberal impulses. Prospect had this bizarre encomium which hails Carlson as a puncturer of social pieties. It's a truly stupid piece when writing about where Carlson is (or at least was until the weekend), it helps illuminate Carlson's path. I don't think the article is wrong in the particulars and it does catch how he was able to carve out his audience, but I'm not sure why Prospect felt like it was important to note this.
As a parallel, think of Matt Taibbi. His book I Can't Breath was a sympathetic account of Eric Garner's death at the hand of the police, and in another reality, one could have imagined him taking up a position as an insightful critic from the left, maintaining his bona fides by throwing some rocks at the other side. It's not like the left is perfect, so there would be the opportunities. Yet now, he's taking point on the twitter files (and getting dismantled). He hasn't crashed as hard as Carlson, but only because he didn't go as high. But the trajectory seems to be the same. And it seems to me that you could identify any number of people who path can be described in the same way. Why is this?
I leave it to the interested reader to come up with more examples, but the arc is to start off as the 'just asking questions' type and when you aren't lionized by the left, go to the right and get people to tell you how good you are because you have rejected that echo chamber. These stories all seem to share a moment when they get their ideas roasted in front of everyone. Jon Stewart famously ripped Carlson apart on CNN. Taibbi had his life in Moscow, which he had held up for the world to see in his co-written memoir entitled The Exile: Sex, Drugs, and Libel in the New Russia, examined and found himself beat over the head with it.
As Tucker goes on to whatever is in store for him, it's something I've been wondering about lately. If my description is accurate, who's next? And if it's not, why is it wrong?
lj — I haven’t done all the reading you have, only headlines over the years. So this is very much off the top of my head.
On the one hand, I would suggest that left/right doesn’t matter the tiniest bit to someone like Carlson. I think what matters to him is basically what you might call adding to the amount of slime in the world, and he’ll take the best opportunities he can to do that, while at the same time getting the concomitant rewards of $ and ego trip.
On the other hand, the yearbook story suggests that he was spreading slime from a right-wing foundation from the start.
Another aspect: what do you imagine is the $ opportunity connected with spreading slime from the left compared to the right? How many left-leaning billionaires (yeah, Soros, ha ha) have been flooding the world with their unimaginable wealth to create a paradise for the ordinary person?
Ummmmmm….
I.e., if you want the big paycheck, you go right.
My impression about Taibbi is that he got pissed off when he was called out for the way he treated women…. But there again, I don’t follow this stuff closely, so I could be very wrong about that.
lj — I haven’t done all the reading you have, only headlines over the years. So this is very much off the top of my head.
On the one hand, I would suggest that left/right doesn’t matter the tiniest bit to someone like Carlson. I think what matters to him is basically what you might call adding to the amount of slime in the world, and he’ll take the best opportunities he can to do that, while at the same time getting the concomitant rewards of $ and ego trip.
On the other hand, the yearbook story suggests that he was spreading slime from a right-wing foundation from the start.
Another aspect: what do you imagine is the $ opportunity connected with spreading slime from the left compared to the right? How many left-leaning billionaires (yeah, Soros, ha ha) have been flooding the world with their unimaginable wealth to create a paradise for the ordinary person?
Ummmmmm….
I.e., if you want the big paycheck, you go right.
My impression about Taibbi is that he got pissed off when he was called out for the way he treated women…. But there again, I don’t follow this stuff closely, so I could be very wrong about that.
Tabbi routinely and effectively takes down the Progressive Left’s pronounced authoritarian, anti-constitutional craving for silencing disagreement. He juxtaposes the left of the past with the left of the here and now. It’s not a pretty picture. Content moderation, USG, sensitivity readers re-writing history and literature, word police and so on. He, Freddie DeBoer and others ‘of the left’ remember their roots and aren’t cowed into the now mandatory thought conformity. Below is an example of Tabbi’s current work. This is why the current Progressive Establishment can’t stand him.
https://www.racket.news/p/america-the-single-opinion-cult?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=1042&post_id=117376638&isFreemail=true&utm_medium=email
Tabbi routinely and effectively takes down the Progressive Left’s pronounced authoritarian, anti-constitutional craving for silencing disagreement. He juxtaposes the left of the past with the left of the here and now. It’s not a pretty picture. Content moderation, USG, sensitivity readers re-writing history and literature, word police and so on. He, Freddie DeBoer and others ‘of the left’ remember their roots and aren’t cowed into the now mandatory thought conformity. Below is an example of Tabbi’s current work. This is why the current Progressive Establishment can’t stand him.
https://www.racket.news/p/america-the-single-opinion-cult?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=1042&post_id=117376638&isFreemail=true&utm_medium=email
I can understand someone undergoing an ideological shift, but what is incomprehensible to me is watching somebody who used to write some good solid stuff now putting out absolute drivel
I can understand someone undergoing an ideological shift, but what is incomprehensible to me is watching somebody who used to write some good solid stuff now putting out absolute drivel
On the one hand, I would suggest that left/right doesn’t matter the tiniest bit to someone like Carlson. I think what matters to him is basically what you might call adding to the amount of slime in the world, and he’ll take the best opportunities he can to do that, while at the same time getting the concomitant rewards of $ and ego trip.
I think you’ve got this backwards. The money and the ego trip are the whole point. Getting to spread slime is merely a side benefit — if he could (had the skills) to get the money a different way, he’d do that instead.
On the one hand, I would suggest that left/right doesn’t matter the tiniest bit to someone like Carlson. I think what matters to him is basically what you might call adding to the amount of slime in the world, and he’ll take the best opportunities he can to do that, while at the same time getting the concomitant rewards of $ and ego trip.
I think you’ve got this backwards. The money and the ego trip are the whole point. Getting to spread slime is merely a side benefit — if he could (had the skills) to get the money a different way, he’d do that instead.
What’s this? Pot calls kettle black.
But it all comes down to this: If you are “afraid” to say what you really think in this country today then the problem is with you and not some mythological “authoritarian left”.
What’s this? Pot calls kettle black.
But it all comes down to this: If you are “afraid” to say what you really think in this country today then the problem is with you and not some mythological “authoritarian left”.
Texas, bastion of FREEDUM!
Somehow, McKinney has never mentioned these developments-now why is that?
Texas, bastion of FREEDUM!
Somehow, McKinney has never mentioned these developments-now why is that?
Both Carlson and Taibbi make perfect sense once you realize that they are both basically Gen X frat boy edgelords that refused to grow up. Taibbi is the older version of every Christian Slater rebel character from the late 80s after they hit their midlife crisis. Carlson is just William F. Buckley if Buckley were being played by Sam Kinison. It’s Howard Stern hijinks for the age of ubiquitous media. There’s really not much more depth to it than that. They both grew to prominence being edgelords and modeling a sort of aspirational punkishness for insecure boys and the girls who want them. If you watched a ton of 80s teen movies in the 80s (and who with a video rental membership did not?) then you know the type intimately.
They are the ginger faction instigators that stir the shit and move the plot towards the conflict.
What both have in common is a hubris too big to submit to an editorial process. And in this current media ecology that is an exploitable niche so long as there are slow witted assholes looking for someone to model the role and feed them the punchlines, and a halo of others sitting on the couch and enjoying watching the targets of these assholes getting “triggered.”
I have no time for fans of either of these tragic vacuoles.
Both Carlson and Taibbi make perfect sense once you realize that they are both basically Gen X frat boy edgelords that refused to grow up. Taibbi is the older version of every Christian Slater rebel character from the late 80s after they hit their midlife crisis. Carlson is just William F. Buckley if Buckley were being played by Sam Kinison. It’s Howard Stern hijinks for the age of ubiquitous media. There’s really not much more depth to it than that. They both grew to prominence being edgelords and modeling a sort of aspirational punkishness for insecure boys and the girls who want them. If you watched a ton of 80s teen movies in the 80s (and who with a video rental membership did not?) then you know the type intimately.
They are the ginger faction instigators that stir the shit and move the plot towards the conflict.
What both have in common is a hubris too big to submit to an editorial process. And in this current media ecology that is an exploitable niche so long as there are slow witted assholes looking for someone to model the role and feed them the punchlines, and a halo of others sitting on the couch and enjoying watching the targets of these assholes getting “triggered.”
I have no time for fans of either of these tragic vacuoles.
I have no time for fans of either of these tragic vacuoles.
I know so little of Taibbi, and don’t read/see most of the media outlets in which he features, so I have no strong feelings about him except my reaction as it happens to any pieces of his I am alerted to.
But, and I realise this is far from a good look, I actually despise anybody who likes or listens to Carlson. It’s not just his appalling views, and his rabble-rousing, although God knows they are despicable. But I can’t understand how someone watching him could be fooled for a minute by his ridiculous affect*, for example his faux-sincere puzzlement, or his weird laughing. They and his other mannerisms shout “bad actor” to me so loudly, that I think you’d have to be a moron to think him anything other than a mediocre actor and/or scam artist.
* I use affect here in its somewhat rarer meaning as a noun, which is to say “a display of emotion”. Or in this case, a fake display of emotion.
I have no time for fans of either of these tragic vacuoles.
I know so little of Taibbi, and don’t read/see most of the media outlets in which he features, so I have no strong feelings about him except my reaction as it happens to any pieces of his I am alerted to.
But, and I realise this is far from a good look, I actually despise anybody who likes or listens to Carlson. It’s not just his appalling views, and his rabble-rousing, although God knows they are despicable. But I can’t understand how someone watching him could be fooled for a minute by his ridiculous affect*, for example his faux-sincere puzzlement, or his weird laughing. They and his other mannerisms shout “bad actor” to me so loudly, that I think you’d have to be a moron to think him anything other than a mediocre actor and/or scam artist.
* I use affect here in its somewhat rarer meaning as a noun, which is to say “a display of emotion”. Or in this case, a fake display of emotion.
I don’t think his fans are fooled by his affect. I think they look at his act and think, “hey, I can steal that line and piss off a lot of snowflakes myself. Because eff ’em.”
I don’t think his fans are fooled by his affect. I think they look at his act and think, “hey, I can steal that line and piss off a lot of snowflakes myself. Because eff ’em.”
Kimberly Guilfoyle followed a similar arc. Left her days as a prosecutor in California behind her and moved to New York to be a personality. Worked a couple of jobs then landed at Fox. When Fox fired her, moved straight into big-time right-wing grifting. In her personal life after the move, divorced Gavin Newsom and started pursuing heirs of billionaires.
Kimberly Guilfoyle followed a similar arc. Left her days as a prosecutor in California behind her and moved to New York to be a personality. Worked a couple of jobs then landed at Fox. When Fox fired her, moved straight into big-time right-wing grifting. In her personal life after the move, divorced Gavin Newsom and started pursuing heirs of billionaires.
She’s the right age to fit in that company. Carlson, Taibbi, Guilfoyle, Drudge…all born between ’66 and ’70. Could have all been in high school together if geography had a sick sense of humor. Kind of a Lose Your Breakfast Club.
She’s the right age to fit in that company. Carlson, Taibbi, Guilfoyle, Drudge…all born between ’66 and ’70. Could have all been in high school together if geography had a sick sense of humor. Kind of a Lose Your Breakfast Club.
I love that our own herald of epistemic closure is waving the flag of Freddie DeBoer.
http://tigerbeatdown.com/2010/04/09/why-tiger-beatdown-has-jokes-on-it-turns-out-some-motherfucker-had-to-ask-me/
But how did he miss Jordan Peterson?
I love that our own herald of epistemic closure is waving the flag of Freddie DeBoer.
http://tigerbeatdown.com/2010/04/09/why-tiger-beatdown-has-jokes-on-it-turns-out-some-motherfucker-had-to-ask-me/
But how did he miss Jordan Peterson?
Freddie. Honestly. I almost fell off my chair when I read that paragraph this morning. Now you have me laughing all over again. Thanks for the Tiger Beatdown post.
Freddie. Honestly. I almost fell off my chair when I read that paragraph this morning. Now you have me laughing all over again. Thanks for the Tiger Beatdown post.
I was torn between that one and this
http://tigerbeatdown.com/2010/04/11/boners-for-fun-and-profit-the-extent-to-which-you-dont-care-about-boners-revealed/
I was torn between that one and this
http://tigerbeatdown.com/2010/04/11/boners-for-fun-and-profit-the-extent-to-which-you-dont-care-about-boners-revealed/
@lj: I gotta say, it was an era where people did go on and on and on!
@lj: I gotta say, it was an era where people did go on and on and on!
I largely agree with Taibbi. Here is a counter to the Mehdi Hassan criticism.
https://www.leefang.com/p/msnbcs-mehdi-hasan-gets-basic-facts
My main disagreement with Taibbi is that I think the press has always been unreliable on some issues. Taibbi talks like it has gotten worse but that is mostly about partisan politics in the US. In general the press does some good work and they also do some really awful work and they have often been a conduit for “disinformation”fed to them by our government, especially from the intelligence world.. One hilariously stupid example was when the Hunter Biden laptop story was said to bear all the hallmarks of a Russian disinformation operation according to 50 or so geniuses from the intelligence world.
Any serious investigation into disinformation ( I hate that word) would look at the incestuous relationship between news organizations, corporate funded think tanks, and government officials. If it just focuses on foreign countries, and only the ones designated as our enemies, then it is just going to be yet another form of propaganda.
Here is a piece that is somewhat sympathetic to Hamilton 68
https://www.businessinsider.com/what-is-hamilton-68-russian-online-influence-tracker-2023-2
Note which countries are the scary villains and how apparently we need to track people who might be subconsciously influenced by their propaganda, as evidenced by the fact that they say the sorts of things the evil country might say. Yeah, nothing problematic about that. Maybe we should track everyone who has views that echo those of some foreign government with a dubious human rights record. You might end up tracking virtually everyone in Congress.
I largely agree with Taibbi. Here is a counter to the Mehdi Hassan criticism.
https://www.leefang.com/p/msnbcs-mehdi-hasan-gets-basic-facts
My main disagreement with Taibbi is that I think the press has always been unreliable on some issues. Taibbi talks like it has gotten worse but that is mostly about partisan politics in the US. In general the press does some good work and they also do some really awful work and they have often been a conduit for “disinformation”fed to them by our government, especially from the intelligence world.. One hilariously stupid example was when the Hunter Biden laptop story was said to bear all the hallmarks of a Russian disinformation operation according to 50 or so geniuses from the intelligence world.
Any serious investigation into disinformation ( I hate that word) would look at the incestuous relationship between news organizations, corporate funded think tanks, and government officials. If it just focuses on foreign countries, and only the ones designated as our enemies, then it is just going to be yet another form of propaganda.
Here is a piece that is somewhat sympathetic to Hamilton 68
https://www.businessinsider.com/what-is-hamilton-68-russian-online-influence-tracker-2023-2
Note which countries are the scary villains and how apparently we need to track people who might be subconsciously influenced by their propaganda, as evidenced by the fact that they say the sorts of things the evil country might say. Yeah, nothing problematic about that. Maybe we should track everyone who has views that echo those of some foreign government with a dubious human rights record. You might end up tracking virtually everyone in Congress.
Apropos of nothing, the etymology of disinformation is interesting
https://www.historyofinformation.com/detail.php?id=5069
“Stalin gave the department what he thought was French-sounding name in order to claim the name had a Western origin.”
Apropos of nothing, the etymology of disinformation is interesting
https://www.historyofinformation.com/detail.php?id=5069
“Stalin gave the department what he thought was French-sounding name in order to claim the name had a Western origin.”
I largely agree with Taibbi.
With all due respect, Donald, I do not. Musk released those twitter files to Taibbi and the following:
1. Lee Fang. Seems to be a refugee from the Intercept. Appears to be a leftist, but I am not familiar with his work. I clicked on the link to Eric Holder’s “wild conspiracy theory” and let us say I was unimpressed. Some of the other links were similarly not persuasive.
2. Michael Shelleberger. This guy asserted trans activists are “in the grip of a woke cult that rests upon the denial of sex.” Crank.
3. David Zweig. Anti CDC crank.
4. Alex Berenson. Unchallenged holder as “the pandemic’s wrongest man”. Crank.
5. Bari Weiss. Fascist.
Given this lineup, the whole enterprise stinks to high heaven. I used to read his stuff back in the days when he was taking on Goldman Sachs, but now Taibbi is mixing in with some really bad company.
Respectfully,
I largely agree with Taibbi.
With all due respect, Donald, I do not. Musk released those twitter files to Taibbi and the following:
1. Lee Fang. Seems to be a refugee from the Intercept. Appears to be a leftist, but I am not familiar with his work. I clicked on the link to Eric Holder’s “wild conspiracy theory” and let us say I was unimpressed. Some of the other links were similarly not persuasive.
2. Michael Shelleberger. This guy asserted trans activists are “in the grip of a woke cult that rests upon the denial of sex.” Crank.
3. David Zweig. Anti CDC crank.
4. Alex Berenson. Unchallenged holder as “the pandemic’s wrongest man”. Crank.
5. Bari Weiss. Fascist.
Given this lineup, the whole enterprise stinks to high heaven. I used to read his stuff back in the days when he was taking on Goldman Sachs, but now Taibbi is mixing in with some really bad company.
Respectfully,
Note which countries are the scary villains and how apparently we need to track people who might be subconsciously influenced by their propaganda, as evidenced by the fact that they say the sorts of things the evil country might say. Yeah, nothing problematic about that. Maybe we should track everyone who has views that echo those of some foreign government with a dubious human rights record. You might end up tracking virtually everyone in Congress.
As usual, I largely share your concerns here, Donald, but that does not preclude me thinking that Taibbi is being (and enjoying being) a shallow gadfly and a polemicist on this.
The Alliance for Securing Democracy seems to be full of neoliberal statist types who see themselves as important defenders of institutionalism. That certainly colors their approach to the project and some biases get baked into the way that they talk about the data. That deserves scrutiny. I’d also be concerned if I found that they had been passing information about those accounts over to the state national security aparatus so that the government could surveil the people who owned these accounts.
Is that happening? Don’t know. Taibbi certainly treats the database as if this should be our main worry, and does his best to frame the owners of these accounts as victims of some sort of Deep State witch hunt.
But the data being aggregated here is public data. And the Alliance is an NGO. And what they are reporting here is how disinformation that originates in known foreign state organizations gets propagated on social media.
From that standpoint it does not matter if JordanPetersonFan (made up name, though there is probably someone using that handle) is actually an account created by the Iternet Research Agency to mimic a US citizen with contrarian leanings and amplify their propaganda, or if it is a real US citizen with contrarian leanings who has shit media literacy skills and a taste for IRS propaganda. Real or not, they function in identical ways.
I’d have no problem with Taibbi if he were to say that he’d followed up on Hamilton 68 and found that some of the people that the ASD were claiming were Russian bots were actually just people who consistently, but unwittingly passed on memes and stories that originated with the IRS because they agreed with the anti-government spin, and that we should be skeptical of the size being reported for these “Russian disinformation networks.” But that’s not what Taibbi does. Taibbi mostly uses his platform to try to undercut trust in mainstream media and to amplify paranoia about the Deep State, and he pals around with hacks like Weiss to build his brand and (I believe) exact some measure of revenge against the editors who (he believes) betrayed him.
Note which countries are the scary villains and how apparently we need to track people who might be subconsciously influenced by their propaganda, as evidenced by the fact that they say the sorts of things the evil country might say. Yeah, nothing problematic about that. Maybe we should track everyone who has views that echo those of some foreign government with a dubious human rights record. You might end up tracking virtually everyone in Congress.
As usual, I largely share your concerns here, Donald, but that does not preclude me thinking that Taibbi is being (and enjoying being) a shallow gadfly and a polemicist on this.
The Alliance for Securing Democracy seems to be full of neoliberal statist types who see themselves as important defenders of institutionalism. That certainly colors their approach to the project and some biases get baked into the way that they talk about the data. That deserves scrutiny. I’d also be concerned if I found that they had been passing information about those accounts over to the state national security aparatus so that the government could surveil the people who owned these accounts.
Is that happening? Don’t know. Taibbi certainly treats the database as if this should be our main worry, and does his best to frame the owners of these accounts as victims of some sort of Deep State witch hunt.
But the data being aggregated here is public data. And the Alliance is an NGO. And what they are reporting here is how disinformation that originates in known foreign state organizations gets propagated on social media.
From that standpoint it does not matter if JordanPetersonFan (made up name, though there is probably someone using that handle) is actually an account created by the Iternet Research Agency to mimic a US citizen with contrarian leanings and amplify their propaganda, or if it is a real US citizen with contrarian leanings who has shit media literacy skills and a taste for IRS propaganda. Real or not, they function in identical ways.
I’d have no problem with Taibbi if he were to say that he’d followed up on Hamilton 68 and found that some of the people that the ASD were claiming were Russian bots were actually just people who consistently, but unwittingly passed on memes and stories that originated with the IRS because they agreed with the anti-government spin, and that we should be skeptical of the size being reported for these “Russian disinformation networks.” But that’s not what Taibbi does. Taibbi mostly uses his platform to try to undercut trust in mainstream media and to amplify paranoia about the Deep State, and he pals around with hacks like Weiss to build his brand and (I believe) exact some measure of revenge against the editors who (he believes) betrayed him.
Bobbyp
I don’t agree with that sort of reasoning, where you go down a list of people and dismiss their arguments because of their other positions or general ideological stance. You put yourself in a bubble doing that.
For example, I have never liked Bari Weiss because of her early history going after Palestinian professors. It is ironic to see her as a supposed champion of free speech. But I would judge her current arguments based on their merits. As it happens, I haven’t read much of what she has said on these issues but based on secondhand references I would probably agree with some of it.
There isn’t anybody I agree with 100 percent of the time. And even people I might reelly dislike could be right on occasion.
I don’t think Taibbi has changed much. Yeah, Musk released the files. Musk is a jackass. So what? Musk’s own commitment to free speech is dubious at best. That doesn’t discredit the Twitter Files.
I think liberals went off the deep end on Russiagate and I don’t have to like Trump to think that even a seriously screwed up and nasty human being could be falsely accused of being a Russian agent. And I strongly disagree with the notion that one can trust any group ( and certainly not the MSM or any government) to be the trustworthy judges of which opinions are valid. Labeling people as unwitting agents of the current US enemy is deeply repugnant. Leftists of all people should know better than to tolerate this crap.
I think Taibbi’s own approach is not perfect, and he has in fact said it has gotten personal with him. Again, though, I don’t much care. You can probably find mixed motives with everyone. For people who work in the msm, they probably have to toe the line on certain issues.
I have cut way back on my internet ranting as I have said most of what I want to say, but on the issues I rant about, Western officials are deeply hypocritical, take absurd positions, and are mostly allowed to do so without much challenge by the press, which largely passes on what they claim without much pushback. Again, they can do good work. But they can also function almost as state media.
Bobbyp
I don’t agree with that sort of reasoning, where you go down a list of people and dismiss their arguments because of their other positions or general ideological stance. You put yourself in a bubble doing that.
For example, I have never liked Bari Weiss because of her early history going after Palestinian professors. It is ironic to see her as a supposed champion of free speech. But I would judge her current arguments based on their merits. As it happens, I haven’t read much of what she has said on these issues but based on secondhand references I would probably agree with some of it.
There isn’t anybody I agree with 100 percent of the time. And even people I might reelly dislike could be right on occasion.
I don’t think Taibbi has changed much. Yeah, Musk released the files. Musk is a jackass. So what? Musk’s own commitment to free speech is dubious at best. That doesn’t discredit the Twitter Files.
I think liberals went off the deep end on Russiagate and I don’t have to like Trump to think that even a seriously screwed up and nasty human being could be falsely accused of being a Russian agent. And I strongly disagree with the notion that one can trust any group ( and certainly not the MSM or any government) to be the trustworthy judges of which opinions are valid. Labeling people as unwitting agents of the current US enemy is deeply repugnant. Leftists of all people should know better than to tolerate this crap.
I think Taibbi’s own approach is not perfect, and he has in fact said it has gotten personal with him. Again, though, I don’t much care. You can probably find mixed motives with everyone. For people who work in the msm, they probably have to toe the line on certain issues.
I have cut way back on my internet ranting as I have said most of what I want to say, but on the issues I rant about, Western officials are deeply hypocritical, take absurd positions, and are mostly allowed to do so without much challenge by the press, which largely passes on what they claim without much pushback. Again, they can do good work. But they can also function almost as state media.
I don’t agree with that sort of reasoning, where you go down a list of people and dismiss their arguments because of their other positions or general ideological stance. You put yourself in a bubble doing that.
For example, I have never liked Bari Weiss because of her early history going after Palestinian professors. It is ironic to see her as a supposed champion of free speech. But I would judge her current arguments based on their merits. As it happens, I haven’t read much of what she has said on these issues but based on secondhand references I would probably agree with some of it.
Donald, you describe something that I also have a problem with. I dislike dismissing someone’s argument because they also believe other things with which I disagree. I try, as much as possible, to examine someone’s argument or view on its own merits, because that seems intellectually more rigorous, and I have frequently got into trouble (even here) by doing so. But it’s not just intellectual rigour; as you say, doing the opposite has a tendency to put (or keep) one in a bubble.
I have always objected to what I called the phenomenon of “cluster of ideas” or “cluster of attitudes”. I have had this fight with people on the left, and on the right. People (and their views, and attitudes) are complicated. In my opinion, it is good (and necessary) to engage with that.
I don’t agree with that sort of reasoning, where you go down a list of people and dismiss their arguments because of their other positions or general ideological stance. You put yourself in a bubble doing that.
For example, I have never liked Bari Weiss because of her early history going after Palestinian professors. It is ironic to see her as a supposed champion of free speech. But I would judge her current arguments based on their merits. As it happens, I haven’t read much of what she has said on these issues but based on secondhand references I would probably agree with some of it.
Donald, you describe something that I also have a problem with. I dislike dismissing someone’s argument because they also believe other things with which I disagree. I try, as much as possible, to examine someone’s argument or view on its own merits, because that seems intellectually more rigorous, and I have frequently got into trouble (even here) by doing so. But it’s not just intellectual rigour; as you say, doing the opposite has a tendency to put (or keep) one in a bubble.
I have always objected to what I called the phenomenon of “cluster of ideas” or “cluster of attitudes”. I have had this fight with people on the left, and on the right. People (and their views, and attitudes) are complicated. In my opinion, it is good (and necessary) to engage with that.
What annoys me is that so much of the reaction to someone’s thoughts seems to be more about what pose the author is taking rather than what was said. I don’t care if Carlson was trying to prove some credentials with some group, or if he was trying to be the an “insightful” person by being a “puncturer of social pieties.” NOus is right upthread: Tucker is a poser.
To me, that’s not what matters. What matters is that Carlson and the other grifters are professional haters. Their role is to do to us waht Goebbels did: derive for themselves power and money by promoting hate.
As for the authoritarianism of the left: BS. Yes, college students object to cranks, weirds, grifters and professional haters coming to campus. They have a right to do this. A campus is a platform and the university decides who gets to use it. No one is entitled to access. There is no obligation to anyone to let them use the university platform. The university, on the other hand, has an obligation to establish criteria to use for choosing who they allow on their platforms. ANd that criteria shouldn’t be, “Let some rightwing hater come here so we can show we aren’t prejudiced against conservatives.” It isn’t the fault of universities that contemporary conservativism is dominated by freaks and con artists and hate propagandists. Conservative need to stop promoting these creeps and find some conservatives who aren’t morally-stunted intellectually dishonest exploiters of the worse in human nature. If they can.
What annoys me is that so much of the reaction to someone’s thoughts seems to be more about what pose the author is taking rather than what was said. I don’t care if Carlson was trying to prove some credentials with some group, or if he was trying to be the an “insightful” person by being a “puncturer of social pieties.” NOus is right upthread: Tucker is a poser.
To me, that’s not what matters. What matters is that Carlson and the other grifters are professional haters. Their role is to do to us waht Goebbels did: derive for themselves power and money by promoting hate.
As for the authoritarianism of the left: BS. Yes, college students object to cranks, weirds, grifters and professional haters coming to campus. They have a right to do this. A campus is a platform and the university decides who gets to use it. No one is entitled to access. There is no obligation to anyone to let them use the university platform. The university, on the other hand, has an obligation to establish criteria to use for choosing who they allow on their platforms. ANd that criteria shouldn’t be, “Let some rightwing hater come here so we can show we aren’t prejudiced against conservatives.” It isn’t the fault of universities that contemporary conservativism is dominated by freaks and con artists and hate propagandists. Conservative need to stop promoting these creeps and find some conservatives who aren’t morally-stunted intellectually dishonest exploiters of the worse in human nature. If they can.
Yes, college students object to cranks, weirds, grifters and professional haters coming to campus. They have a right to do this.
But once a university agrees to let someone speak, the students don’t have a right to a heckler’s veto. Such as creating disruptions so the speaker can’t speak. And sometimes physically assaulting the speaker or the people who came to hear them.
Yes, college students object to cranks, weirds, grifters and professional haters coming to campus. They have a right to do this.
But once a university agrees to let someone speak, the students don’t have a right to a heckler’s veto. Such as creating disruptions so the speaker can’t speak. And sometimes physically assaulting the speaker or the people who came to hear them.
CharlesWT – I wish it were that simple, but it isn’t. We both know that the groups who invite these provocative speakers have no interest whatsoever in hearing what they have to say, having already heard what they have to say over and over again. The invitation is extended to the provocative speaker precisely to provoke a confrontation with fingers crossed that it will all make the news and let the people who invited the speaker grab some airtime and pose as victims.
That’s the game.
And what I resent about this cynical game is that every time another round of it gets scheduled, another campus gets swarmed by third party hoodlums who are just there for the conflict. It’s like football ultras only with a layer of martyr narrative baked in. And every time it happens the likelihood of someone getting seriously hurt or killed on campus goes up.
It’s got jack all to do with free speech.
CharlesWT – I wish it were that simple, but it isn’t. We both know that the groups who invite these provocative speakers have no interest whatsoever in hearing what they have to say, having already heard what they have to say over and over again. The invitation is extended to the provocative speaker precisely to provoke a confrontation with fingers crossed that it will all make the news and let the people who invited the speaker grab some airtime and pose as victims.
That’s the game.
And what I resent about this cynical game is that every time another round of it gets scheduled, another campus gets swarmed by third party hoodlums who are just there for the conflict. It’s like football ultras only with a layer of martyr narrative baked in. And every time it happens the likelihood of someone getting seriously hurt or killed on campus goes up.
It’s got jack all to do with free speech.
Conservative need to stop promoting these creeps and find some conservatives who aren’t morally-stunted intellectually dishonest exploiters of the worse in human nature. If they can.
It might be nice if someone (perhaps even a liberal group, if no conservative campus group will do it) were to invite someone like Cheney or Kinzinger to talk about Jan 6. Or a couple of the Republican legislators** from South Carolina to talk about (anti-)abortion legislation.
Nobody can argue that these are flaming liberals. But they could offer some interesting perspectives.
** Obviously the ones who voted No.
Conservative need to stop promoting these creeps and find some conservatives who aren’t morally-stunted intellectually dishonest exploiters of the worse in human nature. If they can.
It might be nice if someone (perhaps even a liberal group, if no conservative campus group will do it) were to invite someone like Cheney or Kinzinger to talk about Jan 6. Or a couple of the Republican legislators** from South Carolina to talk about (anti-)abortion legislation.
Nobody can argue that these are flaming liberals. But they could offer some interesting perspectives.
** Obviously the ones who voted No.
The invitation is extended to the provocative speaker precisely to provoke a confrontation with fingers crossed that it will all make the news and let the people who invited the speaker grab some airtime and pose as victims.
And a pox on both sides for dangling the bait and for taking it.
But there are times when a speaker who most people wouldn’t consider all that controversial will get subjected to a heckler’s veto.
The invitation is extended to the provocative speaker precisely to provoke a confrontation with fingers crossed that it will all make the news and let the people who invited the speaker grab some airtime and pose as victims.
And a pox on both sides for dangling the bait and for taking it.
But there are times when a speaker who most people wouldn’t consider all that controversial will get subjected to a heckler’s veto.
there are times when a speaker who most people wouldn’t consider all that controversial will get subjected to a heckler’s veto.
At any large university, you can find somebody who will object to almost anything. And, I remember vividly from my own university days, there are always some kids who will show up just for the excitement. Demonstration, riot, whatever — they’ll turn out, swell the crowd and amplify the yelling. Without knowing, or caring, what the supposed issue is.
there are times when a speaker who most people wouldn’t consider all that controversial will get subjected to a heckler’s veto.
At any large university, you can find somebody who will object to almost anything. And, I remember vividly from my own university days, there are always some kids who will show up just for the excitement. Demonstration, riot, whatever — they’ll turn out, swell the crowd and amplify the yelling. Without knowing, or caring, what the supposed issue is.
Interesting stuff. Taibbi reminds me of Kurt Vonnegut’s warning in Mother Night
“We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be.”
Taibbi pretended to be a clone of Hunter S. Thompson and it bit him in the ass. It’s unfortunate, as I said, his book about Eric Garner is a great read and it would be have been wonderful if that had been lifted up. And maybe if he had a crystal ball, he might have taken a step back from Mark Ames. But then again, he might not have gotten an attention and never been in a position to write that book.
Double checking on Wikipedia about Ames and what he is doing, some things come up that I think relate to my question. Here’s what he said about his time as a student as Berkeley
was a student at Berkeley in the late Reagan years. We had a lot of ideas back then, big dreams about getting famous and destroying the “Beigeocracy” that we thought stifled and controlled American Letters. Everything seemed possible then: world war, literary fame … Anyway, something Really Big, with us at the center of it all. We’d ridicule the boring lefties, our enemies. We’d drop all sorts of drugs and go to the underground shows: Scratch Acid, Hüsker Dü, Sonic Youth. It felt like something might happen, and soon.
juxtaposed with a review of the book that Taibbi has renounced, but Ames has (I think) argued that it was more true than false
The product of Ames and Taibbi’s union is rude, cruel, pornographic, self-aggrandizing, infantile, and breathtakingly misogynist, with a dozen pages of news and another dozen of gonzo entertainment listings. It’s also one of the biggest success stories of the tiny, incestuous world of expatriate Moscow. Pranks are sharper – and meaner – than others, but they’re all conceived under a towering belief in the righteousness of the paper’s mission. The eXile has kept up a holy racket, railing away against stupidity, corruption, and influence peddling . . . It has covered mind-numbingly complex topics like privatization in a straightforward style that’s not only comprehensible but actually interesting to a reader with no background in Russian economic history and little enthusiasm for acquiring one.
more background here
https://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2010/02/exile-201002
While I don’t look at Tucker and think I could have been like him, I look at Taibbi and think that if I had found a similar niche, I could have been on that same path.
Interesting stuff. Taibbi reminds me of Kurt Vonnegut’s warning in Mother Night
“We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be.”
Taibbi pretended to be a clone of Hunter S. Thompson and it bit him in the ass. It’s unfortunate, as I said, his book about Eric Garner is a great read and it would be have been wonderful if that had been lifted up. And maybe if he had a crystal ball, he might have taken a step back from Mark Ames. But then again, he might not have gotten an attention and never been in a position to write that book.
Double checking on Wikipedia about Ames and what he is doing, some things come up that I think relate to my question. Here’s what he said about his time as a student as Berkeley
was a student at Berkeley in the late Reagan years. We had a lot of ideas back then, big dreams about getting famous and destroying the “Beigeocracy” that we thought stifled and controlled American Letters. Everything seemed possible then: world war, literary fame … Anyway, something Really Big, with us at the center of it all. We’d ridicule the boring lefties, our enemies. We’d drop all sorts of drugs and go to the underground shows: Scratch Acid, Hüsker Dü, Sonic Youth. It felt like something might happen, and soon.
juxtaposed with a review of the book that Taibbi has renounced, but Ames has (I think) argued that it was more true than false
The product of Ames and Taibbi’s union is rude, cruel, pornographic, self-aggrandizing, infantile, and breathtakingly misogynist, with a dozen pages of news and another dozen of gonzo entertainment listings. It’s also one of the biggest success stories of the tiny, incestuous world of expatriate Moscow. Pranks are sharper – and meaner – than others, but they’re all conceived under a towering belief in the righteousness of the paper’s mission. The eXile has kept up a holy racket, railing away against stupidity, corruption, and influence peddling . . . It has covered mind-numbingly complex topics like privatization in a straightforward style that’s not only comprehensible but actually interesting to a reader with no background in Russian economic history and little enthusiasm for acquiring one.
more background here
https://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2010/02/exile-201002
While I don’t look at Tucker and think I could have been like him, I look at Taibbi and think that if I had found a similar niche, I could have been on that same path.
I don’t know what Taibbi actually did in the 90’s, but remember just how acceptable misogynist thinking was back then. Think of how Bill Clinton was defended at the time. Taibbi was the Hunter Thompson version of this.
I have never liked the Hunter Thompson style very much— he was a brilliant writer, but I just don’t find that behavior admirable. It’s also boring. About the only version of this that I do find funny is the Big Lebowski movie, but there is nothing mean spirited or nasty in the main character or his pals. Taibbi probably did think he was like Hunter. I don’t know how far he went in reality. And none of this means he is wrong today. Liberals were fine with Taibbi in recent years when he was writing about police brutality and Wall Street corruption.
Anyway, my own reaction to the notion that the press can’t be trusted is to think that this is obvious. You have to take them on a case by case basis. I think the NYT is a master at lying by omission and yeah, I have specific examples in mind. But I limit my internet activity these days.
GFTNC— Agreed. People on the left, right, and center all tend to exist in bubbles and it is hard to step back and ask if those otherwise wrong people might be right about this particular issue.
I don’t know what Taibbi actually did in the 90’s, but remember just how acceptable misogynist thinking was back then. Think of how Bill Clinton was defended at the time. Taibbi was the Hunter Thompson version of this.
I have never liked the Hunter Thompson style very much— he was a brilliant writer, but I just don’t find that behavior admirable. It’s also boring. About the only version of this that I do find funny is the Big Lebowski movie, but there is nothing mean spirited or nasty in the main character or his pals. Taibbi probably did think he was like Hunter. I don’t know how far he went in reality. And none of this means he is wrong today. Liberals were fine with Taibbi in recent years when he was writing about police brutality and Wall Street corruption.
Anyway, my own reaction to the notion that the press can’t be trusted is to think that this is obvious. You have to take them on a case by case basis. I think the NYT is a master at lying by omission and yeah, I have specific examples in mind. But I limit my internet activity these days.
GFTNC— Agreed. People on the left, right, and center all tend to exist in bubbles and it is hard to step back and ask if those otherwise wrong people might be right about this particular issue.
I don’t agree with that sort of reasoning, where you go down a list of people and dismiss their arguments because of their other positions or general ideological stance. You put yourself in a bubble doing that.
I merely point out that Musk, noted civil libertarian (LOL) that he is, set up this whole enterprise with a certain purpose-based as it was on the premise of government malfeasance and who he chose to go through this trove of data. There was not one among that disreuputable bunch of journalistic “deep state” gunslingers who does not routinely bring their finely honed axes to a political fray.
And I am to begin by giving them the benefit of the doubt? Pointing this out is eminently reasonable.
I read the Fang article. It was garbage.
Did you read my link above at 10:24 4/29?
Here’s another:
https://www.cip.uw.edu/2023/03/16/uw-cip-election-integrity-partnership-research-claims/
If you want to believe Taibbi, go ahead and make the case, but the premise that the government is “usually lying” is as much an ideological blinder as any rabbit hole I have had to climb out of (been there more than once!).
I agree with you most of the time, but as I stated previously, this whole enterprise stinks to high heaven for some rather obvious reasons, and I also enjoy my bubble very much. After all, that is what they are for.
Have a nice day.
I don’t agree with that sort of reasoning, where you go down a list of people and dismiss their arguments because of their other positions or general ideological stance. You put yourself in a bubble doing that.
I merely point out that Musk, noted civil libertarian (LOL) that he is, set up this whole enterprise with a certain purpose-based as it was on the premise of government malfeasance and who he chose to go through this trove of data. There was not one among that disreuputable bunch of journalistic “deep state” gunslingers who does not routinely bring their finely honed axes to a political fray.
And I am to begin by giving them the benefit of the doubt? Pointing this out is eminently reasonable.
I read the Fang article. It was garbage.
Did you read my link above at 10:24 4/29?
Here’s another:
https://www.cip.uw.edu/2023/03/16/uw-cip-election-integrity-partnership-research-claims/
If you want to believe Taibbi, go ahead and make the case, but the premise that the government is “usually lying” is as much an ideological blinder as any rabbit hole I have had to climb out of (been there more than once!).
I agree with you most of the time, but as I stated previously, this whole enterprise stinks to high heaven for some rather obvious reasons, and I also enjoy my bubble very much. After all, that is what they are for.
Have a nice day.
Both Taibbi and Weiss are consistently disingenuous in their framing of issues. If you pay close attention you can see the way that their writing goes from solid source evidence to unwarranted conclusions by way of a biased mischaracterization of what is being reported upon.
Bubbles are absolutely a danger. If you must read either Weiss or Taibbi, do so with an eye toward finding their sources and reading them first before going on to read what either of these questionable individuals have to say about them.
Both Taibbi and Weiss are consistently disingenuous in their framing of issues. If you pay close attention you can see the way that their writing goes from solid source evidence to unwarranted conclusions by way of a biased mischaracterization of what is being reported upon.
Bubbles are absolutely a danger. If you must read either Weiss or Taibbi, do so with an eye toward finding their sources and reading them first before going on to read what either of these questionable individuals have to say about them.
I also enjoy my bubble very much. After all, that is what they are for.
Props for honesty.
I also enjoy my bubble very much. After all, that is what they are for.
Props for honesty.
tiny bubbles….in the wine…make me feel happy…make me feel fine.
tiny bubbles….in the wine…make me feel happy…make me feel fine.
It’s a great missed opportunity. As you may have heard, the commissioner of the Texas Department of Agriculture has mandated that employees wear “gender appropriate clothing” at work. This is, obviously, aimed at trans employees. (At least, I doubt anyone has decided to come to work in drag otherwise.)
But apparently the new dress code does allow women to wear pants. One has to wonder how the reactionaries’ back-to-the-50s (or earlier) enthusiasm missed this chance to insist on dresses for female employees. Surely you don’t have to be old enough to personally remember it to know how things were at work back in the day.
It’s a great missed opportunity. As you may have heard, the commissioner of the Texas Department of Agriculture has mandated that employees wear “gender appropriate clothing” at work. This is, obviously, aimed at trans employees. (At least, I doubt anyone has decided to come to work in drag otherwise.)
But apparently the new dress code does allow women to wear pants. One has to wonder how the reactionaries’ back-to-the-50s (or earlier) enthusiasm missed this chance to insist on dresses for female employees. Surely you don’t have to be old enough to personally remember it to know how things were at work back in the day.
As it happens, I very rarely read either Taibbi or Weiss. But I stand by my unwillingness to dismiss what look like (or, in my estimation, are) reasonable arguments or views because of ideological objections to some of their (or anybody else’s) other views or even associates. It seems to me (I am not talking about anybody here, just the phenomenon) a kind of laziness, and the dangers of inhabiting any kind of bubble are becoming increasingly apparent. (Excepting the ones bobbyp refers to @1200 above. I like those very much!)
As it happens, I very rarely read either Taibbi or Weiss. But I stand by my unwillingness to dismiss what look like (or, in my estimation, are) reasonable arguments or views because of ideological objections to some of their (or anybody else’s) other views or even associates. It seems to me (I am not talking about anybody here, just the phenomenon) a kind of laziness, and the dangers of inhabiting any kind of bubble are becoming increasingly apparent. (Excepting the ones bobbyp refers to @1200 above. I like those very much!)
tiny bubbles….in the wine…make me feel happy…make me feel fine.
Yet another point on which bobbyp and I are on different pages. (Although I do know that his is very much the majority opinion.)
To my mind: Coke, 7-Up, champagne — it’s all the same. It spits in your face when you drink it.
tiny bubbles….in the wine…make me feel happy…make me feel fine.
Yet another point on which bobbyp and I are on different pages. (Although I do know that his is very much the majority opinion.)
To my mind: Coke, 7-Up, champagne — it’s all the same. It spits in your face when you drink it.
Bubbles are absolutely a danger.
Well sure. Grain of salt and all that. But Alex Berenson? Bari Weiss? This was not a serious enterprise. Not from the start.
I assert this should have been obvious.
Taibbi has written some good stuff, but in this instance he is in bad company. He seems to be going down the “deep state” rabbit hole. I see too many of my fellow leftists getting on that path…you want bubbles? Well, the tankie left’s bubble membrane is as strong as anything you see of the conservative side of things. I find this to be most distressing.
But it all started with Marx vs Bakunin. Sigh. Some things never change.
Bubbles are absolutely a danger.
Well sure. Grain of salt and all that. But Alex Berenson? Bari Weiss? This was not a serious enterprise. Not from the start.
I assert this should have been obvious.
Taibbi has written some good stuff, but in this instance he is in bad company. He seems to be going down the “deep state” rabbit hole. I see too many of my fellow leftists getting on that path…you want bubbles? Well, the tankie left’s bubble membrane is as strong as anything you see of the conservative side of things. I find this to be most distressing.
But it all started with Marx vs Bakunin. Sigh. Some things never change.
One other quick thought before I forget. Taibbi’s writing does resemble Thompson’s writing, and the Rolling Stone connection reinforces that impression. But Thompson was a New Journalist with a slippery style that freely incorporated fictional elements, and he generally signposted the transition from reality to fiction through hyperbole. His frequent references to drug use further problematize his position as a reliable narrator, which enhances the feeling of slipperiness and lets Thompson play with bias in ways that a normal journalist cannot.
Taibbi has the form down, and clearly loves the gonzo persona, but he also tries to have the “serious journalist” thing going in parallel, and I don’t think that he does a good job of tracking and managing the slip. That comes across to me as a problem of ethos that I never had with anything Thompson wrote.
One other quick thought before I forget. Taibbi’s writing does resemble Thompson’s writing, and the Rolling Stone connection reinforces that impression. But Thompson was a New Journalist with a slippery style that freely incorporated fictional elements, and he generally signposted the transition from reality to fiction through hyperbole. His frequent references to drug use further problematize his position as a reliable narrator, which enhances the feeling of slipperiness and lets Thompson play with bias in ways that a normal journalist cannot.
Taibbi has the form down, and clearly loves the gonzo persona, but he also tries to have the “serious journalist” thing going in parallel, and I don’t think that he does a good job of tracking and managing the slip. That comes across to me as a problem of ethos that I never had with anything Thompson wrote.
That comes across to me as a problem of ethos that I never had with anything Thompson wrote.
A very good point.
That comes across to me as a problem of ethos that I never had with anything Thompson wrote.
A very good point.
I get what you’re saying wj, but “pant suits” for women were acceptable in a lot of contexts decades ago, whereas dresses on men … no way, ever. Not then, not now, for these people.
I get what you’re saying wj, but “pant suits” for women were acceptable in a lot of contexts decades ago, whereas dresses on men … no way, ever. Not then, not now, for these people.
Anyhow, too bad half the department doesn’t just walk out because of such rules.
Anyhow, too bad half the department doesn’t just walk out because of such rules.
GFTNC,
Below is a link to an article about the Twitter Files from NPR, an outfit that gets (yes it does) a good deal of criticism from some quarters on the liberal left.
For what it’s worth.
Bottoms up!
https://www.npr.org/2022/12/14/1142666067/elon-musk-is-using-the-twitter-files-to-discredit-foes-and-push-conspiracy-theor
GFTNC,
Below is a link to an article about the Twitter Files from NPR, an outfit that gets (yes it does) a good deal of criticism from some quarters on the liberal left.
For what it’s worth.
Bottoms up!
https://www.npr.org/2022/12/14/1142666067/elon-musk-is-using-the-twitter-files-to-discredit-foes-and-push-conspiracy-theor
The people who are terrified of other people climbing out of the boxes they’re supposed to stay in are having their revenge now for the progress (as I consider it) that we have made in my lifetime. I hope it doesn’t last.
The people who are terrified of other people climbing out of the boxes they’re supposed to stay in are having their revenge now for the progress (as I consider it) that we have made in my lifetime. I hope it doesn’t last.
I get what you’re saying wj, but “pant suits” for women were acceptable in a lot of contexts decades ago
“Decades ago”? Sure. But in the 1950s? The definitely existed. But acceptable in the workplace? Not so much. In fact, even into the 1970s they were quite uncommon. Even in back office environments with zero customer contact. (And anything after the mid-1960s, at the latest, appears to be right out for the typical reactionary.)
I get what you’re saying wj, but “pant suits” for women were acceptable in a lot of contexts decades ago
“Decades ago”? Sure. But in the 1950s? The definitely existed. But acceptable in the workplace? Not so much. In fact, even into the 1970s they were quite uncommon. Even in back office environments with zero customer contact. (And anything after the mid-1960s, at the latest, appears to be right out for the typical reactionary.)
JanieM: “I get what you’re saying wj, but “pant suits” for women were acceptable in a lot of contexts decades ago, whereas dresses on men … no way, ever. Not then, not now, for these people.”
…kilts? We might suddenly see a lot of people wearing kilts in the Texas Dept of Agriculture.
JanieM: “I get what you’re saying wj, but “pant suits” for women were acceptable in a lot of contexts decades ago, whereas dresses on men … no way, ever. Not then, not now, for these people.”
…kilts? We might suddenly see a lot of people wearing kilts in the Texas Dept of Agriculture.
Re women in pants… In 1938 a judge in LA held a woman in contempt for wearing slacks to court. She was only in jail for a few hours, and the citation was overturned on appeal, but still.
OTOH, it was 85 years ago. Realizing how much stuff I tend to think of as happening not all that long ago is “ancient” history makes me feel old.
Re women in pants… In 1938 a judge in LA held a woman in contempt for wearing slacks to court. She was only in jail for a few hours, and the citation was overturned on appeal, but still.
OTOH, it was 85 years ago. Realizing how much stuff I tend to think of as happening not all that long ago is “ancient” history makes me feel old.
“…kilts? We might suddenly see a lot of people wearing kilts in the Texas Dept of Agriculture.”
I was going to suggest having bagpipes, but with TX that’s entirely too likely to get you shot.
“…kilts? We might suddenly see a lot of people wearing kilts in the Texas Dept of Agriculture.”
I was going to suggest having bagpipes, but with TX that’s entirely too likely to get you shot.
GFTNC: I stand by my unwillingness to dismiss what look like (or, in my estimation, are) reasonable arguments or views because of ideological objections to some of their (or anybody else’s) other views or even associates. It seems to me (I am not talking about anybody here, just the phenomenon) a kind of laziness, and the dangers of inhabiting any kind of bubble are becoming increasingly apparent.
I think there’s a big difference between “dismissing” arguments outright because of the source’s history — i.e., refusing to hear them at all — and simply applying heightened skepticism to claims from sources that have previously proved to be unreliable.
In particular being unwilling to invest lots of additional time in the verification and cross checking that would be necessary to trust an argument from an unreliable source strikes me as quite reasonable in our saturated information economy.
Fundamentally, this is just how trust works, and the application of trust is very different from “laziness”, or living in a bubble.
In that vein, Bobbyp’s observations about how and to whom the “twitter files” were released is absolutely relevant, and part of the kind of heuristic trust analysis we need to do before trusting information (or deciding how much time to put into trusting it). If the likes of Bari Weiss were the only other “journalists” Musk could get to sign on to the project, that definitely says something.
It’s also worth noting that, IIUC, prior to this affair, Taibbi’s previous reputation was relatively decent. He *was* the reputable journalist this was supposed to be filtered too. People aren’t rejecting the reporting because it came from Taibbi, instead they’re rejecting Taibbi because of the sh*t reporting.
We’re just watching a real time evidence-based adjustment in trust heuristics.
GFTNC: I stand by my unwillingness to dismiss what look like (or, in my estimation, are) reasonable arguments or views because of ideological objections to some of their (or anybody else’s) other views or even associates. It seems to me (I am not talking about anybody here, just the phenomenon) a kind of laziness, and the dangers of inhabiting any kind of bubble are becoming increasingly apparent.
I think there’s a big difference between “dismissing” arguments outright because of the source’s history — i.e., refusing to hear them at all — and simply applying heightened skepticism to claims from sources that have previously proved to be unreliable.
In particular being unwilling to invest lots of additional time in the verification and cross checking that would be necessary to trust an argument from an unreliable source strikes me as quite reasonable in our saturated information economy.
Fundamentally, this is just how trust works, and the application of trust is very different from “laziness”, or living in a bubble.
In that vein, Bobbyp’s observations about how and to whom the “twitter files” were released is absolutely relevant, and part of the kind of heuristic trust analysis we need to do before trusting information (or deciding how much time to put into trusting it). If the likes of Bari Weiss were the only other “journalists” Musk could get to sign on to the project, that definitely says something.
It’s also worth noting that, IIUC, prior to this affair, Taibbi’s previous reputation was relatively decent. He *was* the reputable journalist this was supposed to be filtered too. People aren’t rejecting the reporting because it came from Taibbi, instead they’re rejecting Taibbi because of the sh*t reporting.
We’re just watching a real time evidence-based adjustment in trust heuristics.
wj — nevertheless, for my entire lifetime it has been acceptable in many contexts (okay, you can have the workplace) for femmales to wear pants and not for males to wear skirts. I wore jeans or shorts all summer as a child, as did all the other little girls I knew, and that went on through adolescence; no boys wore skirts, it would have been wildly unacceptable. My great-aunt, a farm woman, wore coveralls (except to church) and was considered “queer” (in the sense of “peculiar”) because of it in her rural town in Ohio. But if my great-uncle had put on a skirt they would have locked him up.
wj — nevertheless, for my entire lifetime it has been acceptable in many contexts (okay, you can have the workplace) for femmales to wear pants and not for males to wear skirts. I wore jeans or shorts all summer as a child, as did all the other little girls I knew, and that went on through adolescence; no boys wore skirts, it would have been wildly unacceptable. My great-aunt, a farm woman, wore coveralls (except to church) and was considered “queer” (in the sense of “peculiar”) because of it in her rural town in Ohio. But if my great-uncle had put on a skirt they would have locked him up.
bobbyp: I don’t know why you direct that to me particularly, because I was talking purely theoretically about the principle of the thing, as opposed to about any current situation/story/commentator. FWIW, however, your link seemed to me very reasonable. Personally, I have often wondered (particularly in the last couple of years) if Musk is mentally ill, or at least seriously unstable, and nothing in his Twitter odyssey makes me really doubt it, although I suppose just being an arsehole also explains many of his actions, which (along with lots of his views) are so often highly objectionable, or worse. He is a marvellous example of how dangerous it is when someone is too rich or powerful. Also, anything that plays into (or stokes) conspiracy theories, is in my opinion extremely dangerous, and becoming more so.
On a side note, although I have sort of gathered over the last several years that NPR is no longer regarded so highly (perhaps an understatement) by liberals like myself, I cannot shake the memory of when I lived in the States on and off for a year in the mid-90s. At that time, it seemed to me the only source of news and factual programming that was remotely respectable, prepared to go fairly deep, and comparatively unbiased. This link you sent me does not seem to me to be so very, very different.
I think there’s a big difference between “dismissing” arguments outright because of the source’s history — i.e., refusing to hear them at all — and simply applying heightened skepticism to claims from sources that have previously proved to be unreliable.
In particular being unwilling to invest lots of additional time in the verification and cross checking that would be necessary to trust an argument from an unreliable source strikes me as quite reasonable in our saturated information economy.
jack lecou: I don’t disagree with this. I was talking about theoretical argument, on principles, as opposed to basing the argument on the use of examples the reliability of which then have to be checked. And of course, trust particularly enters into it if someone has a reputation for dishonesty, as opposed to opinions with which you disagree.
bobbyp: I don’t know why you direct that to me particularly, because I was talking purely theoretically about the principle of the thing, as opposed to about any current situation/story/commentator. FWIW, however, your link seemed to me very reasonable. Personally, I have often wondered (particularly in the last couple of years) if Musk is mentally ill, or at least seriously unstable, and nothing in his Twitter odyssey makes me really doubt it, although I suppose just being an arsehole also explains many of his actions, which (along with lots of his views) are so often highly objectionable, or worse. He is a marvellous example of how dangerous it is when someone is too rich or powerful. Also, anything that plays into (or stokes) conspiracy theories, is in my opinion extremely dangerous, and becoming more so.
On a side note, although I have sort of gathered over the last several years that NPR is no longer regarded so highly (perhaps an understatement) by liberals like myself, I cannot shake the memory of when I lived in the States on and off for a year in the mid-90s. At that time, it seemed to me the only source of news and factual programming that was remotely respectable, prepared to go fairly deep, and comparatively unbiased. This link you sent me does not seem to me to be so very, very different.
I think there’s a big difference between “dismissing” arguments outright because of the source’s history — i.e., refusing to hear them at all — and simply applying heightened skepticism to claims from sources that have previously proved to be unreliable.
In particular being unwilling to invest lots of additional time in the verification and cross checking that would be necessary to trust an argument from an unreliable source strikes me as quite reasonable in our saturated information economy.
jack lecou: I don’t disagree with this. I was talking about theoretical argument, on principles, as opposed to basing the argument on the use of examples the reliability of which then have to be checked. And of course, trust particularly enters into it if someone has a reputation for dishonesty, as opposed to opinions with which you disagree.
bobbyp: I don’t know why you direct that to me particularly…
Our shared predilection to enjoy a good wine?
My car radio is always tuned to NPR, and they generally do a good job (the local station’s jazz and blues offerings are the best!). They have usually been portrayed as “left-wing”. This is pretty dumb.
Dean Baker (one of my favorite economists) sometimes takes them to task for their not at all uncommon shallow treatment of economics, statistics, and government fiscal policy, but that is a common failing in the media industry.
bobbyp: I don’t know why you direct that to me particularly…
Our shared predilection to enjoy a good wine?
My car radio is always tuned to NPR, and they generally do a good job (the local station’s jazz and blues offerings are the best!). They have usually been portrayed as “left-wing”. This is pretty dumb.
Dean Baker (one of my favorite economists) sometimes takes them to task for their not at all uncommon shallow treatment of economics, statistics, and government fiscal policy, but that is a common failing in the media industry.
I have often wondered (particularly in the last couple of years) if Musk is mentally ill, or at least seriously unstable…
Myself, I’ve wondered if he’s just bored. Tesla is well on its way to being a battery company that happens to make cars on the side. The Falcon 9/Heavy rockets make weekly or more frequent launches look routine, including landing the boosters, something no one thought possible just a few years ago. Starlink is past a million users and growing. Starship is… well, the decision to put Starbase at Boca Chica is looking worse and worse, the NASA Artemis contract means it’s got to be more Shotwell and less Musk. The Boring Company was pretty much a bust.
Twitter’s a chance for him to be dynamic again.
I have often wondered (particularly in the last couple of years) if Musk is mentally ill, or at least seriously unstable…
Myself, I’ve wondered if he’s just bored. Tesla is well on its way to being a battery company that happens to make cars on the side. The Falcon 9/Heavy rockets make weekly or more frequent launches look routine, including landing the boosters, something no one thought possible just a few years ago. Starlink is past a million users and growing. Starship is… well, the decision to put Starbase at Boca Chica is looking worse and worse, the NASA Artemis contract means it’s got to be more Shotwell and less Musk. The Boring Company was pretty much a bust.
Twitter’s a chance for him to be dynamic again.
In general I’d say that the split in attitudes towards NPR among people who vote Democrat in the US has less to do with whether or not they think that NPR does a good job in its reporting and more to do with the cultural niche that NPR occupies. The NPR audience is older, white, and college educated, and the stories that get told there are shaped to appeal to that demographic. That sheen of respectability politics and high culture is bound to rub a lot of the activist, labor, and minority left the wrong way.
And age plays into this a bit as well. I know socialist labor lefties in their 60s who love NPR, and Millenial MOR Democrats who listen to it all the time, but the younger the demographic, the more that the respectability politics runs the risk of turning people off. Same with race. Older minority listeners and readers are more patient with the NPR tone and focus than are younger ones.
In general I’d say that the split in attitudes towards NPR among people who vote Democrat in the US has less to do with whether or not they think that NPR does a good job in its reporting and more to do with the cultural niche that NPR occupies. The NPR audience is older, white, and college educated, and the stories that get told there are shaped to appeal to that demographic. That sheen of respectability politics and high culture is bound to rub a lot of the activist, labor, and minority left the wrong way.
And age plays into this a bit as well. I know socialist labor lefties in their 60s who love NPR, and Millenial MOR Democrats who listen to it all the time, but the younger the demographic, the more that the respectability politics runs the risk of turning people off. Same with race. Older minority listeners and readers are more patient with the NPR tone and focus than are younger ones.
In certain corners of the lefty blogosphere NPR has been tagged as standing for “Nice Polite Republicans”, don’t recall if anyone here has used that.
In certain corners of the lefty blogosphere NPR has been tagged as standing for “Nice Polite Republicans”, don’t recall if anyone here has used that.
Our shared predilection to enjoy a good wine?
A predilection which I am very happy to share with you – and pace wj, I’m particularly fond of champagne! I’m also very glad to gather from the various responses that NPR is not regarded as beyond the pale – I depended on it, and really liked a lot of it.
Our shared predilection to enjoy a good wine?
A predilection which I am very happy to share with you – and pace wj, I’m particularly fond of champagne! I’m also very glad to gather from the various responses that NPR is not regarded as beyond the pale – I depended on it, and really liked a lot of it.
We might suddenly see a lot of people wearing kilts in the Texas Dept of Agriculture.
Wonder if that will cause them to specify highland or lowland? And what lucky devil gets to do the (presumably random spot) checks.
We might suddenly see a lot of people wearing kilts in the Texas Dept of Agriculture.
Wonder if that will cause them to specify highland or lowland? And what lucky devil gets to do the (presumably random spot) checks.
I wore jeans or shorts all summer as a child, as did all the other little girls I knew, and that went on through adolescence; no boys wore skirts, it would have been wildly unacceptable.
I did know one kid who wore a kilt (as did his father, routinely). But then, it was Berkeley in the 70s, so hardly typical of the wider culture.
I wore jeans or shorts all summer as a child, as did all the other little girls I knew, and that went on through adolescence; no boys wore skirts, it would have been wildly unacceptable.
I did know one kid who wore a kilt (as did his father, routinely). But then, it was Berkeley in the 70s, so hardly typical of the wider culture.
Unfortunately I have not been able to get back to France for some years, but when I could, one of my favorite activities was toodling around in the Champaign region, stopping at wineries to sample and buy.
The most memorable was a “tasting room” that was the living room of a young couple (with kid toys scattered about). The only indication was a small sign just outside their garage. I made sure to buy a couple of bottles.
Unfortunately I have not been able to get back to France for some years, but when I could, one of my favorite activities was toodling around in the Champaign region, stopping at wineries to sample and buy.
The most memorable was a “tasting room” that was the living room of a young couple (with kid toys scattered about). The only indication was a small sign just outside their garage. I made sure to buy a couple of bottles.
A little late to reply, but I don’t think the solution to bubbles is having a chinese menu of people’s views to take on, it is _how_ one takes new information onboard. If I were to suggest that we couldn’t argue about some issue because we weren’t around when the fight started, I’m trying to imagine how that would be treated. I don’t know who did or didn’t know about Taibbi’s history, but, to take my metaphor to the breaking point, deciding that you like his take on twitter with no reference to anything else he has done is a bit like taking one point on the arc and deciding that this tells us everything we know.
Nous’ observation about Taibbi’s oscillation between gonzo writing and a more serious journalism is a good one, but that is not an invitation to dismiss out of hand what Taibbi says, it just means that you have to weigh a lot more carefully what he says. I failed to mention Taibbi’s Griftopia, which was good, but it is hard, as nous points out, to see where the lines between serious and seriously pissed off are drawn. I’m not on twitter and I certainly can’t follow the ins and outs of the fight because I don’t know the mechanisms that are involved, but a lot of the framing of issues and the insistence to go down side paths makes me wonder how much is of the problem of media and how much is a pissing match.
What prompted this post was not any particular issue, it was the phenomenon. Nous points to a particular age and ethos, which makes a lot of sense. Dr Oz might be a similar example, earnest enough to fool Oprah, but then making a fool of himself. The only example I can think of that might possibly represent the mirror image is RFK Jr. as the anti-vax crusader. But after that, I can’t think of any other examples.
A little late to reply, but I don’t think the solution to bubbles is having a chinese menu of people’s views to take on, it is _how_ one takes new information onboard. If I were to suggest that we couldn’t argue about some issue because we weren’t around when the fight started, I’m trying to imagine how that would be treated. I don’t know who did or didn’t know about Taibbi’s history, but, to take my metaphor to the breaking point, deciding that you like his take on twitter with no reference to anything else he has done is a bit like taking one point on the arc and deciding that this tells us everything we know.
Nous’ observation about Taibbi’s oscillation between gonzo writing and a more serious journalism is a good one, but that is not an invitation to dismiss out of hand what Taibbi says, it just means that you have to weigh a lot more carefully what he says. I failed to mention Taibbi’s Griftopia, which was good, but it is hard, as nous points out, to see where the lines between serious and seriously pissed off are drawn. I’m not on twitter and I certainly can’t follow the ins and outs of the fight because I don’t know the mechanisms that are involved, but a lot of the framing of issues and the insistence to go down side paths makes me wonder how much is of the problem of media and how much is a pissing match.
What prompted this post was not any particular issue, it was the phenomenon. Nous points to a particular age and ethos, which makes a lot of sense. Dr Oz might be a similar example, earnest enough to fool Oprah, but then making a fool of himself. The only example I can think of that might possibly represent the mirror image is RFK Jr. as the anti-vax crusader. But after that, I can’t think of any other examples.
I come at the Twitter Files business from the pov that of course the press is biased on some issues and spins its coverage accordingly. Most of the time I am looking at this from the pov of criticizing US foreign policy, but it is logical to assume they are going to show varying levels of bias elsewhere, sometimes against people I don’t like.
The conservative portion of Taibbi’s fan club ( he also has leftists) like him because he has been pointing out, along with Jeff (?) Gerth and others, the ways in which liberals and the press went overboard with Russiagate and conspiracy theories. They don’t like McCarthyism when it is directed at their side. They are correct, even if many ( but not all) are hypocritical in their free speech concerns..
I come at the Twitter Files business from the pov that of course the press is biased on some issues and spins its coverage accordingly. Most of the time I am looking at this from the pov of criticizing US foreign policy, but it is logical to assume they are going to show varying levels of bias elsewhere, sometimes against people I don’t like.
The conservative portion of Taibbi’s fan club ( he also has leftists) like him because he has been pointing out, along with Jeff (?) Gerth and others, the ways in which liberals and the press went overboard with Russiagate and conspiracy theories. They don’t like McCarthyism when it is directed at their side. They are correct, even if many ( but not all) are hypocritical in their free speech concerns..
Funny, lj. My thought was that, since you can’t eat everything at the buffet anyway, the one thing you sure as hell aren’t going to eat is the food that smells like rotting fish. Not the same point, but still a food metaphor. ;^)
Funny, lj. My thought was that, since you can’t eat everything at the buffet anyway, the one thing you sure as hell aren’t going to eat is the food that smells like rotting fish. Not the same point, but still a food metaphor. ;^)
hsh — i’ve been thinking along those lines throughout this discussion. Thanks for the pungent metaphor. 😉
hsh — i’ve been thinking along those lines throughout this discussion. Thanks for the pungent metaphor. 😉
Even without the rotting fish metaphor, there are more people pundit-ing than anyone could possibly ever keep up with….
Even without the rotting fish metaphor, there are more people pundit-ing than anyone could possibly ever keep up with….
I just hang out here and at Balloon Juice, so I suppose you could say I live in a bubble, though I’d disagree.
Regarding Twitter I leave it to others to pick apart the Twitter Files. My personal opinion is the company is doomed.
I just hang out here and at Balloon Juice, so I suppose you could say I live in a bubble, though I’d disagree.
Regarding Twitter I leave it to others to pick apart the Twitter Files. My personal opinion is the company is doomed.
I just hang out here and at Balloon Juice, so I suppose you could say I live in a bubble, though I’d disagree.
My sense is that we have a rather more disparate group than most blogs. Including linking to a fairly varied group of other blogs/newspapers/etc. Which, at minimum, makes us a more transparent bubble than many.
I just hang out here and at Balloon Juice, so I suppose you could say I live in a bubble, though I’d disagree.
My sense is that we have a rather more disparate group than most blogs. Including linking to a fairly varied group of other blogs/newspapers/etc. Which, at minimum, makes us a more transparent bubble than many.
I hang out here in spite of, or because I don’t often agree with almost everyone most of the time.
I also spend some time on Twitter, YouTube and listening to podcasts.
I hang out here in spite of, or because I don’t often agree with almost everyone most of the time.
I also spend some time on Twitter, YouTube and listening to podcasts.
Even without the rotting fish metaphor, there are more people pundit-ing than anyone could possibly ever keep up with….
and i cannot read chinese either.
Even without the rotting fish metaphor, there are more people pundit-ing than anyone could possibly ever keep up with….
and i cannot read chinese either.
Valuetainment has just made Carlson a five-year $100 million offer.
Valuetainment has just made Carlson a five-year $100 million offer.
Valuetainment has just made Carlson a five-year $100 million offer.
A quick survey around the internet suggests Valuetainment’s revenue is about $600,000 per year. The offer strikes me as “We’ll give you a platform, of sorts, and you can keep the first $20M per year of any revenue you generate with it.” Is there any pundit who generates $20M per year in revenue on a streaming platform?
Valuetainment has just made Carlson a five-year $100 million offer.
A quick survey around the internet suggests Valuetainment’s revenue is about $600,000 per year. The offer strikes me as “We’ll give you a platform, of sorts, and you can keep the first $20M per year of any revenue you generate with it.” Is there any pundit who generates $20M per year in revenue on a streaming platform?
I’m particularly fond of champagne!
This is the comment I most agree with.
Re. the other sort of bubble: the public face of the US right is nasty and lying, essentially a confidence trick to persuade a large enough minority of the electorate to vote in the interests of the rich and powerful. But there are real concerns, held by right-wingers motivated by something other than entitlement, which I would like to hear more about.
I’m particularly fond of champagne!
This is the comment I most agree with.
Re. the other sort of bubble: the public face of the US right is nasty and lying, essentially a confidence trick to persuade a large enough minority of the electorate to vote in the interests of the rich and powerful. But there are real concerns, held by right-wingers motivated by something other than entitlement, which I would like to hear more about.
The danger of tying oneself to a rapidly descending object is that you might have your judgement subjected to questioning
https://www.techdirt.com/2023/04/10/after-matt-taibbi-leaves-twitter-elon-musk-shadow-bans-all-of-taibbis-tweets-including-the-twitter-files/
The danger of tying oneself to a rapidly descending object is that you might have your judgement subjected to questioning
https://www.techdirt.com/2023/04/10/after-matt-taibbi-leaves-twitter-elon-musk-shadow-bans-all-of-taibbis-tweets-including-the-twitter-files/
The Medhi Hasan interview with Taibbi seemed to me to be less devastating to Taibbi than is reported in the story. Hasan seemed to be mischaracterizing Taibbi’s reporting a lot and Taibbi seemed to be talking past Hasan trying to score points with his own subscribers who had tuned in to watch the confrontation. The whole thing then seemed to turn into journalistic dick waving. Hasan seemed railroad-y and Taibbi seemed happy to grind the axe and take shots at MSNBC for Russiagate while downplaying his own juicing of the Hunter Biden stories.
Taibbi said in the midst of the crosstalk that he was happy to report on the Twitter Files and he was happy that people were giving it oxygen because he thought it was something that needed to be talked about more, which sounds a lot like what Donald said about being happy that Taibbi criticizing the American press because so few others would. But it’s all just sensationalism and shit stirring. I’m not really seeing any quality reporting from either the mainstream cable news networks or the Substack dissidents who can no longer tolerate having an editor checking their shit. I’d like more criticism of a lot of things, but only if that criticism was accurate and well contextualized and aimed at helping the public understand the complexity of our big issues.
We have sensationalist news and badly reported science and foreign policy on one hand, and densely written specialist wonkery behind institutional paywalls on the other. In between is a vast wasteland where there should be smart, articulate people trying to explain our best info in as much color and complexity as can be mustered for an outside reader.
That wasteland is why we are probably heading for 3C warming and decades of migration driven conflict.
What we need is not more criticism, what we need is good, measured criticism and a public prepared to do the work of understanding it.
Failed on both counts.
The Medhi Hasan interview with Taibbi seemed to me to be less devastating to Taibbi than is reported in the story. Hasan seemed to be mischaracterizing Taibbi’s reporting a lot and Taibbi seemed to be talking past Hasan trying to score points with his own subscribers who had tuned in to watch the confrontation. The whole thing then seemed to turn into journalistic dick waving. Hasan seemed railroad-y and Taibbi seemed happy to grind the axe and take shots at MSNBC for Russiagate while downplaying his own juicing of the Hunter Biden stories.
Taibbi said in the midst of the crosstalk that he was happy to report on the Twitter Files and he was happy that people were giving it oxygen because he thought it was something that needed to be talked about more, which sounds a lot like what Donald said about being happy that Taibbi criticizing the American press because so few others would. But it’s all just sensationalism and shit stirring. I’m not really seeing any quality reporting from either the mainstream cable news networks or the Substack dissidents who can no longer tolerate having an editor checking their shit. I’d like more criticism of a lot of things, but only if that criticism was accurate and well contextualized and aimed at helping the public understand the complexity of our big issues.
We have sensationalist news and badly reported science and foreign policy on one hand, and densely written specialist wonkery behind institutional paywalls on the other. In between is a vast wasteland where there should be smart, articulate people trying to explain our best info in as much color and complexity as can be mustered for an outside reader.
That wasteland is why we are probably heading for 3C warming and decades of migration driven conflict.
What we need is not more criticism, what we need is good, measured criticism and a public prepared to do the work of understanding it.
Failed on both counts.
Just out of curiousity, how many people here are either reading Twitter or ‘on Twitter’ (i.e. interacting with others on a regular basis) I tried to follow Twitter here in Japan, but was so confused and finally gave up, though I have friends who felt like it allowed them to get in touch with people they wouldn’t have.
I looked at the original interview and it seemed to hinge a lot ‘well, you said on Twitter’. Journalistic dick waving is an apt description.
Just out of curiousity, how many people here are either reading Twitter or ‘on Twitter’ (i.e. interacting with others on a regular basis) I tried to follow Twitter here in Japan, but was so confused and finally gave up, though I have friends who felt like it allowed them to get in touch with people they wouldn’t have.
I looked at the original interview and it seemed to hinge a lot ‘well, you said on Twitter’. Journalistic dick waving is an apt description.
Twitter is a way for nobodies to get fifteen seconds of attention from somebodies.
Twitter is a way for nobodies to get fifteen seconds of attention from somebodies.
I’d like more criticism of a lot of things, but only if that criticism was accurate and well contextualized and aimed at helping the public understand the complexity of our big issues.
Amen
I’d like more criticism of a lot of things, but only if that criticism was accurate and well contextualized and aimed at helping the public understand the complexity of our big issues.
Amen
I occasionally click on a link to something on Twitter. (So if you see a link to Twitter here from me, that’s the origin.) But look at it otherwise? No.
I occasionally click on a link to something on Twitter. (So if you see a link to Twitter here from me, that’s the origin.) But look at it otherwise? No.
But there are real concerns, held by right-wingers motivated by something other than entitlement, which I would like to hear more about.
Might be a good discussion topic.
As for me, I do not Twit.
But there are real concerns, held by right-wingers motivated by something other than entitlement, which I would like to hear more about.
Might be a good discussion topic.
As for me, I do not Twit.
I was totally banned from Twitface, back in 1994, by some dude named ‘Snarki’.
Definitely for the best, though.
I was totally banned from Twitface, back in 1994, by some dude named ‘Snarki’.
Definitely for the best, though.
In between is a vast wasteland where there should be smart, articulate people trying to explain our best info in as much color and complexity as can be mustered for an outside reader.
Don’t despair. They are out there. Here is an example:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/04/24/magazine/dr-fauci-pandemic.html
In between is a vast wasteland where there should be smart, articulate people trying to explain our best info in as much color and complexity as can be mustered for an outside reader.
Don’t despair. They are out there. Here is an example:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/04/24/magazine/dr-fauci-pandemic.html
Without the pay wall.
Dr. Fauci Looks Back: ‘Something Clearly Went Wrong’: In his most extensive interview yet, Anthony Fauci wrestles with the hard lessons of the pandemic — and the decisions that will define his legacy.
Without the pay wall.
Dr. Fauci Looks Back: ‘Something Clearly Went Wrong’: In his most extensive interview yet, Anthony Fauci wrestles with the hard lessons of the pandemic — and the decisions that will define his legacy.
I joined Twitter just to watch a particular story’s participants, of only parochial interest in the UK. Other than that, I very occasionally look at the tweets of people I am interested in, and hilzoy when I remember.
But there are real concerns, held by right-wingers motivated by something other than entitlement, which I would like to hear more about.
Ditto, obviously. And not just rightwingers, but also leftwingers who have somewhat strayed, or indeed the non-aligned. But then, I value the opinions and thought processes of intelligent people who do not necessarily fit neatly into categories, whether left, right or anything else.
I joined Twitter just to watch a particular story’s participants, of only parochial interest in the UK. Other than that, I very occasionally look at the tweets of people I am interested in, and hilzoy when I remember.
But there are real concerns, held by right-wingers motivated by something other than entitlement, which I would like to hear more about.
Ditto, obviously. And not just rightwingers, but also leftwingers who have somewhat strayed, or indeed the non-aligned. But then, I value the opinions and thought processes of intelligent people who do not necessarily fit neatly into categories, whether left, right or anything else.
More TC news from today’s Guardian:
A racist text message allegedly sent by the former Fox News host Tucker Carlson set off alarm bells at the top of the network and ultimately contributed to his firing, the New York Times reported.
The text, which remains redacted in court filings in Dominion Voting Systems’ defamation case against Fox News but which the Times published in full, included the line: “It’s not how white men fight.”
The message allegedly shows Carlson describing how he saw a group of Trump supporters beat up an “Antifa kid”, or anti-fascist counter-protester.
Carlson allegedly described the encounter as “three against one, at least” and added: “Jumping a guy like that is dishonourable obviously. It’s not how white men fight.”
Carlson allegedly wrote that he initially found himself “rooting for the mob against the man, hoping they’d hit him harder, kill him. I really wanted them to hurt the kid. I could taste it.” He then noted such thoughts were not good for him.
More TC news from today’s Guardian:
A racist text message allegedly sent by the former Fox News host Tucker Carlson set off alarm bells at the top of the network and ultimately contributed to his firing, the New York Times reported.
The text, which remains redacted in court filings in Dominion Voting Systems’ defamation case against Fox News but which the Times published in full, included the line: “It’s not how white men fight.”
The message allegedly shows Carlson describing how he saw a group of Trump supporters beat up an “Antifa kid”, or anti-fascist counter-protester.
Carlson allegedly described the encounter as “three against one, at least” and added: “Jumping a guy like that is dishonourable obviously. It’s not how white men fight.”
Carlson allegedly wrote that he initially found himself “rooting for the mob against the man, hoping they’d hit him harder, kill him. I really wanted them to hurt the kid. I could taste it.” He then noted such thoughts were not good for him.
Italiexo!
Italiexo!
I never had a Twitter account, but for a year or so I checked Connie Schultz’s feed every day — she’s a journalist and the wife of Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio, but her real claim to fame is that she grew up around the corner (literally) from where I did. (We didn’t know each other; she’s seven years younger, plus I was embedded in my Italian/Catholic world and that wasn’t hers.)
I also love Anne Laurie’s cullings of Twitter at BJ — she does the sifting, I do the enjoying. There’s a particular kind of wry, often word-based humor and repartee that Twitter is perfect for, and there are many nights when I go to bed chuckling over stuff AL has found.
There must be stuff on Twitter that I don’t see because I don’t have a login, but there’s also a trick to going on reading comment threads after Twitter tries to stop you, so I’ve seen quite a lot. But even the funny comment threads get old pretty quickly…it’s the repartee that’s fun.
Too bad Elmo has ruined it…..I’m hardly ever inspired to dig deeper anymore.
*****
Also, just because it has been on my mind, the more I think of it the more I’m bemused by the original premise of this post, which puts Tucker Carlson in the same category as Matt Taibbi. That seems wrong to me … I don’t see what TC has done over these years of fame as having anything whatsoever to do with journalism. It’s malevolent, intentionally destructive rabble-rousing, which I don’t think is what Taibbi is doing at all. Maybe the arc is still the same shape… I dunno.
I never had a Twitter account, but for a year or so I checked Connie Schultz’s feed every day — she’s a journalist and the wife of Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio, but her real claim to fame is that she grew up around the corner (literally) from where I did. (We didn’t know each other; she’s seven years younger, plus I was embedded in my Italian/Catholic world and that wasn’t hers.)
I also love Anne Laurie’s cullings of Twitter at BJ — she does the sifting, I do the enjoying. There’s a particular kind of wry, often word-based humor and repartee that Twitter is perfect for, and there are many nights when I go to bed chuckling over stuff AL has found.
There must be stuff on Twitter that I don’t see because I don’t have a login, but there’s also a trick to going on reading comment threads after Twitter tries to stop you, so I’ve seen quite a lot. But even the funny comment threads get old pretty quickly…it’s the repartee that’s fun.
Too bad Elmo has ruined it…..I’m hardly ever inspired to dig deeper anymore.
*****
Also, just because it has been on my mind, the more I think of it the more I’m bemused by the original premise of this post, which puts Tucker Carlson in the same category as Matt Taibbi. That seems wrong to me … I don’t see what TC has done over these years of fame as having anything whatsoever to do with journalism. It’s malevolent, intentionally destructive rabble-rousing, which I don’t think is what Taibbi is doing at all. Maybe the arc is still the same shape… I dunno.
Italiexo!
Of just over 509,000 comments in the latest backup, 504 contain unbalanced <i>, <em>, <b>, or <a> tags.
Italiexo!
Of just over 509,000 comments in the latest backup, 504 contain unbalanced <i>, <em>, <b>, or <a> tags.
Carlson hasn’t been fired yet, just taken off his program. He has about a year and a half and $30 million left on his current contract. One theory is that Fox is releasing damaging information, true or not, to try to provoke him into violating his contract. Like calling them liars or releasing some information of his own that is damaging to Fox. Otherwise, Fox will have to come to some kind of buyout agreement with him.
Carlson hasn’t been fired yet, just taken off his program. He has about a year and a half and $30 million left on his current contract. One theory is that Fox is releasing damaging information, true or not, to try to provoke him into violating his contract. Like calling them liars or releasing some information of his own that is damaging to Fox. Otherwise, Fox will have to come to some kind of buyout agreement with him.
I’ve been thinking a lot about the things we have discussed in this thread because it’s all at the heard of what I’m teaching this term in my research class. It’s nominally a writing class, but a big part of what we do is actually teaching media literacy and ethics. We’ve been going over articles (mostly Pro Publica and NPR) to look at what questions get asked in a research project, how those questions get answered and by who, and how uncertainty gets negotiated and signposted in the writing.
I know that we have discussed both Pro Publica and NPR here recently, working through some fair criticism of each, but I return to them a lot for teaching because they just do a better job of framing, informing, and discussing context(s) than do most other news outlets in the US.
I’m reticent to use anything at all from Substack, especially anything built on a subscription model. I think subscription models incentivize the stringing together of sensational discoveries and shocking appearances and discourage analysis and contextualization work that runs the risk of creating a sense of closure while the audience is still hungry for more “feet to the fire” reporting about their favorite villains. Taibbi is guilty of this, but he is absolutely not alone in it. I think all the big names there suffer from this dynamic.
Anyway, gotta run. I’ve got a class to lead where we are discussing the wind power lobby’s political clout and what should be done to balance the need for renewable energy against the cost of this construction to local commercial fishing. Always good to pose a complex dilemma and force my learners to work through and weigh the consequences in ways that crosscut the usual framing of sides.
I’ve been thinking a lot about the things we have discussed in this thread because it’s all at the heard of what I’m teaching this term in my research class. It’s nominally a writing class, but a big part of what we do is actually teaching media literacy and ethics. We’ve been going over articles (mostly Pro Publica and NPR) to look at what questions get asked in a research project, how those questions get answered and by who, and how uncertainty gets negotiated and signposted in the writing.
I know that we have discussed both Pro Publica and NPR here recently, working through some fair criticism of each, but I return to them a lot for teaching because they just do a better job of framing, informing, and discussing context(s) than do most other news outlets in the US.
I’m reticent to use anything at all from Substack, especially anything built on a subscription model. I think subscription models incentivize the stringing together of sensational discoveries and shocking appearances and discourage analysis and contextualization work that runs the risk of creating a sense of closure while the audience is still hungry for more “feet to the fire” reporting about their favorite villains. Taibbi is guilty of this, but he is absolutely not alone in it. I think all the big names there suffer from this dynamic.
Anyway, gotta run. I’ve got a class to lead where we are discussing the wind power lobby’s political clout and what should be done to balance the need for renewable energy against the cost of this construction to local commercial fishing. Always good to pose a complex dilemma and force my learners to work through and weigh the consequences in ways that crosscut the usual framing of sides.
what should be done to balance the need for renewable energy against the cost of this construction to local commercial fishing.
Query, because I know nothing about the subject.
What would be the prospects for doing enough wind power (and its negative impact) to keep commercial fishing down to sustainable levels?
In some cases, multiple problems can help address each other.
what should be done to balance the need for renewable energy against the cost of this construction to local commercial fishing.
Query, because I know nothing about the subject.
What would be the prospects for doing enough wind power (and its negative impact) to keep commercial fishing down to sustainable levels?
In some cases, multiple problems can help address each other.
The article I was making them consider is this one: https://www.propublica.org/article/fishermen-endangered-offshore-wind-political-power
Our main points were – More wind power is good because it reduces reliance on carbon polluting non-renewables – but construction of wind turbines is going to disrupt fishing in this major region…perhaps for a decade or more – are the harms to fishing and to food security enough to outweigh the benefits of power production – if not, how do we balance the net gains against the cost to local fishing?
And since they are having to write papers that tackle tough climate change advocacy problems…the article mentions two potential courses of action for the situation – change federal rules to prevent regulators from lobbying for the industries that they regulate after they leave to lessen regulatory capture and conflicts of interest and/or – shift the mechanism of payment for financial losses to local fishing so that it is overseen by government and not by the corporations involved. Can we do both or do we have to choose? How would we decide and on what might we base that decision?
Then they were to take what they learned from this exercise and try to apply it to the problems that they have been researching for their own projects.
What level of fishing is sustainable is a separate question that they might have to do on their own and then try to figure out how that situation might impact or intersect with this other problem.
The article I was making them consider is this one: https://www.propublica.org/article/fishermen-endangered-offshore-wind-political-power
Our main points were – More wind power is good because it reduces reliance on carbon polluting non-renewables – but construction of wind turbines is going to disrupt fishing in this major region…perhaps for a decade or more – are the harms to fishing and to food security enough to outweigh the benefits of power production – if not, how do we balance the net gains against the cost to local fishing?
And since they are having to write papers that tackle tough climate change advocacy problems…the article mentions two potential courses of action for the situation – change federal rules to prevent regulators from lobbying for the industries that they regulate after they leave to lessen regulatory capture and conflicts of interest and/or – shift the mechanism of payment for financial losses to local fishing so that it is overseen by government and not by the corporations involved. Can we do both or do we have to choose? How would we decide and on what might we base that decision?
Then they were to take what they learned from this exercise and try to apply it to the problems that they have been researching for their own projects.
What level of fishing is sustainable is a separate question that they might have to do on their own and then try to figure out how that situation might impact or intersect with this other problem.
I like the Guardian longform articles, though they have a lot more atmosphere as opposed to more information. I often find juxtaposing these with their other reporting and the opinion is interesting.
I am teaching research writing here, though it is a totally different beast here. I’m trying to get them to use explainpaper.com to get through a larger amount of research than they might have before, but getting them to interact with the research in a way that is their own voice is way beyond where they are.
I like the Guardian longform articles, though they have a lot more atmosphere as opposed to more information. I often find juxtaposing these with their other reporting and the opinion is interesting.
I am teaching research writing here, though it is a totally different beast here. I’m trying to get them to use explainpaper.com to get through a larger amount of research than they might have before, but getting them to interact with the research in a way that is their own voice is way beyond where they are.
Don’t want to make this a separate post, but I found this NYT piece by A.O. Scott to be interesting
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/03/books-review/tucker-carlson-text-message-whiteness.html
save as html and drop on your browser if you need to get past the paywall.
When I saw the original story, I was confused, I didn’t know if the implication was that Carlson was fired because he felt some sympathy towards the guy getting beaten or if he sympathized too much with the people doing the beating. As I said, I don’t think there was a single straw, though I can imagine, in the “How do we solve a problem like Tucker” scene played out in the Fox boardroom, at some point, something was waved something in front of everyone that made them all decide. It would be interesting if this was it.
Don’t want to make this a separate post, but I found this NYT piece by A.O. Scott to be interesting
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/03/books-review/tucker-carlson-text-message-whiteness.html
save as html and drop on your browser if you need to get past the paywall.
When I saw the original story, I was confused, I didn’t know if the implication was that Carlson was fired because he felt some sympathy towards the guy getting beaten or if he sympathized too much with the people doing the beating. As I said, I don’t think there was a single straw, though I can imagine, in the “How do we solve a problem like Tucker” scene played out in the Fox boardroom, at some point, something was waved something in front of everyone that made them all decide. It would be interesting if this was it.
That’s an interesting article, nous.
What is doesn’t seem to do very well is tease out the difference between the risks to commercial fisheries (which might fairly easily be dealt with by reasonable compensation), and genuine long term damage to fish habitats.
This is about as far as it goes, without much data to back it up.
…For Vineyard Wind, fisheries scientists outlined how repeated blasts from pile driving into the ocean floor can cause “fish kills.” The sound wave impact, which can be felt underwater from as far as 50 miles away, can cause a “cumulative stress response” that disrupts the ability of fish to feed or spawn. Suspended sediment on the ocean floor kicked up by construction could also harm fish, and digging long and deep trenches to connect turbines to shore by cable would result in “permanent loss of juvenile cod” habitat…
(It’s not impossible, for example, that large structures, by impeding fishing, might in the medium term provide a degree of protection to habitats.)
is there anything more informative about that ?
That’s an interesting article, nous.
What is doesn’t seem to do very well is tease out the difference between the risks to commercial fisheries (which might fairly easily be dealt with by reasonable compensation), and genuine long term damage to fish habitats.
This is about as far as it goes, without much data to back it up.
…For Vineyard Wind, fisheries scientists outlined how repeated blasts from pile driving into the ocean floor can cause “fish kills.” The sound wave impact, which can be felt underwater from as far as 50 miles away, can cause a “cumulative stress response” that disrupts the ability of fish to feed or spawn. Suspended sediment on the ocean floor kicked up by construction could also harm fish, and digging long and deep trenches to connect turbines to shore by cable would result in “permanent loss of juvenile cod” habitat…
(It’s not impossible, for example, that large structures, by impeding fishing, might in the medium term provide a degree of protection to habitats.)
is there anything more informative about that ?
lj: I absolutely assumed when I read the story that what Fox was concerned about was the incredible statement about how that’s not the way white men fight. Even they couldn’t spin that as anything other than horrifically racist, and they would have known that. As for his “Christian” musings about the damage to his soul etc, and the possible sufferings of whoever might have loved the “Antifa creep”, it never occurred to me that Fox would pay much attention to that. It seemed pretty performative to me, but I guess it depends who he sent it to. I suppose you can make a case for it factoring in for Fox, but my guess is it’s all about the TC racism issue getting turbocharged, and perhaps the knock on effect on the black vote etc.
lj: I absolutely assumed when I read the story that what Fox was concerned about was the incredible statement about how that’s not the way white men fight. Even they couldn’t spin that as anything other than horrifically racist, and they would have known that. As for his “Christian” musings about the damage to his soul etc, and the possible sufferings of whoever might have loved the “Antifa creep”, it never occurred to me that Fox would pay much attention to that. It seemed pretty performative to me, but I guess it depends who he sent it to. I suppose you can make a case for it factoring in for Fox, but my guess is it’s all about the TC racism issue getting turbocharged, and perhaps the knock on effect on the black vote etc.
In today’s Guardian about the playing of the tape of Trump’s deposition in the E Jean Carroll case:
The former president also said he could not remember when he was married to his various wives, but could find out. Asked if he had affairs while married, Trump said: “I don’t know.”
I wonder if the tapes of depositions are publicly available, such that political ads could play this snippet? Not that I expect MAGAts care about his morality, about which after all much is already known, but some might think it goes to his cognitive faculties….
In today’s Guardian about the playing of the tape of Trump’s deposition in the E Jean Carroll case:
The former president also said he could not remember when he was married to his various wives, but could find out. Asked if he had affairs while married, Trump said: “I don’t know.”
I wonder if the tapes of depositions are publicly available, such that political ads could play this snippet? Not that I expect MAGAts care about his morality, about which after all much is already known, but some might think it goes to his cognitive faculties….
Quoting from Nigel’s quote: Suspended sediment on the ocean floor kicked up by construction could also harm fish, and digging long and deep trenches to connect turbines to shore by cable would result in “permanent loss of juvenile cod” habitat…
Cod was a huge presence in my experience of New England from 1968 onward, and still when I moved to Maine in 1987. It was readily available in the grocery store, and indeed we ate it quite often. (“Here’s to good old Boston, the home of the bean and the cod, where the Cabots speak only to Lowells, and the Lowells speak only to God.”)
In the years since I moved to Maine, the cod fishery has dwindled and then died. I haven’t kept up, but wikipedia says this:
Note the date: 2006; I believe it has gotten much worse since then — I stopped seeing cod in the grocery store long ago, although to be honest I don’t even look anymore, I get my fish elsewhere.
Two points: the notion of worrying about juvenile cod habitat seems a little off, i.e. so much too late as to be a misdirection, unless it’s totally from the point of view of people who are trying to revive the species.
Secondly, skimming this article brought home to me for the first time how piecemeal is “our” (human) approach to global problems. We might succeed in figuring out how to balance the need for energy (wind farms) against the need for food (and jobs), and find ourselves blindsided by some other threat (pollution from runoff?) that’s going to ruin the fishery anyhow. Nothing like this can be adequately dealt with in small slices. And it doesn’t seem that we’re very good at “big picture” thinking.
Off the top of my head in the morning.
Quoting from Nigel’s quote: Suspended sediment on the ocean floor kicked up by construction could also harm fish, and digging long and deep trenches to connect turbines to shore by cable would result in “permanent loss of juvenile cod” habitat…
Cod was a huge presence in my experience of New England from 1968 onward, and still when I moved to Maine in 1987. It was readily available in the grocery store, and indeed we ate it quite often. (“Here’s to good old Boston, the home of the bean and the cod, where the Cabots speak only to Lowells, and the Lowells speak only to God.”)
In the years since I moved to Maine, the cod fishery has dwindled and then died. I haven’t kept up, but wikipedia says this:
Note the date: 2006; I believe it has gotten much worse since then — I stopped seeing cod in the grocery store long ago, although to be honest I don’t even look anymore, I get my fish elsewhere.
Two points: the notion of worrying about juvenile cod habitat seems a little off, i.e. so much too late as to be a misdirection, unless it’s totally from the point of view of people who are trying to revive the species.
Secondly, skimming this article brought home to me for the first time how piecemeal is “our” (human) approach to global problems. We might succeed in figuring out how to balance the need for energy (wind farms) against the need for food (and jobs), and find ourselves blindsided by some other threat (pollution from runoff?) that’s going to ruin the fishery anyhow. Nothing like this can be adequately dealt with in small slices. And it doesn’t seem that we’re very good at “big picture” thinking.
Off the top of my head in the morning.
Not that I expect MAGAts care about his morality, about which after all much is already known, but some might think it goes to his cognitive faculties….
Sure Trump boasts about his (supposed) intelligence, and will likely campaign against Biden’s supposed cognitive decline. But I find it impossible to believe that his cultists vote for him for his brains. As with his morals, the utter lack has long since been evident.
Not that I expect MAGAts care about his morality, about which after all much is already known, but some might think it goes to his cognitive faculties….
Sure Trump boasts about his (supposed) intelligence, and will likely campaign against Biden’s supposed cognitive decline. But I find it impossible to believe that his cultists vote for him for his brains. As with his morals, the utter lack has long since been evident.
And it doesn’t seem that we’re very good at “big picture” thinking.
Or even “medium picture” thinking. To wit:
So how many jobs will there be catching cod when there are no cod left?
And it doesn’t seem that we’re very good at “big picture” thinking.
Or even “medium picture” thinking. To wit:
So how many jobs will there be catching cod when there are no cod left?
And it doesn’t seem that we’re very good at “big picture” thinking.
I don’t think it’s a problem with the size of the frame. It’s a problem dealing with the multiple (and interacting) details. Even with a relatively narrow focus, a simplistic solution seems most likely to be seized upon.
And it doesn’t seem that we’re very good at “big picture” thinking.
I don’t think it’s a problem with the size of the frame. It’s a problem dealing with the multiple (and interacting) details. Even with a relatively narrow focus, a simplistic solution seems most likely to be seized upon.
“I don’t know” is an obvious lie. MAGAts think Trump is entitled to lie. And, tbf, Bill Clinton lied about the same thing.
“I don’t know” is an obvious lie. MAGAts think Trump is entitled to lie. And, tbf, Bill Clinton lied about the same thing.
Bill Clinton lied outright, with the added undesirable element of lawyerly semanticism, whereas Trump feigns forgetfulness, or dementia. I suppose whichever seems more undesirable in a president is down to personal preference.
Bill Clinton lied outright, with the added undesirable element of lawyerly semanticism, whereas Trump feigns forgetfulness, or dementia. I suppose whichever seems more undesirable in a president is down to personal preference.
The real question, ISTM, is how much of a MAGAt do you have to be to be called a MAGAt. That is, how many real, hardcore MAGAts are there – the kind of people who won’t get off the Trump train no matter what?
In the 2016 general election, a good number of people voted for him because they wanted to “try something different.” Another good number voted out of hatred of Hillary Clinton.
How many of those people will still vote for him 8 years later (assuming they’re even still breathing)? He lost in 2020 and has to be worse for wear since among people outside the, say, 25% or so of likely voters who are still in thrall of him.
All of which, for me, boils down to wondering if anyone should care about the opinions of people whose opinions can’t be changed and who are too small in number to determine the outcome of a presidential election without help from other voters.
The real question, ISTM, is how much of a MAGAt do you have to be to be called a MAGAt. That is, how many real, hardcore MAGAts are there – the kind of people who won’t get off the Trump train no matter what?
In the 2016 general election, a good number of people voted for him because they wanted to “try something different.” Another good number voted out of hatred of Hillary Clinton.
How many of those people will still vote for him 8 years later (assuming they’re even still breathing)? He lost in 2020 and has to be worse for wear since among people outside the, say, 25% or so of likely voters who are still in thrall of him.
All of which, for me, boils down to wondering if anyone should care about the opinions of people whose opinions can’t be changed and who are too small in number to determine the outcome of a presidential election without help from other voters.
So how many jobs will there be catching cod when there are no cod left?
This is what I always wonder when these fights are going on. It is related not only to the issue of big picture thinking, but also to short/long term thinking.
Then again, it’s pretty easy to understand how scary it is to think you’re going to lose your livelihood next year, and just as easy to sympathize with an attitude that might say well, we’ll fix this problem before the fishery actually dies. (In reality, when i’ve paid any attention to these fights, the fishing-livelihood people are usually arguing that there’s not really a problem, or not as much of a problem as the alarmists are saying.)
Two articles from the Bangor paper; I don’t know if lj’s trick of copying the link then opening it will work, but I am able to read the articles in my firefox browser with scripts turned off (also ads). I can’t read them in Chrome, which picks u the script that says “she’s not a subscriber.”
https://www.bangordailynews.com/2022/05/09/business/haul-of-atlantic-cod-once-abundant-reaches-new-low/
https://www.bangordailynews.com/2023/01/05/business/gulf-of-maine-cod-rebuild/
I know I’ve read an article or two fairly recently about the offshore wind vs fishing fleet battle here in Maine, but I can’t find them on a quick search and don’t have time to dig deeper right now.
So how many jobs will there be catching cod when there are no cod left?
This is what I always wonder when these fights are going on. It is related not only to the issue of big picture thinking, but also to short/long term thinking.
Then again, it’s pretty easy to understand how scary it is to think you’re going to lose your livelihood next year, and just as easy to sympathize with an attitude that might say well, we’ll fix this problem before the fishery actually dies. (In reality, when i’ve paid any attention to these fights, the fishing-livelihood people are usually arguing that there’s not really a problem, or not as much of a problem as the alarmists are saying.)
Two articles from the Bangor paper; I don’t know if lj’s trick of copying the link then opening it will work, but I am able to read the articles in my firefox browser with scripts turned off (also ads). I can’t read them in Chrome, which picks u the script that says “she’s not a subscriber.”
https://www.bangordailynews.com/2022/05/09/business/haul-of-atlantic-cod-once-abundant-reaches-new-low/
https://www.bangordailynews.com/2023/01/05/business/gulf-of-maine-cod-rebuild/
I know I’ve read an article or two fairly recently about the offshore wind vs fishing fleet battle here in Maine, but I can’t find them on a quick search and don’t have time to dig deeper right now.
On the question of cod, it has for years been considered endangered in most of the Atlantic (with the exception of Iceland, where it was considered sustainable). Wikipedia tells me today that:
While the north west Atlantic cod stocks have not yet recovered fully from overfishing in the past, most stocks in the East Atlantic are currently in good condition and well managed, such as those at North Norway and Svalbard.
It seems unlikely that the North American cod fishery will ever regain its former plenty. As a 2020 article in the Guardian says:
It’s said cod were once so plentiful in New England they would throw themselves into a boat. It’s said you could walk across their backs to shore.
Gloucester, Massachusetts, grew up around cod. The waterfront teemed with boats and fishermen, heaps of fish thrashing in wire baskets. Boats were inherited from fathers and shipyards boasted of operating since 1684. As late as the 1980s, the cod were so abundant and large (30-50lb each) that the fishermen still brought in big hauls. Cod remains the state fish of Massachusetts.
Today, you’re unlikely to find fresh Atlantic cod in any American food shop. The vast majority of the cod for sale is frozen, shipped in from Norway or Iceland.
Anecdotally, English fishermen suggest that the more local cod stocks are noticeably improving, but I am unaware if this has been confirmed by independent experts.
Interestingly (to me at any rate), I always thought cod was the preferred fish of the English for fish and chips, but when I married my late husband he informed me (and I subsequently confirmed) that in the North Country it was haddock all the way. Another difference between the north and south chippies was that in the north the chips (and I think the fish) are fried in beef dripping. I regret to say they do taste better for it.
On the question of cod, it has for years been considered endangered in most of the Atlantic (with the exception of Iceland, where it was considered sustainable). Wikipedia tells me today that:
While the north west Atlantic cod stocks have not yet recovered fully from overfishing in the past, most stocks in the East Atlantic are currently in good condition and well managed, such as those at North Norway and Svalbard.
It seems unlikely that the North American cod fishery will ever regain its former plenty. As a 2020 article in the Guardian says:
It’s said cod were once so plentiful in New England they would throw themselves into a boat. It’s said you could walk across their backs to shore.
Gloucester, Massachusetts, grew up around cod. The waterfront teemed with boats and fishermen, heaps of fish thrashing in wire baskets. Boats were inherited from fathers and shipyards boasted of operating since 1684. As late as the 1980s, the cod were so abundant and large (30-50lb each) that the fishermen still brought in big hauls. Cod remains the state fish of Massachusetts.
Today, you’re unlikely to find fresh Atlantic cod in any American food shop. The vast majority of the cod for sale is frozen, shipped in from Norway or Iceland.
Anecdotally, English fishermen suggest that the more local cod stocks are noticeably improving, but I am unaware if this has been confirmed by independent experts.
Interestingly (to me at any rate), I always thought cod was the preferred fish of the English for fish and chips, but when I married my late husband he informed me (and I subsequently confirmed) that in the North Country it was haddock all the way. Another difference between the north and south chippies was that in the north the chips (and I think the fish) are fried in beef dripping. I regret to say they do taste better for it.
A Mainer who was awarded a MacArthur grant for his personal studies of the cod fishery:
https://www.voanews.com/a/a-13-2005-09-30-voa39/295607.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Ames
Note that the grant was in 2009….
A Mainer who was awarded a MacArthur grant for his personal studies of the cod fishery:
https://www.voanews.com/a/a-13-2005-09-30-voa39/295607.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Ames
Note that the grant was in 2009….
Just as a bemusing side note about food from the sea, lobster was once so abundant and cheap that it was scorned as a food for humans, and fed only to prisoners (and, I believe, at least in Maine, logging crews, who would complain if they had it too often).
https://www.tastingtable.com/786501/the-expensive-delicacy-that-was-once-served-to-prisoners/
Just as a bemusing side note about food from the sea, lobster was once so abundant and cheap that it was scorned as a food for humans, and fed only to prisoners (and, I believe, at least in Maine, logging crews, who would complain if they had it too often).
https://www.tastingtable.com/786501/the-expensive-delicacy-that-was-once-served-to-prisoners/
Janie, the same was true of oysters here! Not necessarily about prisoners (at least that I know of), but certainly very poor people and manual labourers and the like. Their shells are found in extraordinary abundance in all archaeological digs etc. Now, like your lobster, they are an extravagant luxury, even allowing for the fact that non-native (i.e. Pacific) oysters are cheaper.
Janie, the same was true of oysters here! Not necessarily about prisoners (at least that I know of), but certainly very poor people and manual labourers and the like. Their shells are found in extraordinary abundance in all archaeological digs etc. Now, like your lobster, they are an extravagant luxury, even allowing for the fact that non-native (i.e. Pacific) oysters are cheaper.
All of which, for me, boils down to wondering if anyone should care about the opinions of people whose opinions can’t be changed and who are too small in number to determine the outcome of a presidential election without help from other voters.
I want to qualify this as being limited to election strategy, specifically for the general election. People in certain types of law enforcement should care about the opinions of at least some hardcore MAGAts and keep a close eye on their activities.
All of which, for me, boils down to wondering if anyone should care about the opinions of people whose opinions can’t be changed and who are too small in number to determine the outcome of a presidential election without help from other voters.
I want to qualify this as being limited to election strategy, specifically for the general election. People in certain types of law enforcement should care about the opinions of at least some hardcore MAGAts and keep a close eye on their activities.
hsh, although I always seem not to be able to help looking for things to “turn” MAGAts, I actually believe yours is the more sensible approach.
hsh, although I always seem not to be able to help looking for things to “turn” MAGAts, I actually believe yours is the more sensible approach.
Some interesting notes on how DeSantis is losing donors.
https://www.economist.com/podcasts/2023/05/04/its-not-just-his-critics-who-are-expressing-disappointment-its-also-some-of-his-donors-ron-desantis
Apparently they, unlike Republican primary voters, actually have an interest in winning general elections.
Some interesting notes on how DeSantis is losing donors.
https://www.economist.com/podcasts/2023/05/04/its-not-just-his-critics-who-are-expressing-disappointment-its-also-some-of-his-donors-ron-desantis
Apparently they, unlike Republican primary voters, actually have an interest in winning general elections.
All of which, for me, boils down to wondering if anyone should care about the opinions of people whose opinions can’t be changed and who are too small in number to determine the outcome of a presidential election without help from other voters.
…
I want to qualify this as being limited to election strategy, specifically for the general election.
I think we care because, absent Trump (especially if he is absent because he lost in the primaries), a lot of the MAGAts seem likely to just stay home and sulk. Which, since as you say general elections seem to be decided by narrow margins, could have a significant impact.
All of which, for me, boils down to wondering if anyone should care about the opinions of people whose opinions can’t be changed and who are too small in number to determine the outcome of a presidential election without help from other voters.
…
I want to qualify this as being limited to election strategy, specifically for the general election.
I think we care because, absent Trump (especially if he is absent because he lost in the primaries), a lot of the MAGAts seem likely to just stay home and sulk. Which, since as you say general elections seem to be decided by narrow margins, could have a significant impact.
GftNC, I think it may be a matter of turning off MAGAts, rather than turning them to other (even Democratic) candidates.
GftNC, I think it may be a matter of turning off MAGAts, rather than turning them to other (even Democratic) candidates.
The best case is that he isn’t absent even though he did lose the primary, running as an independant and splitting Republican voters.
The best case is that he isn’t absent even though he did lose the primary, running as an independant and splitting Republican voters.
The question about cod sustainability is a good one. Another question I raised for my students to think about (as a model for asking good critical questions) – assuming that the fishing off the coast IS disrupted badly enough to ruin the prospects of the commercial fishers in the area – where do they go and what prospects are available to them? What happens to the communities built around them? How does this affect food security for marginal communities?
Their ultimate goal in the class is to find something net-positive that can be done collectively to alleviate at least one problem created by our climate action (or climate inaction) that is causing or caused by human migration.
I’m far more concerned that they ask the questions and dig deep for understanding than I am for them to find actual answers. I’m just hoping that these seeds take root and bloom when they finally get some power to affect change.
Meanwhile, another interesting tangent from another news article: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-03-16/shasta-county-recall-election-reverge-anselmo-payback
I know someone who lived with Anselmo while he was a student in Santa Fé, and she says that this is completely on brand with his character and his far right turn.
If federalism does go down due to billionaire backed political sabotage, I expect to see a lot of this sort of thing in our future.
The question about cod sustainability is a good one. Another question I raised for my students to think about (as a model for asking good critical questions) – assuming that the fishing off the coast IS disrupted badly enough to ruin the prospects of the commercial fishers in the area – where do they go and what prospects are available to them? What happens to the communities built around them? How does this affect food security for marginal communities?
Their ultimate goal in the class is to find something net-positive that can be done collectively to alleviate at least one problem created by our climate action (or climate inaction) that is causing or caused by human migration.
I’m far more concerned that they ask the questions and dig deep for understanding than I am for them to find actual answers. I’m just hoping that these seeds take root and bloom when they finally get some power to affect change.
Meanwhile, another interesting tangent from another news article: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-03-16/shasta-county-recall-election-reverge-anselmo-payback
I know someone who lived with Anselmo while he was a student in Santa Fé, and she says that this is completely on brand with his character and his far right turn.
If federalism does go down due to billionaire backed political sabotage, I expect to see a lot of this sort of thing in our future.
This from nous’ link jumped out at me:
Ah, yes. Because a bunch of militia types patrolling a town to protect it from imaginary threats isn’t craziness.
This from nous’ link jumped out at me:
Ah, yes. Because a bunch of militia types patrolling a town to protect it from imaginary threats isn’t craziness.
“Antifa” — nice, mysterious, foreign-sounding term, with the perfect amount of stickiness to catch and hold onto projections.
“Antifa” — nice, mysterious, foreign-sounding term, with the perfect amount of stickiness to catch and hold onto projections.
Back to the fishing jobs.
Another word (besides “we”) that gets used to cover a lot of unexamined assumptions is “mine.” “My” job involves taking from the stock of (what I, JanieM, think of as) collective resources and selling them for my own benefit.
This is an easy example, and handy because of the discussion above, but I don’t mean to pick on the individual fisherperson, whose work is hard and risky and perhaps has been going on in his or her family for hundreds of years. This does, after all, go on at scales from mushroom-gathering (often on other people’s property and wtihout permission) in the woods in Maine, to massive corporations…nuff said.
We hear about it here from time to time in the framing of taxes as being money taken away from what’s “mine” (i.e. belonging to whoever is writing). But if you believe in the rule of law, and the law says that a certain proportion of what you take in every year belongs to the community as a whole, then it was never yours in the first place, and “mine” is not an accurate description of the situation.
Which leads me back to the basic proposition that seems to be the ruling one in our culture in this era, and of course in many cultures in many eras: “MINE is, simply, whatever I am strong and clever and ruthless enough to grab. It doesn’t matter who gets hurt or who goes hungry as a result, I have no responsibility for the community, or for anyone in the community other than myself.”
A topic as big as the world. But as I think about it, the days when most of what we argued about politically was how much we are all responsible for the collective (basically, tax rates) seem like a golden age.
Back to the fishing jobs.
Another word (besides “we”) that gets used to cover a lot of unexamined assumptions is “mine.” “My” job involves taking from the stock of (what I, JanieM, think of as) collective resources and selling them for my own benefit.
This is an easy example, and handy because of the discussion above, but I don’t mean to pick on the individual fisherperson, whose work is hard and risky and perhaps has been going on in his or her family for hundreds of years. This does, after all, go on at scales from mushroom-gathering (often on other people’s property and wtihout permission) in the woods in Maine, to massive corporations…nuff said.
We hear about it here from time to time in the framing of taxes as being money taken away from what’s “mine” (i.e. belonging to whoever is writing). But if you believe in the rule of law, and the law says that a certain proportion of what you take in every year belongs to the community as a whole, then it was never yours in the first place, and “mine” is not an accurate description of the situation.
Which leads me back to the basic proposition that seems to be the ruling one in our culture in this era, and of course in many cultures in many eras: “MINE is, simply, whatever I am strong and clever and ruthless enough to grab. It doesn’t matter who gets hurt or who goes hungry as a result, I have no responsibility for the community, or for anyone in the community other than myself.”
A topic as big as the world. But as I think about it, the days when most of what we argued about politically was how much we are all responsible for the collective (basically, tax rates) seem like a golden age.
Fisheries have the same problem as all open-access commons. Even though taking as much as you can from a resource will in time destroy it, there’s little incentive not to. Because, if you don’t take as much as you can the other guy will. An approach to counter this is to assign property rights to fisheries.
“If nothing is done to reform open-access fisheries around the world, fishing stocks could drop by as much as 77 percent below current levels by 2050, reports a new study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. If, however, property rights were assigned to individual fishers or communities, the yield trajectory of most of the world’s fisheries would shift sharply upward and most would recover biologically in only 10 years. These conclusions were reached by a team of researchers led by University of California, Santa Barbara environmental scientist Christopher Costello in their study, ‘Global fishing prospects under contrasting management regimes.'”
Use Property Rights to Save Fisheries Around the Globe, Says New Study: Anything you think of as an environmental problem is occurring in an open-access commons.
Fisheries have the same problem as all open-access commons. Even though taking as much as you can from a resource will in time destroy it, there’s little incentive not to. Because, if you don’t take as much as you can the other guy will. An approach to counter this is to assign property rights to fisheries.
“If nothing is done to reform open-access fisheries around the world, fishing stocks could drop by as much as 77 percent below current levels by 2050, reports a new study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. If, however, property rights were assigned to individual fishers or communities, the yield trajectory of most of the world’s fisheries would shift sharply upward and most would recover biologically in only 10 years. These conclusions were reached by a team of researchers led by University of California, Santa Barbara environmental scientist Christopher Costello in their study, ‘Global fishing prospects under contrasting management regimes.'”
Use Property Rights to Save Fisheries Around the Globe, Says New Study: Anything you think of as an environmental problem is occurring in an open-access commons.
if you believe in the rule of law, and the law says that a certain proportion of what you take in every year belongs to the community as a whole, then it was never yours in the first place, and “mine” is not an accurate description of the situation.
Hence the value of income tax withholding. If the money never even arrives in your account (or in your hands), then it doesn’t feel like “mine” the way it would if you were having to write a check each quarter.
Which may be why the rich, who are less likely to have income primarily from wages subject to withholding, get more exercised about how high their taxes are. It’s not that they can’t afford them; probably they don’t even notice the impact. It’s that they had to write a check.
if you believe in the rule of law, and the law says that a certain proportion of what you take in every year belongs to the community as a whole, then it was never yours in the first place, and “mine” is not an accurate description of the situation.
Hence the value of income tax withholding. If the money never even arrives in your account (or in your hands), then it doesn’t feel like “mine” the way it would if you were having to write a check each quarter.
Which may be why the rich, who are less likely to have income primarily from wages subject to withholding, get more exercised about how high their taxes are. It’s not that they can’t afford them; probably they don’t even notice the impact. It’s that they had to write a check.
Anything you think of as an environmental problem is occurring in an open-access commons.
So if we had assigned property rights in the air we breathe and the rivers that run through our towns, the paper mills in Maine and the chemical factories in my home town would never have polluted the air and water? The fishery in Lake Erie wouldn’t have died of pollution?
But we would have had to pay a monthly fee to the corporate owners for the air we were breathing?
(Did not click the links.)
Anything you think of as an environmental problem is occurring in an open-access commons.
So if we had assigned property rights in the air we breathe and the rivers that run through our towns, the paper mills in Maine and the chemical factories in my home town would never have polluted the air and water? The fishery in Lake Erie wouldn’t have died of pollution?
But we would have had to pay a monthly fee to the corporate owners for the air we were breathing?
(Did not click the links.)
Which may be why the rich, who are less likely to have income primarily from wages subject to withholding, get more exercised about how high their taxes are. It’s not that they can’t afford them; probably they don’t even notice the impact. It’s that they had to write a check.
Somehow I don’t think this is really the problem. But nice try in the “they’re acutally nice and not really greedy” department.
Which may be why the rich, who are less likely to have income primarily from wages subject to withholding, get more exercised about how high their taxes are. It’s not that they can’t afford them; probably they don’t even notice the impact. It’s that they had to write a check.
Somehow I don’t think this is really the problem. But nice try in the “they’re acutally nice and not really greedy” department.
wj — apologies for the sarcasm. It’s not fair to accuse everyone who doesn’t want to pay so much in taxes of being “greedy” — but I stand by my belief that the fact that they have to write a check is not actually the root of the problem.
I have been shocked several times over the years by rants from people I knew who insisted that they worked hard for their money and brought themselves up by their bootstraps, so they shouldn’t have to pay to support the deadbeats who weren’t so industrious. (Vast oversimplification of the conversations, obviously.)
wj — apologies for the sarcasm. It’s not fair to accuse everyone who doesn’t want to pay so much in taxes of being “greedy” — but I stand by my belief that the fact that they have to write a check is not actually the root of the problem.
I have been shocked several times over the years by rants from people I knew who insisted that they worked hard for their money and brought themselves up by their bootstraps, so they shouldn’t have to pay to support the deadbeats who weren’t so industrious. (Vast oversimplification of the conversations, obviously.)
I stand by my belief that the fact that they have to write a check is not actually the root of the problem.
I wouldn’t call it the root of the problem. But I do think it does exacerbate it.
I have been shocked several times over the years by rants from people I knew who insisted that they worked hard for their money and brought themselves up by their bootstraps
Call me cynical, but I’d bet most of those have never done any actual hard work. Sitting at a desk, even for 10-12 hours a day, simply doesn’t qualify as hard work.
I stand by my belief that the fact that they have to write a check is not actually the root of the problem.
I wouldn’t call it the root of the problem. But I do think it does exacerbate it.
I have been shocked several times over the years by rants from people I knew who insisted that they worked hard for their money and brought themselves up by their bootstraps
Call me cynical, but I’d bet most of those have never done any actual hard work. Sitting at a desk, even for 10-12 hours a day, simply doesn’t qualify as hard work.
So if we had assigned property rights in the air we breathe and the rivers that run through our towns, the paper mills in Maine and the chemical factories in my home town would never have polluted the air and water?
The air is a difficult conundrum. But in the case of rivers property owners could sue the polluters. Whereas governments often tell polluters they can pollute some. Just don’t overdo it. What constitutes overdoing varies as to time and place.
So if we had assigned property rights in the air we breathe and the rivers that run through our towns, the paper mills in Maine and the chemical factories in my home town would never have polluted the air and water?
The air is a difficult conundrum. But in the case of rivers property owners could sue the polluters. Whereas governments often tell polluters they can pollute some. Just don’t overdo it. What constitutes overdoing varies as to time and place.
Anything you think of as an environmental problem is occurring in an open-access commons.
Or where the property rights system was done badly. Consider water rights in pretty much any western state of the US. Most rivers there are “oversubscribed”, a nice euphemism for assigning more rights than there is water.
Anything you think of as an environmental problem is occurring in an open-access commons.
Or where the property rights system was done badly. Consider water rights in pretty much any western state of the US. Most rivers there are “oversubscribed”, a nice euphemism for assigning more rights than there is water.
@wj — in any case, the really rich don’t do their own taxes or write their own checks, their lawyers and accountants take care of it.
@wj — in any case, the really rich don’t do their own taxes or write their own checks, their lawyers and accountants take care of it.
@JanieM, but their accountants make a point of telling them quite explicitly how much they paid. As opposed to having a number on a pay stub, where you only ever look at the bottom line number for your net pay.
That’s why people getting a tax refund feel like they just gained something. Rather than thinking, correctly, that it indicates they gave the government a zero interest loan.
@JanieM, but their accountants make a point of telling them quite explicitly how much they paid. As opposed to having a number on a pay stub, where you only ever look at the bottom line number for your net pay.
That’s why people getting a tax refund feel like they just gained something. Rather than thinking, correctly, that it indicates they gave the government a zero interest loan.
The source of withholding.
“One of the major opponents of the idea was the IRS. Because every organization knows that the only way you can do anything is the way they’ve always been doing it. This was something new, and they kept telling us how impossible it was. It was a very interesting and very challenging intellectual task. I played a significant role, no question about it, in introducing withholding. I think it’s a great mistake for peacetime, but in 1941–43, all of us were concentrating on the war.
I have no apologies for it, but I really wish we hadn’t found it necessary and I wish there were some way of abolishing withholding now.” —Milton Friedman
Best of Both Worlds: An Interview with Milton Friedman: Milton Friedman reminisces about his career as an economist and his lifetime “avocation” as a spokesman for freedom.
The source of withholding.
“One of the major opponents of the idea was the IRS. Because every organization knows that the only way you can do anything is the way they’ve always been doing it. This was something new, and they kept telling us how impossible it was. It was a very interesting and very challenging intellectual task. I played a significant role, no question about it, in introducing withholding. I think it’s a great mistake for peacetime, but in 1941–43, all of us were concentrating on the war.
I have no apologies for it, but I really wish we hadn’t found it necessary and I wish there were some way of abolishing withholding now.” —Milton Friedman
Best of Both Worlds: An Interview with Milton Friedman: Milton Friedman reminisces about his career as an economist and his lifetime “avocation” as a spokesman for freedom.
So if we had assigned property rights in the air we breathe and the rivers that run through our towns, the paper mills in Maine and the chemical factories in my home town would never have polluted the air and water?
The most effective curtailment of air pollution in history was based on property rights — reducing sulfur dioxide emissions from power stations. If a power station wanted to emit SO2, they had to hold sufficient emission permits. The market was a closed one, the available permits were decreased year by year, but the SO2 permits were sold back and forth and emissions went way down.
Some people were outraged by the concept of the government creating property rights and running a closed market for trading them. They’ll probably be outraged by any working solution to the cod harvesting problem. But someone will decide how big this year’s catch will be, will issue permits, will settle on a system for how those permits get distributed, and will enforce the catch limits.
That said, the EPA and their economists did get blindsided somewhat on SO2. They anticipated that some generators would switch to natural gas, many would build scrubbers (both pre- and post-combustion), and some would replace old inefficient coal-burners with new ones that produced a lot more electricity per ton of SO2 emitted. What they didn’t include was the Powder River Basin in Wyoming vastly increasing their production of lower-sulfur coal and the big railroads’ ability to move it clear across the country all at a price that was competitive. PRB coal went from a relatively insignificant fraction of US coal production to 40% of the total output in a remarkably short time. I’m sure there will be surprises in the market for cod permits.
So if we had assigned property rights in the air we breathe and the rivers that run through our towns, the paper mills in Maine and the chemical factories in my home town would never have polluted the air and water?
The most effective curtailment of air pollution in history was based on property rights — reducing sulfur dioxide emissions from power stations. If a power station wanted to emit SO2, they had to hold sufficient emission permits. The market was a closed one, the available permits were decreased year by year, but the SO2 permits were sold back and forth and emissions went way down.
Some people were outraged by the concept of the government creating property rights and running a closed market for trading them. They’ll probably be outraged by any working solution to the cod harvesting problem. But someone will decide how big this year’s catch will be, will issue permits, will settle on a system for how those permits get distributed, and will enforce the catch limits.
That said, the EPA and their economists did get blindsided somewhat on SO2. They anticipated that some generators would switch to natural gas, many would build scrubbers (both pre- and post-combustion), and some would replace old inefficient coal-burners with new ones that produced a lot more electricity per ton of SO2 emitted. What they didn’t include was the Powder River Basin in Wyoming vastly increasing their production of lower-sulfur coal and the big railroads’ ability to move it clear across the country all at a price that was competitive. PRB coal went from a relatively insignificant fraction of US coal production to 40% of the total output in a remarkably short time. I’m sure there will be surprises in the market for cod permits.
Thank you, Michael. It’s really useful to have some actual practical experience to think about.
Thank you, Michael. It’s really useful to have some actual practical experience to think about.
Well, since we were talking about issues that might be ideologically unacceptable in certain bubbles, this is from today’s NYT:
Is a gay Republican Latino more capable of conducting a physics experiment than a white progressive heterosexual woman? Would they come to different conclusions based on the same data because of their different backgrounds?
For most people, the suggestion isn’t just ludicrous; it’s offensive.
Yet this belief — that science is somehow subjective and should be practiced and judged accordingly — has recently taken hold in academic, governmental and medical settings. A paper published last week, “In Defense of Merit in Science,” documents the disquieting ways in which research is increasingly informed by a politicized agenda, one that often characterizes science as fundamentally racist and in need of “decolonizing.” The authors argue that science should instead be independent, evidence-based and focused on advancing knowledge.
This sounds entirely reasonable.
Yet the paper was rejected by several prominent mainstream journals, including The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Another publication that passed on the paper, the authors report, described some of its conclusions as “downright hurtful.” The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences took issue with the word “merit” in the title, writing that “the problem is that this concept of merit, as the authors surely know, has been widely and legitimately attacked as hollow as currently implemented.”
Instead, the paper has been published in a new journal called — you can’t make this up — The Journal of Controversial Ideas. The journal, which welcomes papers that “discuss well-known controversial topics from diverse cultural, philosophical, moral, political and religious perspectives,” was co-founded in 2021 by the philosopher Peter Singer and is entirely serious. This particular paper was rewritten multiple times and peer-reviewed before publication. However controversial one judges the paper’s claims, they deserve consideration.
According to its 29 authors, who are primarily scientists (including two Nobel laureates) in fields as varied as theoretical physics, psychology and pharmacokinetics, ideological concerns are threatening independence and rigor in science, technology, engineering, mathematics and medicine. Though the goal of expanding opportunity for more diverse researchers in the sciences is laudable, the authors write, it should not be pursued at the expense of foundational scientific concepts like objective truth, merit and evidence, which they claim are being jeopardized by efforts to account for differing perspectives.
Consider the increasingly widespread practice of appending a “positionality statement” to one’s research. This is an explicit acknowledgment by the author of an academic paper of his or her identity (e.g., “nondisabled,” “continuing generation”). Positionality statements were first popular in the social sciences and are now spreading to the hard sciences and medicine. The idea is that one’s race, sex, relative privilege and “experiences of oppression” inherently inform one’s research, especially in ways that perpetuate or alleviate bias.
But whatever validity “alternative ways of knowing,” “multiple narratives” and “lived experience” may have in the humanities, they are of questionable utility when it comes to the sciences. Some defenders of positionality statements maintain that these acknowledgments promote objectivity by drawing attention to a researcher’s potential blind spots, but in practice they can have the opposite effect, implying that scientific research isn’t universally valid or applicable — that there are different kinds of knowledge for different groups of people.
And then more granular detail…
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/04/opinion/science-evidence-merits.html
Well, since we were talking about issues that might be ideologically unacceptable in certain bubbles, this is from today’s NYT:
Is a gay Republican Latino more capable of conducting a physics experiment than a white progressive heterosexual woman? Would they come to different conclusions based on the same data because of their different backgrounds?
For most people, the suggestion isn’t just ludicrous; it’s offensive.
Yet this belief — that science is somehow subjective and should be practiced and judged accordingly — has recently taken hold in academic, governmental and medical settings. A paper published last week, “In Defense of Merit in Science,” documents the disquieting ways in which research is increasingly informed by a politicized agenda, one that often characterizes science as fundamentally racist and in need of “decolonizing.” The authors argue that science should instead be independent, evidence-based and focused on advancing knowledge.
This sounds entirely reasonable.
Yet the paper was rejected by several prominent mainstream journals, including The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Another publication that passed on the paper, the authors report, described some of its conclusions as “downright hurtful.” The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences took issue with the word “merit” in the title, writing that “the problem is that this concept of merit, as the authors surely know, has been widely and legitimately attacked as hollow as currently implemented.”
Instead, the paper has been published in a new journal called — you can’t make this up — The Journal of Controversial Ideas. The journal, which welcomes papers that “discuss well-known controversial topics from diverse cultural, philosophical, moral, political and religious perspectives,” was co-founded in 2021 by the philosopher Peter Singer and is entirely serious. This particular paper was rewritten multiple times and peer-reviewed before publication. However controversial one judges the paper’s claims, they deserve consideration.
According to its 29 authors, who are primarily scientists (including two Nobel laureates) in fields as varied as theoretical physics, psychology and pharmacokinetics, ideological concerns are threatening independence and rigor in science, technology, engineering, mathematics and medicine. Though the goal of expanding opportunity for more diverse researchers in the sciences is laudable, the authors write, it should not be pursued at the expense of foundational scientific concepts like objective truth, merit and evidence, which they claim are being jeopardized by efforts to account for differing perspectives.
Consider the increasingly widespread practice of appending a “positionality statement” to one’s research. This is an explicit acknowledgment by the author of an academic paper of his or her identity (e.g., “nondisabled,” “continuing generation”). Positionality statements were first popular in the social sciences and are now spreading to the hard sciences and medicine. The idea is that one’s race, sex, relative privilege and “experiences of oppression” inherently inform one’s research, especially in ways that perpetuate or alleviate bias.
But whatever validity “alternative ways of knowing,” “multiple narratives” and “lived experience” may have in the humanities, they are of questionable utility when it comes to the sciences. Some defenders of positionality statements maintain that these acknowledgments promote objectivity by drawing attention to a researcher’s potential blind spots, but in practice they can have the opposite effect, implying that scientific research isn’t universally valid or applicable — that there are different kinds of knowledge for different groups of people.
And then more granular detail…
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/04/opinion/science-evidence-merits.html
I am of the opinion that “earned income” should be taxed at a low rate, and “unearned income” (dividends, interest, and *especially* cap gains) at a high rate.
You can think that opinion is “political” if you want, but it’s actually founded on the idea of promoting overall economic stability since “bubbles & crashes” are almost entirely caused by capital gain situations.
Now, how to connect that to withholding and objections to “yer takin mah $$$!”. For things like stocks (maybe housing too) it’s tricky but doable: when you buy, the government chips in a percentage of the price; when you sell, they extract that same percentage of the price. Bingo, capital gains withholding, automatically, with minimal recordkeeping.
So never going to happen, *sigh*.
I am of the opinion that “earned income” should be taxed at a low rate, and “unearned income” (dividends, interest, and *especially* cap gains) at a high rate.
You can think that opinion is “political” if you want, but it’s actually founded on the idea of promoting overall economic stability since “bubbles & crashes” are almost entirely caused by capital gain situations.
Now, how to connect that to withholding and objections to “yer takin mah $$$!”. For things like stocks (maybe housing too) it’s tricky but doable: when you buy, the government chips in a percentage of the price; when you sell, they extract that same percentage of the price. Bingo, capital gains withholding, automatically, with minimal recordkeeping.
So never going to happen, *sigh*.
You can think that opinion is “political” if you want, but it’s actually founded on the idea of promoting overall economic stability since “bubbles & crashes” are almost entirely caused by capital gain situations.
Of course it’s “political,” certainly in terms of whether a community will collectively decide to implement it, because a lot of people won’t give a shit about economic stability if they think they’ll get theirs regardless. Look at the looney-tunes in the majority party in the House at this very moment. And once you start arguing about which “reasons” are most important, well…that’s politics.
That is to say, just because you can think of “reasons” for a certain kind or level of taxation doesn’t mean everyone will rank various “reasons” the way you do. I can’t think of anything more centrally “political” than the question of taxation. (Note that I did not say that it’s *more* political than anything else…)
Or maybe you were trying to live up to your handle and just being snarky?
You can think that opinion is “political” if you want, but it’s actually founded on the idea of promoting overall economic stability since “bubbles & crashes” are almost entirely caused by capital gain situations.
Of course it’s “political,” certainly in terms of whether a community will collectively decide to implement it, because a lot of people won’t give a shit about economic stability if they think they’ll get theirs regardless. Look at the looney-tunes in the majority party in the House at this very moment. And once you start arguing about which “reasons” are most important, well…that’s politics.
That is to say, just because you can think of “reasons” for a certain kind or level of taxation doesn’t mean everyone will rank various “reasons” the way you do. I can’t think of anything more centrally “political” than the question of taxation. (Note that I did not say that it’s *more* political than anything else…)
Or maybe you were trying to live up to your handle and just being snarky?
I am not at all impressed with “In Defense of Merit in Science.” I have no reason to believe that the authors lack competence in their own scientific fields, but they are severely limited in their apparent understanding of the work that they are seeking to criticize and are drawing the wrong conclusions from the scholars they cite to argue against. What results is a straw man argument.
Seriously. I don’t think any of them have actually done the reading or put in the time with the things they seek to criticize to get to a basic understanding of what is actually being argued.
No one on either side is against the idea of merit or against the notion of universal principles like gravity. What is being questioned are epistemological grounds, and whether a system of human gatekeepers tasked with assessing merit from a particular epistemological perspective can do so in an objective and unbiased manner – especially when their own values and priorities are being challenged.
Science says that’s a hard needle to thread. There’s a lot of squishy endocrine noise in those logic gates.
Seriously, the authors need to sit down with someone who has done a lot of work in the philosophy of science and in postmodernism and post-structuralism, scrub off some pride, be a student again, and fucking listen.
Are Latour and Feyerabend and Lyotard always right? No. But they do have some criticisms that go to the heart of some serious biases in modern institutional sciences.
Rather than try to grapple with that, though, these authors trot out some ‘CRT scholars are like Stalinists’ scare tactics. It’s all pretty poor.
I can see why it was rejected by so many publications before it landed where it did.
And it’s just like the NYT to treat it like it is a bigger event than what it really is – which is a Culture War stunt.
They really are in good company on a thread with Carlson and Weiss.
I am not at all impressed with “In Defense of Merit in Science.” I have no reason to believe that the authors lack competence in their own scientific fields, but they are severely limited in their apparent understanding of the work that they are seeking to criticize and are drawing the wrong conclusions from the scholars they cite to argue against. What results is a straw man argument.
Seriously. I don’t think any of them have actually done the reading or put in the time with the things they seek to criticize to get to a basic understanding of what is actually being argued.
No one on either side is against the idea of merit or against the notion of universal principles like gravity. What is being questioned are epistemological grounds, and whether a system of human gatekeepers tasked with assessing merit from a particular epistemological perspective can do so in an objective and unbiased manner – especially when their own values and priorities are being challenged.
Science says that’s a hard needle to thread. There’s a lot of squishy endocrine noise in those logic gates.
Seriously, the authors need to sit down with someone who has done a lot of work in the philosophy of science and in postmodernism and post-structuralism, scrub off some pride, be a student again, and fucking listen.
Are Latour and Feyerabend and Lyotard always right? No. But they do have some criticisms that go to the heart of some serious biases in modern institutional sciences.
Rather than try to grapple with that, though, these authors trot out some ‘CRT scholars are like Stalinists’ scare tactics. It’s all pretty poor.
I can see why it was rejected by so many publications before it landed where it did.
And it’s just like the NYT to treat it like it is a bigger event than what it really is – which is a Culture War stunt.
They really are in good company on a thread with Carlson and Weiss.
nous — apparently it’s my day to say thank you. (First Michael, now you.)
I read the portion of the column quoted here and clicked over briefly to the whole thing, but could only roll my eyes at the columnist’s clear intent to do some hippie-bashing (so to speak) rabble-rousing rather than any actual thinking.
So unstead of thinking too hard about it myself, because dismantling a column like that really is beyond both my pay grade and my time availability, I went for a walk, during which I thought to myself, “I hope nous shows up to clarify things.” 🙂
Lo and behold.
nous — apparently it’s my day to say thank you. (First Michael, now you.)
I read the portion of the column quoted here and clicked over briefly to the whole thing, but could only roll my eyes at the columnist’s clear intent to do some hippie-bashing (so to speak) rabble-rousing rather than any actual thinking.
So unstead of thinking too hard about it myself, because dismantling a column like that really is beyond both my pay grade and my time availability, I went for a walk, during which I thought to myself, “I hope nous shows up to clarify things.” 🙂
Lo and behold.
But whatever validity “alternative ways of knowing,” “multiple narratives” and “lived experience” may have in the humanities, they are of questionable utility when it comes to the sciences.
That’s why we’re still working to fix mistakes made in medical science research because so much of it focused on white male test populations. Facial recognition that makes far more mistakes on people of color than whites. Voice recognition that struggles with voices pitched as high as the typical woman’s. Math word problems that assume white suburban knowledge. My alma mater lost its AAU membership because the committee in charge decided that research funded by the federal Dept of Agriculture wasn’t real “research”.
I remember the week they brought new computer terminals into our engineering lab. All but one woman complained that they were unusable because they made a loud screeching noise as soon as they were turned on. None of the men heard anything. When suitable test equipment was brought in, turned out the power supplies howled at about 23 kHz. The manufacturer had tested to 18.
But whatever validity “alternative ways of knowing,” “multiple narratives” and “lived experience” may have in the humanities, they are of questionable utility when it comes to the sciences.
That’s why we’re still working to fix mistakes made in medical science research because so much of it focused on white male test populations. Facial recognition that makes far more mistakes on people of color than whites. Voice recognition that struggles with voices pitched as high as the typical woman’s. Math word problems that assume white suburban knowledge. My alma mater lost its AAU membership because the committee in charge decided that research funded by the federal Dept of Agriculture wasn’t real “research”.
I remember the week they brought new computer terminals into our engineering lab. All but one woman complained that they were unusable because they made a loud screeching noise as soon as they were turned on. None of the men heard anything. When suitable test equipment was brought in, turned out the power supplies howled at about 23 kHz. The manufacturer had tested to 18.
they do have some criticisms that go to the heart of some serious biases in modern institutional sciences.
If you want to argue this with respect to the social sciences (e.g. sociology and anthropology) I’m right with you.
If you want to argue this with regard to life sciences, especially, medicine, you can make a case.
But Astronomy? Physics? Chemistry? Mathematics, even? Just not seeing it. Have you got a sample case where some work done there had results that depended on the race, gender, economic background, etc. of the researcher; where the same experiment, done by someone with a different background, would have produced a different result? If so, feel free to trot it out.
they do have some criticisms that go to the heart of some serious biases in modern institutional sciences.
If you want to argue this with respect to the social sciences (e.g. sociology and anthropology) I’m right with you.
If you want to argue this with regard to life sciences, especially, medicine, you can make a case.
But Astronomy? Physics? Chemistry? Mathematics, even? Just not seeing it. Have you got a sample case where some work done there had results that depended on the race, gender, economic background, etc. of the researcher; where the same experiment, done by someone with a different background, would have produced a different result? If so, feel free to trot it out.
I should have waited two more minutes, than I could have thanked Michael again.
The screechy equipment story reminds me of when I called a repair guy because a couple of the burners on my stove were making a humming noise. The repair guy (young-ish, with normal hearing) couldn’t hear the noise at all and had to have me stand by to tell him whether his adjustments were working or not.
To add to Michael’s list, google “Siri’s gender-related blind spots.” I don’t have Apple devices, so I haven’t paid enough attention to know if they’ve done anything about that particular problem.
I should have waited two more minutes, than I could have thanked Michael again.
The screechy equipment story reminds me of when I called a repair guy because a couple of the burners on my stove were making a humming noise. The repair guy (young-ish, with normal hearing) couldn’t hear the noise at all and had to have me stand by to tell him whether his adjustments were working or not.
To add to Michael’s list, google “Siri’s gender-related blind spots.” I don’t have Apple devices, so I haven’t paid enough attention to know if they’ve done anything about that particular problem.
That’s why we’re still working to fix mistakes made in medical science research because so much of it focused on white male test populations. Facial recognition that makes far more mistakes on people of color than whites. Voice recognition that struggles with voices pitched as high as the typical woman’s. Math word problems that assume white suburban knowledge.
As a follow up to Michael’s comment, AI will probably work to bake those problems in and make it so it can’t be figured out why it is happening.
That’s why we’re still working to fix mistakes made in medical science research because so much of it focused on white male test populations. Facial recognition that makes far more mistakes on people of color than whites. Voice recognition that struggles with voices pitched as high as the typical woman’s. Math word problems that assume white suburban knowledge.
As a follow up to Michael’s comment, AI will probably work to bake those problems in and make it so it can’t be figured out why it is happening.
nous, that’s such an interesting comment, which I would v much like to unpack (partly since I agree with a lot of it) but I am somewhere with just my phone and can’t get back to it tonight. I’ll revisit, and hope you’re still around, tomorrow.
nous, that’s such an interesting comment, which I would v much like to unpack (partly since I agree with a lot of it) but I am somewhere with just my phone and can’t get back to it tonight. I’ll revisit, and hope you’re still around, tomorrow.
Plus all the following comments and examples! Tomorrow…
Plus all the following comments and examples! Tomorrow…
I should also say, with somewhat less dudgeon, that the authors are ignoring one of the other crucial aspects of what is being discussed. It’s not just about how science gets done, it’s about how scientists get educated and about what sorts of viewpoints get acknowledged as worthy of consideration.
As I read what they have to say, I imagine what it might be like to sit in a room with them as a first year student unsure of my place in the institution – especially if I see very few faces in the room that look like mine or very few voices that sound like mine. And then to hear that the university around me looks the way that it does because it is a meritocracy.
I should also say, with somewhat less dudgeon, that the authors are ignoring one of the other crucial aspects of what is being discussed. It’s not just about how science gets done, it’s about how scientists get educated and about what sorts of viewpoints get acknowledged as worthy of consideration.
As I read what they have to say, I imagine what it might be like to sit in a room with them as a first year student unsure of my place in the institution – especially if I see very few faces in the room that look like mine or very few voices that sound like mine. And then to hear that the university around me looks the way that it does because it is a meritocracy.
Have you got a sample case where some work done there had results that depended on the race, gender, economic background, etc. of the researcher; where the same experiment, done by someone with a different background, would have produced a different result? If so, feel free to trot it out.
That’s the wrong framing for what I’m getting at here.
It’s not about the results of the experiment, it’s about which experiments get done and what research agendas get priority and what sets of assumptions get treated as warranted.
And it’s about people’s ability to network and to find other scientists to collaborate with, and trying to find a letter of rec, or a supportive faculty advisor.
By the time science actually gets done it has already passed through so many other human gatekeepers applying their own standards for how to recognize merit. All that goes on before we have a single result to judge.
And that is why the posmodern science people are so scary to scientists. They count those human systems as part of the method by which science gets done.
Have you got a sample case where some work done there had results that depended on the race, gender, economic background, etc. of the researcher; where the same experiment, done by someone with a different background, would have produced a different result? If so, feel free to trot it out.
That’s the wrong framing for what I’m getting at here.
It’s not about the results of the experiment, it’s about which experiments get done and what research agendas get priority and what sets of assumptions get treated as warranted.
And it’s about people’s ability to network and to find other scientists to collaborate with, and trying to find a letter of rec, or a supportive faculty advisor.
By the time science actually gets done it has already passed through so many other human gatekeepers applying their own standards for how to recognize merit. All that goes on before we have a single result to judge.
And that is why the posmodern science people are so scary to scientists. They count those human systems as part of the method by which science gets done.
Mathematics, even?
One of the consequences of the Newton-Leibniz controversy over calculus was that British mathematicians insisted on staying with Newton’s notation instead of the (greatly) superior Leibniz notation. For a hundred years. A century where continental Europe raced ahead of Britain in devloping analysis. Once the British adopted the proper notation, they were as good as anyone.
I’m not saying that if women had gotten a fair shake in math graduate programs, and a fair shot at faculty positions, the broad outcomes would have been different. But I’m not willing to say that they wouldn’t, either.
Mathematics, even?
One of the consequences of the Newton-Leibniz controversy over calculus was that British mathematicians insisted on staying with Newton’s notation instead of the (greatly) superior Leibniz notation. For a hundred years. A century where continental Europe raced ahead of Britain in devloping analysis. Once the British adopted the proper notation, they were as good as anyone.
I’m not saying that if women had gotten a fair shake in math graduate programs, and a fair shot at faculty positions, the broad outcomes would have been different. But I’m not willing to say that they wouldn’t, either.
As Michael notes, who knows how the development of these fields would have been different if the Lisa Piccirillos of past eras had had a chance to do the work they were capable of doing.
A math problem stumped experts for 50 years. This grad student from Maine solved it in days
Half a century ago, a brilliant young mathematician named John Horton Conway discovered, of all things, a knot. This knot wasn’t something you’d be likely to encounter in the real world. You could certainly create it out of string if you wanted to, but, generally speaking, it existed only in Conway’s calculations. There are thousands upon thousands of these kinds of conceptual tangles in a bewildering corner of mathematics known as knot theory, but even there Conway’s discovery was special — not so much for what it was, but for what it might or might not be. Yes, that is confusing, but when talking knot theory, it’s best to accept that things are going to get a little fuzzy.
In any case, the Conway knot is hardly remarkable at first glance. With just 11 crossings, or places where it overlaps itself, it’s rather nondescript by the standards of higher-dimensional knot theory. But the knot has one property that made it the subject of intense mathematical scrutiny. Conway, who died recently at age 82 of complications from COVID-19, made innumerable contributions to the field of mathematics, yet it was his knot that specialists would return to again and again. And again and again, these decorated mathematicians were unable to find a solution to what became known as the Conway knot problem.
The problem had to do with proving whether the Conway knot was something called “slice,” an important concept in knot theory that we’ll get to a little later. Of all the many thousands of knots with 12 or fewer crossings, mathematicians had been able to determine the sliceness of all but one: the Conway knot. For more than 50 years, the knot stubbornly resisted every attempt to untangle its secret, along the way achieving a kind of mythical status. A sculpture of it even adorns a gate at the University of Cambridge’s Isaac Newton Institute for Mathematical Sciences.
Then, two years ago, a little-known graduate student named Lisa Piccirillo, who grew up in Maine, learned about the knot problem while attending a math conference. A speaker mentioned the Conway knot during a discussion about the challenges of studying knot theory. “For example,” the speaker said, “we still don’t know whether this 11-crossing knot is slice.”
That’s ridiculous, Piccirillo thought while she listened. This is 2018. We should be able to do that. A week later, she produced a proof that stunned the math world.
The rest of it here (paywalled):
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/08/20/magazine/math-problem-stumped-experts-50-years-this-grad-student-maine-solved-it-days/
As Michael notes, who knows how the development of these fields would have been different if the Lisa Piccirillos of past eras had had a chance to do the work they were capable of doing.
A math problem stumped experts for 50 years. This grad student from Maine solved it in days
Half a century ago, a brilliant young mathematician named John Horton Conway discovered, of all things, a knot. This knot wasn’t something you’d be likely to encounter in the real world. You could certainly create it out of string if you wanted to, but, generally speaking, it existed only in Conway’s calculations. There are thousands upon thousands of these kinds of conceptual tangles in a bewildering corner of mathematics known as knot theory, but even there Conway’s discovery was special — not so much for what it was, but for what it might or might not be. Yes, that is confusing, but when talking knot theory, it’s best to accept that things are going to get a little fuzzy.
In any case, the Conway knot is hardly remarkable at first glance. With just 11 crossings, or places where it overlaps itself, it’s rather nondescript by the standards of higher-dimensional knot theory. But the knot has one property that made it the subject of intense mathematical scrutiny. Conway, who died recently at age 82 of complications from COVID-19, made innumerable contributions to the field of mathematics, yet it was his knot that specialists would return to again and again. And again and again, these decorated mathematicians were unable to find a solution to what became known as the Conway knot problem.
The problem had to do with proving whether the Conway knot was something called “slice,” an important concept in knot theory that we’ll get to a little later. Of all the many thousands of knots with 12 or fewer crossings, mathematicians had been able to determine the sliceness of all but one: the Conway knot. For more than 50 years, the knot stubbornly resisted every attempt to untangle its secret, along the way achieving a kind of mythical status. A sculpture of it even adorns a gate at the University of Cambridge’s Isaac Newton Institute for Mathematical Sciences.
Then, two years ago, a little-known graduate student named Lisa Piccirillo, who grew up in Maine, learned about the knot problem while attending a math conference. A speaker mentioned the Conway knot during a discussion about the challenges of studying knot theory. “For example,” the speaker said, “we still don’t know whether this 11-crossing knot is slice.”
That’s ridiculous, Piccirillo thought while she listened. This is 2018. We should be able to do that. A week later, she produced a proof that stunned the math world.
The rest of it here (paywalled):
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/08/20/magazine/math-problem-stumped-experts-50-years-this-grad-student-maine-solved-it-days/
And if we’re going to talk about “merit,” how likely is it that all the most capable people in all these fields just *happened* to be men, and (at least in Europe and the US) *white* men, to boot?
And if we’re going to talk about “merit,” how likely is it that all the most capable people in all these fields just *happened* to be men, and (at least in Europe and the US) *white* men, to boot?
I’m not saying that if women had gotten a fair shake in math graduate programs, and a fair shot at faculty positions, the broad outcomes would have been different.
I don’t think there’s any question that, if more people had access to training in the field (whichever field), more progress would have been made. Which other progress is unknowable, but certainly there would have been some.
But I’m not so sure that the particular demographics are the significant factor.** Sheer numbers, and lot losing contributions from overlooked genius, look more important.
** Absolutely excluding medicine, where different demographics would certainly have gotten advances made in medical questions impacting those demographics.
I’m not saying that if women had gotten a fair shake in math graduate programs, and a fair shot at faculty positions, the broad outcomes would have been different.
I don’t think there’s any question that, if more people had access to training in the field (whichever field), more progress would have been made. Which other progress is unknowable, but certainly there would have been some.
But I’m not so sure that the particular demographics are the significant factor.** Sheer numbers, and lot losing contributions from overlooked genius, look more important.
** Absolutely excluding medicine, where different demographics would certainly have gotten advances made in medical questions impacting those demographics.
if we’re going to talk about “merit,” how likely is it that all the most capable people in all these fields just *happened* to be men, and (at least in Europe and the US) *white* men, to boot?
A close order approximation of zero. Witness, as just one example, the fact that a majority of grad students today are women, now that they can get their applications graded on merit.
if we’re going to talk about “merit,” how likely is it that all the most capable people in all these fields just *happened* to be men, and (at least in Europe and the US) *white* men, to boot?
A close order approximation of zero. Witness, as just one example, the fact that a majority of grad students today are women, now that they can get their applications graded on merit.
The answer is 15.
“15: That’s the answer to an incredibly complicated math problem recently solved by a two-person team at Carnegie Mellon University (CMU). Usually, big, complicated math problems that are hard to solve have big, complicated answers that are almost equally hard for the layperson to understand. But not this one. This one is just … 15.”
Mathematicians Discovered Something Mind-Blowing About the Number 15: The simple number solves a notoriously complicated problem.
The answer is 15.
“15: That’s the answer to an incredibly complicated math problem recently solved by a two-person team at Carnegie Mellon University (CMU). Usually, big, complicated math problems that are hard to solve have big, complicated answers that are almost equally hard for the layperson to understand. But not this one. This one is just … 15.”
Mathematicians Discovered Something Mind-Blowing About the Number 15: The simple number solves a notoriously complicated problem.
A way to circumvent paywalls is to use the Webpage Archive.
For example: A math problem stumped experts for 50 years. This grad student from Maine solved it in days : “That’s ridiculous,” Lisa Piccirillo thought when she first learned about the Conway knot problem. “We should be able to do that.”
A way to circumvent paywalls is to use the Webpage Archive.
For example: A math problem stumped experts for 50 years. This grad student from Maine solved it in days : “That’s ridiculous,” Lisa Piccirillo thought when she first learned about the Conway knot problem. “We should be able to do that.”
Thanks for that archive page, CharlesWT.
Thanks for that archive page, CharlesWT.
But Astronomy? Physics? Chemistry? Mathematics, even? Just not seeing it. Have you got a sample case where some work done there had results that depended on the race, gender, economic background, etc. of the researcher; where the same experiment, done by someone with a different background, would have produced a different result? If so, feel free to trot it out.
Isn’t the question you should be asking is who gets to do the experiment?
https://www.americanscientist.org/article/taking-the-long-view-on-sexism-in-science
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/jul/07/why-science-is-breeding-ground-for-sexism
Physics exemplifies the problem. Black people make up about 14 percent of the college-age population in the U.S., commensurate with their numbers in the overall population, but in physics they receive 3 to 4 percent of undergraduate degrees and less than 3 percent of Ph.D.s, and as of 2012 they composed only 2 percent of faculty.
from
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/racism-and-sexism-in-science-havent-disappeared/
There is also the ‘leaky pipeline’
https://www.graduate.umaryland.edu/gsa/gazette/February-2015/The-Leaky-Pipeline-Women-in-Life-Sciences/
Concentrating on the absence of bias in the questions fails to note who gets to ask the questions and who is allowed to provide the answers.
But Astronomy? Physics? Chemistry? Mathematics, even? Just not seeing it. Have you got a sample case where some work done there had results that depended on the race, gender, economic background, etc. of the researcher; where the same experiment, done by someone with a different background, would have produced a different result? If so, feel free to trot it out.
Isn’t the question you should be asking is who gets to do the experiment?
https://www.americanscientist.org/article/taking-the-long-view-on-sexism-in-science
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/jul/07/why-science-is-breeding-ground-for-sexism
Physics exemplifies the problem. Black people make up about 14 percent of the college-age population in the U.S., commensurate with their numbers in the overall population, but in physics they receive 3 to 4 percent of undergraduate degrees and less than 3 percent of Ph.D.s, and as of 2012 they composed only 2 percent of faculty.
from
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/racism-and-sexism-in-science-havent-disappeared/
There is also the ‘leaky pipeline’
https://www.graduate.umaryland.edu/gsa/gazette/February-2015/The-Leaky-Pipeline-Women-in-Life-Sciences/
Concentrating on the absence of bias in the questions fails to note who gets to ask the questions and who is allowed to provide the answers.
But I’m not so sure that the particular demographics are the significant factor.** Sheer numbers, and lot losing contributions from overlooked genius, look more important.
The problem is that overlooked genius is more likely to happen if particular demographics are excluded even if the sheer numbers of people working in various fields are the same because you’re drawing them from a more limited pool of potential scientists (or whatever). You’re getting (just making up numbers to illustrate the concept) the top 5% of a smaller group rather the top 1% of a larger group. (That’s even putting aside the diversity of experience that might lead to different approaches to solving problems.)
It’s not like we’re talking about keeping men or white people out of science and replacing them with women or people of color because women and people of color are better at science than men or white people.
We’re talking about not excluding women and people of color. And the reason we’re talking about it is because they’ve been excluded.
But I’m not so sure that the particular demographics are the significant factor.** Sheer numbers, and lot losing contributions from overlooked genius, look more important.
The problem is that overlooked genius is more likely to happen if particular demographics are excluded even if the sheer numbers of people working in various fields are the same because you’re drawing them from a more limited pool of potential scientists (or whatever). You’re getting (just making up numbers to illustrate the concept) the top 5% of a smaller group rather the top 1% of a larger group. (That’s even putting aside the diversity of experience that might lead to different approaches to solving problems.)
It’s not like we’re talking about keeping men or white people out of science and replacing them with women or people of color because women and people of color are better at science than men or white people.
We’re talking about not excluding women and people of color. And the reason we’re talking about it is because they’ve been excluded.
Still no time to comment meaningfully, except:
1. Clearly, and as was hinted at briefly even in nous’s first, high dudgeon reply, the real problem is with the gatekeeping. Every kind of justice requires that anybody capable of contributing to these fields should encounter no (or equal) barriers.
2. In various fields (design, medicine etc) a restricted intake of pracitioners has resulted in bad, unequal and frequently dangerous outcomes.
3. As an old hippy myself, I for one am not up for any hippy-bashing. There was clearly an element of culture war provocation, in the NYT article at least. Since the authors submitted it to various publications, I am assuming that their intentions, however, were reasonably honourable.
The ongoing development of this discussion shows me, at least, how valuable it can be to have a discussion about this kind of thing, rather than a kneejerk reaction which keeps people in their comfortable bubbles. I wish I had more time. Maybe later.
Still no time to comment meaningfully, except:
1. Clearly, and as was hinted at briefly even in nous’s first, high dudgeon reply, the real problem is with the gatekeeping. Every kind of justice requires that anybody capable of contributing to these fields should encounter no (or equal) barriers.
2. In various fields (design, medicine etc) a restricted intake of pracitioners has resulted in bad, unequal and frequently dangerous outcomes.
3. As an old hippy myself, I for one am not up for any hippy-bashing. There was clearly an element of culture war provocation, in the NYT article at least. Since the authors submitted it to various publications, I am assuming that their intentions, however, were reasonably honourable.
The ongoing development of this discussion shows me, at least, how valuable it can be to have a discussion about this kind of thing, rather than a kneejerk reaction which keeps people in their comfortable bubbles. I wish I had more time. Maybe later.
regarding “leaky pipelines”: it often takes a long time, earning little, to make it into STEM careers.
Which is doable, if you come from a bit of (financial) privilege.
But for those coming from a shakier start, there’s strong pressure to move into a career path where the earnings are larger and sooner.
So the pipeline to mathematics leaks into computer science, the pipeline to physical sciences leaks into engineering.
regarding “leaky pipelines”: it often takes a long time, earning little, to make it into STEM careers.
Which is doable, if you come from a bit of (financial) privilege.
But for those coming from a shakier start, there’s strong pressure to move into a career path where the earnings are larger and sooner.
So the pipeline to mathematics leaks into computer science, the pipeline to physical sciences leaks into engineering.
Usually, big, complicated math problems that are hard to solve have big, complicated answers that are almost equally hard for the layperson to understand. But not this one. This one is just … 15.
Coloring and covering theorems are generally easy to state, and typically have answers that are small integers. The proofs, OTOH, tend to be nasty. The first formal statement of the Four Color Conjecture* appeared in 1852. Incorrect proofs appeared regularly. The first of the current set of proofs that are believed to be correct fills a book, plus 400 sheets of microfiche (approx 40,000 page equivalents). All of the current proofs that are believed to be correct require a computer to perform some part of the work.
* The conjecture states that any planar map can be colored so that no two bordering areas are the same color using only four colors. (Border implies length, so single points don’t count.)
Usually, big, complicated math problems that are hard to solve have big, complicated answers that are almost equally hard for the layperson to understand. But not this one. This one is just … 15.
Coloring and covering theorems are generally easy to state, and typically have answers that are small integers. The proofs, OTOH, tend to be nasty. The first formal statement of the Four Color Conjecture* appeared in 1852. Incorrect proofs appeared regularly. The first of the current set of proofs that are believed to be correct fills a book, plus 400 sheets of microfiche (approx 40,000 page equivalents). All of the current proofs that are believed to be correct require a computer to perform some part of the work.
* The conjecture states that any planar map can be colored so that no two bordering areas are the same color using only four colors. (Border implies length, so single points don’t count.)
So the pipeline to mathematics leaks into computer science, the pipeline to physical sciences leaks into engineering.
That’s me. I went straight into engineering, so I leaked out before I even started, but I would have preferred math or physics. Engineering leads more clearly to a foreseeable job/career, so that’s where I went. And I think that’s a more common way of looking at things when you’re the first in your family to go off to college.
So the pipeline to mathematics leaks into computer science, the pipeline to physical sciences leaks into engineering.
That’s me. I went straight into engineering, so I leaked out before I even started, but I would have preferred math or physics. Engineering leads more clearly to a foreseeable job/career, so that’s where I went. And I think that’s a more common way of looking at things when you’re the first in your family to go off to college.
As I read what they have to say, I imagine what it might be like to sit in a room with them as a first year student unsure of my place in the institution – especially if I see very few faces in the room that look like mine or very few voices that sound like mine. And then to hear that the university around me looks the way that it does because it is a meritocracy.
Who are “you” in this hypo? Because if you are a STEM first year student, and if objective merit is a leading factor in admission, you are likely to be sitting with an outsized number of Asian, Near and Middle Eastern and Jewish classmates.
It’s not fair to accuse everyone who doesn’t want to pay so much in taxes of being “greedy” — but I stand by my belief that the fact that they have to write a check is not actually the root of the problem.
First of all, it is “my” money that I earned that is being taxed. Ok, fine. That’s part of living in a country like ours. My issues are (1) the widespread antipathy if not antagonism toward people who do well financially coupled with the very often wildly ignorant understanding of how people make their money and what “they” think and (2) the belief that if I’m paying, all in, upwards of 45% of what I make and I think that’s plenty if not more than plenty to pay in, that somehow I’m a greedy rich person who owes more.
It’s not like we’re talking about keeping men or white people out of science and replacing them with women or people of color because women and people of color are better at science than men or white people.
We’re talking about not excluding women and people of color. And the reason we’re talking about it is because they’ve been excluded.
HSH, I have to ask: where have you been for the last fifty years? Did you miss the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Was “affirmative action” not a thing starting in the 60’s? Can you identify any appreciable number of females or African Americans who have been excluded from STEM–or whatever–because of their sex or their skin color? Hell, show many any evidence of exclusion of any woman or black person because of their sex or race in recent decades? How do you account for the over-representation of other POC’s in STEM and elsewhere?
Physics exemplifies the problem. Black people make up about 14 percent of the college-age population in the U.S., commensurate with their numbers in the overall population, but in physics they receive 3 to 4 percent of undergraduate degrees and less than 3 percent of Ph.D.s, and as of 2012 they composed only 2 percent of faculty.
Is this a matter of affinity or exclusion? Your article merely asserts the statistic and makes no effort to *prove* or even support with objective evidence why this might be the case other than to assume racism/misogyny. There are a ton of fields that are over/under-represented based on affinity. Inferring racism, misogyny, or whatever is looking at an *effect/outcome* in isolation and inferring *one cause* to the exclusion of all others. If you are aware of a college or university anywhere that will not allow African Americans to sign up for physics classes, please let us know.
As I read what they have to say, I imagine what it might be like to sit in a room with them as a first year student unsure of my place in the institution – especially if I see very few faces in the room that look like mine or very few voices that sound like mine. And then to hear that the university around me looks the way that it does because it is a meritocracy.
Who are “you” in this hypo? Because if you are a STEM first year student, and if objective merit is a leading factor in admission, you are likely to be sitting with an outsized number of Asian, Near and Middle Eastern and Jewish classmates.
It’s not fair to accuse everyone who doesn’t want to pay so much in taxes of being “greedy” — but I stand by my belief that the fact that they have to write a check is not actually the root of the problem.
First of all, it is “my” money that I earned that is being taxed. Ok, fine. That’s part of living in a country like ours. My issues are (1) the widespread antipathy if not antagonism toward people who do well financially coupled with the very often wildly ignorant understanding of how people make their money and what “they” think and (2) the belief that if I’m paying, all in, upwards of 45% of what I make and I think that’s plenty if not more than plenty to pay in, that somehow I’m a greedy rich person who owes more.
It’s not like we’re talking about keeping men or white people out of science and replacing them with women or people of color because women and people of color are better at science than men or white people.
We’re talking about not excluding women and people of color. And the reason we’re talking about it is because they’ve been excluded.
HSH, I have to ask: where have you been for the last fifty years? Did you miss the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Was “affirmative action” not a thing starting in the 60’s? Can you identify any appreciable number of females or African Americans who have been excluded from STEM–or whatever–because of their sex or their skin color? Hell, show many any evidence of exclusion of any woman or black person because of their sex or race in recent decades? How do you account for the over-representation of other POC’s in STEM and elsewhere?
Physics exemplifies the problem. Black people make up about 14 percent of the college-age population in the U.S., commensurate with their numbers in the overall population, but in physics they receive 3 to 4 percent of undergraduate degrees and less than 3 percent of Ph.D.s, and as of 2012 they composed only 2 percent of faculty.
Is this a matter of affinity or exclusion? Your article merely asserts the statistic and makes no effort to *prove* or even support with objective evidence why this might be the case other than to assume racism/misogyny. There are a ton of fields that are over/under-represented based on affinity. Inferring racism, misogyny, or whatever is looking at an *effect/outcome* in isolation and inferring *one cause* to the exclusion of all others. If you are aware of a college or university anywhere that will not allow African Americans to sign up for physics classes, please let us know.
Why are you asking us to give examples of things no one has claimed are happening, McK? You have a very distinct style.
Why are you asking us to give examples of things no one has claimed are happening, McK? You have a very distinct style.
Why are you asking us to give examples of things no one has claimed are happening, McK? You have a very distinct style
Seems a bit coy, HSH, since your quote specifically refers to “excluding women and people of color.” So, what is it that you, LJ, Nous etc are claiming?
Why are you asking us to give examples of things no one has claimed are happening, McK? You have a very distinct style
Seems a bit coy, HSH, since your quote specifically refers to “excluding women and people of color.” So, what is it that you, LJ, Nous etc are claiming?
I’m paying, all in, upwards of 45% of what I make
Hmmm. The whole time I was holding down a full time job, my rule of thumb was 50% went to taxes. Might be a bit less now that tax-free municipal bonds make up a bigger fraction of my income.
But I suppose that Texas has to keep state taxes lower so that residents can afford lots of guns.
/snark (if it was)
I’m paying, all in, upwards of 45% of what I make
Hmmm. The whole time I was holding down a full time job, my rule of thumb was 50% went to taxes. Might be a bit less now that tax-free municipal bonds make up a bigger fraction of my income.
But I suppose that Texas has to keep state taxes lower so that residents can afford lots of guns.
/snark (if it was)
Might be a bit less now that tax-free municipal bonds make up a bigger fraction of my income.
You’re in CA, I’m in TX. Half of your income, ISTM, is too much.
Might be a bit less now that tax-free municipal bonds make up a bigger fraction of my income.
You’re in CA, I’m in TX. Half of your income, ISTM, is too much.
Who are “you” in this hypo? Because if you are a STEM first year student, and if objective merit is a leading factor in admission, you are likely to be sitting with an outsized number of Asian, Near and Middle Eastern and Jewish classmates.
McKinney, I am teaching at the most diverse public university in the United States, so you really do not have to take it upon yourself to educate me on the demographics of universities based on what you read.
The you in that hypo is contained right in the hypo with that “especially if I don’t see…” qualifier.
And why is it that you have assumed that all those Asian, Near and Middle Eastern and Jewish STEM majors are there in the seats because of merit? Have you ever sat on an admissions committee or talked to committee members about the admissions process?
I have taught three different first-year writing classes each academic year for the last few years. One is a basic writing class that has a lot of international students and first generation students from underserved communities. One is an accelerated writing class for high achieving students with low writing scores (mostly first generation students from underserved communities who are bilingual). One is the capstone first-year research class. Maybe three students I teach during the year are Humanities students – most Humanities majors go through the Hum Core program instead of the Composition program.
Lets call that a sample size of 150+ students a year who all talk and write about their struggles in the institution.
Here’s an example of the “merit” gatekeeping at an R1 with highly ranked, competitive programs. The biggest major with the most prestige admits several hundred students a year into their program – more than four times as many as they have space for in the upper division capstone classes for the major. All the students in the major get shoved through intro classes that have high attrition rates baked in, and a lot of the material in those classes is non-essential for the work that graduates will do. Doesn’t matter. 75% have to go to make the senior year classes manageable.
Students who have part time jobs struggle more than those without. Students without access to private tutors struggle more than those whose parents arrange extracurricular help. Students who can drop classes and retake them without a financial hit keep a higher GPA than those who are trying to take too many credits to save on tuition for financial reasons.
Anyone who cannot make the cut gets written off by the public at large as not having had sufficient “merit.”
But those artificial barriers that exist to winnow the field have little to do with merit or with aptitude.
And if you actually talk to the students who are struggling – which I do all the time – you quickly start to hear just how much representation matters to their ability to make it through, not just because you get to see aspirational examples you relate to, but also because having predecessors who have made it through makes you much more likely to have the financial and social support networks you need to weather the artificial adversity of those gatekeeper classes.
Who are “you” in this hypo? Because if you are a STEM first year student, and if objective merit is a leading factor in admission, you are likely to be sitting with an outsized number of Asian, Near and Middle Eastern and Jewish classmates.
McKinney, I am teaching at the most diverse public university in the United States, so you really do not have to take it upon yourself to educate me on the demographics of universities based on what you read.
The you in that hypo is contained right in the hypo with that “especially if I don’t see…” qualifier.
And why is it that you have assumed that all those Asian, Near and Middle Eastern and Jewish STEM majors are there in the seats because of merit? Have you ever sat on an admissions committee or talked to committee members about the admissions process?
I have taught three different first-year writing classes each academic year for the last few years. One is a basic writing class that has a lot of international students and first generation students from underserved communities. One is an accelerated writing class for high achieving students with low writing scores (mostly first generation students from underserved communities who are bilingual). One is the capstone first-year research class. Maybe three students I teach during the year are Humanities students – most Humanities majors go through the Hum Core program instead of the Composition program.
Lets call that a sample size of 150+ students a year who all talk and write about their struggles in the institution.
Here’s an example of the “merit” gatekeeping at an R1 with highly ranked, competitive programs. The biggest major with the most prestige admits several hundred students a year into their program – more than four times as many as they have space for in the upper division capstone classes for the major. All the students in the major get shoved through intro classes that have high attrition rates baked in, and a lot of the material in those classes is non-essential for the work that graduates will do. Doesn’t matter. 75% have to go to make the senior year classes manageable.
Students who have part time jobs struggle more than those without. Students without access to private tutors struggle more than those whose parents arrange extracurricular help. Students who can drop classes and retake them without a financial hit keep a higher GPA than those who are trying to take too many credits to save on tuition for financial reasons.
Anyone who cannot make the cut gets written off by the public at large as not having had sufficient “merit.”
But those artificial barriers that exist to winnow the field have little to do with merit or with aptitude.
And if you actually talk to the students who are struggling – which I do all the time – you quickly start to hear just how much representation matters to their ability to make it through, not just because you get to see aspirational examples you relate to, but also because having predecessors who have made it through makes you much more likely to have the financial and social support networks you need to weather the artificial adversity of those gatekeeper classes.
You’re in CA, I’m in TX. Half of your income, ISTM, is too much.
I suppose it depends on how much one values the goods and services that those taxes provide. On balance, I feel like I’m getting a good deal. Definitely exceptions, of course (the local mass transit started out great, but by now is a financial disaster area). But overall it’s worth it.
And it could be worse: one of the great irritations of traveling in the eastern part of the country is toll roads, especially Interstates. My Federal taxes paid for building those, so why should I have to pay to use them as well?
You’re in CA, I’m in TX. Half of your income, ISTM, is too much.
I suppose it depends on how much one values the goods and services that those taxes provide. On balance, I feel like I’m getting a good deal. Definitely exceptions, of course (the local mass transit started out great, but by now is a financial disaster area). But overall it’s worth it.
And it could be worse: one of the great irritations of traveling in the eastern part of the country is toll roads, especially Interstates. My Federal taxes paid for building those, so why should I have to pay to use them as well?
I am inclined to take Lisa Piccirillo, the young woman who solved the Conway Knot problem in Charles’s link above, and who is now a tenure-track assistant Prof at MIT, when she says:
When I ask her about her goals, Piccirillo says one of her priorities is to help grow and broaden the mathematics community. “There certainly are many young women, people of color, non-heterosexual, or non-gender binary people who feel put at an arm’s length by the institution of mathematics,” she says. “It’s really important to me to help mitigate that in any small ways I can.”
Our maths teacher at an all-girls school told us about the Four Colour Conjecture when I was about 14. For years, when bored, I tried to find an exception. I’m guessing that’s one of the ways teachers try to find the next Lisa Piccirillo. I believe (but don’t have the time to chase it) that educational studies have found that girls do measurably better at STEM subjects in all-girl schools. Clearly, consorting with boys is bad for the brain.
I am inclined to take Lisa Piccirillo, the young woman who solved the Conway Knot problem in Charles’s link above, and who is now a tenure-track assistant Prof at MIT, when she says:
When I ask her about her goals, Piccirillo says one of her priorities is to help grow and broaden the mathematics community. “There certainly are many young women, people of color, non-heterosexual, or non-gender binary people who feel put at an arm’s length by the institution of mathematics,” she says. “It’s really important to me to help mitigate that in any small ways I can.”
Our maths teacher at an all-girls school told us about the Four Colour Conjecture when I was about 14. For years, when bored, I tried to find an exception. I’m guessing that’s one of the ways teachers try to find the next Lisa Piccirillo. I believe (but don’t have the time to chase it) that educational studies have found that girls do measurably better at STEM subjects in all-girl schools. Clearly, consorting with boys is bad for the brain.
Take her at her word, I should have said.
Take her at her word, I should have said.
Seems a bit coy, HSH, since your quote specifically refers to “excluding women and people of color.” So, what is it that you, LJ, Nous etc are claiming?
I guess I wasn’t inspired by your genuine curiosity and obvious desire to have a meaningful conversation.
Seems a bit coy, HSH, since your quote specifically refers to “excluding women and people of color.” So, what is it that you, LJ, Nous etc are claiming?
I guess I wasn’t inspired by your genuine curiosity and obvious desire to have a meaningful conversation.
Here‘s a link to the paper.
No one on either side is against the idea of merit
According to the paper, CSJ theorists are indeed against the idea of academic merit (or perhaps they think that merit exists but can’t be assessed by the academic establishment, which comes to the same thing).
who knows how the development of these fields would have been different if the Lisa Piccirillos of past eras had had a chance to do the work they were capable of doing.
Indeed. Academics, and hiring managers generally, now recognize that excluding sections of the population is a losing proposition. Yes, people have biases, but they strive to overcome them, not because they (I might say we) are good people, but because successful recruitment is rewarded.
Physics exemplifies the problem. Black people make up about 14 percent of the college-age population in the U.S., commensurate with their numbers in the overall population, but in physics they receive 3 to 4 percent of undergraduate degrees and less than 3 percent of Ph.D.s, and as of 2012 they composed only 2 percent of faculty.
That’s bad: what’s the reason for it? It’s surely implausible that 4 out of 5 potential black physics PhD students are being rejected by biased academics. John McWhorter has some thoughts about this which are worth considering.
Here‘s a link to the paper.
No one on either side is against the idea of merit
According to the paper, CSJ theorists are indeed against the idea of academic merit (or perhaps they think that merit exists but can’t be assessed by the academic establishment, which comes to the same thing).
who knows how the development of these fields would have been different if the Lisa Piccirillos of past eras had had a chance to do the work they were capable of doing.
Indeed. Academics, and hiring managers generally, now recognize that excluding sections of the population is a losing proposition. Yes, people have biases, but they strive to overcome them, not because they (I might say we) are good people, but because successful recruitment is rewarded.
Physics exemplifies the problem. Black people make up about 14 percent of the college-age population in the U.S., commensurate with their numbers in the overall population, but in physics they receive 3 to 4 percent of undergraduate degrees and less than 3 percent of Ph.D.s, and as of 2012 they composed only 2 percent of faculty.
That’s bad: what’s the reason for it? It’s surely implausible that 4 out of 5 potential black physics PhD students are being rejected by biased academics. John McWhorter has some thoughts about this which are worth considering.
I should probably add to my 12:58 that I have personally spoken with, and know the name of, every one of those 150+ students.
I should probably add to my 12:58 that I have personally spoken with, and know the name of, every one of those 150+ students.
Pro Bono: do you find the discussion of such things as the “merit” paper worthwhile?
Pro Bono: do you find the discussion of such things as the “merit” paper worthwhile?
And why is it that you have assumed that all those Asian, Near and Middle Eastern and Jewish STEM majors are there in the seats because of merit? Have you ever sat on an admissions committee or talked to committee members about the admissions process?
My assumption is based on the documented exclusion of Asians in particular, who generally test and perform academically better than most other demographic groups.
No, I haven’t sat on an admissions committee, nor have you sat on committees other than perhaps at the school where you teach.
“Merit Gate Keeping”–what is or is not necessary for this path is your subjective opinion. I suspect the authors of the program have their reasons. When I went to law school, 1st year was a “weed out” process. Football tryouts are a “weed out” process. Not everyone belongs in every place.
And if you actually talk to the students who are struggling – which I do all the time – you quickly start to hear just how much representation matters to their ability to make it through, not just because you get to see aspirational examples you relate to, but also because having predecessors who have made it through makes you much more likely to have the financial and social support networks you need to weather the artificial adversity of those gatekeeper classes.
Several things here. First, I agree that having others to look up to, so to speak, can be an inspiration. Thinking that a person of one demographic can only be inspired by someone of the same or similar demographic seems a bit labored to me. OTOH, I can see where taking down barriers and ensuring access *through the same objective, merit-based winnowing process* gives young African Americans (in particular) encouragement that they might not otherwise have. Second, for clarification: are you saying that specific POC’s learn better and are more comfortable with their same POC peers? If so, why is that? More to the point, are there actual studies that authoritatively show that “pick your POC” students learn and perform better at “pick your STEM” if they are segregated into colors of like kind? Seems counterintuitive to me, assuming such authoritative studies exist. Finally, your personal sampling is anecdotal and subjective. My professional experience over 42 years runs counter to your three classes.
That said, I seem to recall several fairly persuasive articles to the effect that pubescent and older girls often do better in STEM subjects in an “all girls” environment, which makes sense to me, although my wife’s pre-collegiate education was in South America in the early 70’s. It was entirely STEM, co-ed and she ultimately got her degree in microbiology. That said, some of the articles above actually, IMO argue for merit-based selection, not against. Sexism, racism, etc. are discriminatory, illegal and there has been a remedy on the books since 1964. Maybe not a perfect remedy, but Title VII isn’t “nothing” either.
Male assholery with respect to women, of which there is a universal and near-endless supply, is a leadership and character issue in modern liberal societies. It isn’t that people don’t know better. At the granular level, it’s individual pre-disposition. Some number of men are pigs, most are not. The pigs have an out-sized impact on women because, like other bad actors, they are high volume recidivists.
I know folks like to use words like “systemic” and “baked in” and whatnot, but that overlooks the fact that huge numbers of men are not ogling boors who oppress women.
And why is it that you have assumed that all those Asian, Near and Middle Eastern and Jewish STEM majors are there in the seats because of merit? Have you ever sat on an admissions committee or talked to committee members about the admissions process?
My assumption is based on the documented exclusion of Asians in particular, who generally test and perform academically better than most other demographic groups.
No, I haven’t sat on an admissions committee, nor have you sat on committees other than perhaps at the school where you teach.
“Merit Gate Keeping”–what is or is not necessary for this path is your subjective opinion. I suspect the authors of the program have their reasons. When I went to law school, 1st year was a “weed out” process. Football tryouts are a “weed out” process. Not everyone belongs in every place.
And if you actually talk to the students who are struggling – which I do all the time – you quickly start to hear just how much representation matters to their ability to make it through, not just because you get to see aspirational examples you relate to, but also because having predecessors who have made it through makes you much more likely to have the financial and social support networks you need to weather the artificial adversity of those gatekeeper classes.
Several things here. First, I agree that having others to look up to, so to speak, can be an inspiration. Thinking that a person of one demographic can only be inspired by someone of the same or similar demographic seems a bit labored to me. OTOH, I can see where taking down barriers and ensuring access *through the same objective, merit-based winnowing process* gives young African Americans (in particular) encouragement that they might not otherwise have. Second, for clarification: are you saying that specific POC’s learn better and are more comfortable with their same POC peers? If so, why is that? More to the point, are there actual studies that authoritatively show that “pick your POC” students learn and perform better at “pick your STEM” if they are segregated into colors of like kind? Seems counterintuitive to me, assuming such authoritative studies exist. Finally, your personal sampling is anecdotal and subjective. My professional experience over 42 years runs counter to your three classes.
That said, I seem to recall several fairly persuasive articles to the effect that pubescent and older girls often do better in STEM subjects in an “all girls” environment, which makes sense to me, although my wife’s pre-collegiate education was in South America in the early 70’s. It was entirely STEM, co-ed and she ultimately got her degree in microbiology. That said, some of the articles above actually, IMO argue for merit-based selection, not against. Sexism, racism, etc. are discriminatory, illegal and there has been a remedy on the books since 1964. Maybe not a perfect remedy, but Title VII isn’t “nothing” either.
Male assholery with respect to women, of which there is a universal and near-endless supply, is a leadership and character issue in modern liberal societies. It isn’t that people don’t know better. At the granular level, it’s individual pre-disposition. Some number of men are pigs, most are not. The pigs have an out-sized impact on women because, like other bad actors, they are high volume recidivists.
I know folks like to use words like “systemic” and “baked in” and whatnot, but that overlooks the fact that huge numbers of men are not ogling boors who oppress women.
Ran across this today.
Respectfully submitted for consideration. I think it may get past the review committee here.
🙂
Ran across this today.
Respectfully submitted for consideration. I think it may get past the review committee here.
🙂
I guess I wasn’t inspired by your genuine curiosity and obvious desire to have a meaningful conversation.
Well, then why say anything at all? In fact, you made a specific allegation of exclusion of women and minorities from STEM. I’m asking for you to validate that assertion. IMO, you can’t because the statement itself is incorrect.
According to the paper, CSJ theorists are indeed against the idea of academic merit (or perhaps they think that merit exists but can’t be assessed by the academic establishment, which comes to the same thing).
Yes and Kendi Ibrem is specifically against any kind of testing or other merit-based screening, period full stop. His reason: it’s racist. His evidence? I have yet to see it.
The concept is simple: if the end result is that a given cohort does not line up proportionately, then the underlying cause is racism, mysogyny, and the other litany of ‘isms and phobias driving much of today’s conversation.
That said, “merit” can be squishy and subjective at the borders and any use of the word implies non-arbitrary, attainable, relevant and objective standards that apply fairly to anyone contesting for a position, admission, etc. I have no quarrel with making the playing level, including allowing people with actual, life-experience disadvantages bonus points, so to speak.
I guess I wasn’t inspired by your genuine curiosity and obvious desire to have a meaningful conversation.
Well, then why say anything at all? In fact, you made a specific allegation of exclusion of women and minorities from STEM. I’m asking for you to validate that assertion. IMO, you can’t because the statement itself is incorrect.
According to the paper, CSJ theorists are indeed against the idea of academic merit (or perhaps they think that merit exists but can’t be assessed by the academic establishment, which comes to the same thing).
Yes and Kendi Ibrem is specifically against any kind of testing or other merit-based screening, period full stop. His reason: it’s racist. His evidence? I have yet to see it.
The concept is simple: if the end result is that a given cohort does not line up proportionately, then the underlying cause is racism, mysogyny, and the other litany of ‘isms and phobias driving much of today’s conversation.
That said, “merit” can be squishy and subjective at the borders and any use of the word implies non-arbitrary, attainable, relevant and objective standards that apply fairly to anyone contesting for a position, admission, etc. I have no quarrel with making the playing level, including allowing people with actual, life-experience disadvantages bonus points, so to speak.
From BP’s article: “It’s a silly defense, particularly given the historic accretions of prejudice to that word. Or maybe the youngs no longer recall those accretions because cis white male privilege has declined.”
Wait, what? Cis white male privilege has declined? Really? And so much so that our “youngs” do not recall it and have not experienced it?
BP, you’re in construction: can anyone drive a huge bulldozer? Operate a crane? Some operators aren’t better than others, privilege having nothing to do with it?
From BP’s article: “It’s a silly defense, particularly given the historic accretions of prejudice to that word. Or maybe the youngs no longer recall those accretions because cis white male privilege has declined.”
Wait, what? Cis white male privilege has declined? Really? And so much so that our “youngs” do not recall it and have not experienced it?
BP, you’re in construction: can anyone drive a huge bulldozer? Operate a crane? Some operators aren’t better than others, privilege having nothing to do with it?
Well, then why say anything at all?
Because I felt like it.
Well, then why say anything at all?
Because I felt like it.
bobbyp — thanks for the link to Cheryl Rofer’s post.
bobbyp — thanks for the link to Cheryl Rofer’s post.
You are most welcome, JanieM.
I am reminded of the endless arguments about racism (systemic or otherwise): A desparate social outcome is observed and repeatedly and thoroughly investigated. What hypothesis can explain this observation?
Hypothesis 1: Racism. Blind bigotry, institutional, systemic, “affinity” based (har har), whatever. Racism.
Hypothesis 2: Black cultural mores, poverty (i.e., question begging), etc. Whites have more “merit” is one that, sooner or later, will come up-just about always.
Because surely it can’t possibly be that just about all powerful well paying positions are occupied by white males due to predjudice….QED.
Pick one.
You are most welcome, JanieM.
I am reminded of the endless arguments about racism (systemic or otherwise): A desparate social outcome is observed and repeatedly and thoroughly investigated. What hypothesis can explain this observation?
Hypothesis 1: Racism. Blind bigotry, institutional, systemic, “affinity” based (har har), whatever. Racism.
Hypothesis 2: Black cultural mores, poverty (i.e., question begging), etc. Whites have more “merit” is one that, sooner or later, will come up-just about always.
Because surely it can’t possibly be that just about all powerful well paying positions are occupied by white males due to predjudice….QED.
Pick one.
My assumption is based on the documented exclusion of Asians in particular
@McKinney, Please provide a reference to this documentation. Because my (admittedly anecdotal) personal experience does not show any such exclusion anywhere in the last half century.
My assumption is based on the documented exclusion of Asians in particular
@McKinney, Please provide a reference to this documentation. Because my (admittedly anecdotal) personal experience does not show any such exclusion anywhere in the last half century.
Hey McKinney – remember when you came in here and gave your professional opinion about the Dominion case settlement? Remember how many people here looked at your argument and said “Well, but that’s just your trial experience in one part of the world with your small sampling of clients… ?”
We respect your experience in your field and your expertise that comes from long practice.
It would be nice to see that respect returned from time to time, or the differential in experience acknowledged.
It seems to me from this that you just think that you know more about academia than people who have been academics for the last 20 years at an elite institution, or that your reading for interest on these subjects is wider, or deeper, or more critical than ours.
If that’s not the case, then maybe you should engage less antagonistically and ask questions that aren’t aimed at shutting down discussion. If that is the case, then there’s no real reason to engage with you on these topics.
No skin off my nose if so. I’ll engage where my perspective is productive.
Oh, and if you want to know what evidence Ibram X. Kendi has for any of those assertions that you are unsure about, the standard practice is to go to his references and start making a list of the appropriate literature, and then going to read it. If you really care about the subject, then that would be the best place to start answering that question for yourself.
Hey McKinney – remember when you came in here and gave your professional opinion about the Dominion case settlement? Remember how many people here looked at your argument and said “Well, but that’s just your trial experience in one part of the world with your small sampling of clients… ?”
We respect your experience in your field and your expertise that comes from long practice.
It would be nice to see that respect returned from time to time, or the differential in experience acknowledged.
It seems to me from this that you just think that you know more about academia than people who have been academics for the last 20 years at an elite institution, or that your reading for interest on these subjects is wider, or deeper, or more critical than ours.
If that’s not the case, then maybe you should engage less antagonistically and ask questions that aren’t aimed at shutting down discussion. If that is the case, then there’s no real reason to engage with you on these topics.
No skin off my nose if so. I’ll engage where my perspective is productive.
Oh, and if you want to know what evidence Ibram X. Kendi has for any of those assertions that you are unsure about, the standard practice is to go to his references and start making a list of the appropriate literature, and then going to read it. If you really care about the subject, then that would be the best place to start answering that question for yourself.
Meanwhile, more dodgy news about the funding of a particular SCOTUS justice and his family:
The conservative supreme court justice Clarence Thomas is under renewed scrutiny after the Washington Post found that an activist with interests in the court’s decisions funneled tens of thousands of dollars to Thomas’s wife, with instructions not to mention her name.
The report published on Thursday outlines instances in which activist Leonard Leo paid Clarence Thomas’s wife, Ginni Thomas, via the GOP pollster Kellyanne Conway. Citing documents it had obtained, the Post said that Leo told Conway to bill one of his non-profits and send the funds to Thomas, at one point mentioning that paperwork associated with the transaction should have “no mention of Ginni, of course”.
A staunch abortion foe who is said to have helped Donald Trump choose his nominees for the supreme court, Leo told Conway’s firm, Polling Company, to bill his Judicial Education Project for “Supplement for Constitution Polling and Opinion Consulting”.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2023/may/05/clarence-thomas-kellyanne-conway-leonard-leo-payments
Meanwhile, more dodgy news about the funding of a particular SCOTUS justice and his family:
The conservative supreme court justice Clarence Thomas is under renewed scrutiny after the Washington Post found that an activist with interests in the court’s decisions funneled tens of thousands of dollars to Thomas’s wife, with instructions not to mention her name.
The report published on Thursday outlines instances in which activist Leonard Leo paid Clarence Thomas’s wife, Ginni Thomas, via the GOP pollster Kellyanne Conway. Citing documents it had obtained, the Post said that Leo told Conway to bill one of his non-profits and send the funds to Thomas, at one point mentioning that paperwork associated with the transaction should have “no mention of Ginni, of course”.
A staunch abortion foe who is said to have helped Donald Trump choose his nominees for the supreme court, Leo told Conway’s firm, Polling Company, to bill his Judicial Education Project for “Supplement for Constitution Polling and Opinion Consulting”.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2023/may/05/clarence-thomas-kellyanne-conway-leonard-leo-payments
WJ, here you go:
https://asianamericanforeducation.org/en/issue/discrimination-on-admissions/
https://www.city-journal.org/article/college-admissions-bias-against-asian-americans
https://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherrim/2023/02/27/what-elon-musk-gets-right-about-anti-asian-bias-in-college-admissions/?sh=17393f1d71ac
https://www.northjersey.com/story/news/columnists/2022/11/03/race-based-college-admissions-and-its-impact-on-asian-americans/69614232007/
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/02/the-left-is-gaslighting-asian-americans-on-school-admissions.html
It would be nice to see that respect returned from time to time, or the differential in experience acknowledged.
If I were to say, based on my experience as a lawyer, that blacks will side with other blacks more often than whites will side with whites, I would expect to draw questions, not deference.
You made two qualitative statements based on your observations of (1) your own student body in three classes and (2) your observations of another academic program that, I infer, you are not a part of. You were critical of the latter and used the former as evidence–I think–that “like prefers like” among POC’s. I’ve observed and participated in inter-racial and inter-cultural activity extensively over the last 42 years personally, professionally and as a kid spending the two years after MLK was assassinated living in Shelby County TN. Based on my experience, I disagree with the conclusions you’ve drawn and, I think, it’s fair to ask if you have support outside your experience. Apparently you disagree.
You will note that I responded to WJ’s question. If you were to go back to the days when I was a regular here, you would find countless examples of me responding to questions of all kinds, including many that were far more antagonistic than any I’ve asked today.
There is nothing wrong with being challenged. It used the by the ObWi Way. That’s no longer the case. One of the reasons I’m as scarce as I am is that pointed, but fair questions about the prevailing views here are typically sidestepped by assertions that (1) I’m creating a straw man (with no explanation), (2) I just don’t understand the complexity of *Pick A Topic” or (3) I don’t ask my questions in a nice enough way to merit an answer.
Here’s the conclusion I draw: when people who claim to want to engage refuse to actually do so, they know they can’t carry their position.
WJ, here you go:
https://asianamericanforeducation.org/en/issue/discrimination-on-admissions/
https://www.city-journal.org/article/college-admissions-bias-against-asian-americans
https://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherrim/2023/02/27/what-elon-musk-gets-right-about-anti-asian-bias-in-college-admissions/?sh=17393f1d71ac
https://www.northjersey.com/story/news/columnists/2022/11/03/race-based-college-admissions-and-its-impact-on-asian-americans/69614232007/
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/02/the-left-is-gaslighting-asian-americans-on-school-admissions.html
It would be nice to see that respect returned from time to time, or the differential in experience acknowledged.
If I were to say, based on my experience as a lawyer, that blacks will side with other blacks more often than whites will side with whites, I would expect to draw questions, not deference.
You made two qualitative statements based on your observations of (1) your own student body in three classes and (2) your observations of another academic program that, I infer, you are not a part of. You were critical of the latter and used the former as evidence–I think–that “like prefers like” among POC’s. I’ve observed and participated in inter-racial and inter-cultural activity extensively over the last 42 years personally, professionally and as a kid spending the two years after MLK was assassinated living in Shelby County TN. Based on my experience, I disagree with the conclusions you’ve drawn and, I think, it’s fair to ask if you have support outside your experience. Apparently you disagree.
You will note that I responded to WJ’s question. If you were to go back to the days when I was a regular here, you would find countless examples of me responding to questions of all kinds, including many that were far more antagonistic than any I’ve asked today.
There is nothing wrong with being challenged. It used the by the ObWi Way. That’s no longer the case. One of the reasons I’m as scarce as I am is that pointed, but fair questions about the prevailing views here are typically sidestepped by assertions that (1) I’m creating a straw man (with no explanation), (2) I just don’t understand the complexity of *Pick A Topic” or (3) I don’t ask my questions in a nice enough way to merit an answer.
Here’s the conclusion I draw: when people who claim to want to engage refuse to actually do so, they know they can’t carry their position.
Here’s the conclusion I draw: when people who claim to want to engage refuse to actually do so, they know they can’t carry their position.
I don’t like your game, McK, and since you don’t seem to be able to play any other, I step away when you show up. I don’t give a flying banana what conclusions you draw about me. I draw quite similar conclusions about you, in fact, and have since the beginning.
Here’s the conclusion I draw: when people who claim to want to engage refuse to actually do so, they know they can’t carry their position.
I don’t like your game, McK, and since you don’t seem to be able to play any other, I step away when you show up. I don’t give a flying banana what conclusions you draw about me. I draw quite similar conclusions about you, in fact, and have since the beginning.
Kendi on affirmative action and standardized testing:
https://www.aaup.org/article/why-standardized-tests-have-standardized-postracial-ideology#.ZFWRl3bMKUk
Kendi take:
The term “color-blind,” Kendi notes, came from Justice John Marshall Harlan’s lone dissent in the 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson ruling that upheld Jim Crow segregation laws. While Harlan laudably described the Constitution as “color-blind,” Kendi reminded attendees the justice also noted in the same dissent that “the white race deems itself to be the dominant race in this country. And so it is, in prestige, in achievements, in education, in wealth, and in power.”
“The concept of color-blind also came in the same section in which [Justice Harland] substantiated white supremacy,” Kendi said.
“What’s tragic is you had certain Americans who were able to convince other Americans that anti-racist policies would hurt white Americans because they were helping people of color. They convinced us it was a zero-sum game.”
The key to understanding this, Kendi continued, lies in the misguided practice of determining whether a policy is racist simply by the policy’s language rather than its outcomes: Never mind if the effect of the policy is to disproportionally hurt certain people; it’s only a racist policy if the language that establishes the policy is race-conscious, he said. “Those who substantiated the maintenance of racial inequality coined the term “race neutral” to legally assault those policies that targeted inequities.”
Kendi on affirmative action and standardized testing:
https://www.aaup.org/article/why-standardized-tests-have-standardized-postracial-ideology#.ZFWRl3bMKUk
Kendi take:
The term “color-blind,” Kendi notes, came from Justice John Marshall Harlan’s lone dissent in the 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson ruling that upheld Jim Crow segregation laws. While Harlan laudably described the Constitution as “color-blind,” Kendi reminded attendees the justice also noted in the same dissent that “the white race deems itself to be the dominant race in this country. And so it is, in prestige, in achievements, in education, in wealth, and in power.”
“The concept of color-blind also came in the same section in which [Justice Harland] substantiated white supremacy,” Kendi said.
“What’s tragic is you had certain Americans who were able to convince other Americans that anti-racist policies would hurt white Americans because they were helping people of color. They convinced us it was a zero-sum game.”
The key to understanding this, Kendi continued, lies in the misguided practice of determining whether a policy is racist simply by the policy’s language rather than its outcomes: Never mind if the effect of the policy is to disproportionally hurt certain people; it’s only a racist policy if the language that establishes the policy is race-conscious, he said. “Those who substantiated the maintenance of racial inequality coined the term “race neutral” to legally assault those policies that targeted inequities.”
Pro Bono: do you find the discussion of such things as the “merit” paper worthwhile?
Well, I don’t expect to win friends and influence people. I disagree with the consensus here, but I’m listening.
Pro Bono: do you find the discussion of such things as the “merit” paper worthwhile?
Well, I don’t expect to win friends and influence people. I disagree with the consensus here, but I’m listening.
FWIW, Pro Bono, I believe that McWhorter is engaging in good faith and deserves to be listened to. He’s offering a different set of grounds from which to engage with a problem we both acknowledge exists and should be remedied. And we both have the same goal in mind. That’s an argument of an entirely different nature than the one that kicked off this round of discussion.
FWIW, Pro Bono, I believe that McWhorter is engaging in good faith and deserves to be listened to. He’s offering a different set of grounds from which to engage with a problem we both acknowledge exists and should be remedied. And we both have the same goal in mind. That’s an argument of an entirely different nature than the one that kicked off this round of discussion.
The public acceptance of widespread social/institutional racial discrimination is as much a public policy as any affirmative action or reparations policy. It is the de facto acceptance and implementation of a racially based quota system.
So the real question is not so much the condemnation of “quotas” as “bad” as it is the knowing of who is getting harmed and why and what to do about it.
The public acceptance of widespread social/institutional racial discrimination is as much a public policy as any affirmative action or reparations policy. It is the de facto acceptance and implementation of a racially based quota system.
So the real question is not so much the condemnation of “quotas” as “bad” as it is the knowing of who is getting harmed and why and what to do about it.
If that’s not the case, then maybe you should engage less antagonistically and ask questions that aren’t aimed at shutting down discussion. If that is the case, then there’s no real reason to engage with you on these topics.
Case in point, it’s pretty clear that McK’s ‘proof’ about Asian Americans is a googled list. The first link is to the AACE., which is headed by Yukong Mike Zhao, who authored this book
https://books.google.co.jp/books/about/Critical_Race_Theory_and_Woke_Culture.html
Zhao also ran for Florida representative for the district that represents The Walt Disney World area.
Zhao raised $10,874 for his official campaign, almost entirely from California, and added another $10,000 personal loan. That brought his total raised to $217,999, including his $100,000 in personal loans.
https://floridapolitics.com/archives/538000-mike-zhaos-california-fundraiser-continues-out-of-state-support-in-hd-45-race/
from the horse’s mouth
As a survivor of communist China’s Cultural Revolution, I applaud Governor DeSantis’ leadership in rooting out Marxist indoctrination in Florida. When I go to the Florida House, I will make sure our education system focus on providing career and life skill to our children, not engaging any political indoctrination nor sexual grooming.
https://www.orangeobserver.com/news/2022/aug/11/candidate-qanda-mike-zhao-florida-state-representative-district-45-rep/
Pro bono, it would be great to have a discussion about the points you raise and John McWhorter’s take (he’s a linguist by training and a lot of this work revolves around linguistics), but when you have McK muddying the waters, it’s not really possible.
If that’s not the case, then maybe you should engage less antagonistically and ask questions that aren’t aimed at shutting down discussion. If that is the case, then there’s no real reason to engage with you on these topics.
Case in point, it’s pretty clear that McK’s ‘proof’ about Asian Americans is a googled list. The first link is to the AACE., which is headed by Yukong Mike Zhao, who authored this book
https://books.google.co.jp/books/about/Critical_Race_Theory_and_Woke_Culture.html
Zhao also ran for Florida representative for the district that represents The Walt Disney World area.
Zhao raised $10,874 for his official campaign, almost entirely from California, and added another $10,000 personal loan. That brought his total raised to $217,999, including his $100,000 in personal loans.
https://floridapolitics.com/archives/538000-mike-zhaos-california-fundraiser-continues-out-of-state-support-in-hd-45-race/
from the horse’s mouth
As a survivor of communist China’s Cultural Revolution, I applaud Governor DeSantis’ leadership in rooting out Marxist indoctrination in Florida. When I go to the Florida House, I will make sure our education system focus on providing career and life skill to our children, not engaging any political indoctrination nor sexual grooming.
https://www.orangeobserver.com/news/2022/aug/11/candidate-qanda-mike-zhao-florida-state-representative-district-45-rep/
Pro bono, it would be great to have a discussion about the points you raise and John McWhorter’s take (he’s a linguist by training and a lot of this work revolves around linguistics), but when you have McK muddying the waters, it’s not really possible.
So the real question is not so much the condemnation of “quotas” as “bad” as it is the knowing of who is getting harmed and why and what to do about it.
The problem I have with “quotas”, of whatever variety, is the assumption that a zero sum situation is inevitable. Leaving us to fight over how to divide up a limited resource.**
Whereas the right solution, to my mind, is one where the supply is expanded to handle the demand. It’s right for the people involved. And it’s definitely better for the nation. Not to mention that, in the case of education and training, the economic benefits are substantial.
** And thus about who gets hurt and who benefits.
So the real question is not so much the condemnation of “quotas” as “bad” as it is the knowing of who is getting harmed and why and what to do about it.
The problem I have with “quotas”, of whatever variety, is the assumption that a zero sum situation is inevitable. Leaving us to fight over how to divide up a limited resource.**
Whereas the right solution, to my mind, is one where the supply is expanded to handle the demand. It’s right for the people involved. And it’s definitely better for the nation. Not to mention that, in the case of education and training, the economic benefits are substantial.
** And thus about who gets hurt and who benefits.
How does one expand the supply of prestigious-university-of-choice admittances to handle the demand?
How does one expand the supply of prestigious-university-of-choice admittances to handle the demand?
Whereas the right solution, to my mind, is one where the supply is expanded to handle the demand.
There’s been a big drop in college enrollment since the beginning of the pandemic. People are deciding college isn’t worth the time and expense to them. Which may be just as well. About 60% of high school graduates are going to college. But the ACT says only 26% are prepared for college. So some of them will end up where they’re going to end up without the time and expense of going to and dropping out of college first.
Some universities may have to reduce their administrative bloat and reduce tuition. The horrors!
Whereas the right solution, to my mind, is one where the supply is expanded to handle the demand.
There’s been a big drop in college enrollment since the beginning of the pandemic. People are deciding college isn’t worth the time and expense to them. Which may be just as well. About 60% of high school graduates are going to college. But the ACT says only 26% are prepared for college. So some of them will end up where they’re going to end up without the time and expense of going to and dropping out of college first.
Some universities may have to reduce their administrative bloat and reduce tuition. The horrors!
The problem I have with “quotas”, of whatever variety, is the assumption that a zero sum situation is inevitable. Leaving us to fight over how to divide up a limited resource.**
That is a mischaracterization of one side of the dispute (you guess which one).
More importantly I would ask you to tell me why current de facto quotas are better for society than some other social arrangement.
What I see is a lot of assuming that social quotas are “more desireable just becuase” or they throw out the “merit” bone.
The problem I have with “quotas”, of whatever variety, is the assumption that a zero sum situation is inevitable. Leaving us to fight over how to divide up a limited resource.**
That is a mischaracterization of one side of the dispute (you guess which one).
More importantly I would ask you to tell me why current de facto quotas are better for society than some other social arrangement.
What I see is a lot of assuming that social quotas are “more desireable just becuase” or they throw out the “merit” bone.
How does one expand the supply of prestigious-university-of-choice admittances to handle the demand?
Options:
Alas, neither of these are super fast. On the other hand, quotas have been tried for a fair while now, without visibly providing a long-term solution. So it’s probably worthwhile to try a different approach. The critical difference being that this gets us out of the zero sum, I’m losing so you can gain, mindset.
How does one expand the supply of prestigious-university-of-choice admittances to handle the demand?
Options:
Alas, neither of these are super fast. On the other hand, quotas have been tried for a fair while now, without visibly providing a long-term solution. So it’s probably worthwhile to try a different approach. The critical difference being that this gets us out of the zero sum, I’m losing so you can gain, mindset.
I would ask you to tell me why current de facto quotas are better for society than some other social arrangement.
I’m not arguing that existing quotas are better. I’m arguing that quotas per se, implicit or explicit, existing or proposed, are bad. Bad for society; bad for individuals.
I would ask you in turn why quotas (aka rationing) are a better approach than expanding supply. Establish that, if you can, then we can discuss the merits of various quota systems.
I would ask you to tell me why current de facto quotas are better for society than some other social arrangement.
I’m not arguing that existing quotas are better. I’m arguing that quotas per se, implicit or explicit, existing or proposed, are bad. Bad for society; bad for individuals.
I would ask you in turn why quotas (aka rationing) are a better approach than expanding supply. Establish that, if you can, then we can discuss the merits of various quota systems.
There’s been a big drop in college enrollment since the beginning of the pandemic. People are deciding college isn’t worth the time and expense to them. Which may be just as well. About 60% of high school graduates are going to college. But the ACT says only 26% are prepared for college.
It’s become obvious that the merits and benefits of a college education have been oversold. Leaving us with a) lots of unqualified applicants who have been convinced that college is the only route to economic advancement, b) lots of people with (expensive) degrees which don’t actually prepare them for anything, and c) a serious shortage of workers in the skilled trades.
Certainly college can be great, and personally I’m extremely glad for the years I spent there. But it isn’t a universal magic wand.
There’s been a big drop in college enrollment since the beginning of the pandemic. People are deciding college isn’t worth the time and expense to them. Which may be just as well. About 60% of high school graduates are going to college. But the ACT says only 26% are prepared for college.
It’s become obvious that the merits and benefits of a college education have been oversold. Leaving us with a) lots of unqualified applicants who have been convinced that college is the only route to economic advancement, b) lots of people with (expensive) degrees which don’t actually prepare them for anything, and c) a serious shortage of workers in the skilled trades.
Certainly college can be great, and personally I’m extremely glad for the years I spent there. But it isn’t a universal magic wand.
A little late, but the NYTs opinion piece is taken up by Cheryl Rofer at LGM.
https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2023/05/an-old-argument-returns
A little late, but the NYTs opinion piece is taken up by Cheryl Rofer at LGM.
https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2023/05/an-old-argument-returns
These tests have failed time and again to achieve their intended purposes: measuring intelligence and predicting future academic and professional success. The tests, not the black test-takers, have been underachieving.
So says Kendi.
There must be a lot of data about the relationship between scores on tests taken before admission and academic success at university (the Merit paper makes some claims about it, citing a book I haven’t got). If a particular group, on average, overachieves at university relative to their pre-admission test scores, it would make sense to inflate the scores accordingly for admissions purposes. And conversely. But this is not an argument for quotas.
A different argument would be that children from some backgrounds have a disadvantage relative to others in their school and home experience, and that university admissions should seek to compensate for it. I partly agree with that, but I think racial identity is too crude a proxy, and that by the time they get to university students can catch up only so far – you’re doing a student no favours if you admit them to a course they can’t handle.
These tests have failed time and again to achieve their intended purposes: measuring intelligence and predicting future academic and professional success. The tests, not the black test-takers, have been underachieving.
So says Kendi.
There must be a lot of data about the relationship between scores on tests taken before admission and academic success at university (the Merit paper makes some claims about it, citing a book I haven’t got). If a particular group, on average, overachieves at university relative to their pre-admission test scores, it would make sense to inflate the scores accordingly for admissions purposes. And conversely. But this is not an argument for quotas.
A different argument would be that children from some backgrounds have a disadvantage relative to others in their school and home experience, and that university admissions should seek to compensate for it. I partly agree with that, but I think racial identity is too crude a proxy, and that by the time they get to university students can catch up only so far – you’re doing a student no favours if you admit them to a course they can’t handle.
you’re doing a student no favours if you admit them to a course they can’t handle.
Funny. Nobody ever characterizes white college dropouts as having been “admitted to a course they can’t handle.”
I did the Google for “do affirmative action students fail at a greater rate?” Once you wade past the entries from Heritage Foundation and The Manhattan Institute, you can read some contravening evidence bringing a bit more nuance to this issue. Here are a couple.
https://research.upjohn.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1185&context=up_workingpapers
https://www.gse.harvard.edu/news/uk/18/07/case-affirmative-action
https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/50186/1000862-Affirmative-Action.PDF
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED609274.pdf
you’re doing a student no favours if you admit them to a course they can’t handle.
Funny. Nobody ever characterizes white college dropouts as having been “admitted to a course they can’t handle.”
I did the Google for “do affirmative action students fail at a greater rate?” Once you wade past the entries from Heritage Foundation and The Manhattan Institute, you can read some contravening evidence bringing a bit more nuance to this issue. Here are a couple.
https://research.upjohn.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1185&context=up_workingpapers
https://www.gse.harvard.edu/news/uk/18/07/case-affirmative-action
https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/50186/1000862-Affirmative-Action.PDF
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED609274.pdf
Though I’m not a big Stephen Jay Gould fan, I thought that the Mismeasure of Man was a good book
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mismeasure_of_Man
[*cough Genesis Library cough*]
Looking at the wikipedia page, it notes the revised version has a 2 chapter critique of the Bell Curve, so off the read that.
Though I’m not a big Stephen Jay Gould fan, I thought that the Mismeasure of Man was a good book
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mismeasure_of_Man
[*cough Genesis Library cough*]
Looking at the wikipedia page, it notes the revised version has a 2 chapter critique of the Bell Curve, so off the read that.
A little essay with something for everybody. Just trying to be Fair and Balanced:
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/09/30/is-meritocracy-making-everyone-miserable
A little essay with something for everybody. Just trying to be Fair and Balanced:
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/09/30/is-meritocracy-making-everyone-miserable
I’m sceptical about The Mismeasure of Man. I think Flynn is much more persuasive.
I’m sceptical about The Mismeasure of Man. I think Flynn is much more persuasive.
Funny. Nobody ever characterizes white college dropouts as having been “admitted to a course they can’t handle.”
And yet I’ve heard exactly that. Numerous times, dating all the way back to when I was in college.
And that’s excluding all the comments about athletes being admitted, enrolled in special easy courses, and still not managing to graduate.
Funny. Nobody ever characterizes white college dropouts as having been “admitted to a course they can’t handle.”
And yet I’ve heard exactly that. Numerous times, dating all the way back to when I was in college.
And that’s excluding all the comments about athletes being admitted, enrolled in special easy courses, and still not managing to graduate.
People’s ideas of what constitutes success in university education are very arbitrary and conventional and have little to do with merit, or learning, or ability. I’ve had students who had no intellectual curiosity and very little ability to do anything but apply intellectual shell scripts to life who have earned degrees because all they had to do was navigate a series of fixed challenges within a constrained time limit. Their lives existed clear of enough underbrush that they could manage that challenge. Most of them really gained no benefit from their time at university other than the credential that they needed to justify treating them as patricians. Not everyone needs a college education, true, but not everyone that completes a degree actually gets a college education, and probably didn’t need one to begin with. Five years on they have forgotten everything they learned and it doesn’t slow them down one bit. All they needed was the excuse of a degree to give them access to the accelerated social track.
Very few of my students get into an R1 with too little aptitude or promise. Most of the ones that struggle do so because they have lives with too much underbrush to allow them to navigate the arbitrary path within the time limit. They have family obligations. They have jobs that cut into their ability to do schoolwork or to attend class. They have illnesses or health issues that make the artificial pace of university learning unsustainable. They have children who need their attention.
And when they drop out because the underbrush was too thick to keep pace, the observers look at the data and say that they were underprepared and should not have been admitted.
What they needed was more time, or a more flexible path through the maze of gatekeeping.
The maze does not have to take the form that it does to achieve the goal of educating the student. Four years is an arbitrary number. I started in college in 1986 and finally earned my bachelor’s degree in 2004 after years of clearing out underbrush. I’m sure that my first college would look at me as an underprepared student who should not have been admitted. But in 2004 the UC saw me as being worthy of a fellowship for graduate study.
I’m not sure either was entirely right or entirely wrong about that.
Higher education should be a liberal education. It should exist to give students the tools, and critical questioning strategies, and knowledge building skills they need to liberate themselves as much as they can from the underbrush of their lives. It doesn’t need to be time constrained. It probably shouldn’t be too specialized or fit to a narrow outcome. It should be guided, but not constrained.
None of the handwringing over “merit” or over the purported dangers that come from letting lesser beings into the priesthood have anything to do with a liberal education or with the actual ability of the people involved. It’s just about people worrying that they will lose out if we stop using the maze as our measure of who gets the resources that come from completing the maze.
People’s ideas of what constitutes success in university education are very arbitrary and conventional and have little to do with merit, or learning, or ability. I’ve had students who had no intellectual curiosity and very little ability to do anything but apply intellectual shell scripts to life who have earned degrees because all they had to do was navigate a series of fixed challenges within a constrained time limit. Their lives existed clear of enough underbrush that they could manage that challenge. Most of them really gained no benefit from their time at university other than the credential that they needed to justify treating them as patricians. Not everyone needs a college education, true, but not everyone that completes a degree actually gets a college education, and probably didn’t need one to begin with. Five years on they have forgotten everything they learned and it doesn’t slow them down one bit. All they needed was the excuse of a degree to give them access to the accelerated social track.
Very few of my students get into an R1 with too little aptitude or promise. Most of the ones that struggle do so because they have lives with too much underbrush to allow them to navigate the arbitrary path within the time limit. They have family obligations. They have jobs that cut into their ability to do schoolwork or to attend class. They have illnesses or health issues that make the artificial pace of university learning unsustainable. They have children who need their attention.
And when they drop out because the underbrush was too thick to keep pace, the observers look at the data and say that they were underprepared and should not have been admitted.
What they needed was more time, or a more flexible path through the maze of gatekeeping.
The maze does not have to take the form that it does to achieve the goal of educating the student. Four years is an arbitrary number. I started in college in 1986 and finally earned my bachelor’s degree in 2004 after years of clearing out underbrush. I’m sure that my first college would look at me as an underprepared student who should not have been admitted. But in 2004 the UC saw me as being worthy of a fellowship for graduate study.
I’m not sure either was entirely right or entirely wrong about that.
Higher education should be a liberal education. It should exist to give students the tools, and critical questioning strategies, and knowledge building skills they need to liberate themselves as much as they can from the underbrush of their lives. It doesn’t need to be time constrained. It probably shouldn’t be too specialized or fit to a narrow outcome. It should be guided, but not constrained.
None of the handwringing over “merit” or over the purported dangers that come from letting lesser beings into the priesthood have anything to do with a liberal education or with the actual ability of the people involved. It’s just about people worrying that they will lose out if we stop using the maze as our measure of who gets the resources that come from completing the maze.
Higher education should be a liberal education.
I think this is a bit over-simplified. Yes, for those who can benefit from it, a liberal education is a good thing. On the other hand, “higher education”** encompasses training for fields where “liberal education” is a nice-to-have, not a necessity. For example, an engineer may be better for having one, but she can still be a damn good engineer without it.
** Whether we should consider all post-high school education and training “higher education”, and if not, where to draw the line, is a separate discussion. For this, I’m limiting it to university/4 year college.
Higher education should be a liberal education.
I think this is a bit over-simplified. Yes, for those who can benefit from it, a liberal education is a good thing. On the other hand, “higher education”** encompasses training for fields where “liberal education” is a nice-to-have, not a necessity. For example, an engineer may be better for having one, but she can still be a damn good engineer without it.
** Whether we should consider all post-high school education and training “higher education”, and if not, where to draw the line, is a separate discussion. For this, I’m limiting it to university/4 year college.
I have nothing against engineers taking courses that help them to become better engineers. I have nothing against universities having engineering centers that give students the opportunity to learn things that are applicable to engineering. I have nothing against engineers, or potential engineers, learning things that empower them to live their lives. A liberal education aims at giving those who become students a rigorous base from which they can pursue their goals. That should include the ability to function productively and cooperatively in a pluralistic, changing, democratic society.
A liberal education is a student-centered education, not an employer-centered education. An engineering degree that is aimed at giving employers a pipeline of pre-vetted employees is not an education and it is not liberating. It is valuable training, but it is not a liberal education until it is put into a larger context than just a vocational one and aimed at giving the student greater agency.
Vocational training is hierarchical curve fitting. I want education to be aimed at giving students more power to (ethically) negotiate and alter that hierarchy.
I have nothing against engineers taking courses that help them to become better engineers. I have nothing against universities having engineering centers that give students the opportunity to learn things that are applicable to engineering. I have nothing against engineers, or potential engineers, learning things that empower them to live their lives. A liberal education aims at giving those who become students a rigorous base from which they can pursue their goals. That should include the ability to function productively and cooperatively in a pluralistic, changing, democratic society.
A liberal education is a student-centered education, not an employer-centered education. An engineering degree that is aimed at giving employers a pipeline of pre-vetted employees is not an education and it is not liberating. It is valuable training, but it is not a liberal education until it is put into a larger context than just a vocational one and aimed at giving the student greater agency.
Vocational training is hierarchical curve fitting. I want education to be aimed at giving students more power to (ethically) negotiate and alter that hierarchy.
I’m not sure exactly what you mean by a liberal education, but if you think the only object of mathematics or any science is to serve the man, then we disagree fundamentally. And I would say that critical questioning very often needs some understanding of statistics.
The Merit paper is specifically about STEMM subjects. These are subjects where, it seems to me, aptitude matters a lot.
There are a lot of things I can’t do very well, and couldn’t however long I studied them. Playing a musical instrument, playing football, drawing. So I do believe that aptitude is a real thing.
I’m not sure exactly what you mean by a liberal education, but if you think the only object of mathematics or any science is to serve the man, then we disagree fundamentally. And I would say that critical questioning very often needs some understanding of statistics.
The Merit paper is specifically about STEMM subjects. These are subjects where, it seems to me, aptitude matters a lot.
There are a lot of things I can’t do very well, and couldn’t however long I studied them. Playing a musical instrument, playing football, drawing. So I do believe that aptitude is a real thing.
An engineering degree that is aimed at giving employers a pipeline of pre-vetted employees is not an education and it is not liberating. It is valuable training, but it is not a liberal education
“it is not a liberal education” True
“[it] is not an education” Totally disagree.
An engineering education (at least the one I got at UC Berkeley) is not aimed at giving employers a pipeline of pre-vetted employees. It was aimed at giving students the tools they would need to do engineering work — whether for an employer or for starting their own company. The same being true, I would note, of Physics, Chemistry, Biology, or any of the sciences.
Of course, if you take the position** that only humanities constitute education, then that’s a different discussion. But it seems to me that the greatest weakness in higher education in the humanities is that it doesn’t require the kind of (minimal) understanding of the sciences required to make informed choices in today’s world.
** And I don’t know that you do; wouldn’t want to put words in your mouth
An engineering degree that is aimed at giving employers a pipeline of pre-vetted employees is not an education and it is not liberating. It is valuable training, but it is not a liberal education
“it is not a liberal education” True
“[it] is not an education” Totally disagree.
An engineering education (at least the one I got at UC Berkeley) is not aimed at giving employers a pipeline of pre-vetted employees. It was aimed at giving students the tools they would need to do engineering work — whether for an employer or for starting their own company. The same being true, I would note, of Physics, Chemistry, Biology, or any of the sciences.
Of course, if you take the position** that only humanities constitute education, then that’s a different discussion. But it seems to me that the greatest weakness in higher education in the humanities is that it doesn’t require the kind of (minimal) understanding of the sciences required to make informed choices in today’s world.
** And I don’t know that you do; wouldn’t want to put words in your mouth
I’m not using liberal education in any special sense of the word. I mean exactly what is described in the opening paragraph of the wikipedia article:
A liberal education is a system or course of education suitable for the cultivation of a free (Latin: liber) human being. It is based on the medieval concept of the liberal arts or, more commonly now, the liberalism of the Age of Enlightenment. It has been described as “a philosophy of education that empowers individuals with broad knowledge and transferable skills, and a stronger sense of values, ethics, and civic engagement … characterized by challenging encounters with important issues, and more a way of studying than a specific course or field of study” by the Association of American Colleges and Universities.
Broad knowledge and transferable skills being the key concepts here, and liberal arts being the natural, formal (including mathematics), and social sciences, the arts, and humanities.
I have no problem with students focusing more on particular liberal arts than others, but they need to understand how they work and complement each other, and be able to integrate them all into an ethical and pluralistic society.
It’s that integration that most educators point to as the difference between education and training.
I’m not using liberal education in any special sense of the word. I mean exactly what is described in the opening paragraph of the wikipedia article:
A liberal education is a system or course of education suitable for the cultivation of a free (Latin: liber) human being. It is based on the medieval concept of the liberal arts or, more commonly now, the liberalism of the Age of Enlightenment. It has been described as “a philosophy of education that empowers individuals with broad knowledge and transferable skills, and a stronger sense of values, ethics, and civic engagement … characterized by challenging encounters with important issues, and more a way of studying than a specific course or field of study” by the Association of American Colleges and Universities.
Broad knowledge and transferable skills being the key concepts here, and liberal arts being the natural, formal (including mathematics), and social sciences, the arts, and humanities.
I have no problem with students focusing more on particular liberal arts than others, but they need to understand how they work and complement each other, and be able to integrate them all into an ethical and pluralistic society.
It’s that integration that most educators point to as the difference between education and training.
Sorry, nous, I’m very late to this, and a great deal of champagne has been taken, but are you saying that natural sciences, and formal sciences (which I had to look up) including mathematics, are included in “liberal arts”? I don’t believe that is the case here, although it is true that it is not a term used as much in further education here as in the states.
OK, drunk or not, I just checked, and it seems that several UK universities now offer “Liberal Arts Degrees”. The following info, from Kings College London, seems typical:
So, from our point of view, a degree in any of the STEM subjects seems to serve a completely different educational purpose and offer a completely different experience. And perhaps, as Pro Bono suggests, call for a completely different type of aptitude.
Sorry, nous, I’m very late to this, and a great deal of champagne has been taken, but are you saying that natural sciences, and formal sciences (which I had to look up) including mathematics, are included in “liberal arts”? I don’t believe that is the case here, although it is true that it is not a term used as much in further education here as in the states.
OK, drunk or not, I just checked, and it seems that several UK universities now offer “Liberal Arts Degrees”. The following info, from Kings College London, seems typical:
So, from our point of view, a degree in any of the STEM subjects seems to serve a completely different educational purpose and offer a completely different experience. And perhaps, as Pro Bono suggests, call for a completely different type of aptitude.
“Choose from 13 majors from across arts, humanities and social sciences – with no mathematics or science requirements”
In other words, with no acquaintance required with ways of thinking which require testing of ideas against reality. This may be why we see so many philosophies developed which are things of beauty, but make false-to-fact simplifications of how the real world works.
If people were as Marx imagines them, communism world work. If they were as Rand imagines them, libertarianism would work. The list goes on and on. But, in the real world, people (and their motivations) are far more complex. Perhaps, with an education with feedback from reality required, something more sensible, more workable, would arise. Certainly determined ignorance has not gotten us to nirvana.
“Choose from 13 majors from across arts, humanities and social sciences – with no mathematics or science requirements”
In other words, with no acquaintance required with ways of thinking which require testing of ideas against reality. This may be why we see so many philosophies developed which are things of beauty, but make false-to-fact simplifications of how the real world works.
If people were as Marx imagines them, communism world work. If they were as Rand imagines them, libertarianism would work. The list goes on and on. But, in the real world, people (and their motivations) are far more complex. Perhaps, with an education with feedback from reality required, something more sensible, more workable, would arise. Certainly determined ignorance has not gotten us to nirvana.
GftNC and Pro Bono – King’s College is using that term in a way that is not only different from its historical meaning going back as far as medieval scholasticism, but also one that runs counter to the notion of the Liberal Arts. If that’s how they want to brand things and y’all are willing to let them do so, then I hope you have a merry time of it, but I’m sticking with the traditional sense and the traditional goal of the phrase, as is (so far) most every Liberal Arts college in the US.
Hartmut, has the German system adopted the Kings College usage, or are y’all resisting that fashionable degeneracy ;)?
GftNC and Pro Bono – King’s College is using that term in a way that is not only different from its historical meaning going back as far as medieval scholasticism, but also one that runs counter to the notion of the Liberal Arts. If that’s how they want to brand things and y’all are willing to let them do so, then I hope you have a merry time of it, but I’m sticking with the traditional sense and the traditional goal of the phrase, as is (so far) most every Liberal Arts college in the US.
Hartmut, has the German system adopted the Kings College usage, or are y’all resisting that fashionable degeneracy ;)?
(I mean, I’m willing to grow with the times and give up the Trivium and Quadrivium as antiquated concepts, but this… This?
(I mean, I’m willing to grow with the times and give up the Trivium and Quadrivium as antiquated concepts, but this… This?
wj – humanists do not exclude themselves from the need to test their ideas against reality, they just pursue qualitative assessment rather than quantitative assessment as a focus, but neither the qualitative nor the quantitative side should get to exclude the findings of the other.
I’m sure you are thinking of all sorts of humanistic flights of fancy as possible counterpoints, but I just return to my initial post about the “merit” article and the lazy, self-serving reading that the authors have given to a discussion outside of their own wheelhouse as proof of the need for reintegration and rebalancing.
wj – humanists do not exclude themselves from the need to test their ideas against reality, they just pursue qualitative assessment rather than quantitative assessment as a focus, but neither the qualitative nor the quantitative side should get to exclude the findings of the other.
I’m sure you are thinking of all sorts of humanistic flights of fancy as possible counterpoints, but I just return to my initial post about the “merit” article and the lazy, self-serving reading that the authors have given to a discussion outside of their own wheelhouse as proof of the need for reintegration and rebalancing.
Coming on the back end, I didn’t think that Gould and Flynn were opposed, I thought they were complementary. Obviously, it depends on what you think g is, but the Flynn effect was, to my mind, hijacked by Hernstein and Murray.
Coming on the back end, I didn’t think that Gould and Flynn were opposed, I thought they were complementary. Obviously, it depends on what you think g is, but the Flynn effect was, to my mind, hijacked by Hernstein and Murray.
I’m familiar with the classical usage, just ignorant of what it means in the USA.
I’m curious as to what proportion of mathematics and science there is in a typical liberal arts student’s choices.
I’m familiar with the classical usage, just ignorant of what it means in the USA.
I’m curious as to what proportion of mathematics and science there is in a typical liberal arts student’s choices.
Random question… Are there any large liberal arts colleges in the US? Liberal arts as nous wants to define it, big student body, small or no training programs.
That asked, I’m at least somewhat sympathetic to nous’s position. I don’t regret any of the history, philosophy, social science, or learning a foreign language classes I had to take for my math/computer science BS. If I were to have regrets, it would be along the lines that to get where I wound up wanting to get in technical training, it took two more years in graduate school. (I might have stayed in graduate school longer, but I was just so damned tired of being poor.)
Random question… Are there any large liberal arts colleges in the US? Liberal arts as nous wants to define it, big student body, small or no training programs.
That asked, I’m at least somewhat sympathetic to nous’s position. I don’t regret any of the history, philosophy, social science, or learning a foreign language classes I had to take for my math/computer science BS. If I were to have regrets, it would be along the lines that to get where I wound up wanting to get in technical training, it took two more years in graduate school. (I might have stayed in graduate school longer, but I was just so damned tired of being poor.)
I had a well-rounded friend who graduated from Carleton College, got a Ph.D. in Astrophysics, and returned to teach there. Their approach to graduation requirements is fairly typical of the Liberal Arts College curriculum in the US.
https://www.carleton.edu/academics/liberal-arts/requirements/
I would have loved to teach somewhere like Carleton. Liberal Arts students are the best. They come in with their curiosity at the fore.
I had a well-rounded friend who graduated from Carleton College, got a Ph.D. in Astrophysics, and returned to teach there. Their approach to graduation requirements is fairly typical of the Liberal Arts College curriculum in the US.
https://www.carleton.edu/academics/liberal-arts/requirements/
I would have loved to teach somewhere like Carleton. Liberal Arts students are the best. They come in with their curiosity at the fore.
I’m curious as to what proportion of mathematics and science there is in a typical liberal arts student’s choices.
I’ve looked at the catalogs for a couple of well-regarded SLACs. One of them could have reproduced my math major, IF things fell exactly right for when certain electives were offered. The other could probably have reproduced my physics minor. Neither one of them could reproduce my computer science second major, which was absolutely necessary to where I wound up going in applied math.
I’m curious as to what proportion of mathematics and science there is in a typical liberal arts student’s choices.
I’ve looked at the catalogs for a couple of well-regarded SLACs. One of them could have reproduced my math major, IF things fell exactly right for when certain electives were offered. The other could probably have reproduced my physics minor. Neither one of them could reproduce my computer science second major, which was absolutely necessary to where I wound up going in applied math.
It’s not just Kings, nous, I just checked Durham (one of the most highly regarded of the other universities that offer a Liberal Arts degree), and they have no science or maths in it either. You can study: Classics and Ancient History, English, Music, History, Philosophy, Theology and Religion, and Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences. I think that the few universities that now offer it are trying to get away from the (in my opinion unhelpful) English educational phenomenon of very early specialisation (schoolkids and college students don’t have to do any science subjects after the age of 14, and no maths after the age of 16), but not to the extent of letting STEM into the mix.
Giving up the Trivium and Quadrivium is all very well, but since we have an unbroken tradition of further education going back a thousand years, it seems a bit rich for you to castigate us as using “untraditional” terminology. Of course science was included in many or even most fields of study up to the Enlightenment and for a time beyond, for educated men (it was always men), but so was religion.
In any case, according to Wikipedia, the first university in England to offer a Liberal Arts degree did so in 2010, and there are so far only 20 that do so. So this really does seem to be a very considerable difference between further education in the UK and the US.
As I imply, I have always rather envied and approved of the broader educational approach to US undergraduate degrees, but there is no doubt it is still very different from ours.
It’s not just Kings, nous, I just checked Durham (one of the most highly regarded of the other universities that offer a Liberal Arts degree), and they have no science or maths in it either. You can study: Classics and Ancient History, English, Music, History, Philosophy, Theology and Religion, and Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences. I think that the few universities that now offer it are trying to get away from the (in my opinion unhelpful) English educational phenomenon of very early specialisation (schoolkids and college students don’t have to do any science subjects after the age of 14, and no maths after the age of 16), but not to the extent of letting STEM into the mix.
Giving up the Trivium and Quadrivium is all very well, but since we have an unbroken tradition of further education going back a thousand years, it seems a bit rich for you to castigate us as using “untraditional” terminology. Of course science was included in many or even most fields of study up to the Enlightenment and for a time beyond, for educated men (it was always men), but so was religion.
In any case, according to Wikipedia, the first university in England to offer a Liberal Arts degree did so in 2010, and there are so far only 20 that do so. So this really does seem to be a very considerable difference between further education in the UK and the US.
As I imply, I have always rather envied and approved of the broader educational approach to US undergraduate degrees, but there is no doubt it is still very different from ours.
And I’m not saying that there should be no training happening as part of a liberal education, I’m saying that specialist training should be viewed as electives and should work to integrate themselves into the larger context of studies. Breadth requirements should be the foundation and should be integrated with each other. Training is done in service to that larger context. It’s the opposite of what most students think where their major is the core and all that other stuff is annoying, confusing distractions that drag down their GPA if they provide any challenge at all.
And I’m not saying that there should be no training happening as part of a liberal education, I’m saying that specialist training should be viewed as electives and should work to integrate themselves into the larger context of studies. Breadth requirements should be the foundation and should be integrated with each other. Training is done in service to that larger context. It’s the opposite of what most students think where their major is the core and all that other stuff is annoying, confusing distractions that drag down their GPA if they provide any challenge at all.
Breadth requirements should be the foundation
As an Engineering major, I viewed the breadth requirements as an opportunity to explore all the other fascinating things that the university offered. One was fascinating enough that I ended up with a second major. Given time, I could have done a couple more.
One fringe benefit of a double major: neither faculty advisor knew what the other major required. So as long as I enrolled in 2 courses towards their major requirements, they were cool. Which meant that, as my 5th course, I could take literally anything. And did.
Breadth requirements should be the foundation
As an Engineering major, I viewed the breadth requirements as an opportunity to explore all the other fascinating things that the university offered. One was fascinating enough that I ended up with a second major. Given time, I could have done a couple more.
One fringe benefit of a double major: neither faculty advisor knew what the other major required. So as long as I enrolled in 2 courses towards their major requirements, they were cool. Which meant that, as my 5th course, I could take literally anything. And did.
Sounds good to me, wj.
Michael Cain – at a place like Carleton you might be able to persuade a professor to teach a class that fit your interests – so long as you could convince a few other people to take the course as well. And if no one else was game you could probably persuade that professor to be your advisor for self-directed study.
At a big university it could look like two years of integrated study followed by two years of self-directed study under consultation with three faculty advisors.
And if the big name faculty don’t want to advise undergrads because it interferes with their research agenda, then they can buy out that obligation with grant money, and pay someone else (like me) to do that advising work and help people find engaging studies. People who don’t want to teach make shit teachers.
I’m not saying the UK approach to education is an ahistorical abomination, GftNC, I’m saying that calling a degree that expressly excludes the necessity of three of the liberal arts a “liberal arts degree” is a historical abomination.
Sounds good to me, wj.
Michael Cain – at a place like Carleton you might be able to persuade a professor to teach a class that fit your interests – so long as you could convince a few other people to take the course as well. And if no one else was game you could probably persuade that professor to be your advisor for self-directed study.
At a big university it could look like two years of integrated study followed by two years of self-directed study under consultation with three faculty advisors.
And if the big name faculty don’t want to advise undergrads because it interferes with their research agenda, then they can buy out that obligation with grant money, and pay someone else (like me) to do that advising work and help people find engaging studies. People who don’t want to teach make shit teachers.
I’m not saying the UK approach to education is an ahistorical abomination, GftNC, I’m saying that calling a degree that expressly excludes the necessity of three of the liberal arts a “liberal arts degree” is a historical abomination.
This is a fascinating discussion and I don’t have the time to contribute even the list of notes that’s running around in my head. Thanks to everyone for persisting with it.
The discussion of “liberal arts” triggered a memory of my own odd path that I can outline without sidetracking too much from what I’m supposed to be paying attention to.
When I was there, MIT required all students to take the following in order to graduate:
2 semesters of physics
2 semesters of calculus
1 semester of chemistry (later it was chemistry or biology)
3 “science distribution” courses — pretty open-ended choices
1 lab
8 “humanities” classes (i.e. averaging 1 each semester, also pretty open-ended in terms of choices from lit, history, anthropology, philosophy, languages — despite Chomsky’s presence, there was no undergrad major in linguistics and I’m not even sure there were any classes for undergrads to take — weird that I never paid attention to it, given that it became a sort of hobby 30+ years later, and given Chomsky’s eminence in the field — regardless of what came later.)
If you assume 4 classes a semester, the basic requirements constituted just about half the program. (Most students took more than 4/semester on average … very intense folks, gluttons for punishment, however you want to frame it.)
I went back and forth between math (or physics) and literature 3 or 4 times before settling on literature (with a minor in history), and ended up taking the minimum amoung of science and math you could get away with and still graduate (roughly 1/3 of my classes).
Sophomore year I took an anthropology class from a Harvard-educated professor who looked at my schedule and said, “Hmmm, you’re the only student I have who’s actually getting an education.” Snooty Harvard folks….. 😉
One of my favorite classes was one of my science distribution choices: geology for civil engineers. Oddly enough, that was the professor who taught me how to write.
Also, the ongoing discussion, especially wj’s contributions, makes me realize that it’s rather odd that no engineering classes were required. There WERE options in that direction that came under the science distribution heading (e.g. my geology class) — but no engineering per se. This, at one of the most well-known and demanding engineering schools on earth!
When I was a freshman, some of the older women students warned us new kids to be careful about getting obsessed with computers. Students had been known to get so absorbed in them that they never even bothered to get their degrees!
Heh. Ten years later, when I was working in admissions, you could have filled the entering class with kids who wanted to do “Course 6” (EE and Computer Science).
This is a fascinating discussion and I don’t have the time to contribute even the list of notes that’s running around in my head. Thanks to everyone for persisting with it.
The discussion of “liberal arts” triggered a memory of my own odd path that I can outline without sidetracking too much from what I’m supposed to be paying attention to.
When I was there, MIT required all students to take the following in order to graduate:
2 semesters of physics
2 semesters of calculus
1 semester of chemistry (later it was chemistry or biology)
3 “science distribution” courses — pretty open-ended choices
1 lab
8 “humanities” classes (i.e. averaging 1 each semester, also pretty open-ended in terms of choices from lit, history, anthropology, philosophy, languages — despite Chomsky’s presence, there was no undergrad major in linguistics and I’m not even sure there were any classes for undergrads to take — weird that I never paid attention to it, given that it became a sort of hobby 30+ years later, and given Chomsky’s eminence in the field — regardless of what came later.)
If you assume 4 classes a semester, the basic requirements constituted just about half the program. (Most students took more than 4/semester on average … very intense folks, gluttons for punishment, however you want to frame it.)
I went back and forth between math (or physics) and literature 3 or 4 times before settling on literature (with a minor in history), and ended up taking the minimum amoung of science and math you could get away with and still graduate (roughly 1/3 of my classes).
Sophomore year I took an anthropology class from a Harvard-educated professor who looked at my schedule and said, “Hmmm, you’re the only student I have who’s actually getting an education.” Snooty Harvard folks….. 😉
One of my favorite classes was one of my science distribution choices: geology for civil engineers. Oddly enough, that was the professor who taught me how to write.
Also, the ongoing discussion, especially wj’s contributions, makes me realize that it’s rather odd that no engineering classes were required. There WERE options in that direction that came under the science distribution heading (e.g. my geology class) — but no engineering per se. This, at one of the most well-known and demanding engineering schools on earth!
When I was a freshman, some of the older women students warned us new kids to be careful about getting obsessed with computers. Students had been known to get so absorbed in them that they never even bothered to get their degrees!
Heh. Ten years later, when I was working in admissions, you could have filled the entering class with kids who wanted to do “Course 6” (EE and Computer Science).
Bottom line: I think I got a pretty decent liberal arts education.
Footnote: “science distribution” included math options.
Bottom line: I think I got a pretty decent liberal arts education.
Footnote: “science distribution” included math options.
I agree this is really interesting, especially for what I’m thinking about here at my institution.
Normally, because I’m in a faculty for British and American studies, we rarely get non-Japanese, who often go to majors like econ or social welfare. Those numbers are small, but some unis what to increase them, in the same way that state unis love foreign students who pay full freight.
But we have recently had a few non-Japanese students enter who are very non-traditional students. Now, we have some Japanese language courses, but these are strictly for exchange students and I was really surprised to learn that the regular non-Japanese students, rather than taking Japanese as their 2nd foreign language for credit, were required to take some other language. I found that some other universities allow non-Japanese to substitute Japanese for their second foreign language, so I’m suggesting that we allow that at our school.
However, I want to suggest something bigger, which would be to create a core of credits that would substitute for what Japanese students take as part of their liberal education, which is kokugo. This is translated as Japanese, but it isn’t like studying the language, it is dealing with Japanese classics etc.
There has been a lot of discussion about New Japanese, people who have taken Japanese citizenship but are not ethnically Japanese. This includes the children of interracial marriages (so called hafu), nikkei immigrants and a small, but growing number of people coming to Japan and deciding to settle. The suggestion that I want to make is tto create a set of courses that would improve the Japanese skills of these students and allowing them to replace a portion of the curriculum.
This parallels previous developments of the curriculum in the West. Greek and Latin, and now foreign language requirements have often been dropped. The University of Leicester’s plan to drop Beowulf and Chaucer from their English curriculum also landed with a thump.
https://thecritic.co.uk/is-leicesters-decision-to-scrap-medieval-literature-the-end-for-serious-literary-study/
I love classics, and I’m sympathetic to the howls of disapproval. I also know that the curriculum was inherited from the end of the 19th century, where the literature that students are supposed to study was read in daily life. So at what point do you let go of those kinds of subjects? Or are they timeless?
I also know that I’ll get hammered by some teachers who will wonder how someone can legitimately get a degree from a Japanese university if they don’t know Hyakunin isshu or Genji and Heiki monogatari. However, I’m not convinced that the students really ‘know’ those works, but rather this is a hoop they are supposed to jump thru.
If I do suggest it (I’m not really sure if it is worth the flak) I’ll point out that the demographics are against us, and if we were able to bring in those students and help them to better handle the requirements of Japanese society, we might be securing the school’s existence in a future that is full of unknowns.
This parallels a lot of what is being discussed here. Is university for helping people fit in as members of society? Or is it to reward the people who attend with some additional knowledge that might not be available to the non college bound? While the consensus might want to say that it is obviously the first, the second always lurks at the periphery.
Of course, the Japanese system of education is a bit of a frankenstein’s monster, with bits and pieces from other systems, often adopted more for form than for function, with the emphasis on somehow ‘matching’ the West, discussion of which would make this comment go on and on.
I have a bunch of thoughts about linguistics not being a common undergraduate degree and how that affects the field, but maybe another time.
I agree this is really interesting, especially for what I’m thinking about here at my institution.
Normally, because I’m in a faculty for British and American studies, we rarely get non-Japanese, who often go to majors like econ or social welfare. Those numbers are small, but some unis what to increase them, in the same way that state unis love foreign students who pay full freight.
But we have recently had a few non-Japanese students enter who are very non-traditional students. Now, we have some Japanese language courses, but these are strictly for exchange students and I was really surprised to learn that the regular non-Japanese students, rather than taking Japanese as their 2nd foreign language for credit, were required to take some other language. I found that some other universities allow non-Japanese to substitute Japanese for their second foreign language, so I’m suggesting that we allow that at our school.
However, I want to suggest something bigger, which would be to create a core of credits that would substitute for what Japanese students take as part of their liberal education, which is kokugo. This is translated as Japanese, but it isn’t like studying the language, it is dealing with Japanese classics etc.
There has been a lot of discussion about New Japanese, people who have taken Japanese citizenship but are not ethnically Japanese. This includes the children of interracial marriages (so called hafu), nikkei immigrants and a small, but growing number of people coming to Japan and deciding to settle. The suggestion that I want to make is tto create a set of courses that would improve the Japanese skills of these students and allowing them to replace a portion of the curriculum.
This parallels previous developments of the curriculum in the West. Greek and Latin, and now foreign language requirements have often been dropped. The University of Leicester’s plan to drop Beowulf and Chaucer from their English curriculum also landed with a thump.
https://thecritic.co.uk/is-leicesters-decision-to-scrap-medieval-literature-the-end-for-serious-literary-study/
I love classics, and I’m sympathetic to the howls of disapproval. I also know that the curriculum was inherited from the end of the 19th century, where the literature that students are supposed to study was read in daily life. So at what point do you let go of those kinds of subjects? Or are they timeless?
I also know that I’ll get hammered by some teachers who will wonder how someone can legitimately get a degree from a Japanese university if they don’t know Hyakunin isshu or Genji and Heiki monogatari. However, I’m not convinced that the students really ‘know’ those works, but rather this is a hoop they are supposed to jump thru.
If I do suggest it (I’m not really sure if it is worth the flak) I’ll point out that the demographics are against us, and if we were able to bring in those students and help them to better handle the requirements of Japanese society, we might be securing the school’s existence in a future that is full of unknowns.
This parallels a lot of what is being discussed here. Is university for helping people fit in as members of society? Or is it to reward the people who attend with some additional knowledge that might not be available to the non college bound? While the consensus might want to say that it is obviously the first, the second always lurks at the periphery.
Of course, the Japanese system of education is a bit of a frankenstein’s monster, with bits and pieces from other systems, often adopted more for form than for function, with the emphasis on somehow ‘matching’ the West, discussion of which would make this comment go on and on.
I have a bunch of thoughts about linguistics not being a common undergraduate degree and how that affects the field, but maybe another time.
I’m less familiar with the details of linguistics than I might like. But from what I do know/remember, I think teaching it more widely could reduce the attraction of mindless labels. Which labels have come to feature in so much of our political
dialog** conversation.** That was my automatic choice of term. But the briefest reflection made clear that it is not at all accurate. Unfortunately.
I’m less familiar with the details of linguistics than I might like. But from what I do know/remember, I think teaching it more widely could reduce the attraction of mindless labels. Which labels have come to feature in so much of our political
dialog** conversation.** That was my automatic choice of term. But the briefest reflection made clear that it is not at all accurate. Unfortunately.
In lieu of me writing something about linguistics, let me point folks to Pullum’s piece entitled
If this is Tuesday, it must be glossemetics
which contrasts the UK and US approaches to the teaching of linguistics
https://books.google.co.jp/books?id=Tahaz-0F6zMC&pg=PR5&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=2#v=onepage&q&f=false
If that link doesn’t get you their, go to google books and search for The Great Eskimo Vocabulary Hoax and Other Irreverent Essays and you can read the full essay in the preview
In lieu of me writing something about linguistics, let me point folks to Pullum’s piece entitled
If this is Tuesday, it must be glossemetics
which contrasts the UK and US approaches to the teaching of linguistics
https://books.google.co.jp/books?id=Tahaz-0F6zMC&pg=PR5&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=2#v=onepage&q&f=false
If that link doesn’t get you their, go to google books and search for The Great Eskimo Vocabulary Hoax and Other Irreverent Essays and you can read the full essay in the preview
lj, just for fun:
https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/24-900-introduction-to-linguistics-fall-2012/
This is basically the same material — and in particular the same textbook, though a later edition — that was in place when I studied the class material on my own in 2004. Later I took classes at the U of Southern Maine and eventually even taught a couple of classes as a sabbatical replacement.
I did read the Pullum essay you linked, and it seems to me that the text MIT uses, as well as the classes I took at USM, don’t really fit either of Pullum’s tracks. But that’s a long conversation…..
Pullum writes like an academic… although in his defense I suppose he’s writing for an audience that will get all his references. But he’s a bit of a rabble-rouser in general, isn’t he…?
****
I wish I had the time and focus to be able to comment on some of the strands of this discussion: what is “merit,” anyhow (and/or how is it being used in various debates and polemics). What about aptitude? What about … lifelong education, which could actually have components of both a liberal education and practical vocational training? (Whatever the vocation.) What about the subject matter we teach kids younger than college age?
Lots to think about. Pie in the sky, too, given the state of the nation. I have just seen the headlines about another gun massacre in Texas.
Priorities.
lj, just for fun:
https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/24-900-introduction-to-linguistics-fall-2012/
This is basically the same material — and in particular the same textbook, though a later edition — that was in place when I studied the class material on my own in 2004. Later I took classes at the U of Southern Maine and eventually even taught a couple of classes as a sabbatical replacement.
I did read the Pullum essay you linked, and it seems to me that the text MIT uses, as well as the classes I took at USM, don’t really fit either of Pullum’s tracks. But that’s a long conversation…..
Pullum writes like an academic… although in his defense I suppose he’s writing for an audience that will get all his references. But he’s a bit of a rabble-rouser in general, isn’t he…?
****
I wish I had the time and focus to be able to comment on some of the strands of this discussion: what is “merit,” anyhow (and/or how is it being used in various debates and polemics). What about aptitude? What about … lifelong education, which could actually have components of both a liberal education and practical vocational training? (Whatever the vocation.) What about the subject matter we teach kids younger than college age?
Lots to think about. Pie in the sky, too, given the state of the nation. I have just seen the headlines about another gun massacre in Texas.
Priorities.
PS to LJ — the Pullum essay was written what, 40 years ago? I guess my impulse to search for what MIT’s intro class looks like now came partly from curiosity about whether his characterization of how the subject is taught is even still relevant decades later.
I have two friends whose offspring have majored in linguistics in recent years, one of whom has already been through a master’s program, the other of whom will be applying to PhD programs this fall. So maybe my impressions are skewed, but it doesn’t seem like a very obscure major to me. Even USM, where I took classes, has a small linguistics department, unlike the flagship state university in Orono.
PS to LJ — the Pullum essay was written what, 40 years ago? I guess my impulse to search for what MIT’s intro class looks like now came partly from curiosity about whether his characterization of how the subject is taught is even still relevant decades later.
I have two friends whose offspring have majored in linguistics in recent years, one of whom has already been through a master’s program, the other of whom will be applying to PhD programs this fall. So maybe my impressions are skewed, but it doesn’t seem like a very obscure major to me. Even USM, where I took classes, has a small linguistics department, unlike the flagship state university in Orono.
No Liberal Arts degrees in Germany afaict.
And the last major reform of the university system (adopting the bachelor/master system, replacing the old diploma and magister (humanities only) system).
There have always been calls for a ‘studium generale’ that would require courses outside the chosen subject (i.e. humnanities for students of natural and engineering sciences and science courses for students of the humanities plus a few courses everyone would have to take) but that never had a real chance. And the reforms mentioned above finally put a stake through that idea. These days it’s purely about ‘efficiency’, i.e. quickly producing future employees. It’s sadly ironical that the results are not actually what the future employers want. On the one hand still too much ‘ballast’, i.e. stuff not strictly necessary for the jobs, on the other hand not enough of the purely job related skills. For them the universities are still not sufficiently service oriented (i.e. producing reliable worker drones). But the old idea of a universal humanist personality as a goal of studying at a university is at best on life support. And any shortage of funds leads to calls to get rid of ‘orchid subjects’, i.e. those lacking direct economic application.
No Liberal Arts degrees in Germany afaict.
And the last major reform of the university system (adopting the bachelor/master system, replacing the old diploma and magister (humanities only) system).
There have always been calls for a ‘studium generale’ that would require courses outside the chosen subject (i.e. humnanities for students of natural and engineering sciences and science courses for students of the humanities plus a few courses everyone would have to take) but that never had a real chance. And the reforms mentioned above finally put a stake through that idea. These days it’s purely about ‘efficiency’, i.e. quickly producing future employees. It’s sadly ironical that the results are not actually what the future employers want. On the one hand still too much ‘ballast’, i.e. stuff not strictly necessary for the jobs, on the other hand not enough of the purely job related skills. For them the universities are still not sufficiently service oriented (i.e. producing reliable worker drones). But the old idea of a universal humanist personality as a goal of studying at a university is at best on life support. And any shortage of funds leads to calls to get rid of ‘orchid subjects’, i.e. those lacking direct economic application.
Hey Janie, that’s an interesting observation. The collection is 30 years old, but the essays appeared between 1983 and 1989, so you saying 40 years is pretty accurate.
The issue of (the lack of) linguistic undergraduate majors (in the US) was a pretty hot topic in the 90’s, there were hardly any and often, the ones were in name only (that was mine, I had bopped around taking lots of classes, when I wanted to graduate, I could have all of those courses counted under a linguistics degree). This had a couple of interesting effects. First was there was rarely any uniform training, so for the graduate degree, there were grad level courses that were essentially intros to whatever kind of linguistics the department preached. This had the effect of making linguistics, despite itself, a very multi-disciplinary field, even if various approaches never spoke the other’s name.
This also had lots of departments working to place their graduates as the ‘linguist’ in various departments, anthro, psych, English, FL, speech pathology, computer science, anything vaguely linked to language might have need for a linguist. That person would then teach an intro to linguistics course for undergrads, have some field of research linked to the department and would (hopefully) be tenured. Or at least get an adjunct position and search for permanent positions. In addition, linguists went out into various fields and then returned to academia, bringing their work with them. That’s how Emily Bender, whose dissertation was in AAVE, became the go to person about chatGPT and LLM.
The LSA (Linguistic Society of America) used to have a taskforce about the lack of undergrad ling majors, but looking now, it seems to have become the Linguistics in Higher Ed
https://www.linguisticsociety.org/about/who-we-are/committees/linguistics-higher-education
Unfortunately, the two surveys are broken links, but I’d guess that as linguists moved into various departments, they had the opportunity to set up linguistics programs and degrees, so you’ve got the current situation. I’m not sure how developed those programs are, universities like to ‘create’ degrees to attract students, but then not fund them as full departments, so you get people who have multiple affiliations. I think it is still rare to have undergraduate ‘departments’ of linguistics with a full set of tenured teachers. I don’t say that to dismiss people who work at those departments, but that flexibility and hiring pattern is the neo-liberal academy at work…
About Pullum, I took a class from him at the 1993 Linguistic Institute (an enterprise which I think also serves to separate linguistics from other fields, every 2 years at a different university, they bring together a number of people in the field to teach and learn for 6 weeks, where you can get credit, which has the effect of disseminating ideas in the field, more about them here
https://www.linguisticsociety.org/content/lsas-linguistic-institutes )
and he is cutting and has sharp elbows, but has a wide knowledge of the field. I suppose that his style is an acquired taste, but people better than me love it as well (McCawley’s introduction to the collection is great).
Hey Janie, that’s an interesting observation. The collection is 30 years old, but the essays appeared between 1983 and 1989, so you saying 40 years is pretty accurate.
The issue of (the lack of) linguistic undergraduate majors (in the US) was a pretty hot topic in the 90’s, there were hardly any and often, the ones were in name only (that was mine, I had bopped around taking lots of classes, when I wanted to graduate, I could have all of those courses counted under a linguistics degree). This had a couple of interesting effects. First was there was rarely any uniform training, so for the graduate degree, there were grad level courses that were essentially intros to whatever kind of linguistics the department preached. This had the effect of making linguistics, despite itself, a very multi-disciplinary field, even if various approaches never spoke the other’s name.
This also had lots of departments working to place their graduates as the ‘linguist’ in various departments, anthro, psych, English, FL, speech pathology, computer science, anything vaguely linked to language might have need for a linguist. That person would then teach an intro to linguistics course for undergrads, have some field of research linked to the department and would (hopefully) be tenured. Or at least get an adjunct position and search for permanent positions. In addition, linguists went out into various fields and then returned to academia, bringing their work with them. That’s how Emily Bender, whose dissertation was in AAVE, became the go to person about chatGPT and LLM.
The LSA (Linguistic Society of America) used to have a taskforce about the lack of undergrad ling majors, but looking now, it seems to have become the Linguistics in Higher Ed
https://www.linguisticsociety.org/about/who-we-are/committees/linguistics-higher-education
Unfortunately, the two surveys are broken links, but I’d guess that as linguists moved into various departments, they had the opportunity to set up linguistics programs and degrees, so you’ve got the current situation. I’m not sure how developed those programs are, universities like to ‘create’ degrees to attract students, but then not fund them as full departments, so you get people who have multiple affiliations. I think it is still rare to have undergraduate ‘departments’ of linguistics with a full set of tenured teachers. I don’t say that to dismiss people who work at those departments, but that flexibility and hiring pattern is the neo-liberal academy at work…
About Pullum, I took a class from him at the 1993 Linguistic Institute (an enterprise which I think also serves to separate linguistics from other fields, every 2 years at a different university, they bring together a number of people in the field to teach and learn for 6 weeks, where you can get credit, which has the effect of disseminating ideas in the field, more about them here
https://www.linguisticsociety.org/content/lsas-linguistic-institutes )
and he is cutting and has sharp elbows, but has a wide knowledge of the field. I suppose that his style is an acquired taste, but people better than me love it as well (McCawley’s introduction to the collection is great).
lj — good point about the distinction between the existence of a major, and a full department. I hadn’t thought about that. (Too long out of school, never any “political” instincts about it in the first place, which was a major reason why I didn’t end up an academic.)
More later, when I’ve had more sleep.
lj — good point about the distinction between the existence of a major, and a full department. I hadn’t thought about that. (Too long out of school, never any “political” instincts about it in the first place, which was a major reason why I didn’t end up an academic.)
More later, when I’ve had more sleep.
I’m saying that calling a degree that expressly excludes the necessity of three of the liberal arts a “liberal arts degree” is a historical abomination.
Just rushing out, unfortunately, so no time to read many of the intervening comments til later. I hoped I made clear that I favour the American approach of ensuring undergraduates are exposed to a wide variety of subjects, including some science, because I think that it produces students who are what I would call well-educated, and with an enhanced ability to navigate the world (rather like your previous description, nous). My only query was about the definition of the liberal arts. From the Wikipedia article you mentioned, I think I gathered that your definition, in higher education at any rate, is pretty much now an American one, no matter what the classical definition was. What Hartmut says does not surprise me. In fact, under what I think was called Liberal Arts in the Modern World in the Wikipedia piece, I think (but do not now have the time to check) that all the examples it gave were American. Since we come from different cultures around here, I thought it worth exploring exactly what you meant when you used it – it was not an attempt at argumentation.
I’m saying that calling a degree that expressly excludes the necessity of three of the liberal arts a “liberal arts degree” is a historical abomination.
Just rushing out, unfortunately, so no time to read many of the intervening comments til later. I hoped I made clear that I favour the American approach of ensuring undergraduates are exposed to a wide variety of subjects, including some science, because I think that it produces students who are what I would call well-educated, and with an enhanced ability to navigate the world (rather like your previous description, nous). My only query was about the definition of the liberal arts. From the Wikipedia article you mentioned, I think I gathered that your definition, in higher education at any rate, is pretty much now an American one, no matter what the classical definition was. What Hartmut says does not surprise me. In fact, under what I think was called Liberal Arts in the Modern World in the Wikipedia piece, I think (but do not now have the time to check) that all the examples it gave were American. Since we come from different cultures around here, I thought it worth exploring exactly what you meant when you used it – it was not an attempt at argumentation.
From the Wikipedia article you mentioned, I think I gathered that your definition, in higher education at any rate, is pretty much now an American one, no matter what the classical definition was.
This is an unfortunate byproduct of Pax Americana and globalization that world education systems in general and higher university in particular is now being pressed into the mold of US educational systems. Which are now pretty much centers for profit first, second and third, with the aim of education being far down on the list. Nous’ example of taking 4 students for every one place can be multiplied with many decisions done by US universities adopted by foreign unis because it is assumed that this is what higher ed is.
From the Wikipedia article you mentioned, I think I gathered that your definition, in higher education at any rate, is pretty much now an American one, no matter what the classical definition was.
This is an unfortunate byproduct of Pax Americana and globalization that world education systems in general and higher university in particular is now being pressed into the mold of US educational systems. Which are now pretty much centers for profit first, second and third, with the aim of education being far down on the list. Nous’ example of taking 4 students for every one place can be multiplied with many decisions done by US universities adopted by foreign unis because it is assumed that this is what higher ed is.
good point about the distinction between the existence of a major, and a full department.
Where would one start to determine what’s the most common department? My inclination would be to guess math, for various reasons.
good point about the distinction between the existence of a major, and a full department.
Where would one start to determine what’s the most common department? My inclination would be to guess math, for various reasons.
The issue of (the lack of) linguistic undergraduate majors (in the US) was a pretty hot topic in the 90’s, there were hardly any and often, the ones were in name only
Interesting how one’s personal experiences can warp perceptions. I just assumed that since my school had a Department of Linguistics (since 1953 for the current iteration**), that was usual.
https://lx.berkeley.edu/major-program-updated-2022
Quite a number of courses, too
https://lx.berkeley.edu/academics/courses-linguistics/linguistics-course-syllabi-archive
Not to mention dozens of linguistics courses in other departments
https://lx.berkeley.edu/ugrad/electives
Rather like what lj describes, except that these are in addition to the required courses in Linguistics itself.
** I discover that Berkeley established the first American “Department of Linguistics” in 1901.
The issue of (the lack of) linguistic undergraduate majors (in the US) was a pretty hot topic in the 90’s, there were hardly any and often, the ones were in name only
Interesting how one’s personal experiences can warp perceptions. I just assumed that since my school had a Department of Linguistics (since 1953 for the current iteration**), that was usual.
https://lx.berkeley.edu/major-program-updated-2022
Quite a number of courses, too
https://lx.berkeley.edu/academics/courses-linguistics/linguistics-course-syllabi-archive
Not to mention dozens of linguistics courses in other departments
https://lx.berkeley.edu/ugrad/electives
Rather like what lj describes, except that these are in addition to the required courses in Linguistics itself.
** I discover that Berkeley established the first American “Department of Linguistics” in 1901.
Where would one start to determine what’s the most common department? My inclination would be to guess math, for various reasons.
My guess would be English. Also for various reasons.
Where would one start to determine what’s the most common department? My inclination would be to guess math, for various reasons.
My guess would be English. Also for various reasons.
Michael — I immediately started thinking about naming issues, because my first counter to your speculation that it would be math was: “What about ‘Engish’?” (At least in the US.) But hey, it might be called Language Arts or who knows what.
For fun, I asked Google: “what is the most common academic department in american colleges”
…and the top answers are all about college *majors* — not departments. Which circles back to my original comment that I was eliding the distinction between them.
Also, an observation about linguistics, from when I was taking classes fifteen or so years ago: Being addicted to buying books, I would go into the Harvard Coop (near my office in Cambridge) and check out what the linguistics classes were using for texts that semester. There were usually texts at least for syntax classes, and over the course of a few years, the ones I found were quite varied in terms of clarity of presentation, approach, etc.
One of the things I enjoyed about studying linguistics was the range of topics that came under that heading: from my “semantics” class, which was essentially a class in formal logic, to language acquisition, to theories about grammar and the brain, to sociolinguistics, computational linguistics, and on and on. From that POV it’s no wonder that there’s disagreement about how to teach it.
It felt like intro physics courses taught a lot of material that had been settled knowledge for 500 years, whereas linguistics was all over the map because there was so much of it that wasn’t “settled.” On the other hand, even physics covers a wide range of subject matter….
Quick thoughts while babysitting.
Michael — I immediately started thinking about naming issues, because my first counter to your speculation that it would be math was: “What about ‘Engish’?” (At least in the US.) But hey, it might be called Language Arts or who knows what.
For fun, I asked Google: “what is the most common academic department in american colleges”
…and the top answers are all about college *majors* — not departments. Which circles back to my original comment that I was eliding the distinction between them.
Also, an observation about linguistics, from when I was taking classes fifteen or so years ago: Being addicted to buying books, I would go into the Harvard Coop (near my office in Cambridge) and check out what the linguistics classes were using for texts that semester. There were usually texts at least for syntax classes, and over the course of a few years, the ones I found were quite varied in terms of clarity of presentation, approach, etc.
One of the things I enjoyed about studying linguistics was the range of topics that came under that heading: from my “semantics” class, which was essentially a class in formal logic, to language acquisition, to theories about grammar and the brain, to sociolinguistics, computational linguistics, and on and on. From that POV it’s no wonder that there’s disagreement about how to teach it.
It felt like intro physics courses taught a lot of material that had been settled knowledge for 500 years, whereas linguistics was all over the map because there was so much of it that wasn’t “settled.” On the other hand, even physics covers a wide range of subject matter….
Quick thoughts while babysitting.
For fun, I asked Google: “what is the most common academic department in american colleges”
…and the top answers are all about college *majors* — not departments.
I did exactly the same. With, no surprise, the same result. Even when I made “departments” a must have. Frustrating.
For fun, I asked Google: “what is the most common academic department in american colleges”
…and the top answers are all about college *majors* — not departments.
I did exactly the same. With, no surprise, the same result. Even when I made “departments” a must have. Frustrating.
For fun, I asked Google: “what is the most common academic department in american colleges”
According to ChatGPT:
“The most common academic department in American colleges and universities is the Department of Psychology. According to data from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), psychology is the most popular undergraduate major in the United States. In the 2019-2020 academic year, over 117,000 bachelor’s degrees were awarded in psychology, making up approximately 5.5% of all bachelor’s degrees awarded.”
For fun, I asked Google: “what is the most common academic department in american colleges”
According to ChatGPT:
“The most common academic department in American colleges and universities is the Department of Psychology. According to data from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), psychology is the most popular undergraduate major in the United States. In the 2019-2020 academic year, over 117,000 bachelor’s degrees were awarded in psychology, making up approximately 5.5% of all bachelor’s degrees awarded.”
Not unlike Google, but with more of the trappings of assertions of fact, ChatGPT glides without comment from “departments” to “majors.”
Not unlike Google, but with more of the trappings of assertions of fact, ChatGPT glides without comment from “departments” to “majors.”
Reminds me of Amazon’s search capabilities. That they’re deliberately made to be the way they are makes them all the more maddening.
Yesterday I was looking for “drawer lining paper” (or something like that). Most of the results were scented, which I didn’t want, so I changed it to “unscented drawer lining paper.” The change made no difference to the search results.
“unscented drawer lining paper YOU IDIOT” didn’t help either. 😉
Reminds me of Amazon’s search capabilities. That they’re deliberately made to be the way they are makes them all the more maddening.
Yesterday I was looking for “drawer lining paper” (or something like that). Most of the results were scented, which I didn’t want, so I changed it to “unscented drawer lining paper.” The change made no difference to the search results.
“unscented drawer lining paper YOU IDIOT” didn’t help either. 😉
with more of the trappings of assertions of fact, ChatGPT glides without comment from “departments” to “majors.”
At work, my boss has been playing with ChatGPT. While it does some good stuff, she finds that when it is directed to provide references it has a tendency to just make stuff up. Which includes purported links to supporting material which simply do not exist.
That means, while it may be a starting point, every single reference must be checked. One guess who is getting to do said verifications.
with more of the trappings of assertions of fact, ChatGPT glides without comment from “departments” to “majors.”
At work, my boss has been playing with ChatGPT. While it does some good stuff, she finds that when it is directed to provide references it has a tendency to just make stuff up. Which includes purported links to supporting material which simply do not exist.
That means, while it may be a starting point, every single reference must be checked. One guess who is getting to do said verifications.
Re: linguistics, ‘Great Eskimo Hoax’.
I presume that’s the ‘many names for snow’ business?
And yet, native Hawai’ians have many names for lava, such that lots of them have made it into official geological terminology.
Another thing that makes you go ‘Hmmm’: why does English have *so* many words for “stupid”?
Re: linguistics, ‘Great Eskimo Hoax’.
I presume that’s the ‘many names for snow’ business?
And yet, native Hawai’ians have many names for lava, such that lots of them have made it into official geological terminology.
Another thing that makes you go ‘Hmmm’: why does English have *so* many words for “stupid”?
Not unlike Google, but with more of the trappings of assertions of fact, ChatGPT glides without comment from “departments” to “majors.”
I saw the transition. I suppose the number of degrees could be indicative of how common psychology departments are.
Degrees in psychology conferred by postsecondary institutions, by level of degree and sex of student: Selected years, 1949-50 through 2019-20
So, is this an example of individual preferences resulting in the dispassionate number of women receiving psychology degrees? Or is psychology departments discriminating against male students?
Not unlike Google, but with more of the trappings of assertions of fact, ChatGPT glides without comment from “departments” to “majors.”
I saw the transition. I suppose the number of degrees could be indicative of how common psychology departments are.
Degrees in psychology conferred by postsecondary institutions, by level of degree and sex of student: Selected years, 1949-50 through 2019-20
So, is this an example of individual preferences resulting in the dispassionate number of women receiving psychology degrees? Or is psychology departments discriminating against male students?
Autocorrect strikes again? (Dispassionate s/b disproportionate?)
Autocorrect strikes again? (Dispassionate s/b disproportionate?)
Yes. :}
Yes. :}
At least in the US, English also seems reasonable. The big thing about both of them is the number of non-major students that have to take at least one class in that field.
When I was in graduate school the first time, the Texas legislature held hearings on a bill that would require almost all freshman and sophomore classes to be taught by full-time faculty in groups of no more than 30 students (I think that was the size, it’s been a long time.) The head of the Math Dept at UT-Austin was one of the witnesses who testified about the effects. “The Engineering School will have to teach their own students calculus, differential equations, and linear algebra, because my faculty’s not nearly big enough. You’ll have to ask them, but I don’t think their faculty is nearly big enough either.”
At least in the US, English also seems reasonable. The big thing about both of them is the number of non-major students that have to take at least one class in that field.
When I was in graduate school the first time, the Texas legislature held hearings on a bill that would require almost all freshman and sophomore classes to be taught by full-time faculty in groups of no more than 30 students (I think that was the size, it’s been a long time.) The head of the Math Dept at UT-Austin was one of the witnesses who testified about the effects. “The Engineering School will have to teach their own students calculus, differential equations, and linear algebra, because my faculty’s not nearly big enough. You’ll have to ask them, but I don’t think their faculty is nearly big enough either.”
the Texas legislature held hearings on a bill that would require almost all freshman and sophomore classes to be taught by full-time faculty in groups of no more than 30 students
Somehow I’m guessing that the Texas legislature was not entertaining the idea of increasing UT’s funding to allow the necessary additional faculty to be hired. Even if said additional funding didn’t entail (oh, the horror!) tax increases.
the Texas legislature held hearings on a bill that would require almost all freshman and sophomore classes to be taught by full-time faculty in groups of no more than 30 students
Somehow I’m guessing that the Texas legislature was not entertaining the idea of increasing UT’s funding to allow the necessary additional faculty to be hired. Even if said additional funding didn’t entail (oh, the horror!) tax increases.
My freshman physics class had 600 students in the lecture session, smaller groups with TAs (grad students).
When I went to grad school at Yale, I sat in a couple of times on Alvin Kernan’s undergrad intro to Shakespeare lectures, which also had 100s of students.
Texas, why am I not surprised?
My freshman physics class had 600 students in the lecture session, smaller groups with TAs (grad students).
When I went to grad school at Yale, I sat in a couple of times on Alvin Kernan’s undergrad intro to Shakespeare lectures, which also had 100s of students.
Texas, why am I not surprised?
Let’s see, (lower division, typically) classes involving lectures with hundreds of students:
– Math (calculus)
– Chemistry
– Physics
– Anthropology
And those are just the ones I personally took. Given the number of big lecture halls, there were doubtless more. English** and biology leap to mind.
Generally these classes involved labs or small group sessions as well. Typically led by graduate students (TAs).
** For my “freshman English” requirement, I took Comparative Literature, which didn’t involve big lectures. As I recall, there were courses in 3 departments besides English itself which satisfied the requirement.
Let’s see, (lower division, typically) classes involving lectures with hundreds of students:
– Math (calculus)
– Chemistry
– Physics
– Anthropology
And those are just the ones I personally took. Given the number of big lecture halls, there were doubtless more. English** and biology leap to mind.
Generally these classes involved labs or small group sessions as well. Typically led by graduate students (TAs).
** For my “freshman English” requirement, I took Comparative Literature, which didn’t involve big lectures. As I recall, there were courses in 3 departments besides English itself which satisfied the requirement.
Most of the studies I have seen say that the sweet spot for student learning and satisfaction is having 15 to 19 students being taught in a class. Fewer than that and the class is often less dynamic. More than that and you start to lose the ability to respond individually to student needs.
This gets translated into US News rankings as a quantitative multiplier for other ranking information. Ranking conscious institutions then make sure that they keep their capstone courses small and numerous, and their giant courses few enough in number (and with smaller, scheduled “discussion” sections) to game that out. As long as the average works out to 19:1 or lower they can do what they want with huge classes for lower division requirements.
Writing classes defy scaling up, so we save many a school’s rankings. Administrators hate this and would probably replace us with ChatGPT if they thought they could get away with it.
-Also to clarify the bit earlier where I said that admissions for competitive majors were oversubscribed. It’s not that 75% of those students end up dropping out of college, what happens is that they stick around because of sunk cost and shift to other majors. They just end up transferring majors with a lower GPA than they would have had they started out there.
Most of the studies I have seen say that the sweet spot for student learning and satisfaction is having 15 to 19 students being taught in a class. Fewer than that and the class is often less dynamic. More than that and you start to lose the ability to respond individually to student needs.
This gets translated into US News rankings as a quantitative multiplier for other ranking information. Ranking conscious institutions then make sure that they keep their capstone courses small and numerous, and their giant courses few enough in number (and with smaller, scheduled “discussion” sections) to game that out. As long as the average works out to 19:1 or lower they can do what they want with huge classes for lower division requirements.
Writing classes defy scaling up, so we save many a school’s rankings. Administrators hate this and would probably replace us with ChatGPT if they thought they could get away with it.
-Also to clarify the bit earlier where I said that admissions for competitive majors were oversubscribed. It’s not that 75% of those students end up dropping out of college, what happens is that they stick around because of sunk cost and shift to other majors. They just end up transferring majors with a lower GPA than they would have had they started out there.
Writing classes defy scaling up, so we save many a school’s rankings. Administrators hate this and would probably replace us with ChatGPT if they thought they could get away with it.
I’m fairly certain it wasn’t what you meant. But the first time I read this, my reaction was:
Wait, can ChatGPT critique writing input, too???
Although it does occur to me to wonder if someone is working on an AI which can do that meaningfully. It would, to my mind, be vastly more impressive than what ChatGPT, etc. are doing.
Writing classes defy scaling up, so we save many a school’s rankings. Administrators hate this and would probably replace us with ChatGPT if they thought they could get away with it.
I’m fairly certain it wasn’t what you meant. But the first time I read this, my reaction was:
Wait, can ChatGPT critique writing input, too???
Although it does occur to me to wonder if someone is working on an AI which can do that meaningfully. It would, to my mind, be vastly more impressive than what ChatGPT, etc. are doing.
The UT-Austin math department at that time had a kind of unusual arrangement for the calculus-through-linear algebra classes. Groups of 50 students, met five days a week in a 50-seat room, the professor up front MWF, and the TA on TT. I was sort of afraid of how much work it was going to be when I first heard about it. Turned out to fit into the 20 hours they were paying me for. I must have done something right. I learned later that working for Prof. Lee was considered a privilege. I don’t know how I got assigned to him the first semester, but they made a point of telling me that he asked for me the second semester.
The UT-Austin math department at that time had a kind of unusual arrangement for the calculus-through-linear algebra classes. Groups of 50 students, met five days a week in a 50-seat room, the professor up front MWF, and the TA on TT. I was sort of afraid of how much work it was going to be when I first heard about it. Turned out to fit into the 20 hours they were paying me for. I must have done something right. I learned later that working for Prof. Lee was considered a privilege. I don’t know how I got assigned to him the first semester, but they made a point of telling me that he asked for me the second semester.
Although it does occur to me to wonder if someone is working on an AI which can do that meaningfully.
People have been working on software that can score essays accurately for a long time. I worked down the hall from a group that was trying, oh, 25 years ago.
Although it does occur to me to wonder if someone is working on an AI which can do that meaningfully.
People have been working on software that can score essays accurately for a long time. I worked down the hall from a group that was trying, oh, 25 years ago.
Wait, can ChatGPT critique writing input, too???
It can do a pretty good job of spotting and listing the logical fallacies in a text if you give someone’s rant.
Wait, can ChatGPT critique writing input, too???
It can do a pretty good job of spotting and listing the logical fallacies in a text if you give someone’s rant.
wj – Grammarly is marketing itself in much this way, not as a tool of critique, but as an editing tool to alter tone and adjust content according to feedback.
Most of the faculty on a given university campus care about writing in two ways. They want to find the students who remind them of themselves as students and encourage them to seek a future in the field. They want to professionalize those students and make them sound as if they belong in the field. Everyone else, they just don’t want to have to wade through messy undergraduate writing, so they are happy to externalize that. If an AI can make student writing bland enough to not set off any faculty tics, then they will probably be satisfied.
There are many faculty members who do care, but I’d be surprised if they were a majority outside of the humanities.
wj – Grammarly is marketing itself in much this way, not as a tool of critique, but as an editing tool to alter tone and adjust content according to feedback.
Most of the faculty on a given university campus care about writing in two ways. They want to find the students who remind them of themselves as students and encourage them to seek a future in the field. They want to professionalize those students and make them sound as if they belong in the field. Everyone else, they just don’t want to have to wade through messy undergraduate writing, so they are happy to externalize that. If an AI can make student writing bland enough to not set off any faculty tics, then they will probably be satisfied.
There are many faculty members who do care, but I’d be surprised if they were a majority outside of the humanities.
I took Calculus I & II and Physics I & II at Emory University some 40 years ago, or close to (40 years ago precisely I was wrapping up my freshman year), and those were on the order of 30 to maybe 40 students/class. The large auditorium classes I took were the freshman Health P.E. class (only 1 credit hour), and 3 200 level English classes. Maybe somewhere in between, I honestly don’t remember how many students were in the class, was a 300 level Film class (all film studies classes back then were in the English Dept.) that was taught by Dr. David Cook, who literally wrote the book for the class. The Cook Book (A History of Narrative Film) is still widely used, now that I look it up, a 5th edition was released this year. He was (hopefully still is, he’s still at Emory) a low-key, funny guy and his class had the reputation of being relatively easy so a lot of non-English majors took it as an elective.
I took Calculus I & II and Physics I & II at Emory University some 40 years ago, or close to (40 years ago precisely I was wrapping up my freshman year), and those were on the order of 30 to maybe 40 students/class. The large auditorium classes I took were the freshman Health P.E. class (only 1 credit hour), and 3 200 level English classes. Maybe somewhere in between, I honestly don’t remember how many students were in the class, was a 300 level Film class (all film studies classes back then were in the English Dept.) that was taught by Dr. David Cook, who literally wrote the book for the class. The Cook Book (A History of Narrative Film) is still widely used, now that I look it up, a 5th edition was released this year. He was (hopefully still is, he’s still at Emory) a low-key, funny guy and his class had the reputation of being relatively easy so a lot of non-English majors took it as an elective.
@nous — My civil engineering professor was the exception to that pattern, I guess. He had us write a major term paper, and it had to be done in a very orderly fashion. He had to approve the topic, see the outline, etc. etc. He wanted to read a first draft, and if the first draft was good enough, you didn’t have to do another. I was one of the few students who managed that, and even so, my first draft was covered with red marks and commentary. He wanted us to be writing at a very high level, and he must have put in a ton of time toward that end.
In the moment I was chagrined at the red marks and the critique, but in the long run I’ve been very grateful to him for how seriously he challenged my complacency about writing. It’s also a lesson in how much difference one good teacher can make.
@nous — My civil engineering professor was the exception to that pattern, I guess. He had us write a major term paper, and it had to be done in a very orderly fashion. He had to approve the topic, see the outline, etc. etc. He wanted to read a first draft, and if the first draft was good enough, you didn’t have to do another. I was one of the few students who managed that, and even so, my first draft was covered with red marks and commentary. He wanted us to be writing at a very high level, and he must have put in a ton of time toward that end.
In the moment I was chagrined at the red marks and the critique, but in the long run I’ve been very grateful to him for how seriously he challenged my complacency about writing. It’s also a lesson in how much difference one good teacher can make.
They want to professionalize those students and make them sound as if they belong in the field. Everyone else, they just don’t want to have to wade through messy undergraduate writing, so they are happy to externalize that.
My experience in technical majors generally matches this. For long-form writing, no one cared except the faculty whose names went on my undergraduate honors thesis and then my masters thesis.
Where I’m torn is things like: (a) a three-page graph theory proof is much more text than anything, in sentences and paragraphs and overall organization; (b) a five-page explanation of why this is a good regression model is the same way; and (c) the annotations on the right side of a ten-page printout of an interactive session to explain it shows the program delivers all the features required, plus some, along with how the particular test problems suggest potential theoretical work, even more so. Everyone in the classes, regardless of where they were going to end up, had to write acceptably.
It’s not nous’s writing skills that are good (almost) everywhere. But it’s broad enough writing skills that they apply in lots of technical situations.
I may be the only person who ever left Bell Labs and its compulsive documentation culture disappointed because I never got around to writing a Technical Memorandum — rather formal parts of the Labs’ official history — in verse and having it approved.
They want to professionalize those students and make them sound as if they belong in the field. Everyone else, they just don’t want to have to wade through messy undergraduate writing, so they are happy to externalize that.
My experience in technical majors generally matches this. For long-form writing, no one cared except the faculty whose names went on my undergraduate honors thesis and then my masters thesis.
Where I’m torn is things like: (a) a three-page graph theory proof is much more text than anything, in sentences and paragraphs and overall organization; (b) a five-page explanation of why this is a good regression model is the same way; and (c) the annotations on the right side of a ten-page printout of an interactive session to explain it shows the program delivers all the features required, plus some, along with how the particular test problems suggest potential theoretical work, even more so. Everyone in the classes, regardless of where they were going to end up, had to write acceptably.
It’s not nous’s writing skills that are good (almost) everywhere. But it’s broad enough writing skills that they apply in lots of technical situations.
I may be the only person who ever left Bell Labs and its compulsive documentation culture disappointed because I never got around to writing a Technical Memorandum — rather formal parts of the Labs’ official history — in verse and having it approved.
I went to my grad school, U of Oregon as a ‘port in a storm’. Won’t bore you with details, but chose it other things fell thru. However, it had an undergraduate ling degree and a full faculty, so it was an outlier. But in my first year, I went down to Berkeley and there was no comparison. Their department was so much bigger than U of O and it had more grad students and it seemed that everyone had different ideas that could have plugged into what you were doing. I don’t regret my MA, Eugene was a nice place, but to have had all that input and all those different experiences, it would have made my journey very different.
(there are a number of other aspects of Berkeley, Eugene and linguistics that have a bearing on how I see this, but I won’t bore you with it. Yet.)
I went to my grad school, U of Oregon as a ‘port in a storm’. Won’t bore you with details, but chose it other things fell thru. However, it had an undergraduate ling degree and a full faculty, so it was an outlier. But in my first year, I went down to Berkeley and there was no comparison. Their department was so much bigger than U of O and it had more grad students and it seemed that everyone had different ideas that could have plugged into what you were doing. I don’t regret my MA, Eugene was a nice place, but to have had all that input and all those different experiences, it would have made my journey very different.
(there are a number of other aspects of Berkeley, Eugene and linguistics that have a bearing on how I see this, but I won’t bore you with it. Yet.)
I think that, despite some (understandable and foreseeable) serious disagreement/criticism, my link to the NYT piece about the “Merit” paper stimulated worthwhile discussion, which may not even be over.
So I don’t hesitate to link this review by Chris Mullin of Rafael Behr’s book Politics: A Survivor’s Guide: How to Stay Engaged Without Getting Enraged, which sounds, as the headline suggests, like “a plea for sanity from the centre ground” from “an elegant voice of reason in an often polarised world”.:
This is a book about the ways a healthy democracy should connect people to each other and to the place they call home. It is about the toxic politics that reverse and disrupt that process. It is about the failures at the heart of democracy…” So says Rafael Behr. His project was conceived and written in the aftermath of a heart attack that very nearly did for him at the age of 45.
He writes during a period of turbulence. Across Europe and in the US, populists of right and left, often under the cloak of nationalism, are on the rise. UK politics during the past decade has been a rollercoaster, both main parties having succumbed to takeovers by cults. Meanwhile the world beyond fortress Europe appears to be disintegrating, and looming ever larger over our comfortable little lives are the potentially existential threats of global heating and mass migration.
In recent years the centre ground has become an increasingly lonely outpost. Politicians, never high in public esteem, now rank lower than ever. Democracy, says Behr, is in danger of becoming “fracked” by hyper-cynicism, causing many sensible, decent people to disengage.
Though not without strongly held opinions, the author is very firmly a creature of the centre. A distinguished Guardian (and formerly Observer) political commentator, he writes with elegance and honesty and his judgments are balanced. A voice of reason in an otherwise polarised world.
A voice of reason in an otherwise polarised world. In part this is a memoir. Born and bred in Finchley (Margaret Thatcher’s constituency), he is the son of a Jewish family who migrated to the UK by way of Lithuania and South Africa. As a young journalist around the turn of the century, he cut his teeth as a correspondent for the Financial Times in Moscow, where he had a first-hand view of a dysfunctional society in which democracy is an alien concept.
He writes amusingly and perceptively of those he dubs “Brexit Bolsheviks” and “grievance miners”. He writes, too, of “outrage inflation” – the impact of social media on contemporary political discourse. Confected outrage, a phenomenon hitherto confined to the tabloids, has now begun to infect liberal outlets. “In the 21st-century media, the intensity with which an opinion is held has come to serve as a proxy for its value in a debate. The more ardent the feeling the more deserving it is of attention… A handful of online fulminators will suffice for the threshold of newsworthy outrage to be met.”
One issue the author does not address in any detail is the insidious rise of so-called dog-whistle politics, in which political parties hammer away at one another, focusing on issues they hope will arouse fear and loathing among the righteous. Like most such political diseases, it began in America and was introduced to these shores by Lynton Crosby, an Australian. Until recently, dog whistling was largely the preserve of the Conservative party, but the recent Labour campaign alleging Rishi Sunak is soft on paedophiles suggests that the disease is infectious. It is hard to think of anything more likely to put decent people off politics.
It is usual for books of this nature to conclude with a wishlist of measures that, in the eyes of the author, are essential for a better world – proportional representation, a wealth tax, a new centre-ground political party and so on. Behr does nothing of the sort. Instead he offers “perspectives”. His only plea is that rational, sensible people should not disengage from the political process, leaving it to those on the extremes of right and left. “There is no harm in having steadfast beliefs. The danger comes when opinions are held with such intensity that criticism is construed as treason and reasonable challenge denounced as heresy.”
“British democracy has many flaws,” he says, “but it isn’t a sham… Complacency is dangerous, but there is also a hazard in oversteering away from the centre, swerving in hot pursuit of white-knuckle radicals to the left and right who despise incremental reform and dismiss moderate improvement as tantamount to none. For them the destination is less important than the thrill of the ride.” Or, to put it another way, be careful what you wish for.
*Chris Mullin is a former Labour minister. His latest volume of diaries, Didn’t You Use to Be Chris Mullin? will be published by Biteback on 11 May
I think that, despite some (understandable and foreseeable) serious disagreement/criticism, my link to the NYT piece about the “Merit” paper stimulated worthwhile discussion, which may not even be over.
So I don’t hesitate to link this review by Chris Mullin of Rafael Behr’s book Politics: A Survivor’s Guide: How to Stay Engaged Without Getting Enraged, which sounds, as the headline suggests, like “a plea for sanity from the centre ground” from “an elegant voice of reason in an often polarised world”.:
This is a book about the ways a healthy democracy should connect people to each other and to the place they call home. It is about the toxic politics that reverse and disrupt that process. It is about the failures at the heart of democracy…” So says Rafael Behr. His project was conceived and written in the aftermath of a heart attack that very nearly did for him at the age of 45.
He writes during a period of turbulence. Across Europe and in the US, populists of right and left, often under the cloak of nationalism, are on the rise. UK politics during the past decade has been a rollercoaster, both main parties having succumbed to takeovers by cults. Meanwhile the world beyond fortress Europe appears to be disintegrating, and looming ever larger over our comfortable little lives are the potentially existential threats of global heating and mass migration.
In recent years the centre ground has become an increasingly lonely outpost. Politicians, never high in public esteem, now rank lower than ever. Democracy, says Behr, is in danger of becoming “fracked” by hyper-cynicism, causing many sensible, decent people to disengage.
Though not without strongly held opinions, the author is very firmly a creature of the centre. A distinguished Guardian (and formerly Observer) political commentator, he writes with elegance and honesty and his judgments are balanced. A voice of reason in an otherwise polarised world.
A voice of reason in an otherwise polarised world. In part this is a memoir. Born and bred in Finchley (Margaret Thatcher’s constituency), he is the son of a Jewish family who migrated to the UK by way of Lithuania and South Africa. As a young journalist around the turn of the century, he cut his teeth as a correspondent for the Financial Times in Moscow, where he had a first-hand view of a dysfunctional society in which democracy is an alien concept.
He writes amusingly and perceptively of those he dubs “Brexit Bolsheviks” and “grievance miners”. He writes, too, of “outrage inflation” – the impact of social media on contemporary political discourse. Confected outrage, a phenomenon hitherto confined to the tabloids, has now begun to infect liberal outlets. “In the 21st-century media, the intensity with which an opinion is held has come to serve as a proxy for its value in a debate. The more ardent the feeling the more deserving it is of attention… A handful of online fulminators will suffice for the threshold of newsworthy outrage to be met.”
One issue the author does not address in any detail is the insidious rise of so-called dog-whistle politics, in which political parties hammer away at one another, focusing on issues they hope will arouse fear and loathing among the righteous. Like most such political diseases, it began in America and was introduced to these shores by Lynton Crosby, an Australian. Until recently, dog whistling was largely the preserve of the Conservative party, but the recent Labour campaign alleging Rishi Sunak is soft on paedophiles suggests that the disease is infectious. It is hard to think of anything more likely to put decent people off politics.
It is usual for books of this nature to conclude with a wishlist of measures that, in the eyes of the author, are essential for a better world – proportional representation, a wealth tax, a new centre-ground political party and so on. Behr does nothing of the sort. Instead he offers “perspectives”. His only plea is that rational, sensible people should not disengage from the political process, leaving it to those on the extremes of right and left. “There is no harm in having steadfast beliefs. The danger comes when opinions are held with such intensity that criticism is construed as treason and reasonable challenge denounced as heresy.”
“British democracy has many flaws,” he says, “but it isn’t a sham… Complacency is dangerous, but there is also a hazard in oversteering away from the centre, swerving in hot pursuit of white-knuckle radicals to the left and right who despise incremental reform and dismiss moderate improvement as tantamount to none. For them the destination is less important than the thrill of the ride.” Or, to put it another way, be careful what you wish for.
*Chris Mullin is a former Labour minister. His latest volume of diaries, Didn’t You Use to Be Chris Mullin? will be published by Biteback on 11 May
Further to the “Eskimo words for snow” issue, it seems that the Chinese and the Japanese have an astonishing number of words for some food textures, such as the one we might just call crunchy:
A JELLYFISH TASTES of nothing. Maybe a little salt — a trace of the sea, or of how the creature is packed, once wrested from its natural habitat, for preservation (not of its life but of its viability as food). When its bell is prepared as a raw salad, it tastes only of the ingredients it absorbs: a sluice of soy sauce, sesame oil and black vinegar, scattered garlic, a pinch of sugar. What makes it coveted as a dish in some cultures is the texture, which is nothing like jelly at all. The flesh wobbles but doesn’t deliquesce; instead, it resists, crunching under the teeth, because a jellyfish is almost half made of collagen, the connective tissue whose braided strands run through skin and bone.
This is a different crunch than you get from sinking your teeth into walnuts, say, or lacy rounds of lotus root tumbled in a wok, or the golden tips of a croissant or sugar torched into a glassine pane atop crème brûlée. And yet an English speaker must flounder for words to delineate these textures, beyond “crunchy” (which some etymologists date back to the late 19th century) and “crispy” (from “crisp,” which originally meant “curly” but came to signify “brittle” in the 16th century). Other languages are more bountiful. The British food writer Fuchsia Dunlop has written about the Chinese distinction between cui, a crispness that “offers resistance to the teeth but finally yields, cleanly, with a pleasant snappy feeling” (e.g., scalded goose intestines, stalks of celery), and su, “dry, fragile, fall-apart crispness” (e.g., deep-fried duck skin). A 2008 report in the Journal of Texture Studies lists 144 Chinese terms for food texture, including even finer gradations of crunchy and crispy: cui nen, crisp but tender, like young bamboo shoots and spears of asparagus in spring; su song, crisp and loose, like the tangled tendrils of rousong (pork simmered, shredded and dried until sucked of all moisture); su ruan, brittle, then soft, like pastry that dissolves at the touch.
In Japan, such terms number more than 400. “Too many,” a team of Japanese scientists demurred in a paper presented at the 2016 International Conference on Knowledge-Based and Intelligent Information and Engineering Systems, noting that these descriptions are inconsistently used even among native speakers, making translation difficult. Onomatopoeia rules the day: A ruffly strip of well-seethed bacon delivers a clean crack that in Japan is called kari kari, as opposed to shaki shaki (a gushy bite, as of an apple right off the tree), saku saku (a fracture cushioned by richness, as found in buttery cookies and chicharrón — pork skins dropped in hot oil, where they expand like clouds), gari gari (a hard crunch, like ice, that taxes the jaw), bari bari (the kind of delicate shattering epitomized by a rice cracker) and pari pari (the even more evanescent shattering achieved by the sheerest-cut potato chips).
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/08/t-magazine/food-texture-eating.html?action=click&module=Well&pgtype=Homepage§ion=T%20Magazine
Further to the “Eskimo words for snow” issue, it seems that the Chinese and the Japanese have an astonishing number of words for some food textures, such as the one we might just call crunchy:
A JELLYFISH TASTES of nothing. Maybe a little salt — a trace of the sea, or of how the creature is packed, once wrested from its natural habitat, for preservation (not of its life but of its viability as food). When its bell is prepared as a raw salad, it tastes only of the ingredients it absorbs: a sluice of soy sauce, sesame oil and black vinegar, scattered garlic, a pinch of sugar. What makes it coveted as a dish in some cultures is the texture, which is nothing like jelly at all. The flesh wobbles but doesn’t deliquesce; instead, it resists, crunching under the teeth, because a jellyfish is almost half made of collagen, the connective tissue whose braided strands run through skin and bone.
This is a different crunch than you get from sinking your teeth into walnuts, say, or lacy rounds of lotus root tumbled in a wok, or the golden tips of a croissant or sugar torched into a glassine pane atop crème brûlée. And yet an English speaker must flounder for words to delineate these textures, beyond “crunchy” (which some etymologists date back to the late 19th century) and “crispy” (from “crisp,” which originally meant “curly” but came to signify “brittle” in the 16th century). Other languages are more bountiful. The British food writer Fuchsia Dunlop has written about the Chinese distinction between cui, a crispness that “offers resistance to the teeth but finally yields, cleanly, with a pleasant snappy feeling” (e.g., scalded goose intestines, stalks of celery), and su, “dry, fragile, fall-apart crispness” (e.g., deep-fried duck skin). A 2008 report in the Journal of Texture Studies lists 144 Chinese terms for food texture, including even finer gradations of crunchy and crispy: cui nen, crisp but tender, like young bamboo shoots and spears of asparagus in spring; su song, crisp and loose, like the tangled tendrils of rousong (pork simmered, shredded and dried until sucked of all moisture); su ruan, brittle, then soft, like pastry that dissolves at the touch.
In Japan, such terms number more than 400. “Too many,” a team of Japanese scientists demurred in a paper presented at the 2016 International Conference on Knowledge-Based and Intelligent Information and Engineering Systems, noting that these descriptions are inconsistently used even among native speakers, making translation difficult. Onomatopoeia rules the day: A ruffly strip of well-seethed bacon delivers a clean crack that in Japan is called kari kari, as opposed to shaki shaki (a gushy bite, as of an apple right off the tree), saku saku (a fracture cushioned by richness, as found in buttery cookies and chicharrón — pork skins dropped in hot oil, where they expand like clouds), gari gari (a hard crunch, like ice, that taxes the jaw), bari bari (the kind of delicate shattering epitomized by a rice cracker) and pari pari (the even more evanescent shattering achieved by the sheerest-cut potato chips).
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/08/t-magazine/food-texture-eating.html?action=click&module=Well&pgtype=Homepage§ion=T%20Magazine
Re. the political centre ground: where is it?
In politics, you need an economic theory and a social theory. Then you need to work out what it’s practical to do with them, and how to implement that.
If two reasonable people disagree about the implementation, then there can be compromise.
But when one side wants to make it as hard as possible for poor people to vote (something one commentator here explicitly endorsed), to the extent of creating long voting queues and making it illegal to give water to waiting voters, no, I’m not going to steer towards some central ground of allowing a limited amount of water.
I could talk about all this at great length…
Re. the political centre ground: where is it?
In politics, you need an economic theory and a social theory. Then you need to work out what it’s practical to do with them, and how to implement that.
If two reasonable people disagree about the implementation, then there can be compromise.
But when one side wants to make it as hard as possible for poor people to vote (something one commentator here explicitly endorsed), to the extent of creating long voting queues and making it illegal to give water to waiting voters, no, I’m not going to steer towards some central ground of allowing a limited amount of water.
I could talk about all this at great length…
In politics, you need an economic theory and a social theory. Then you need to work out what it’s practical to do with them, and how to implement that. [Emphasis added]
One of the defining characteristics of our current political mess is a total disinterest in “what it’s practical to do.” Or in what the impact, especially the unintended consequences, might be in the real world.
In politics, you need an economic theory and a social theory. Then you need to work out what it’s practical to do with them, and how to implement that. [Emphasis added]
One of the defining characteristics of our current political mess is a total disinterest in “what it’s practical to do.” Or in what the impact, especially the unintended consequences, might be in the real world.
Pro Bono: it’s certainly much harder (or perhaps even impossible now) to think of a centre ground in American politics, I have regretfully to agree.
Pro Bono: it’s certainly much harder (or perhaps even impossible now) to think of a centre ground in American politics, I have regretfully to agree.
Sorry for the return to matters linguistic, but I just noticed that Randy Harris’ Linguistics Wars has a 2nd edition that might interest people here. Not sure how understandable the discussion of developments in transformational linguistics is to people without a background, but it does give interesting background on our discussions of linguistics in the academy.
Sorry for the return to matters linguistic, but I just noticed that Randy Harris’ Linguistics Wars has a 2nd edition that might interest people here. Not sure how understandable the discussion of developments in transformational linguistics is to people without a background, but it does give interesting background on our discussions of linguistics in the academy.
Re: center ground in US politics
To resurrect an internet classic, that is like a trying to decide where to go to dinner, with one group suggesting “italian” and the other holding out for “tire rims and anthrax”.
Re: center ground in US politics
To resurrect an internet classic, that is like a trying to decide where to go to dinner, with one group suggesting “italian” and the other holding out for “tire rims and anthrax”.
“tire rims and anthrax”
Thanks, Snarki. Now I’m hungry.
“tire rims and anthrax”
Thanks, Snarki. Now I’m hungry.
Don’t know if we are still talking about this, but this Timothy Burke piece (via LGM) really take the Paul paper to the woodshed.
From my own over-stuffed cabinet of things that get me pissed off, I’m glad Burke takes a moment to point to how problematic Pinker’s book is.
[lj, the Burke link didn’t work. I fixed it. — jm]
Don’t know if we are still talking about this, but this Timothy Burke piece (via LGM) really take the Paul paper to the woodshed.
From my own over-stuffed cabinet of things that get me pissed off, I’m glad Burke takes a moment to point to how problematic Pinker’s book is.
[lj, the Burke link didn’t work. I fixed it. — jm]
Perhaps I’m missing something, but I’ve read these objections and all I see is sociologists who don’t understand science complaining about scientists who don’t understand sociology.
Which, since we’re talking about science, seems not really to the point.
Perhaps I’m missing something, but I’ve read these objections and all I see is sociologists who don’t understand science complaining about scientists who don’t understand sociology.
Which, since we’re talking about science, seems not really to the point.
Pro Bono,
Let’s go back to the start. The Paul editorial lamented the fact that a 3rd rate and really flawed ideological diatribe was rejected by a high profile academic journal.
Can the 3rd rate ideological diatribe in any way be characterized as “scientific” or not? Yes or no.
Was the journal’s peer reviewed rejection of the 3rd rate ideological diatribe reasonable? Yes or no.
We can go on from there to discuss the “woke” critique of the social institution that is rather non-scientifically called “science”.
Seems fair to me. Thanks.
Pro Bono,
Let’s go back to the start. The Paul editorial lamented the fact that a 3rd rate and really flawed ideological diatribe was rejected by a high profile academic journal.
Can the 3rd rate ideological diatribe in any way be characterized as “scientific” or not? Yes or no.
Was the journal’s peer reviewed rejection of the 3rd rate ideological diatribe reasonable? Yes or no.
We can go on from there to discuss the “woke” critique of the social institution that is rather non-scientifically called “science”.
Seems fair to me. Thanks.
Pro Bono,
The Burke article is here.
If you want to take this editorial on (because that is what it is, an editorial rebutting another editorial claiming to be “science”) please be my guest. Make your case where Burke gets it wrong.
Thanks.
Pro Bono,
The Burke article is here.
If you want to take this editorial on (because that is what it is, an editorial rebutting another editorial claiming to be “science”) please be my guest. Make your case where Burke gets it wrong.
Thanks.
all I see is sociologists who don’t understand science complaining about scientists who don’t understand sociology.
Though I don’t know who pro gono is thinking is a sociologist and who a scientist, this is an interesting comment. A lot of fields, linguistics in particular, want the prestige that comes with being a scientist. In his early years, Chomsky argued that linguistics (his brand anyway) would, with more testing and time, be a science like math or physics. Economics does the same, wiggling up to the sciences to get some of the reflected glory. (which is why the Nobel prize in Economics isn’t really a Nobel)
I’m guessing that the worst insult a scientist can sling at a colleague is ‘they aren’t really a scientist’, implying a certain loosey-goosey nature to their hypothesizing. But it seems to me that Paul wants all the glory that being a ‘scientist’ brings without any serious scrutinizing of their position. Which I think is the problem.
all I see is sociologists who don’t understand science complaining about scientists who don’t understand sociology.
Though I don’t know who pro gono is thinking is a sociologist and who a scientist, this is an interesting comment. A lot of fields, linguistics in particular, want the prestige that comes with being a scientist. In his early years, Chomsky argued that linguistics (his brand anyway) would, with more testing and time, be a science like math or physics. Economics does the same, wiggling up to the sciences to get some of the reflected glory. (which is why the Nobel prize in Economics isn’t really a Nobel)
I’m guessing that the worst insult a scientist can sling at a colleague is ‘they aren’t really a scientist’, implying a certain loosey-goosey nature to their hypothesizing. But it seems to me that Paul wants all the glory that being a ‘scientist’ brings without any serious scrutinizing of their position. Which I think is the problem.
an editorial rebutting another editorial claiming to be “science”
I thought what we were really talking about was not the merits or otherwise of the original editorial, or indeed any editorial challenging it, but about the original paper? Which Pro Bono linked. And of course, the merits of any editorial purporting to challenge the paper?
an editorial rebutting another editorial claiming to be “science”
I thought what we were really talking about was not the merits or otherwise of the original editorial, or indeed any editorial challenging it, but about the original paper? Which Pro Bono linked. And of course, the merits of any editorial purporting to challenge the paper?
Isn’t the problem the editorial is making a claim that they were silenced because people disagree with their paper? It seems like overdetermined to me.
Isn’t the problem the editorial is making a claim that they were silenced because people disagree with their paper? It seems like overdetermined to me.
Here I am, muddying the waters and aping AI. Ok, fine, whatever.
Post-modernism seems to be at the core of this discussion. The Defense of Merit piece plainly asserts that post-modernists deny the existence of objective reality. Burke does not contest this assertion and seems to give it credence in his observation that “a substantial body of contemporary cognitive science, e.g., whether or not we actually have some facility of reason that can think beyond or outside the limitations of our physical brains and our embodied nature” exists and has validity. But, maybe I’m misreading him.
Not being a post-modernist, I don’t know if this is the case or not. So, here is the question for anyone here who might know the answer: does Post-Modernism deny the existence of objective reality?
If the answer is “yes”, then the fault line is pretty clear.
Now, moving on to the case of Defense of Merit v Burke, one distinction between the two pieces is Defense documents its assertions, Burke does not (more about that below).
Another distinction is that Defense is rich in specific, documented examples of PM derivative “critical justice” and CRT related “policies” being implemented top-down that are to anyone not already on board with critical theory(ies) seem pretty arbitrary and illogical. Burke does not address any of these specifics, much less rebut them. Interestingly, he does seem to acknowledge the legitimacy of questioning the implementation or “management” of some DEI and other initiatives.
More specifically, Defense footnotes its case, Burke does not. Instead, Burke paraphrases or quotes selectively. Here is an example: “Science, we’re told, ‘has generally granted humanity the gifts of life, health, wealth, knowledge, and freedom.'” He then states “(All by itself, science did that!).” Here is what the Defense authors actually wrote:
By improving the world economy and increasing
global wealth, scientific progress helped create a more peaceful and just world. Science
eradicated smallpox, discovered penicillin, decoded the SARSCoV2 virus in a weekend,
helped to halve the maternal and child mortality rate globally, revolutionized agriculture,
contributed to extending life expectancy in every country, and has generally granted
humanity the gifts of life, health, wealth, knowledge, and freedom. By increasing
literacy and communication, science has promoted empathy and rational problem-solving,
contributing to a global decline in violence of all forms.1 (Burke’s quote is in bold).
In what way is the foregoing meaningfully incorrect? If it wasn’t science playing this out-sized role, what was it? And, where does Defense claim that science is solely responsible for all that is good in this world?
Burke then offers the following in defense of CRT:
The evidence that Black patients in the U.S. health care system have worse outcomes than white patients even when socioeconomic class is considered is extremely robust.
Unfortunately, there isn’t a footnote. My own reading on this topic indicates *yes, there are variations* between African Americans and whites, but the issue gets cloudy when education and socio-economic elements are factored in. Using Burke’s example of a one-to-one comparison, a whole lot is missing, in particular lifestyle choices, family history and medical history. What are the relative body mass, food choice, sedentary vs active, smoking, alcohol, drugs, etc. issues in play? Family history is a huge predictor. Inferring systemic racism (racism proven by outcome not by actual examples of racism) from limited data is the opposite of science. Bad science leads to bad answers leads to bad policies.
Defense of Merit *should* make post-modernists and critical theorists uncomfortable. That’s why it was written. When Burke or someone like him addresses the specific examples raised by Defense (Burke attacks Defense’ reference to folk or native medicine, but not convincingly) and shows why Defense is either factually incorrect or why the facts are correct but the conclusions are wrong, then there might be more to look at.
Defense of Merit in Science rejects post-modernism and critical theory. Defense further contends, with evidence, that merit (competency) should drive the selection process for STEMM candidates and merit should drive the determination of validity of outcome. Can someone say why Defense is wrong in these contentions?
Unfortunately, these days *merit* is coded red and post-modernism/critical theory are coded blue, which messes everything up.
Here I am, muddying the waters and aping AI. Ok, fine, whatever.
Post-modernism seems to be at the core of this discussion. The Defense of Merit piece plainly asserts that post-modernists deny the existence of objective reality. Burke does not contest this assertion and seems to give it credence in his observation that “a substantial body of contemporary cognitive science, e.g., whether or not we actually have some facility of reason that can think beyond or outside the limitations of our physical brains and our embodied nature” exists and has validity. But, maybe I’m misreading him.
Not being a post-modernist, I don’t know if this is the case or not. So, here is the question for anyone here who might know the answer: does Post-Modernism deny the existence of objective reality?
If the answer is “yes”, then the fault line is pretty clear.
Now, moving on to the case of Defense of Merit v Burke, one distinction between the two pieces is Defense documents its assertions, Burke does not (more about that below).
Another distinction is that Defense is rich in specific, documented examples of PM derivative “critical justice” and CRT related “policies” being implemented top-down that are to anyone not already on board with critical theory(ies) seem pretty arbitrary and illogical. Burke does not address any of these specifics, much less rebut them. Interestingly, he does seem to acknowledge the legitimacy of questioning the implementation or “management” of some DEI and other initiatives.
More specifically, Defense footnotes its case, Burke does not. Instead, Burke paraphrases or quotes selectively. Here is an example: “Science, we’re told, ‘has generally granted humanity the gifts of life, health, wealth, knowledge, and freedom.'” He then states “(All by itself, science did that!).” Here is what the Defense authors actually wrote:
By improving the world economy and increasing
global wealth, scientific progress helped create a more peaceful and just world. Science
eradicated smallpox, discovered penicillin, decoded the SARSCoV2 virus in a weekend,
helped to halve the maternal and child mortality rate globally, revolutionized agriculture,
contributed to extending life expectancy in every country, and has generally granted
humanity the gifts of life, health, wealth, knowledge, and freedom. By increasing
literacy and communication, science has promoted empathy and rational problem-solving,
contributing to a global decline in violence of all forms.1 (Burke’s quote is in bold).
In what way is the foregoing meaningfully incorrect? If it wasn’t science playing this out-sized role, what was it? And, where does Defense claim that science is solely responsible for all that is good in this world?
Burke then offers the following in defense of CRT:
The evidence that Black patients in the U.S. health care system have worse outcomes than white patients even when socioeconomic class is considered is extremely robust.
Unfortunately, there isn’t a footnote. My own reading on this topic indicates *yes, there are variations* between African Americans and whites, but the issue gets cloudy when education and socio-economic elements are factored in. Using Burke’s example of a one-to-one comparison, a whole lot is missing, in particular lifestyle choices, family history and medical history. What are the relative body mass, food choice, sedentary vs active, smoking, alcohol, drugs, etc. issues in play? Family history is a huge predictor. Inferring systemic racism (racism proven by outcome not by actual examples of racism) from limited data is the opposite of science. Bad science leads to bad answers leads to bad policies.
Defense of Merit *should* make post-modernists and critical theorists uncomfortable. That’s why it was written. When Burke or someone like him addresses the specific examples raised by Defense (Burke attacks Defense’ reference to folk or native medicine, but not convincingly) and shows why Defense is either factually incorrect or why the facts are correct but the conclusions are wrong, then there might be more to look at.
Defense of Merit in Science rejects post-modernism and critical theory. Defense further contends, with evidence, that merit (competency) should drive the selection process for STEMM candidates and merit should drive the determination of validity of outcome. Can someone say why Defense is wrong in these contentions?
Unfortunately, these days *merit* is coded red and post-modernism/critical theory are coded blue, which messes everything up.
he does seem to acknowledge the legitimacy of questioning the implementation or “management” of some DEI and other initiatives.
What is DEI?
he does seem to acknowledge the legitimacy of questioning the implementation or “management” of some DEI and other initiatives.
What is DEI?
Diversity, equity, and inclusion.
Diversity, equity, and inclusion.
Ah, I see. Thank you, Charles.
Ah, I see. Thank you, Charles.
If it wasn’t science playing this out-sized role, what was it?
Perhaps nitpicking, but many of them are engineering accomplishments. Science decodes the Covid virus RNA; engineering manufactures and distributes a billion doses of the vaccine. Or to borrow from Real Genius, “Let the engineers figure out a use for it. That’s not our concern.”
If it wasn’t science playing this out-sized role, what was it?
Perhaps nitpicking, but many of them are engineering accomplishments. Science decodes the Covid virus RNA; engineering manufactures and distributes a billion doses of the vaccine. Or to borrow from Real Genius, “Let the engineers figure out a use for it. That’s not our concern.”
Fair point. I was using science broadly and you are correct, engineering is probably the larger piece of it.
Fair point. I was using science broadly and you are correct, engineering is probably the larger piece of it.
The Defense of Merit piece plainly asserts that post-modernists deny the existence of objective reality. Burke does not contest this assertion and seems to give it credence in his observation that “a substantial body of contemporary cognitive science, e.g., whether or not we actually have some facility of reason that can think beyond or outside the limitations of our physical brains and our embodied nature” exists and has validity. But, maybe I’m misreading him.
I think the point was that we are limited in our ability to ascertain aspects of objective reality, not that objective reality doesn’t exist. How does echolocation “look” to a bat in its mind (if bats have minds, depending on how you define “mind”)? Is it just a different kind of hearing or is it something like vision by a different means? Even if we can answer those questions, we still can’t experience it as a bat does.
That we are limited doesn’t mean that we can’t know anything, just that we can’t know everything. To be Rumsfeldian about it, we don’t even know how many unknown unknowns there are outside our perception. But we (or at least some of us) do our best!
As far as post-modernisms go, I can’t say one way or the other what “they” assert. If I had to guess, I’d guess that there isn’t unanimity, and I would be guessing. It’s not my bag.
The Defense of Merit piece plainly asserts that post-modernists deny the existence of objective reality. Burke does not contest this assertion and seems to give it credence in his observation that “a substantial body of contemporary cognitive science, e.g., whether or not we actually have some facility of reason that can think beyond or outside the limitations of our physical brains and our embodied nature” exists and has validity. But, maybe I’m misreading him.
I think the point was that we are limited in our ability to ascertain aspects of objective reality, not that objective reality doesn’t exist. How does echolocation “look” to a bat in its mind (if bats have minds, depending on how you define “mind”)? Is it just a different kind of hearing or is it something like vision by a different means? Even if we can answer those questions, we still can’t experience it as a bat does.
That we are limited doesn’t mean that we can’t know anything, just that we can’t know everything. To be Rumsfeldian about it, we don’t even know how many unknown unknowns there are outside our perception. But we (or at least some of us) do our best!
As far as post-modernisms go, I can’t say one way or the other what “they” assert. If I had to guess, I’d guess that there isn’t unanimity, and I would be guessing. It’s not my bag.
does Post-Modernism deny the existence of objective reality?
If the answer is “yes”, then the fault line is pretty clear.
Postmodernism (or poststructuralism – similar/overlapping thing) does not deny the existence of objective reality. At its heart, what postmodern and poststructural critiques do is explode the myth of scientific objectivity by focusing on the consequences of science getting done within human systems and communicated through human language. It doesn’t critique the data or the curve of the data, it critiques the narratives that scientists create to fit the curves. It asks questions about the human meanings attached to the curves – the moments and places where (in the Aristotelian sense of it) physics hits its limits and becomes metaphysics, or where data becomes narrative.
From the postmodernists or post-structuralists view, the fault line is still there, but it is fuzzy and uncertain, and the writers of the original article are misunderstanding (or misrepresenting) this critique on a fundamental level.
It’s not that there is no objective reality, it’s that our interface with that reality is irreducibly entangled in human subjectivity.
——
What I resent about the paper is the disingenuousness of its critique of merit. Nowhere in the piece is there any evidence that the people who include author statements have screwed up the science. Nowhere do they have any evidence that the scientists who gained admissions to their positions through a DEI initiative are unqualified and producing faulty results. But boy howdy do they work to impute the stench of lesser competence to everyone who could have come to their positions through those initiatives.
It’s not about merit. It’s never been about merit. It’s about competence. Are the people who get into the position to do science competent to do the science? If so, then there is no problem with the science, and what’s actually being fought over is who gets to choose what work gets done next, and who controls the narratives we make out of that science.
And that is what really gets these people worked up.
It really has not one goddamn thing to do with science.
does Post-Modernism deny the existence of objective reality?
If the answer is “yes”, then the fault line is pretty clear.
Postmodernism (or poststructuralism – similar/overlapping thing) does not deny the existence of objective reality. At its heart, what postmodern and poststructural critiques do is explode the myth of scientific objectivity by focusing on the consequences of science getting done within human systems and communicated through human language. It doesn’t critique the data or the curve of the data, it critiques the narratives that scientists create to fit the curves. It asks questions about the human meanings attached to the curves – the moments and places where (in the Aristotelian sense of it) physics hits its limits and becomes metaphysics, or where data becomes narrative.
From the postmodernists or post-structuralists view, the fault line is still there, but it is fuzzy and uncertain, and the writers of the original article are misunderstanding (or misrepresenting) this critique on a fundamental level.
It’s not that there is no objective reality, it’s that our interface with that reality is irreducibly entangled in human subjectivity.
——
What I resent about the paper is the disingenuousness of its critique of merit. Nowhere in the piece is there any evidence that the people who include author statements have screwed up the science. Nowhere do they have any evidence that the scientists who gained admissions to their positions through a DEI initiative are unqualified and producing faulty results. But boy howdy do they work to impute the stench of lesser competence to everyone who could have come to their positions through those initiatives.
It’s not about merit. It’s never been about merit. It’s about competence. Are the people who get into the position to do science competent to do the science? If so, then there is no problem with the science, and what’s actually being fought over is who gets to choose what work gets done next, and who controls the narratives we make out of that science.
And that is what really gets these people worked up.
It really has not one goddamn thing to do with science.
Postmodernism (or poststructuralism – similar/overlapping thing) does not deny the existence of objective reality. At its heart, what postmodern and poststructural critiques do is explode the myth of scientific objectivity by focusing on the consequences of science getting done within human systems and communicated through human language. It doesn’t critique the data or the curve of the data, it critiques the narratives that scientists create to fit the curves.
That may well be the ideal. But, as often happens, the loudest voices in support seem to be the ones which do explicitly dismiss science that they find inconvenient precisely on the grounds that the scientists involved belonged to the “wrong” demographic.
Postmodernism / poststructuralism certainly isn’t alone in having that problem. But it might be helpful for those defending it to acknowledge that the misperception they object to does have some basis.
Postmodernism (or poststructuralism – similar/overlapping thing) does not deny the existence of objective reality. At its heart, what postmodern and poststructural critiques do is explode the myth of scientific objectivity by focusing on the consequences of science getting done within human systems and communicated through human language. It doesn’t critique the data or the curve of the data, it critiques the narratives that scientists create to fit the curves.
That may well be the ideal. But, as often happens, the loudest voices in support seem to be the ones which do explicitly dismiss science that they find inconvenient precisely on the grounds that the scientists involved belonged to the “wrong” demographic.
Postmodernism / poststructuralism certainly isn’t alone in having that problem. But it might be helpful for those defending it to acknowledge that the misperception they object to does have some basis.
nous, I think your 01.36 above is tremendously clear and useful. And, as I have already indicated, this:
who gets to choose what work gets done next
is something I am particularly concerned with, hence my comments about the issue of gatekeeping. Where I am not entirely sure you are correct, and I would have to go back and read the paper to check that it’s not your own concern intruding (and I don’t guarantee I will!) is when you say this:
But boy howdy do they work to impute the stench of lesser competence to everyone who could have come to their positions through those initiatives.
If true of the paper (as opposed to the editorials, commentaries etc about it), this is inexcusable, and justifies the hostile reaction to it.
nous, I think your 01.36 above is tremendously clear and useful. And, as I have already indicated, this:
who gets to choose what work gets done next
is something I am particularly concerned with, hence my comments about the issue of gatekeeping. Where I am not entirely sure you are correct, and I would have to go back and read the paper to check that it’s not your own concern intruding (and I don’t guarantee I will!) is when you say this:
But boy howdy do they work to impute the stench of lesser competence to everyone who could have come to their positions through those initiatives.
If true of the paper (as opposed to the editorials, commentaries etc about it), this is inexcusable, and justifies the hostile reaction to it.
Nowhere do they have any evidence that the scientists who gained admissions to their positions through a DEI initiative are unqualified and producing faulty results.
No footnote?
Nowhere do they have any evidence that the scientists who gained admissions to their positions through a DEI initiative are unqualified and producing faulty results.
No footnote?
Postmodernism / poststructuralism certainly isn’t alone in having that problem. But it might be helpful for those defending it to acknowledge that the misperception they object to does have some basis.
That’s a worthwhile conversation to have, and it should be had in a relevant context. In this context, however, the paper writers are misrepresenting the thing that they are arguing against. It may be that they don’t realize that they are misrepresenting it because they have never actually read the foundational material and have only ever heard the distorted version of the arguments that make it into undergrad papers. But when they repeatedly make this claim, and the postmodernists repeatedly point out that they have gotten this claim wrong, then part of the peer review process should be to go and review the source material itself and work to get a better understanding.
If you want to have a conversation about how better to teach postmodernism and philosophy of science and close up the fallacies that lead to antifoundationalist crankery, I’m there for it. But that’s not what is at stake here. They are claiming that the system is designed around “merit” and that we cannot have both merit and DEI concerns in the same conversation, and that their meritorious concerns are being silenced by the pernicious effects of DEI’s erosion of merit.
As a middle aged cis het white man (there’s that positional statement again) I have been in several job searches where I was passed over in favor of younger, less experienced candidates who better fit the DEI concerns of the hiring program. And I’ve worked for the candidates that they hired. Every one of them has been competent. Every one of them has done positive things for the program. I don’t for a second think that I would have done a better job overall, just that I would have done a different thing and had other positive effects.
What I do not believe is that the DEI initiatives have weakened the program, or the education of the students within the program. I think the lines of thinking that would lead to that conclusion are deeply problematic because it makes categorical assumptions about who is and who isn’t competent.
Postmodernism / poststructuralism certainly isn’t alone in having that problem. But it might be helpful for those defending it to acknowledge that the misperception they object to does have some basis.
That’s a worthwhile conversation to have, and it should be had in a relevant context. In this context, however, the paper writers are misrepresenting the thing that they are arguing against. It may be that they don’t realize that they are misrepresenting it because they have never actually read the foundational material and have only ever heard the distorted version of the arguments that make it into undergrad papers. But when they repeatedly make this claim, and the postmodernists repeatedly point out that they have gotten this claim wrong, then part of the peer review process should be to go and review the source material itself and work to get a better understanding.
If you want to have a conversation about how better to teach postmodernism and philosophy of science and close up the fallacies that lead to antifoundationalist crankery, I’m there for it. But that’s not what is at stake here. They are claiming that the system is designed around “merit” and that we cannot have both merit and DEI concerns in the same conversation, and that their meritorious concerns are being silenced by the pernicious effects of DEI’s erosion of merit.
As a middle aged cis het white man (there’s that positional statement again) I have been in several job searches where I was passed over in favor of younger, less experienced candidates who better fit the DEI concerns of the hiring program. And I’ve worked for the candidates that they hired. Every one of them has been competent. Every one of them has done positive things for the program. I don’t for a second think that I would have done a better job overall, just that I would have done a different thing and had other positive effects.
What I do not believe is that the DEI initiatives have weakened the program, or the education of the students within the program. I think the lines of thinking that would lead to that conclusion are deeply problematic because it makes categorical assumptions about who is and who isn’t competent.
the paper writers are misrepresenting the thing that they are arguing against. It may be that they don’t realize that they are misrepresenting it because they have never actually read the foundational material and have only ever heard the distorted version of the arguments that make it into undergrad papers.
Which is, quite properly, reason to reject the paper for publication. (And, IMHO, not just by a serious academic journal.)
As a middle aged cis het white man (there’s that positional statement again) I have been in several job searches where I was passed over in favor of younger, less experienced candidates who better fit the DEI concerns of the hiring program. And I’ve worked for the candidates that they hired. Every one of them has been competent. Every one of them has done positive things for the program.
Been there, too; organizations that had diversity goals and I was useless on that front. On the other hand, I have been is a couple of situations where it went the other way. Specifically, when my CEO (female, south Asian) is making a sales pitch or a grant proposal, it makes sense to have an “old white guy” who is obviously part of the team. We both know it’s bull. We both regret it is necessary. But I’m glad that I am available to make it work for us, no matter how stupid it is.
the paper writers are misrepresenting the thing that they are arguing against. It may be that they don’t realize that they are misrepresenting it because they have never actually read the foundational material and have only ever heard the distorted version of the arguments that make it into undergrad papers.
Which is, quite properly, reason to reject the paper for publication. (And, IMHO, not just by a serious academic journal.)
As a middle aged cis het white man (there’s that positional statement again) I have been in several job searches where I was passed over in favor of younger, less experienced candidates who better fit the DEI concerns of the hiring program. And I’ve worked for the candidates that they hired. Every one of them has been competent. Every one of them has done positive things for the program.
Been there, too; organizations that had diversity goals and I was useless on that front. On the other hand, I have been is a couple of situations where it went the other way. Specifically, when my CEO (female, south Asian) is making a sales pitch or a grant proposal, it makes sense to have an “old white guy” who is obviously part of the team. We both know it’s bull. We both regret it is necessary. But I’m glad that I am available to make it work for us, no matter how stupid it is.
I know previously McKinney disputed the statement that women and people of color have been excluded from as least some areas of STEM. I think part of the problem is the use of the word “excluded,” because, at least in his view, it implied active and conscious misogyny and racism.
So maybe the way to put it in a less-charged way is to say certain groups are underrepresented. Then the question becomes why that is and what, if anything, to do about it. “If anything” because there has to be a reason to do something about it. In other words, why is that underrepresentation a problem? What harm comes from it?
If nothing else, you have a smaller pool of talent to draw from if large swaths of humanity are only going into whatever fields in relatively small numbers for whatever reasons. Beyond that, you miss out on people with different ways of looking at things, different ways of identifying problems, different approaches to solving them, etc.
Going back in time a bit, I don’t know that anyone can dispute that there was active exclusion in just about any prestigious human endeavor you can think of. But even if that active exclusion is in the past, it echoes in the culture in less-overt ways. Its inertia has to be overcome (assuming you think that’s a worthwhile effort, of course).
I know previously McKinney disputed the statement that women and people of color have been excluded from as least some areas of STEM. I think part of the problem is the use of the word “excluded,” because, at least in his view, it implied active and conscious misogyny and racism.
So maybe the way to put it in a less-charged way is to say certain groups are underrepresented. Then the question becomes why that is and what, if anything, to do about it. “If anything” because there has to be a reason to do something about it. In other words, why is that underrepresentation a problem? What harm comes from it?
If nothing else, you have a smaller pool of talent to draw from if large swaths of humanity are only going into whatever fields in relatively small numbers for whatever reasons. Beyond that, you miss out on people with different ways of looking at things, different ways of identifying problems, different approaches to solving them, etc.
Going back in time a bit, I don’t know that anyone can dispute that there was active exclusion in just about any prestigious human endeavor you can think of. But even if that active exclusion is in the past, it echoes in the culture in less-overt ways. Its inertia has to be overcome (assuming you think that’s a worthwhile effort, of course).
Going back in time a bit, I don’t know that anyone can dispute that there was active exclusion in just about any prestigious human endeavor you can think of. But even if that active exclusion is in the past, it echoes in the culture in less-overt ways.
No one will want to wade through fifty-six pages of Coeducation at MIT (I haven’t read the whole thing myself), but just as evidence of hsh’s point, it’s a painstaking history of attitudes and practices in relation to women students at MIT (the Institute did, from very early on, have a few), increasing their numbers (or banning them altogether), housing them, “letting” them play sports, and so on.
When I was an undergraduate, the athletic director fought against women being awarded varsity letters, because in his view that would dilute the value of the men’s letters.
Living memory. And possibly right around the corner.
P.S. For the pivotal moment of transition, see Chapter 4, “The Hamilton Committee,” starting on p. 19. When I started, there were 61 women in my entering class of about 900. Current stats here. It’s interesting to compare the percentages for both women and minorities as undergrads vs grad students.
Going back in time a bit, I don’t know that anyone can dispute that there was active exclusion in just about any prestigious human endeavor you can think of. But even if that active exclusion is in the past, it echoes in the culture in less-overt ways.
No one will want to wade through fifty-six pages of Coeducation at MIT (I haven’t read the whole thing myself), but just as evidence of hsh’s point, it’s a painstaking history of attitudes and practices in relation to women students at MIT (the Institute did, from very early on, have a few), increasing their numbers (or banning them altogether), housing them, “letting” them play sports, and so on.
When I was an undergraduate, the athletic director fought against women being awarded varsity letters, because in his view that would dilute the value of the men’s letters.
Living memory. And possibly right around the corner.
P.S. For the pivotal moment of transition, see Chapter 4, “The Hamilton Committee,” starting on p. 19. When I started, there were 61 women in my entering class of about 900. Current stats here. It’s interesting to compare the percentages for both women and minorities as undergrads vs grad students.
It’s funny, while I was doing philosophy at Uni, I once begged my scientist friends (chemistry and physics PhDs) to confirm some sort of objective reality to me, because I had had enough of all the ins and outs of epistemology, and to my chagrin these hard-headed guys went on about how all they ever do is create models tailored to fit their highly specific research goals and that the notion of objectivity was for ignorant people – so no joy there.
And of course they are right, the crucial word being ‘objective’ (i.e. view from nowhere). FWIW, anyone who wrote anything interesting on the subject in 2500 years of Western philosophy has had some issues with the term, to put it mildly, otherwise why bother doing philosophy at all. (There are proponents of ‘direct, or naive realism’ and , but I wouldn’t consider their discussions very interesting, e.g. Moore or Searle.)
So it is peculiar that some people seem to think, or pretend to do so, that this a new development in the history of ideas and blame it on ‘postmodernism’ or ‘critical theory’.
It’s funny, while I was doing philosophy at Uni, I once begged my scientist friends (chemistry and physics PhDs) to confirm some sort of objective reality to me, because I had had enough of all the ins and outs of epistemology, and to my chagrin these hard-headed guys went on about how all they ever do is create models tailored to fit their highly specific research goals and that the notion of objectivity was for ignorant people – so no joy there.
And of course they are right, the crucial word being ‘objective’ (i.e. view from nowhere). FWIW, anyone who wrote anything interesting on the subject in 2500 years of Western philosophy has had some issues with the term, to put it mildly, otherwise why bother doing philosophy at all. (There are proponents of ‘direct, or naive realism’ and , but I wouldn’t consider their discussions very interesting, e.g. Moore or Searle.)
So it is peculiar that some people seem to think, or pretend to do so, that this a new development in the history of ideas and blame it on ‘postmodernism’ or ‘critical theory’.
What does a quark look like?
What does a quark look like?
So it is peculiar that some people seem to think, or pretend to do so, that this a new development in the history of ideas and blame it on ‘postmodernism’ or ‘critical theory’.
Seconded.
And what HSH wrote.
So it is peculiar that some people seem to think, or pretend to do so, that this a new development in the history of ideas and blame it on ‘postmodernism’ or ‘critical theory’.
Seconded.
And what HSH wrote.
What does a quark look like?
If it doesn’t generate light (of some frequency, not necessarily visible) on its own, and isn’t big enough to reflect light, then it doesn’t “look like” anything. It’s like asking “How does this sound in a vacuum” — with nothing to transmit the vibration, there is not sound to “sound like.”
A reality not at all helped by whichever wag decided to refer to the types of quarks as “flavors”. Sometimes, probably due to too many late nights, researchers get just too, too cute.
What does a quark look like?
If it doesn’t generate light (of some frequency, not necessarily visible) on its own, and isn’t big enough to reflect light, then it doesn’t “look like” anything. It’s like asking “How does this sound in a vacuum” — with nothing to transmit the vibration, there is not sound to “sound like.”
A reality not at all helped by whichever wag decided to refer to the types of quarks as “flavors”. Sometimes, probably due to too many late nights, researchers get just too, too cute.
Yeah, what hsh said. Talk about “good faith”…
Yeah, what hsh said. Talk about “good faith”…
Yeah, what hsh said. Talk about “good faith”…
@04.04 particularly!
Yeah, what hsh said. Talk about “good faith”…
@04.04 particularly!
But, as often happens, the loudest voices in support seem to be the ones which do explicitly dismiss science that they find inconvenient precisely on the grounds that the scientists involved belonged to the “wrong” demographic.
Really? Who are these people? Can you provide an example? Just how “loud” is the voice of that person wrt this topic? And what was it that they actually claimed?
But, as often happens, the loudest voices in support seem to be the ones which do explicitly dismiss science that they find inconvenient precisely on the grounds that the scientists involved belonged to the “wrong” demographic.
Really? Who are these people? Can you provide an example? Just how “loud” is the voice of that person wrt this topic? And what was it that they actually claimed?
wj, sometimes I can’t tell if you don’t get jokes or if you’re just going along with them. ;^)
But, yes, I was getting at the limitations of how humans conceive of things versus what those things actually are. Maybe some things aren’t even really “things” in a meaningful way. Imagine two events occurring simultaneously at opposite ends of the universe. Is simultaneity even a valid concept in that context?
wj, sometimes I can’t tell if you don’t get jokes or if you’re just going along with them. ;^)
But, yes, I was getting at the limitations of how humans conceive of things versus what those things actually are. Maybe some things aren’t even really “things” in a meaningful way. Imagine two events occurring simultaneously at opposite ends of the universe. Is simultaneity even a valid concept in that context?
wj, sometimes I can’t tell if you don’t get jokes or if you’re just going along with them. ;^)
hsh, go with “All of the above!” 😉
wj, sometimes I can’t tell if you don’t get jokes or if you’re just going along with them. ;^)
hsh, go with “All of the above!” 😉
hsh, go with “All of the above!” 😉
At any distance.
As an aside, I am often struck by the claim that some “have the loudest voice” on any particular issue. How is this objectively (LOL) determined?
hsh, go with “All of the above!” 😉
At any distance.
As an aside, I am often struck by the claim that some “have the loudest voice” on any particular issue. How is this objectively (LOL) determined?
The woke never stops….another good read on that paper here.
The woke never stops….another good read on that paper here.
I am often struck by the claim that some “have the loudest voice” on any particular issue. How is this objectively (LOL) determined?
My rule of thumb is this: What am I, as someone totally not expert on the subject, aware of hearing about it?**
Doesn’t work for subjects where I am knowledgeable, of course.
** For a valid objective determination one would need to do a broad survey, obviously. But lacking that….
I am often struck by the claim that some “have the loudest voice” on any particular issue. How is this objectively (LOL) determined?
My rule of thumb is this: What am I, as someone totally not expert on the subject, aware of hearing about it?**
Doesn’t work for subjects where I am knowledgeable, of course.
** For a valid objective determination one would need to do a broad survey, obviously. But lacking that….
That is an interesting piece, bobbyp. Again, an awful lot of criticism of the NYT piece and writer, not just of the actual Merit paper (which is the thing which most interests me), but I did find in the former a really telling example/refutation relating to the “positionality statements”:
Positionality statements are a “widespread practice…popular in the social sciences”? Not true. I’ve published maybe 130 social science papers and never once written a positionality statement or been asked to.
Huh. Good to know.
That is an interesting piece, bobbyp. Again, an awful lot of criticism of the NYT piece and writer, not just of the actual Merit paper (which is the thing which most interests me), but I did find in the former a really telling example/refutation relating to the “positionality statements”:
Positionality statements are a “widespread practice…popular in the social sciences”? Not true. I’ve published maybe 130 social science papers and never once written a positionality statement or been asked to.
Huh. Good to know.
Moynihan has it all covered in that piece.
As for the actual content of the paper in question, one of the things that they criticize is this:
Decolonization is already a reality. For example, in New Zealand, decolonization of
the sciences by adding the mythological content from Mātauranga Māori to the science
curriculum is now actively pursued throughout schools and universities with the support
of the government, and any criticism to this is termed racist.
The terrible affront to meritocracy and science in this?
“ Our goal is to ensure parity for mātauranga Māori with the other bodies of knowledge credentialed by NCEA (particularly Western/Pākehā epistemologies).” The proposed curriculum “promotes discussion and analysis of the ways in which science has been used to support the dominance of Eurocentric views (among which, its use as a rationale for colonisation of Māori and the suppression of Māori knowledge); and the notion that science is a Western European invention and itself evidence of European dominance over Māori and other indigenous peoples. Pūtaiao allows opportunities to incorporate Māori perspectives and knowledge about the natural world into the classroom.”
…which is to say that the NZ government believes that students in secondary schools be asked a question like: “If ‘[s]cience provided solutions to such calamities as famine
and plague, transforming them “from incomprehensible and uncontrollable forces of
nature into manageable challenges.” By improving the world economy and increasing
global wealth, scientific progress helped create a more peaceful and just world,’ then why is it that scientists used their tool to justify the conquest and exploitation of ‘pre-scientific’ peoples, and to dismiss other forms of legitimate knowledge as mere superstition and less worthy of consideration?”
Note that the government did not suggest that traditional Māori beliefs be taught as science, they asked that students consider the consequences of misusing science for political and economic gain.
(This isn’t even remotely as corrosive to science as the “Intelligent Design” BS that the religious right teaches their kids as an actual alternative to science. It’s contextualization, not a negation of whole lines of inquiry.)
So there is a typical argumentative tactic that gets repeated ad nauseam in the paper – having a discussion about social responsibility and scientific ethics somehow erodes the Mertonian foundation upon which science is based.
Some scientists wrote an op ed opposing the incorporation of this discussion into the NZ secondary school science program:
This perpetuates disturbing misunderstandings of science emerging at all levels of education and in science funding…Indigenous knowledge is critical for the preservation and perpetuation of culture and local practices, and plays key roles in management and policy. However, in the discovery of empirical, universal truths, it falls far short of what we can define as science itself. To accept it as the equivalent of science is to patronise and fail indigenous populations; better to ensure that everyone participates in the world’s scientific enterprises. Indigenous knowledge may indeed help advance scientific knowledge in some ways, but it is not science.
Note that the governmental suggestions did not claim in any way that indigenous knowledge was ‘the equivalent of science’ in function or purpose, only that both represented worldviews that were worthy of equivalent and mutual respect.
And the paper’s claim that any criticism whatsoever of this NZ policy ‘was termed racist?’ One citation of a self described “personal, somewhat cheeky reflection” that was published in the Journal of Global Indigeneity.
What the author of that piece called a “blatantly racist attack on mātauranga” was their statement that “Indigenous knowledge [….] falls short of what we can define as science itself.” Not “indigenous knowledge is gained through a different methodology,”but rather that it “falls short of…science.”
This is the sort of evidence and citation that they use throughout the entire piece. It doesn’t get any better, more insightful, or more careful than this.
And what we are supposed to believe from all of this is that the poor Māori kid who gets that discussion in her high school science class then mistakenly goes to uni and majors in science under the mistaken idea that the indigenous wisdom she learned from her elder was actually science, and that the university, scared of being called racist, lets her continue to believe that and never teaches her any actual science, and that somehow she then gets into grad school, through a science dissertation, through the job market, and into a position of influence in the sciences where she can stop people from doing actual science, thus undermining all of those good things that science (uncomplicated by human politics) has given us.
When the reality is that all they are really trying to do is tell high school kids that the Māori were (and are) sophisticated people who also created systems of knowledge that are worthy. of respect, and to encourage that young Māori woman to give science a try if she was interested.
All this is because science has been used repeatedly in human history to justify the domination and dehumanization of one group in favor of another,
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/disturbing-resilience-scientific-racism-180972243/
and that seems like a good thing for teachers to ask students to reflect upon as they are being taught how to use that tool.
Moynihan has it all covered in that piece.
As for the actual content of the paper in question, one of the things that they criticize is this:
Decolonization is already a reality. For example, in New Zealand, decolonization of
the sciences by adding the mythological content from Mātauranga Māori to the science
curriculum is now actively pursued throughout schools and universities with the support
of the government, and any criticism to this is termed racist.
The terrible affront to meritocracy and science in this?
“ Our goal is to ensure parity for mātauranga Māori with the other bodies of knowledge credentialed by NCEA (particularly Western/Pākehā epistemologies).” The proposed curriculum “promotes discussion and analysis of the ways in which science has been used to support the dominance of Eurocentric views (among which, its use as a rationale for colonisation of Māori and the suppression of Māori knowledge); and the notion that science is a Western European invention and itself evidence of European dominance over Māori and other indigenous peoples. Pūtaiao allows opportunities to incorporate Māori perspectives and knowledge about the natural world into the classroom.”
…which is to say that the NZ government believes that students in secondary schools be asked a question like: “If ‘[s]cience provided solutions to such calamities as famine
and plague, transforming them “from incomprehensible and uncontrollable forces of
nature into manageable challenges.” By improving the world economy and increasing
global wealth, scientific progress helped create a more peaceful and just world,’ then why is it that scientists used their tool to justify the conquest and exploitation of ‘pre-scientific’ peoples, and to dismiss other forms of legitimate knowledge as mere superstition and less worthy of consideration?”
Note that the government did not suggest that traditional Māori beliefs be taught as science, they asked that students consider the consequences of misusing science for political and economic gain.
(This isn’t even remotely as corrosive to science as the “Intelligent Design” BS that the religious right teaches their kids as an actual alternative to science. It’s contextualization, not a negation of whole lines of inquiry.)
So there is a typical argumentative tactic that gets repeated ad nauseam in the paper – having a discussion about social responsibility and scientific ethics somehow erodes the Mertonian foundation upon which science is based.
Some scientists wrote an op ed opposing the incorporation of this discussion into the NZ secondary school science program:
This perpetuates disturbing misunderstandings of science emerging at all levels of education and in science funding…Indigenous knowledge is critical for the preservation and perpetuation of culture and local practices, and plays key roles in management and policy. However, in the discovery of empirical, universal truths, it falls far short of what we can define as science itself. To accept it as the equivalent of science is to patronise and fail indigenous populations; better to ensure that everyone participates in the world’s scientific enterprises. Indigenous knowledge may indeed help advance scientific knowledge in some ways, but it is not science.
Note that the governmental suggestions did not claim in any way that indigenous knowledge was ‘the equivalent of science’ in function or purpose, only that both represented worldviews that were worthy of equivalent and mutual respect.
And the paper’s claim that any criticism whatsoever of this NZ policy ‘was termed racist?’ One citation of a self described “personal, somewhat cheeky reflection” that was published in the Journal of Global Indigeneity.
What the author of that piece called a “blatantly racist attack on mātauranga” was their statement that “Indigenous knowledge [….] falls short of what we can define as science itself.” Not “indigenous knowledge is gained through a different methodology,”but rather that it “falls short of…science.”
This is the sort of evidence and citation that they use throughout the entire piece. It doesn’t get any better, more insightful, or more careful than this.
And what we are supposed to believe from all of this is that the poor Māori kid who gets that discussion in her high school science class then mistakenly goes to uni and majors in science under the mistaken idea that the indigenous wisdom she learned from her elder was actually science, and that the university, scared of being called racist, lets her continue to believe that and never teaches her any actual science, and that somehow she then gets into grad school, through a science dissertation, through the job market, and into a position of influence in the sciences where she can stop people from doing actual science, thus undermining all of those good things that science (uncomplicated by human politics) has given us.
When the reality is that all they are really trying to do is tell high school kids that the Māori were (and are) sophisticated people who also created systems of knowledge that are worthy. of respect, and to encourage that young Māori woman to give science a try if she was interested.
All this is because science has been used repeatedly in human history to justify the domination and dehumanization of one group in favor of another,
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/disturbing-resilience-scientific-racism-180972243/
and that seems like a good thing for teachers to ask students to reflect upon as they are being taught how to use that tool.
All this is because science has been misused repeatedly in human history to justify the domination and dehumanization of one group in favor of another.
Corrected that for you.
I feel like you are conflaiting some things. First, beliefs of scientists, especially about things outside their areas of expertise, are not the same as science. If I am a physicist, and I make a pronouncement about biology and evolution, that’s no more science than if I was a economist saying the same thing. It might be correct, but it isn’t a scientific opinion backed by the writer’s expertise.
Second, in science, as in any field, it is possible to cherry pick data to support preexisting conclusions. It has happened in the past, continues to happen, and will happen in the future. (You don’t have to get as far into the wilderness as phrenology or eugenics to find examples.) None of which makes it science.
Science is a process. It isn’t the conclusions drawn from that process. Even less is it statements drawn from misusing that process.
All this is because science has been misused repeatedly in human history to justify the domination and dehumanization of one group in favor of another.
Corrected that for you.
I feel like you are conflaiting some things. First, beliefs of scientists, especially about things outside their areas of expertise, are not the same as science. If I am a physicist, and I make a pronouncement about biology and evolution, that’s no more science than if I was a economist saying the same thing. It might be correct, but it isn’t a scientific opinion backed by the writer’s expertise.
Second, in science, as in any field, it is possible to cherry pick data to support preexisting conclusions. It has happened in the past, continues to happen, and will happen in the future. (You don’t have to get as far into the wilderness as phrenology or eugenics to find examples.) None of which makes it science.
Science is a process. It isn’t the conclusions drawn from that process. Even less is it statements drawn from misusing that process.
comment got eaten?
comment got eaten?
https://3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2023/05/how-not-to-defend-science.html
https://3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2023/05/how-not-to-defend-science.html
That was not a correction, wj, that was a value judgment.
I, too, disagree with the use of science for those things, but that does not in any way negate the fact that the scientists involved in those endeavors fully believed that their actions were fully in line with the scientific evidence.
It’s like saying that murdering innocent people with an AR is a misuse of a firearm. No, it’s just a use with which I disagree.
And it doesn’t help make the case at all to say that those people were wrong about the scientific facts as we understand them today. Ptolemy was wrong about a lot of things, too. Doesn’t mean he wasn’t a scientist or that his conclusions and his model were unscientific.
I get where you are coming from, but I think that way of correcting things oversimplifies a foundational topic in the philosophy of science.
Let me again recommend Peter Godfrey-Smith’s Theory and Reality as an excellent intro to the philosophy of science.
I’d be surprised, and disgusted, if the writers of the “merit” article had ever read it.
That was not a correction, wj, that was a value judgment.
I, too, disagree with the use of science for those things, but that does not in any way negate the fact that the scientists involved in those endeavors fully believed that their actions were fully in line with the scientific evidence.
It’s like saying that murdering innocent people with an AR is a misuse of a firearm. No, it’s just a use with which I disagree.
And it doesn’t help make the case at all to say that those people were wrong about the scientific facts as we understand them today. Ptolemy was wrong about a lot of things, too. Doesn’t mean he wasn’t a scientist or that his conclusions and his model were unscientific.
I get where you are coming from, but I think that way of correcting things oversimplifies a foundational topic in the philosophy of science.
Let me again recommend Peter Godfrey-Smith’s Theory and Reality as an excellent intro to the philosophy of science.
I’d be surprised, and disgusted, if the writers of the “merit” article had ever read it.
(bobbyp: released it; Typepad must had disliked the bare link, I dunno)
(bobbyp: released it; Typepad must had disliked the bare link, I dunno)
Who knew 3QD was still going! I used to read it regularly, but gradually just kept not remembering to go there, and then forgot about it entirely.
Who knew 3QD was still going! I used to read it regularly, but gradually just kept not remembering to go there, and then forgot about it entirely.
the scientists involved in those endeavors fully believed that their actions were fully in line with the scientific evidence.
And Trump, by now, probably believes that the 2020 election was stolen. Doesn’t make either one correct.
the scientists involved in those endeavors fully believed that their actions were fully in line with the scientific evidence.
And Trump, by now, probably believes that the 2020 election was stolen. Doesn’t make either one correct.
Note that the government did not suggest that traditional Māori beliefs be taught as science, they asked that students consider the consequences of misusing science for political and economic gain.
That is not so. Quoting a paper I just read “The introduction of Māori concepts into NCEA Science is brave policy setting — holding great promise to those teachers who are looking for a way to embrace Māori knowledge…”
I do see the need to present science as not at odds with Māori culture. But this policy seems along the same lines as incorporating Christian concepts into science teaching here: I’m against it.
Note that the government did not suggest that traditional Māori beliefs be taught as science, they asked that students consider the consequences of misusing science for political and economic gain.
That is not so. Quoting a paper I just read “The introduction of Māori concepts into NCEA Science is brave policy setting — holding great promise to those teachers who are looking for a way to embrace Māori knowledge…”
I do see the need to present science as not at odds with Māori culture. But this policy seems along the same lines as incorporating Christian concepts into science teaching here: I’m against it.
(bobbyp: released it; Typepad must had disliked the bare link, I dunno)
Thanks, JanieM. The link is to a short essay dredged up from the depths of the internets during my unbiased and totally scientific search for a response to GFTNC who wrote:
That is an interesting piece, bobbyp. Again, an awful lot of criticism of the NYT piece and writer, not just of the actual Merit paper (which is the thing which most interests me)
Now I was of the opinion (totally unbiased!)that my previous linked article took on the paper directly and not so much Ms Paul. But what do I know.
May I have my MERIT badge now, please?
(bobbyp: released it; Typepad must had disliked the bare link, I dunno)
Thanks, JanieM. The link is to a short essay dredged up from the depths of the internets during my unbiased and totally scientific search for a response to GFTNC who wrote:
That is an interesting piece, bobbyp. Again, an awful lot of criticism of the NYT piece and writer, not just of the actual Merit paper (which is the thing which most interests me)
Now I was of the opinion (totally unbiased!)that my previous linked article took on the paper directly and not so much Ms Paul. But what do I know.
May I have my MERIT badge now, please?
And Trump, by now, probably believes that the 2020 election was stolen.
Well, sure. But did he employ a rigorous (and MERITORIOUS!) scientific “process” to reach that conclusion?
I want to see the data.
And Trump, by now, probably believes that the 2020 election was stolen.
Well, sure. But did he employ a rigorous (and MERITORIOUS!) scientific “process” to reach that conclusion?
I want to see the data.
But did he employ a rigorous (and MERITORIOUS!) scientific “process” to reach that conclusion?
Well, it’s definitely a *repeatable* (and repeated) process. At least for him. In the hands of anyone else? Not so much . . .
Santos may get there with more practice. But he lacks the protection of a rich father to buffer him while he learns.
But did he employ a rigorous (and MERITORIOUS!) scientific “process” to reach that conclusion?
Well, it’s definitely a *repeatable* (and repeated) process. At least for him. In the hands of anyone else? Not so much . . .
Santos may get there with more practice. But he lacks the protection of a rich father to buffer him while he learns.
Pro Bono – you would think that if that is what they objected to, that they would have quoted that part of the policy in the article. What they cited, however, wasn’t even the original policy recommendation. They cited a blog post that quoted the portion of the policy I quoted above, and a brief part of the scientists’ response. If I were trying to write an article about this for peer review, I’d want to quote the originals for both of those. What we get, though, is two removed from the original. And what they objected to is exactly what I described.
I did go to try and chase down some of what you mention from the article you found. What I found were some suggestions of how to get students to put the scientific concepts they were learning in dialog with Māori concepts of life. It’s more like examining how indigenous American ideas of nature might lead to a different narrative of conservation than it is the ID schtick of trying to explain away evolution by obfuscating or ignoring actual biological experiments.
Pro Bono – you would think that if that is what they objected to, that they would have quoted that part of the policy in the article. What they cited, however, wasn’t even the original policy recommendation. They cited a blog post that quoted the portion of the policy I quoted above, and a brief part of the scientists’ response. If I were trying to write an article about this for peer review, I’d want to quote the originals for both of those. What we get, though, is two removed from the original. And what they objected to is exactly what I described.
I did go to try and chase down some of what you mention from the article you found. What I found were some suggestions of how to get students to put the scientific concepts they were learning in dialog with Māori concepts of life. It’s more like examining how indigenous American ideas of nature might lead to a different narrative of conservation than it is the ID schtick of trying to explain away evolution by obfuscating or ignoring actual biological experiments.
About the questions of Maori science, I enjoyed this article.
https://e-tangata.co.nz/comment-and-analysis/is-there-such-thing-as-maori-science-it-depends/
And this is an interesting read
https://www.nzcer.org.nz/system/files/Chapter%201%20Ranginui%20Walker.pdf
I have some acquaintance with the issues as they are related to endangered languages as well as knowing a contingent of Maori who have come to Japan for interesting cultural reasons (which I will save for another time).
But related to this, there is an interesting conundrum involved. One of the major efforts in Aotearoa language revitalization is to create Maori medium schools. If we agree to include the teaching of science in those schools, how are they taught and what language are the ideas taught in? Any good teacher will use whatever helps their students understand, so are there te reo concepts that help get across diffferent ideas?
Jumping into this debate are outsiders unfamiliar with the context as well as polemicists who are looking for leverage. As far as I can tell, there is no desire to elevate Maori creation myths to the status of science. There is a push to have people recognize that mātauranga Māori is a systematized body of knowledge. There are issues that this runs into, not only from white fragility but also from the fact that Maori have often held that sharing indigenous knowledge with outsiders is tapu. So I, unlike the authors of the original paper, would be very hesitant to draw any clear conclusions about what they say about merit in science.
About the questions of Maori science, I enjoyed this article.
https://e-tangata.co.nz/comment-and-analysis/is-there-such-thing-as-maori-science-it-depends/
And this is an interesting read
https://www.nzcer.org.nz/system/files/Chapter%201%20Ranginui%20Walker.pdf
I have some acquaintance with the issues as they are related to endangered languages as well as knowing a contingent of Maori who have come to Japan for interesting cultural reasons (which I will save for another time).
But related to this, there is an interesting conundrum involved. One of the major efforts in Aotearoa language revitalization is to create Maori medium schools. If we agree to include the teaching of science in those schools, how are they taught and what language are the ideas taught in? Any good teacher will use whatever helps their students understand, so are there te reo concepts that help get across diffferent ideas?
Jumping into this debate are outsiders unfamiliar with the context as well as polemicists who are looking for leverage. As far as I can tell, there is no desire to elevate Maori creation myths to the status of science. There is a push to have people recognize that mātauranga Māori is a systematized body of knowledge. There are issues that this runs into, not only from white fragility but also from the fact that Maori have often held that sharing indigenous knowledge with outsiders is tapu. So I, unlike the authors of the original paper, would be very hesitant to draw any clear conclusions about what they say about merit in science.
I always thought 3QD was for science geeks, but now they have poems and link to articles about TC Boyle, Elizabeth Bishop and the Frankfurt School.
I must ahve missed something.
I always thought 3QD was for science geeks, but now they have poems and link to articles about TC Boyle, Elizabeth Bishop and the Frankfurt School.
I must ahve missed something.
I always thought 3QD was for science geeks
As far as I know it was never for science geeks. There was a wide range of contributors and a variety of material when I was reading it, and the comment section was pretty good, not the cesspool of rivalries and putdowns that some comment sections become. (I don’t mean here.)
Just picked a couple of random dates from the archives, from when I was probably reading:
https://3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2009/02
https://3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2006/10
Lots of interesting stuff.
I always thought 3QD was for science geeks
As far as I know it was never for science geeks. There was a wide range of contributors and a variety of material when I was reading it, and the comment section was pretty good, not the cesspool of rivalries and putdowns that some comment sections become. (I don’t mean here.)
Just picked a couple of random dates from the archives, from when I was probably reading:
https://3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2009/02
https://3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2006/10
Lots of interesting stuff.
May I have my MERIT badge now, please?
You may. Sorry bobbyp, I don’t think I read your previous link. Sometimes time gets in the way…
May I have my MERIT badge now, please?
You may. Sorry bobbyp, I don’t think I read your previous link. Sometimes time gets in the way…
(You don’t have to get as far into the wilderness as phrenology or eugenics to find examples.)
These were on my mind when thinking about exclusion in the sciences. It’s hard to imagine that scientists who developed theories to justify things like slavery, conquest, genocide, and forced sterilization would embrace the wokeness of diversity and inclusion within their own institutions.
(You don’t have to get as far into the wilderness as phrenology or eugenics to find examples.)
These were on my mind when thinking about exclusion in the sciences. It’s hard to imagine that scientists who developed theories to justify things like slavery, conquest, genocide, and forced sterilization would embrace the wokeness of diversity and inclusion within their own institutions.
It’s hard to imagine that scientists who developed theories to justify things like slavery, conquest, genocide, and forced sterilization would embrace the wokeness of diversity and inclusion within their own institutions.
Almost certainly true. In some cases, I expect we could dig up some of them objecting to even the level of diversity and inclusion that their institutions had then. Which says something about them as human beings.
But about science? Science would require testing said theories, and dumping them when the data refused to support them. Which they mostly declined to do. Which is to say, mislabeling aside, they were never scientific.
It’s hard to imagine that scientists who developed theories to justify things like slavery, conquest, genocide, and forced sterilization would embrace the wokeness of diversity and inclusion within their own institutions.
Almost certainly true. In some cases, I expect we could dig up some of them objecting to even the level of diversity and inclusion that their institutions had then. Which says something about them as human beings.
But about science? Science would require testing said theories, and dumping them when the data refused to support them. Which they mostly declined to do. Which is to say, mislabeling aside, they were never scientific.
It’s more than mislabeling when you wield the power and influence that they did. The science was bad and wrong and invalid, but it supported very real and monstrous deeds. It was institutional and authoritative.
Science should be done as you describe to be proper, but it isn’t always done that way. Saying it isn’t science because it isn’t proper doesn’t change the fact that it was “the science”, a flawed human endeavor.
It’s more than mislabeling when you wield the power and influence that they did. The science was bad and wrong and invalid, but it supported very real and monstrous deeds. It was institutional and authoritative.
Science should be done as you describe to be proper, but it isn’t always done that way. Saying it isn’t science because it isn’t proper doesn’t change the fact that it was “the science”, a flawed human endeavor.
But about science? Science would require testing said theories, and dumping them when the data refused to support them.
Is phlogiston theory science or pseudoscience?
Were the people who developed phlogiston theory scientists or pseudoscientists?
But about science? Science would require testing said theories, and dumping them when the data refused to support them.
Is phlogiston theory science or pseudoscience?
Were the people who developed phlogiston theory scientists or pseudoscientists?
Is phlogiston theory science or pseudoscience?
It depends (I’m not up on the history here) on whether it was tested and, if it was, what was done with the results. If it was not possible to test it, given the technology at the time, it would be at least potential science. We see the same thing, in physics especially, all the time.
If it was possible to test it, and they either didn’t, or did test it but ignored the negative results, then it would have been pseudoscience.
Is phlogiston theory science or pseudoscience?
It depends (I’m not up on the history here) on whether it was tested and, if it was, what was done with the results. If it was not possible to test it, given the technology at the time, it would be at least potential science. We see the same thing, in physics especially, all the time.
If it was possible to test it, and they either didn’t, or did test it but ignored the negative results, then it would have been pseudoscience.
It depends (I’m not up on the history here) on whether it was tested and, if it was, what was done with the results.
So there is no way of saying that something is science vs. pseudoscience in the moment, only in retrospect? And the difference is entirely in how or why the person engaged in the work reacts to the data in comparison with others?
Is that a fair summary?
It depends (I’m not up on the history here) on whether it was tested and, if it was, what was done with the results.
So there is no way of saying that something is science vs. pseudoscience in the moment, only in retrospect? And the difference is entirely in how or why the person engaged in the work reacts to the data in comparison with others?
Is that a fair summary?
Sadi Carnot based his thermodynamic analysis of heat engines on the flow of “caloric”. He was interested in, and correct about, the ultimate possible efficiency of steam engines. The “caloric” model of heat was eventually replaced by a better model, but the Carnot Cycle is still a thing.
If you’re in a cozy cabin in the woods in winter, and somebody opens the door, you might complain “Hey, you’re letting the cold in!” or “Hey, you’re letting the heat out!” with more or less equal justice: the thermometer on the wall would behave the same way regardless which model your complaint implies. Both models pass the test.
–TP
Sadi Carnot based his thermodynamic analysis of heat engines on the flow of “caloric”. He was interested in, and correct about, the ultimate possible efficiency of steam engines. The “caloric” model of heat was eventually replaced by a better model, but the Carnot Cycle is still a thing.
If you’re in a cozy cabin in the woods in winter, and somebody opens the door, you might complain “Hey, you’re letting the cold in!” or “Hey, you’re letting the heat out!” with more or less equal justice: the thermometer on the wall would behave the same way regardless which model your complaint implies. Both models pass the test.
–TP
So there is no way of saying that something is science vs. pseudoscience in the moment, only in retrospect?
Science is about models. Phlogiston theory was a model of how combustion worked. As the ability to test its predictions became possible, problems were encountered. The model was patched repeatedly to try to accommodate the measured behavior. Eventually it was abandoned in favor of a model that didn’t have nearly so many problems — the oxygen theory.
The earth-centric model of planetary movements got lots of patching but eventually fell to a sun-centric model that didn’t have to be constantly patched to accommodate improved measurements. Bohr’s model of the atom got a lot of patching as it failed to predict the behavior of heavier atoms and was eventually supplanted.
Pseudoscience generally rejects models. Astrology, for example, doesn’t have a model to explain why the position of the stars and planets at the time someone is born affects their personality.
So there is no way of saying that something is science vs. pseudoscience in the moment, only in retrospect?
Science is about models. Phlogiston theory was a model of how combustion worked. As the ability to test its predictions became possible, problems were encountered. The model was patched repeatedly to try to accommodate the measured behavior. Eventually it was abandoned in favor of a model that didn’t have nearly so many problems — the oxygen theory.
The earth-centric model of planetary movements got lots of patching but eventually fell to a sun-centric model that didn’t have to be constantly patched to accommodate improved measurements. Bohr’s model of the atom got a lot of patching as it failed to predict the behavior of heavier atoms and was eventually supplanted.
Pseudoscience generally rejects models. Astrology, for example, doesn’t have a model to explain why the position of the stars and planets at the time someone is born affects their personality.
my objection to astrology isn’t that it’s bogus (although it is), but that its practitioners treat it as an indoor pen-and-paper (okay, computer) exercise.
Instead of going outside in the dark and looking at the sky. Appreciating the beauty of the Universe doesn’t require science, and all can participate.
my objection to astrology isn’t that it’s bogus (although it is), but that its practitioners treat it as an indoor pen-and-paper (okay, computer) exercise.
Instead of going outside in the dark and looking at the sky. Appreciating the beauty of the Universe doesn’t require science, and all can participate.
I recall an online debate I had years ago regarding Newtonian mechanics and relativity. My interlocutor’s position was that Einstein proved Newton wrong. I replied that Newton’s models were still of great use provided they were used in a more or less macroscopic and sufficiently low-energy context and were therefore not wrong (at least not entirely – there are a few problems) but limited.
They didn’t stop teaching Newtonian mechanics in physics and engineering classes after Einstein’s work was accepted. Relativity just picks up where Newton’s models fall apart. You could almost consider relativity a patch – one that only comes into play under certain circumstances. No one uses relativistic calculations when designing a suspension bridge or a pump. (I guess you could, but you’d be wasting a whole lot of time.)
That’s not quite the same thing as what I was getting at with bad science being used to justify bad things still being “the science” of the time. But it’s interesting.
I recall an online debate I had years ago regarding Newtonian mechanics and relativity. My interlocutor’s position was that Einstein proved Newton wrong. I replied that Newton’s models were still of great use provided they were used in a more or less macroscopic and sufficiently low-energy context and were therefore not wrong (at least not entirely – there are a few problems) but limited.
They didn’t stop teaching Newtonian mechanics in physics and engineering classes after Einstein’s work was accepted. Relativity just picks up where Newton’s models fall apart. You could almost consider relativity a patch – one that only comes into play under certain circumstances. No one uses relativistic calculations when designing a suspension bridge or a pump. (I guess you could, but you’d be wasting a whole lot of time.)
That’s not quite the same thing as what I was getting at with bad science being used to justify bad things still being “the science” of the time. But it’s interesting.
What Tony and Michael said. (Better than I said it.)
What Tony and Michael said. (Better than I said it.)
IIRC, a physicist of the past decade, as a retirement project has been going through Newton’s Principia Mathematica to see how it fits with modern understanding.
Newton was far more cautious than his followers, so some of his ideas are still okay with relativity.
IIRC, a physicist of the past decade, as a retirement project has been going through Newton’s Principia Mathematica to see how it fits with modern understanding.
Newton was far more cautious than his followers, so some of his ideas are still okay with relativity.
The question does not appear to be about the “process” of science (hypothesis, testing, trial and error, etc. etc., all those heroic sciency thingies). The question is about science as a social and institutional construct conducted by social animals we call “humans”.
But the paper’s authors abstract away from that reality, exalting the “process” and then asserting (without any fucking proof) that the process is based on “merit”….which concept is— a social construct.
This strikes me as, well, what? Circular? I dunno’. I’m just a guy without a merit badge.
The question does not appear to be about the “process” of science (hypothesis, testing, trial and error, etc. etc., all those heroic sciency thingies). The question is about science as a social and institutional construct conducted by social animals we call “humans”.
But the paper’s authors abstract away from that reality, exalting the “process” and then asserting (without any fucking proof) that the process is based on “merit”….which concept is— a social construct.
This strikes me as, well, what? Circular? I dunno’. I’m just a guy without a merit badge.
Agree with bobbyp’s summary at 3:52.
Michael Cain’s explanation of science is that path taken by Thomas Kuhn in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, which is a pretty good path to take.
I think one way of saying why astronomy is a science and astrology is a pseudoscience is (following Popper) not that astronomy has a model and astrology does not, but rather that the intention of astronomy is to expose the model to observation so that we can evaluate, and corroborate or adjust, our model’s fitness to account for what is observed.
Agree with bobbyp’s summary at 3:52.
Michael Cain’s explanation of science is that path taken by Thomas Kuhn in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, which is a pretty good path to take.
I think one way of saying why astronomy is a science and astrology is a pseudoscience is (following Popper) not that astronomy has a model and astrology does not, but rather that the intention of astronomy is to expose the model to observation so that we can evaluate, and corroborate or adjust, our model’s fitness to account for what is observed.
This came up in a google
https://northandsouth.co.nz/2022/04/03/richard-dawkins-matauranga-maori-debate/
The big difference between Maori and other groups is that they have the cultural strength to duke it out with Western notions and preconceptions. Other endangered ethnic groups not so much.
This came up in a google
https://northandsouth.co.nz/2022/04/03/richard-dawkins-matauranga-maori-debate/
The big difference between Maori and other groups is that they have the cultural strength to duke it out with Western notions and preconceptions. Other endangered ethnic groups not so much.
Newton was far more cautious than his followers, so some of his ideas are still okay with relativity.
Absolutely. The balance of his other ideas? Best left unsaid.
Newton was far more cautious than his followers, so some of his ideas are still okay with relativity.
Absolutely. The balance of his other ideas? Best left unsaid.
This from lj’s link: As Andrew Crowe explains in his superb 2018 book Pathway of the Birds: The Voyaging Achievements of Māori and their Polynesian Ancestors, the men and women who explored the Pacific had learned to “read” water, birds and stars. They could spot changes in waves that meant an island was over the horizon. They knew which birds flew out from distant islands as emissaries. They could locate and trace the movements of 150 stars. All of this knowledge was preserved and transmitted in songs, proverbs and stories.
…reminded me of this article from U. Washington:
https://environment.uw.edu/news/2022/04/the-stars-have-moved-how-climate-change-is-impacting-the-planet-at-multiple-scales/
Colleen’s question about the stars has been posed by Inuit people from other communities as well, but was often ignored or discarded by Western researchers in the past. However, it turns out that these changes in the cryosphere leading to melting ice, along with alterations to water storage distributions at different latitudes, are contributing to a shift in the way the planet wobbles on its axis which effectively alters where the constellations normally appear overhead.
Observations can still be science even if the observations are expressed using figurative language and embedded in non-materialist cosmologies.
This from lj’s link: As Andrew Crowe explains in his superb 2018 book Pathway of the Birds: The Voyaging Achievements of Māori and their Polynesian Ancestors, the men and women who explored the Pacific had learned to “read” water, birds and stars. They could spot changes in waves that meant an island was over the horizon. They knew which birds flew out from distant islands as emissaries. They could locate and trace the movements of 150 stars. All of this knowledge was preserved and transmitted in songs, proverbs and stories.
…reminded me of this article from U. Washington:
https://environment.uw.edu/news/2022/04/the-stars-have-moved-how-climate-change-is-impacting-the-planet-at-multiple-scales/
Colleen’s question about the stars has been posed by Inuit people from other communities as well, but was often ignored or discarded by Western researchers in the past. However, it turns out that these changes in the cryosphere leading to melting ice, along with alterations to water storage distributions at different latitudes, are contributing to a shift in the way the planet wobbles on its axis which effectively alters where the constellations normally appear overhead.
Observations can still be science even if the observations are expressed using figurative language and embedded in non-materialist cosmologies.
The article, clarified by its link to a Guardian report, tells me that the (rotational) North Pole has moved by four metres since 1980. Which would have exactly no detectable effect on the observed position of the stars.
It’s possible that changes in refraction, caused by climate change, could have a significant effect.
Observations by indigenous people are worth listening to. BS written about it on the internet, not so much.
The article, clarified by its link to a Guardian report, tells me that the (rotational) North Pole has moved by four metres since 1980. Which would have exactly no detectable effect on the observed position of the stars.
It’s possible that changes in refraction, caused by climate change, could have a significant effect.
Observations by indigenous people are worth listening to. BS written about it on the internet, not so much.
Is what the Inuit are reporting observing the shift of the location of the pole or a shift in the pattern of oscillation? Those seem like different things. Could the observable effects of the wobble be more pronounced the farther you get from the center? Would the curvature of the surface play any role in further exaggerating apparent movement?
The answer could be no. I don’t know. But it seems too quick to dismiss something based on calculating the mean shift of an idealized center that we use to simplify how we think of the movement.
Has anyone tried to model the shift to see if the results would be observable?
Is what the Inuit are reporting observing the shift of the location of the pole or a shift in the pattern of oscillation? Those seem like different things. Could the observable effects of the wobble be more pronounced the farther you get from the center? Would the curvature of the surface play any role in further exaggerating apparent movement?
The answer could be no. I don’t know. But it seems too quick to dismiss something based on calculating the mean shift of an idealized center that we use to simplify how we think of the movement.
Has anyone tried to model the shift to see if the results would be observable?
Any shift detectable by the naked eye would be huge and, I would think, have astronomers making a lot of noise about it.
Any shift detectable by the naked eye would be huge and, I would think, have astronomers making a lot of noise about it.
Nowhere in the UW article does it say that the Inuit observed something that no scientists were aware of or talking about. All those linked articles in fact argue that these effects were known and were already of concern.
I’m still wondering if anyone has bothered to try to catalog what the Inuit claim to have observed and then tried to verify if those things were in fact observable with the right sort of attention.
Do you all think the Inuit elders were just setting out to make outrageous claims for fun, or for attention, or to put one over on a credulous UW researcher for the lulz? Or are you figuring that they are just convincing themselves of a thing based on superstition?
What motivates the urge to challenge and dismiss these reported observations?
I’m not being credulous here, I’m just trying to listen and understand these things on an anthropological level.
Nowhere in the UW article does it say that the Inuit observed something that no scientists were aware of or talking about. All those linked articles in fact argue that these effects were known and were already of concern.
I’m still wondering if anyone has bothered to try to catalog what the Inuit claim to have observed and then tried to verify if those things were in fact observable with the right sort of attention.
Do you all think the Inuit elders were just setting out to make outrageous claims for fun, or for attention, or to put one over on a credulous UW researcher for the lulz? Or are you figuring that they are just convincing themselves of a thing based on superstition?
What motivates the urge to challenge and dismiss these reported observations?
I’m not being credulous here, I’m just trying to listen and understand these things on an anthropological level.
Here’s another angle on it:
This is one of the articles linked in the UW article. It says nothing one way or the other about whether the things they’re measuring can be seen by the naked eye.
Here’s another angle on it:
This is one of the articles linked in the UW article. It says nothing one way or the other about whether the things they’re measuring can be seen by the naked eye.
While not on the same time scale, a similar story
https://nunatsiaq.com/stories/article/after-165-years-inuit-knowledge-leads-to-franklins-wrecks/
While not on the same time scale, a similar story
https://nunatsiaq.com/stories/article/after-165-years-inuit-knowledge-leads-to-franklins-wrecks/
Another one — 0.129 inches per year isn’t much. Makes the refraction notion seem much more likely.
Interesting stuff, though, and if the Inuit are right it wouldn’t be the first time scientists failed to account for something that other people knew.
Another one — 0.129 inches per year isn’t much. Makes the refraction notion seem much more likely.
Interesting stuff, though, and if the Inuit are right it wouldn’t be the first time scientists failed to account for something that other people knew.
Phlogiston was a major step from alchemy to chemistry. The first publications are in essence a development from the sulphur-mercury school. Over time it became very more well defined and reached what we would consider an actual scientific theory based on the hypothesis of phlogiston. This hypothesis proved to be extremly fruitful and for several generation it became the basis for a huge progress in chemical understanding. And the problems that came up over time were a stimulus to deepen that understanding. The popular claim that with Lavoisier the house of cards of phlogiston just fell down and became an embarassment is false. Lavoisier had to struggle not just against an establishment sticking to the old ways (although this of course existed too) but also against quite valid objections to some of his claims and he went down some false pathways during this too.
Reading original papers from the time also shows that a lot was about confusion of terms, i.e. different scholars used the same terms but with a different understanding and thus talked past each other (weight and density being of special importance). Quite often the phlogistonistas were actually more thorough in their arguments than the oxygenists. The former were often quite aware that their theory had its problems but were confident that those could be solved within the framework while the latter were often quite sloppy and tried to paper over flaws in their own work. Nature tends not to obey the idealized version presented in textbooks* (as anyone knows who has done physical or chemical experiments in school). And that does not even cover the fuzziness of actual measurements as taken by humans (again think back to school).
In short: once phlogiston had been refined and stripped from it alchemical roots it was as hard a science as it could get at the time and was responsible for a rapid development of chemistry as we know it to-day (based on models, testable hypotheses and precise measurement). The likes of Lavoisier could not have done their work without the basis created in the generations before based on the phlogistic theory. Phlogiston itself fell by the wayside but it laid the foundations we still build on.
Btw, if you can lay your hand on Scheele’s chemical treatise on air and fire (“Chemische Abhandlung von der Luft und dem Feuer”) I highly recommend reading it, ideally in an annotated version.
With a bit of a stretch one could even claim that he deduced the existence of infrared radiation based on his understanding of phlogiston theory.
It’s interesting to compare Scheele with Cavendish. Cavendish was the king of precise measurement while his theoretical thought was mediocre, Scheele was a genius as an experimenter and creative thinker but his measurements were sloppy even by the standards of the time. The oxygenists had to get past both types and their objections and that was not an easy task at all. And this very need was a win for science in general because it led to an understanding that one had to be precise both in conducting the experiments and the interpretation and expression of the results.
*the idea of a non-ideal reality (in particular here the behaviour of real gases) was (and to a degree still is) quite alien. We want nature to fit our ideal models and we find it highly inconvenient that it often does not.
Phlogiston was a major step from alchemy to chemistry. The first publications are in essence a development from the sulphur-mercury school. Over time it became very more well defined and reached what we would consider an actual scientific theory based on the hypothesis of phlogiston. This hypothesis proved to be extremly fruitful and for several generation it became the basis for a huge progress in chemical understanding. And the problems that came up over time were a stimulus to deepen that understanding. The popular claim that with Lavoisier the house of cards of phlogiston just fell down and became an embarassment is false. Lavoisier had to struggle not just against an establishment sticking to the old ways (although this of course existed too) but also against quite valid objections to some of his claims and he went down some false pathways during this too.
Reading original papers from the time also shows that a lot was about confusion of terms, i.e. different scholars used the same terms but with a different understanding and thus talked past each other (weight and density being of special importance). Quite often the phlogistonistas were actually more thorough in their arguments than the oxygenists. The former were often quite aware that their theory had its problems but were confident that those could be solved within the framework while the latter were often quite sloppy and tried to paper over flaws in their own work. Nature tends not to obey the idealized version presented in textbooks* (as anyone knows who has done physical or chemical experiments in school). And that does not even cover the fuzziness of actual measurements as taken by humans (again think back to school).
In short: once phlogiston had been refined and stripped from it alchemical roots it was as hard a science as it could get at the time and was responsible for a rapid development of chemistry as we know it to-day (based on models, testable hypotheses and precise measurement). The likes of Lavoisier could not have done their work without the basis created in the generations before based on the phlogistic theory. Phlogiston itself fell by the wayside but it laid the foundations we still build on.
Btw, if you can lay your hand on Scheele’s chemical treatise on air and fire (“Chemische Abhandlung von der Luft und dem Feuer”) I highly recommend reading it, ideally in an annotated version.
With a bit of a stretch one could even claim that he deduced the existence of infrared radiation based on his understanding of phlogiston theory.
It’s interesting to compare Scheele with Cavendish. Cavendish was the king of precise measurement while his theoretical thought was mediocre, Scheele was a genius as an experimenter and creative thinker but his measurements were sloppy even by the standards of the time. The oxygenists had to get past both types and their objections and that was not an easy task at all. And this very need was a win for science in general because it led to an understanding that one had to be precise both in conducting the experiments and the interpretation and expression of the results.
*the idea of a non-ideal reality (in particular here the behaviour of real gases) was (and to a degree still is) quite alien. We want nature to fit our ideal models and we find it highly inconvenient that it often does not.
What motivates the urge to challenge and dismiss these reported observations?
No one has dismissed the observations, only junk science explanations of them.
What motivates the urge to challenge and dismiss these reported observations?
No one has dismissed the observations, only junk science explanations of them.
Fascinating, Hartmut, thank you!
Fascinating, Hartmut, thank you!
No one has dismissed the observations, only junk science explanations of them.
I don’t want to start a fight, but this sounds like one of those ‘science can’t fail, it can only be failed’.
The link I gave was a response to Richard Dawkins. Unfortunately, it’s broken up (“a series of tweets and a letter, he objected to the use of mātauranga Māori in science, declaring that it is made up of “myths”, and that it should be taught to theology and history students rather than to trainee scientists.”) But the main argument seems to be this
https://richarddawkins.net/2021/12/myths-do-not-belong-in-science-classes-letter-to-the-royal-society-of-new-zealand/
By weighing in in such a top down manner, Dawkins doesn’t cover himself with glory. Western ‘science’ has disciplinary boundaries. Scientists in physics don’t need to take into account findings in biological science, geologists don’t need to incorporate astronomical theory.
The crux of the matter is the assertion that Mātauranga Māori is about teaching Maori creation myths as scientific fact. Perhaps there are people asserting that, but looking around, it looks similar to DeSantis banning textbooks with LGBT content because they are going to make kids become LGBT. It assumes that Maori are, unlike their western counterparts, unreflective consumers of science and if someone says that Maui’s creation of the islands is the explanation for volcanic activity, they are going to nod and say yes.
As I mentioned before, one of the challenges is that Maori cultural knowledge has been traditionally restricted to Maori. Here’s a page about that
https://www.iponz.govt.nz/about-ip/maori-ip/concepts-to-understand/
On the other hand, western Science is entangled with western notions of not only individuality but also with western notions of profit. Thus, you have things like this
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02494-z
These are not idle musings. While John Hopkins, which gathered Lacks cells, has not financially profited from the Hela line, it’s not a simple matter of accounting.
https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/henriettalacks/immortal-life-of-henrietta-lacks.html
To see how this can work, the discussion of patenting genetic material is a case in point. Here is a background
https://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/annurev-genet-112414-054731.pdf
Yes, this rush for profit has generated advances, but if you accept that, then you are saying it is not ‘science’ that is doing that, it is something external. Or you could acknowledge that Western science is not as completely segmented from other aspects as you would like. It is convenient to draw a dividing line between science and industry, I’m not sure that the line is as clear-cut as one might imagine.
But if you are not convinced by that, a much fuzzier dividing line is between the academy, where results are published and ‘science’ which generates those results. In the not so distant past, because of the way science was handled, gatekeepers controlled entry, which is why science was invariably white and male. Though that is (slowly) receding, the structure of the scientific endeavour is being overwhelmed by manuscripts from paper mills.
https://www.science.org/content/article/fake-scientific-papers-are-alarmingly-common
Before you blow this off as Sokal style shenanigans, here is the first paragraph of that link
When neuropsychologist Bernhard Sabel put his new fake-paper detector to work, he was “shocked” by what it found. After screening some 5000 papers, he estimates up to 34% of neuroscience papers published in 2020 were likely made up or plagiarized; in medicine, the figure was 24%. Both numbers, which he and colleagues report in a medRxiv preprint posted on 8 May, are well above levels they calculated for 2010—and far larger than the 2% baseline estimated in a 2022 publishers’ group report. (emphasis mine)
If one reduces science to something that isn’t connected to the real world, a singular pursuit where we can define everything as Science or Not Science doesn’t really sit well with me. Fortunately, I’m in good company.
https://www.site.uottawa.ca/~yymao/misc/Einstein_PlanckBirthday.html
No one has dismissed the observations, only junk science explanations of them.
I don’t want to start a fight, but this sounds like one of those ‘science can’t fail, it can only be failed’.
The link I gave was a response to Richard Dawkins. Unfortunately, it’s broken up (“a series of tweets and a letter, he objected to the use of mātauranga Māori in science, declaring that it is made up of “myths”, and that it should be taught to theology and history students rather than to trainee scientists.”) But the main argument seems to be this
https://richarddawkins.net/2021/12/myths-do-not-belong-in-science-classes-letter-to-the-royal-society-of-new-zealand/
By weighing in in such a top down manner, Dawkins doesn’t cover himself with glory. Western ‘science’ has disciplinary boundaries. Scientists in physics don’t need to take into account findings in biological science, geologists don’t need to incorporate astronomical theory.
The crux of the matter is the assertion that Mātauranga Māori is about teaching Maori creation myths as scientific fact. Perhaps there are people asserting that, but looking around, it looks similar to DeSantis banning textbooks with LGBT content because they are going to make kids become LGBT. It assumes that Maori are, unlike their western counterparts, unreflective consumers of science and if someone says that Maui’s creation of the islands is the explanation for volcanic activity, they are going to nod and say yes.
As I mentioned before, one of the challenges is that Maori cultural knowledge has been traditionally restricted to Maori. Here’s a page about that
https://www.iponz.govt.nz/about-ip/maori-ip/concepts-to-understand/
On the other hand, western Science is entangled with western notions of not only individuality but also with western notions of profit. Thus, you have things like this
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02494-z
These are not idle musings. While John Hopkins, which gathered Lacks cells, has not financially profited from the Hela line, it’s not a simple matter of accounting.
https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/henriettalacks/immortal-life-of-henrietta-lacks.html
To see how this can work, the discussion of patenting genetic material is a case in point. Here is a background
https://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/annurev-genet-112414-054731.pdf
Yes, this rush for profit has generated advances, but if you accept that, then you are saying it is not ‘science’ that is doing that, it is something external. Or you could acknowledge that Western science is not as completely segmented from other aspects as you would like. It is convenient to draw a dividing line between science and industry, I’m not sure that the line is as clear-cut as one might imagine.
But if you are not convinced by that, a much fuzzier dividing line is between the academy, where results are published and ‘science’ which generates those results. In the not so distant past, because of the way science was handled, gatekeepers controlled entry, which is why science was invariably white and male. Though that is (slowly) receding, the structure of the scientific endeavour is being overwhelmed by manuscripts from paper mills.
https://www.science.org/content/article/fake-scientific-papers-are-alarmingly-common
Before you blow this off as Sokal style shenanigans, here is the first paragraph of that link
When neuropsychologist Bernhard Sabel put his new fake-paper detector to work, he was “shocked” by what it found. After screening some 5000 papers, he estimates up to 34% of neuroscience papers published in 2020 were likely made up or plagiarized; in medicine, the figure was 24%. Both numbers, which he and colleagues report in a medRxiv preprint posted on 8 May, are well above levels they calculated for 2010—and far larger than the 2% baseline estimated in a 2022 publishers’ group report. (emphasis mine)
If one reduces science to something that isn’t connected to the real world, a singular pursuit where we can define everything as Science or Not Science doesn’t really sit well with me. Fortunately, I’m in good company.
https://www.site.uottawa.ca/~yymao/misc/Einstein_PlanckBirthday.html
When scientific theories that were previously accepted (because they *worked* at some level) are superseded they aren’t thrown away, they’re composted, and (sometimes) fertilize new better theories.
When scientific theories that were previously accepted (because they *worked* at some level) are superseded they aren’t thrown away, they’re composted, and (sometimes) fertilize new better theories.
Thanks to both Hartmut and lj for the long and thoughtful comments.
Thanks to both Hartmut and lj for the long and thoughtful comments.
this sounds like one of those ‘science can’t fail, it can only be failed’.
I’m not clear why that might be problematic. Science is, at heart, a process:
– collect data
– form a hypothesis
– see what that hypothesis would predict about other data. Either from experiments or, if those are not possible (c.f. astronomy), from other observations.
– gather that new data.
– if the new data don’t fit, either revise or reject the hypothesis.
– repeat and repeat and repeat.
At some point, the hypothesis can be considered confirmed. But it is always subject to new, conflicting, data turning up. If enough prior data supported the hypothesis, the new data necessarily faces a threshold for confirmation. The old “if you go where I have gone, you will see what I have seen.” How to revise the old hypothesis, i.e. deciding under what conditions it is still useful (ala Newtonian mechanics) is the contentious part.
Certainly the process can be failed. And things can be labeled “scientific” which don’t really result from the process. But the process can’t fail, unless you find a situation where real world data is somehow irrelevant.
As for the Maori issue that started, what the Maori bring is additional potential data. Maybe it fits existing hypotheses. Maybe it highlights where existing hypotheses need more work/modification. Maybe the potential data turn out to be flawed. There’s nothing wrong with looking at it. But there’s nothing wrong with being skeptical of it, as one would with any new data, until it is clear what is data and what is interpretation of the actual data.
this sounds like one of those ‘science can’t fail, it can only be failed’.
I’m not clear why that might be problematic. Science is, at heart, a process:
– collect data
– form a hypothesis
– see what that hypothesis would predict about other data. Either from experiments or, if those are not possible (c.f. astronomy), from other observations.
– gather that new data.
– if the new data don’t fit, either revise or reject the hypothesis.
– repeat and repeat and repeat.
At some point, the hypothesis can be considered confirmed. But it is always subject to new, conflicting, data turning up. If enough prior data supported the hypothesis, the new data necessarily faces a threshold for confirmation. The old “if you go where I have gone, you will see what I have seen.” How to revise the old hypothesis, i.e. deciding under what conditions it is still useful (ala Newtonian mechanics) is the contentious part.
Certainly the process can be failed. And things can be labeled “scientific” which don’t really result from the process. But the process can’t fail, unless you find a situation where real world data is somehow irrelevant.
As for the Maori issue that started, what the Maori bring is additional potential data. Maybe it fits existing hypotheses. Maybe it highlights where existing hypotheses need more work/modification. Maybe the potential data turn out to be flawed. There’s nothing wrong with looking at it. But there’s nothing wrong with being skeptical of it, as one would with any new data, until it is clear what is data and what is interpretation of the actual data.
The scientific method is a process, but is ‘science’? After all, it’s from latin scientia ‘knowledge’, so what is the special sauce that makes it different from that?
I’d suggest that it is the interlocking efforts of a wide range of people. Which of those efforts are raised up or ignored is certainly not something that is subject to the ‘process’, which is why you have to be careful about making science a stand-in for the scientific method.
It reminds me of the passage in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance about the scientific method. (slightly abridged)
Solution of problems too complicated for common sense to solve is achieved by long strings of mixed inductive and deductive inferences that weave back and forth between the observed machine and the mental hierarchy of the machine found in the manuals. The correct program for this interweaving is formalized as scientific method.
Actually I’ve never seen a cycle-maintenance problem complex enough really to require full-scale formal scientific method. Repair problems are not that hard. When I think of formal scientific method an image sometimes comes to mind of an enormous juggernaut, a huge bulldozer…slow, tedious lumbering, laborious, but invincible. It takes twice as long, five times as long, maybe a dozen times as long as informal mechanic’s techniques, but you know in the end you’re going to get it. There’s no fault isolation problem in motorcycle maintenance that can stand up to it. When you’ve hit a really tough one, tried everything, racked your brain and nothing works, and you know that this time Nature has really decided to be difficult, you say, “Okay, Nature, that’s the end of the nice guy,” and you crank up the formal scientific method.
[…]
The real purpose of scientific method is to make sure Nature hasn’t misled you into thinking you know something you don’t actually know. There’s not a mechanic or scientist or technician alive who hasn’t suffered from that one so much that he’s not instinctively on guard. That’s the main reason why so much scientific and mechanical information sounds so dull and so cautious. If you get careless or go romanticizing scientific information, giving it a flourish here and there, Nature will soon make a complete fool out of you. It does it often enough anyway even when you don’t give it opportunities. One must be extremely careful and rigidly logical when dealing with Nature: one logical slip and an entire scientific edifice comes tumbling down. One false deduction about the machine and you can get hung up indefinitely.
The scientific method is a process, but is ‘science’? After all, it’s from latin scientia ‘knowledge’, so what is the special sauce that makes it different from that?
I’d suggest that it is the interlocking efforts of a wide range of people. Which of those efforts are raised up or ignored is certainly not something that is subject to the ‘process’, which is why you have to be careful about making science a stand-in for the scientific method.
It reminds me of the passage in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance about the scientific method. (slightly abridged)
Solution of problems too complicated for common sense to solve is achieved by long strings of mixed inductive and deductive inferences that weave back and forth between the observed machine and the mental hierarchy of the machine found in the manuals. The correct program for this interweaving is formalized as scientific method.
Actually I’ve never seen a cycle-maintenance problem complex enough really to require full-scale formal scientific method. Repair problems are not that hard. When I think of formal scientific method an image sometimes comes to mind of an enormous juggernaut, a huge bulldozer…slow, tedious lumbering, laborious, but invincible. It takes twice as long, five times as long, maybe a dozen times as long as informal mechanic’s techniques, but you know in the end you’re going to get it. There’s no fault isolation problem in motorcycle maintenance that can stand up to it. When you’ve hit a really tough one, tried everything, racked your brain and nothing works, and you know that this time Nature has really decided to be difficult, you say, “Okay, Nature, that’s the end of the nice guy,” and you crank up the formal scientific method.
[…]
The real purpose of scientific method is to make sure Nature hasn’t misled you into thinking you know something you don’t actually know. There’s not a mechanic or scientist or technician alive who hasn’t suffered from that one so much that he’s not instinctively on guard. That’s the main reason why so much scientific and mechanical information sounds so dull and so cautious. If you get careless or go romanticizing scientific information, giving it a flourish here and there, Nature will soon make a complete fool out of you. It does it often enough anyway even when you don’t give it opportunities. One must be extremely careful and rigidly logical when dealing with Nature: one logical slip and an entire scientific edifice comes tumbling down. One false deduction about the machine and you can get hung up indefinitely.
wj, I think you left out one aspect of science: asking questions.
We ‘collect data’ at any moment without necessarily thinking about it (our sensual input, a large part of it being unconscious). To go ‘scientific’ on that data we have to move it to the conscious part and that’s usually by applying some kind of question to it (one could see the mere act of actively noticing as a kind of question). That may or may not trigger the formation of a hypothesis. But I doubt that one can really form a hypothesis without asking a question first. Your third part (see what that hypothesis would predict about other data) includes a question too but I think that is different from the one I’d call a ‘seed question’, the one that starts all of it.
On the other hand we also have the process abort, the unquestioned and unquestionable hypothesis. Either the one that dictates a final answer or the one that puts any answer out of reach.
[sarcasm]Option 1: “It’s G0d, and, if you question that, bad things will happen – to you in particular,”; Option 2: “It’s unknowable and thus a waste of everyone’s time.”[/sarcasm]
We observe both on a daily basis (and can form a hypothesis about why this is the case 😉 )
wj, I think you left out one aspect of science: asking questions.
We ‘collect data’ at any moment without necessarily thinking about it (our sensual input, a large part of it being unconscious). To go ‘scientific’ on that data we have to move it to the conscious part and that’s usually by applying some kind of question to it (one could see the mere act of actively noticing as a kind of question). That may or may not trigger the formation of a hypothesis. But I doubt that one can really form a hypothesis without asking a question first. Your third part (see what that hypothesis would predict about other data) includes a question too but I think that is different from the one I’d call a ‘seed question’, the one that starts all of it.
On the other hand we also have the process abort, the unquestioned and unquestionable hypothesis. Either the one that dictates a final answer or the one that puts any answer out of reach.
[sarcasm]Option 1: “It’s G0d, and, if you question that, bad things will happen – to you in particular,”; Option 2: “It’s unknowable and thus a waste of everyone’s time.”[/sarcasm]
We observe both on a daily basis (and can form a hypothesis about why this is the case 😉 )
lj, you left the italics in place.
(overdone ancient inhabitants of a Mediterranean mountainous peninsula are not a good thing).
Fixed that — wj
lj, you left the italics in place.
(overdone ancient inhabitants of a Mediterranean mountainous peninsula are not a good thing).
Fixed that — wj
If you get careless or go romanticizing scientific information, giving it a flourish here and there, Nature will soon make a complete fool out of you.
What various policymakers during the pandemic should have taken to heart.
If you get careless or go romanticizing scientific information, giving it a flourish here and there, Nature will soon make a complete fool out of you.
What various policymakers during the pandemic should have taken to heart.
One must be extremely careful and rigidly logical when dealing with Nature: one logical slip and an entire scientific edifice comes tumbling down.
I have to disagree with this. The entire scientific ediface doesn’t collapse from a single slip. A localized area within it may require maintenance, if bad logic or bad data has been incorporated. But that’s hardly the same thing.
One must be extremely careful and rigidly logical when dealing with Nature: one logical slip and an entire scientific edifice comes tumbling down.
I have to disagree with this. The entire scientific ediface doesn’t collapse from a single slip. A localized area within it may require maintenance, if bad logic or bad data has been incorporated. But that’s hardly the same thing.
the unquestioned and unquestionable hypothesis.
The existance of which is, to my mind, what distinguishes theology** from science. Theology has the existance, or at least the potential for, heresy built in. Science has skepticism as a critical part of its makeup.
** Whether religious or political.
the unquestioned and unquestionable hypothesis.
The existance of which is, to my mind, what distinguishes theology** from science. Theology has the existance, or at least the potential for, heresy built in. Science has skepticism as a critical part of its makeup.
** Whether religious or political.
Not wanting to take the conversation sideways, but the “science can’t fail, it can only be failed” comment reminded me again of our earlier conversation about science writing and passive voice. There’s a lot of stagecraft in science writing, trying to make sure that Science is on stage and that the scientists stay hidden behind the curtain.
What I find fascinating as a feature of all this discussion is how much support there is for the idea that in science the model must be made more observable combined with the deep aversion to making the human participants in the process visible.
That may not point to the existence of heresies, but it certainly points to the existence of taboos, and there is a lot to be learned from interrogating a group’s taboos.
Not wanting to take the conversation sideways, but the “science can’t fail, it can only be failed” comment reminded me again of our earlier conversation about science writing and passive voice. There’s a lot of stagecraft in science writing, trying to make sure that Science is on stage and that the scientists stay hidden behind the curtain.
What I find fascinating as a feature of all this discussion is how much support there is for the idea that in science the model must be made more observable combined with the deep aversion to making the human participants in the process visible.
That may not point to the existence of heresies, but it certainly points to the existence of taboos, and there is a lot to be learned from interrogating a group’s taboos.
There’s a lot of stagecraft in science writing, trying to make sure that Science is on stage and that the scientists stay hidden behind the curtain.
And yet, there is valuable information in looking at who has done the work, and where they are coming from. Because, as various people here note, that can influence what they make of what they see — no matter their bests intentions.
Which is why, for example, Science News routinely lays out who did the work, where they are working, and who (and from where) that was not involved in the work is being quoted on what the results mean. Scientists hidden behind the curtain? Not really.
There’s a lot of stagecraft in science writing, trying to make sure that Science is on stage and that the scientists stay hidden behind the curtain.
And yet, there is valuable information in looking at who has done the work, and where they are coming from. Because, as various people here note, that can influence what they make of what they see — no matter their bests intentions.
Which is why, for example, Science News routinely lays out who did the work, where they are working, and who (and from where) that was not involved in the work is being quoted on what the results mean. Scientists hidden behind the curtain? Not really.
Maybe getting published in a prestigeous scientiific journal is not all it’s cracked up to be.
Process!
Maybe getting published in a prestigeous scientiific journal is not all it’s cracked up to be.
Process!
wj – passive voice is a convention of science journals, not of science journalism. The aesthetics of the scientists themselves as a community are to keep the scientists out of the frame. It’s only when the journalists come in to discuss the science with the public that the scientists are shown.
Two different genres of writing. Two different audiences.
wj – passive voice is a convention of science journals, not of science journalism. The aesthetics of the scientists themselves as a community are to keep the scientists out of the frame. It’s only when the journalists come in to discuss the science with the public that the scientists are shown.
Two different genres of writing. Two different audiences.
nous, the reason for the passive voice in science journals is that the work, the findings, are supposed to stand (or fall) on their own merits. Without reference to the prestige of the individuals who did the work. The individuals are identified (as authors), but their identity is not the point. This focus on the work in and of itself doesn’t work perfectly, of course. But the intent is that way.
Science journalism, as you say, has a difference audience. One which is less interested in the details and more interested in the story.
nous, the reason for the passive voice in science journals is that the work, the findings, are supposed to stand (or fall) on their own merits. Without reference to the prestige of the individuals who did the work. The individuals are identified (as authors), but their identity is not the point. This focus on the work in and of itself doesn’t work perfectly, of course. But the intent is that way.
Science journalism, as you say, has a difference audience. One which is less interested in the details and more interested in the story.
I read the Merit paper and Burke’s criticism. IMO, Burke has a point— the Defense of Merit piece takes on way too many different issues and if they want to make a case, they should focus on one or two at a time and dig deep. It would not surprise me if leftist criticisms of science are right in some cases and wrong in others. I have a copy of Ronald Fisher’s book on natural selection. He is considered a giant in the field and the first half of the book was hugely influential. The second half is his defense of eugenics. The closer science comes to social policy the more you have to take into account who gets to do science. But it doesn’t mean Fisher was necessarily wrong in his views on how evolution works.
Where the Merit authors are most likely to be wrong and their “ woke” opponents right would be in the social sciences, especially economics. I think this next piece makes a very good case for saying that economics is largely a good old boys network, but I think it has been that way for generations. We lefty ideologues have always thought that.
https://slate.com/business/2023/05/economics-professors-education-academia-schools.html
I read the Merit paper and Burke’s criticism. IMO, Burke has a point— the Defense of Merit piece takes on way too many different issues and if they want to make a case, they should focus on one or two at a time and dig deep. It would not surprise me if leftist criticisms of science are right in some cases and wrong in others. I have a copy of Ronald Fisher’s book on natural selection. He is considered a giant in the field and the first half of the book was hugely influential. The second half is his defense of eugenics. The closer science comes to social policy the more you have to take into account who gets to do science. But it doesn’t mean Fisher was necessarily wrong in his views on how evolution works.
Where the Merit authors are most likely to be wrong and their “ woke” opponents right would be in the social sciences, especially economics. I think this next piece makes a very good case for saying that economics is largely a good old boys network, but I think it has been that way for generations. We lefty ideologues have always thought that.
https://slate.com/business/2023/05/economics-professors-education-academia-schools.html
“ But it doesn’t mean Fisher was necessarily wrong in his views on how evolution works.”
Um, to be clear I am saying that Fisher’s views on selection and his debates with people like Wright to be judged on their merits— the fact that he was a eugenics supporter is disgraceful, but doesn’t invalidate the first half of his book.
“ But it doesn’t mean Fisher was necessarily wrong in his views on how evolution works.”
Um, to be clear I am saying that Fisher’s views on selection and his debates with people like Wright to be judged on their merits— the fact that he was a eugenics supporter is disgraceful, but doesn’t invalidate the first half of his book.
*Any* specialized field, with relatively limited practitioners turns into an “old boys (and gals) club”, just because they have the same interests and speak the same language.
It’s a primate thing. I’m sure there was a “flint-knappers club” back in the day. I’d guess there still is one, but hobbyists now instead of professionals.
*Any* specialized field, with relatively limited practitioners turns into an “old boys (and gals) club”, just because they have the same interests and speak the same language.
It’s a primate thing. I’m sure there was a “flint-knappers club” back in the day. I’d guess there still is one, but hobbyists now instead of professionals.
the deep aversion to making the human participants in the process visible
When you get into teaching writing, you end up talking about the passive and when to use it. It’s not just that you are hiding the human participants, it is that you are foregrounding the human participants that you want to engage with. This plugs into the Western ethos of individuality, you have a conversation with particular people to identify an idea and then engage in a discussion, and you bracket off the people (nous, 2023) in order to identify who you are talking to.
To make a connection to the OP, Carlson said in regards to a video of 3 guys attacking an antifa protester “It’s not how white men fight.” Deeply buried in the DNA of scientific research is the notion that we ‘duke it out’ with other people and have ‘our’ ideas triumph.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2023/05/white-men-fight-tucker-carlson/
‘Maori knowledge isn’t western science’ is not as overt, but it pulls in the same kind of vibes.
the deep aversion to making the human participants in the process visible
When you get into teaching writing, you end up talking about the passive and when to use it. It’s not just that you are hiding the human participants, it is that you are foregrounding the human participants that you want to engage with. This plugs into the Western ethos of individuality, you have a conversation with particular people to identify an idea and then engage in a discussion, and you bracket off the people (nous, 2023) in order to identify who you are talking to.
To make a connection to the OP, Carlson said in regards to a video of 3 guys attacking an antifa protester “It’s not how white men fight.” Deeply buried in the DNA of scientific research is the notion that we ‘duke it out’ with other people and have ‘our’ ideas triumph.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2023/05/white-men-fight-tucker-carlson/
‘Maori knowledge isn’t western science’ is not as overt, but it pulls in the same kind of vibes.
In case it wasn’t clear, the (nous, 2023) reference wasn’t cause I was calling him out, it was just given as an example.
In case it wasn’t clear, the (nous, 2023) reference wasn’t cause I was calling him out, it was just given as an example.
That may not point to the existence of heresies, but it certainly points to the existence of taboos, and there is a lot to be learned from interrogating a group’s taboos.
This is observably true, on both sides of this discussion.
I think that the idea of science, and mine is rather closer to wj’s, as an ideally inviolable thing, pure and crystalline, like pure mathematics, removed from any taint of bias or corruption, is deeply appealing in an imperfect, corrupt world, where so much is assumed and unexamined. And I believe it is indeed something worth aspiring to. A system which is open to challenge, and when successfully challenged (by its own rules) must concede, speaks powerfully to a longing for something fair, which cannot be corrupted. It goes without saying (at least in my mind) that access to the tools which admit one to this ideal and idealised system, must in fairness be open to anyone who is capable of being capable, and ways must be found to ensure that in an imperfect world this becomes more and more possible.
It is more than possible that this conception of the issue may be dismissed as being overly romantic!
That may not point to the existence of heresies, but it certainly points to the existence of taboos, and there is a lot to be learned from interrogating a group’s taboos.
This is observably true, on both sides of this discussion.
I think that the idea of science, and mine is rather closer to wj’s, as an ideally inviolable thing, pure and crystalline, like pure mathematics, removed from any taint of bias or corruption, is deeply appealing in an imperfect, corrupt world, where so much is assumed and unexamined. And I believe it is indeed something worth aspiring to. A system which is open to challenge, and when successfully challenged (by its own rules) must concede, speaks powerfully to a longing for something fair, which cannot be corrupted. It goes without saying (at least in my mind) that access to the tools which admit one to this ideal and idealised system, must in fairness be open to anyone who is capable of being capable, and ways must be found to ensure that in an imperfect world this becomes more and more possible.
It is more than possible that this conception of the issue may be dismissed as being overly romantic!
It is more than possible that this conception of the issue may be dismissed as being overly romantic!
A world without romance would be a poor thing indeed!
It is more than possible that this conception of the issue may be dismissed as being overly romantic!
A world without romance would be a poor thing indeed!
One of the students in my wife’s Philosophy of Astrobiology class had an epiphany mid discussion and declared that Occam’s Razor was not a scientific principle, but an aesthetic principle. I think about that a lot.
I think that trying to reduce complexity is a very valuable principle, and I don’t want to lose that from any critical thinking toolbox, but I do think it’s important to remember that irreducibly complex things can and do exist.
That’s why a part of me will always love Tristram Shandy and Wagner’s “Tristan Chord.” There’s also aesthetic value to be found in exploring complexity and seeing just how far we can stretch that bias towards resolution.
One of the students in my wife’s Philosophy of Astrobiology class had an epiphany mid discussion and declared that Occam’s Razor was not a scientific principle, but an aesthetic principle. I think about that a lot.
I think that trying to reduce complexity is a very valuable principle, and I don’t want to lose that from any critical thinking toolbox, but I do think it’s important to remember that irreducibly complex things can and do exist.
That’s why a part of me will always love Tristram Shandy and Wagner’s “Tristan Chord.” There’s also aesthetic value to be found in exploring complexity and seeing just how far we can stretch that bias towards resolution.
I do think it’s important to remember that irreducibly complex things can and do exist.
It is. It is a tiny eye of the needle that we here, in good faith, need to keep trying to thread. I always try to keep that “in good faith” in the forefront of my mind. I do believe that, on the whole, it is a principle that we need to honour here in the observance rather than the breach, given the overwhelming presence of vitriol, contempt and assumed superiority found elsewhere.
I do think it’s important to remember that irreducibly complex things can and do exist.
It is. It is a tiny eye of the needle that we here, in good faith, need to keep trying to thread. I always try to keep that “in good faith” in the forefront of my mind. I do believe that, on the whole, it is a principle that we need to honour here in the observance rather than the breach, given the overwhelming presence of vitriol, contempt and assumed superiority found elsewhere.
“Occam’s Razor” is indeed a philosophical/theological principle, but that doesn’t mean it can’t be put on firmer footing.
Example: you have a set of N data points, and want to fit them to polynomials. If you pick polynomials of degree D >= N, then you can fit the data points perfectly*, but it means very little. If you get a “good fit” with a low degree polynomial, then you have some explanatory power.
You calculate “chi-squared” to quantify the difference between the data and the fit. Small chi-squared means a good fit**.
But really, what you should use is “chi-squared per degree of freedom”, which is chi-squared divided by (N-D) where N is the number of data points and D is the number of fit parameters (like the degree of a polynomial).
Perfect fit (chi-squared = 0) when you have as many parameters as your data points gives chi-squared/degree of freedom = 0/0
Occam’s Razor says to not make unnecessary assumptions. Chi-squared/Degree of Freedom gives an estimate of the number of “assumptions” needed. Not perfect, but pretty decent.
(*assuming the data is mathematically well behaved)
(** go ahead and read up on it on Wikipedia; this is the kind of subject for which Wikipedia does an *excellent* job)
“Occam’s Razor” is indeed a philosophical/theological principle, but that doesn’t mean it can’t be put on firmer footing.
Example: you have a set of N data points, and want to fit them to polynomials. If you pick polynomials of degree D >= N, then you can fit the data points perfectly*, but it means very little. If you get a “good fit” with a low degree polynomial, then you have some explanatory power.
You calculate “chi-squared” to quantify the difference between the data and the fit. Small chi-squared means a good fit**.
But really, what you should use is “chi-squared per degree of freedom”, which is chi-squared divided by (N-D) where N is the number of data points and D is the number of fit parameters (like the degree of a polynomial).
Perfect fit (chi-squared = 0) when you have as many parameters as your data points gives chi-squared/degree of freedom = 0/0
Occam’s Razor says to not make unnecessary assumptions. Chi-squared/Degree of Freedom gives an estimate of the number of “assumptions” needed. Not perfect, but pretty decent.
(*assuming the data is mathematically well behaved)
(** go ahead and read up on it on Wikipedia; this is the kind of subject for which Wikipedia does an *excellent* job)
The relevant wikipedia article calls this the ‘reduced chi-squared statistic‘
The relevant wikipedia article calls this the ‘reduced chi-squared statistic‘
the overwhelming presence of vitriol, contempt and assumed superiority found elsewhere.
We here do pretty good at avoiding the first two, I think. But is there and doubt that we assume our civility is FAR superior to those who lack it? 🙂
the overwhelming presence of vitriol, contempt and assumed superiority found elsewhere.
We here do pretty good at avoiding the first two, I think. But is there and doubt that we assume our civility is FAR superior to those who lack it? 🙂
Has anyone tried to model the shift to see if the results would be observable?
The measured shift in the axis of rotation is equivalent to putting a sheet of gold leaf under one end of your sofa. Would you expect that to change the angle of the constellations seen through your window?
We should respect observations that the positions of celestial bodies appear to have shifted. But we should use actual science to attempt to explain them
Has anyone tried to model the shift to see if the results would be observable?
The measured shift in the axis of rotation is equivalent to putting a sheet of gold leaf under one end of your sofa. Would you expect that to change the angle of the constellations seen through your window?
We should respect observations that the positions of celestial bodies appear to have shifted. But we should use actual science to attempt to explain them
The measured shift in the axis of rotation is equivalent to putting a sheet of gold leaf under one end of your sofa. Would you expect that to change the angle of the constellations seen through your window?
I understand what you are saying. But again, I was asking not about whether the displacement was noticeable, but whether the shift in oscillation was noticeable, like how a record with the hole off-center has more pronounced movement in the tonearm the farther out one goes radially, or the way an unbalanced load becomes more noticeable the farther out its radius or the faster the speed.
If we spun that sofa and added that foil and shifted the center a little bit off axis we might notice the difference depending on the speed of rotation.
None of which is to say that things are as the elders described it, but rather to ask if they could be observing some shift related to the change and not just imagining something?
The measured shift in the axis of rotation is equivalent to putting a sheet of gold leaf under one end of your sofa. Would you expect that to change the angle of the constellations seen through your window?
I understand what you are saying. But again, I was asking not about whether the displacement was noticeable, but whether the shift in oscillation was noticeable, like how a record with the hole off-center has more pronounced movement in the tonearm the farther out one goes radially, or the way an unbalanced load becomes more noticeable the farther out its radius or the faster the speed.
If we spun that sofa and added that foil and shifted the center a little bit off axis we might notice the difference depending on the speed of rotation.
None of which is to say that things are as the elders described it, but rather to ask if they could be observing some shift related to the change and not just imagining something?
I don’t follow you. If a record hole is off-centre by delta, the distance from the hole to a track at radius r varies from r-delta to r+delta, that is by 2delta, as the record spins.
Unbalanced loads, where moment of inertia is the thing, are different.
I don’t follow you. If a record hole is off-centre by delta, the distance from the hole to a track at radius r varies from r-delta to r+delta, that is by 2delta, as the record spins.
Unbalanced loads, where moment of inertia is the thing, are different.
I understood nous to mean that if the hole in the record is off center, the tone arm’s motion will be more distorted when it’s playing the outermost track of the record than when it’s playing the innermost.
Similarly (I think): If you ran a perfectly straight (and infinitely long) rod through the perfect center of a sphere, then shifted the axis so it wasn’t perfectly in the center any longer, the distance of the shift might be minuscule on surface of the sphere, but the further away you go from the surface of the sphere (out into space) the more displacement there is of any point on the rod/axis compared to where it was before.
I’m terrible at thinking through spatial things, so I’m probably neither visualizing this well nor explaining it well. But it has been on my mind as the rest of you carry the discussion forward.
I understood nous to mean that if the hole in the record is off center, the tone arm’s motion will be more distorted when it’s playing the outermost track of the record than when it’s playing the innermost.
Similarly (I think): If you ran a perfectly straight (and infinitely long) rod through the perfect center of a sphere, then shifted the axis so it wasn’t perfectly in the center any longer, the distance of the shift might be minuscule on surface of the sphere, but the further away you go from the surface of the sphere (out into space) the more displacement there is of any point on the rod/axis compared to where it was before.
I’m terrible at thinking through spatial things, so I’m probably neither visualizing this well nor explaining it well. But it has been on my mind as the rest of you carry the discussion forward.
At its heart what I am asking about here is not about models, but about cross-cultural communication and listening. You and I are hearing a particular description given by the Inuit elder and trying to build models off of our own understanding of what those descriptions mean to us. You are convinced that the thing being described is not possible based on how you have assembled the information and modeled it. I am looking at the information that the UW researcher gave about ice distribution and oscillation and asking about a different thing, but I’m not trying to build an alternative model so much as I am asking if what we are trying to model actually coincides with what the elders claim to have observed.
Are we translating their message correctly and modeling the right things? Are they speaking scientifically when they describe their observations or are they speaking in a different sense and we are drawing the wrong conclusions about what to model?
Are we making the right assumptions about “we have seen that the sky has moved?” Hard for met to say without more context.
Must the Inuit elder learn to speak as a scientist in order to have a scientist listen and consider what she is trying to say about the world they both share?
At its heart what I am asking about here is not about models, but about cross-cultural communication and listening. You and I are hearing a particular description given by the Inuit elder and trying to build models off of our own understanding of what those descriptions mean to us. You are convinced that the thing being described is not possible based on how you have assembled the information and modeled it. I am looking at the information that the UW researcher gave about ice distribution and oscillation and asking about a different thing, but I’m not trying to build an alternative model so much as I am asking if what we are trying to model actually coincides with what the elders claim to have observed.
Are we translating their message correctly and modeling the right things? Are they speaking scientifically when they describe their observations or are they speaking in a different sense and we are drawing the wrong conclusions about what to model?
Are we making the right assumptions about “we have seen that the sky has moved?” Hard for met to say without more context.
Must the Inuit elder learn to speak as a scientist in order to have a scientist listen and consider what she is trying to say about the world they both share?
That point about models is one I often think about. Western science is built on a lot of assumptions. That ability to separate things out, to make things, as GftNC says “ideally inviolable”, seems to be a Western trait. Certainly the question of individuality, of ascribing discoveries to individuals is another one.
This is where the whole thing about checking one’s privilege enters in. It’s not simply about thinking what advantages you may have in relation to others, it is interrogating how your status in the majority may be missing some things that are being seen by the minority. That someone as intelligent as Richard Dawkins doesn’t get that makes me wonder if there is any hope for the species.
That point about models is one I often think about. Western science is built on a lot of assumptions. That ability to separate things out, to make things, as GftNC says “ideally inviolable”, seems to be a Western trait. Certainly the question of individuality, of ascribing discoveries to individuals is another one.
This is where the whole thing about checking one’s privilege enters in. It’s not simply about thinking what advantages you may have in relation to others, it is interrogating how your status in the majority may be missing some things that are being seen by the minority. That someone as intelligent as Richard Dawkins doesn’t get that makes me wonder if there is any hope for the species.
JanieM – that’s a pretty good reconstruction of what I was thinking. I tend to think laterally, sometimes with a couple lateral steps or associations combined, and the intermediate terms are not always clear. That’s why my dissertation took as long as it did and ended up twice as long as the first draft.
I think this is part of the reason why I ended up as an anthropologically oriented rhetorician. Communication is hard, y’all.
JanieM – that’s a pretty good reconstruction of what I was thinking. I tend to think laterally, sometimes with a couple lateral steps or associations combined, and the intermediate terms are not always clear. That’s why my dissertation took as long as it did and ended up twice as long as the first draft.
I think this is part of the reason why I ended up as an anthropologically oriented rhetorician. Communication is hard, y’all.
That someone as intelligent as Richard Dawkins doesn’t get that makes me wonder if there is any hope for the species.
There are different kinds of intelligence; AFAICT, one kind in no way guarantees another in the same person. In fact, my first guess would be that someone as “intelligent” (in that particular way) (and otherwise privileged) as Richard Dawkins would be one of the last people I would think would get that point.
*****
I also keep thinking of two things in relation to what the Inuit are seeing:
1. My own observation of my environment, which is only my own, and not tied to a culture like that of the Inuit, but which I tried to describe here, in one of my BJ picture posts. (Which are over, btw, the person who runs On the Road and I having fallen out irretrievably.) (There’s some further discussion of the sun’s path through the sky in the comments.)
2. There’s also the matter of Stonehenge and other stone circles and monuments from thousands of years ago. We apparently know more than we did 10 and 50 and 100 years ago about how they were built, but we know fnck all about why. We tend to be not very good at imagining our way into how other people see the world — from the vast cultural level to the interpersonal friends level. (I can still say this at 73…. Sigh.)
Must the Inuit elder learn to speak as a scientist in order to have a scientist listen and consider what she is trying to say about the world they both share?
If only our educational methods predisposed the scientist to learn to speak as an Inuit elder………
That someone as intelligent as Richard Dawkins doesn’t get that makes me wonder if there is any hope for the species.
There are different kinds of intelligence; AFAICT, one kind in no way guarantees another in the same person. In fact, my first guess would be that someone as “intelligent” (in that particular way) (and otherwise privileged) as Richard Dawkins would be one of the last people I would think would get that point.
*****
I also keep thinking of two things in relation to what the Inuit are seeing:
1. My own observation of my environment, which is only my own, and not tied to a culture like that of the Inuit, but which I tried to describe here, in one of my BJ picture posts. (Which are over, btw, the person who runs On the Road and I having fallen out irretrievably.) (There’s some further discussion of the sun’s path through the sky in the comments.)
2. There’s also the matter of Stonehenge and other stone circles and monuments from thousands of years ago. We apparently know more than we did 10 and 50 and 100 years ago about how they were built, but we know fnck all about why. We tend to be not very good at imagining our way into how other people see the world — from the vast cultural level to the interpersonal friends level. (I can still say this at 73…. Sigh.)
Must the Inuit elder learn to speak as a scientist in order to have a scientist listen and consider what she is trying to say about the world they both share?
If only our educational methods predisposed the scientist to learn to speak as an Inuit elder………
The Guardian says the poles have moved 4 meters since 1980.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/apr/23/climate-crisis-has-shifted-the-earths-axis-study-shows
The radius of the earth is about 6,400,000 meters, so that is a change in angle of roughly 6 x 10 *-7 radians. Or put it another way, since the moon is about 60 earth radii away, it is like shifting the Moon by 240 meters. Or being able to make out a crater that small. And no, human eyes can’t resolve that. I can almost persuade myself I can see the crater Tycho as a tiny dot and Tycho is about 50 miles across at 240,000 miles.
Wikipedia says the resolution of the human eye is about 3 x 10*-4 radians. Tycho would be more like 2 x 10*-4 radians.
So I don’t know what the Inuit are seeing. It does seem like something people shoukd be investigating.
The Guardian says the poles have moved 4 meters since 1980.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/apr/23/climate-crisis-has-shifted-the-earths-axis-study-shows
The radius of the earth is about 6,400,000 meters, so that is a change in angle of roughly 6 x 10 *-7 radians. Or put it another way, since the moon is about 60 earth radii away, it is like shifting the Moon by 240 meters. Or being able to make out a crater that small. And no, human eyes can’t resolve that. I can almost persuade myself I can see the crater Tycho as a tiny dot and Tycho is about 50 miles across at 240,000 miles.
Wikipedia says the resolution of the human eye is about 3 x 10*-4 radians. Tycho would be more like 2 x 10*-4 radians.
So I don’t know what the Inuit are seeing. It does seem like something people shoukd be investigating.
PS of course my observation of my environment grows from and is embedded in a culture, because I am embedded in a culture. I was predisposed to think
in a certain (science-based) way about how changeable the view out my window is … but I think it’s much more idiosyncratic and individual than what we’re talking about in relation to the Inuit elders’ knowledge of their environment.
As nous says, communication is hard.
PS of course my observation of my environment grows from and is embedded in a culture, because I am embedded in a culture. I was predisposed to think
in a certain (science-based) way about how changeable the view out my window is … but I think it’s much more idiosyncratic and individual than what we’re talking about in relation to the Inuit elders’ knowledge of their environment.
As nous says, communication is hard.
There are different kinds of intelligence; AFAICT, one kind in no way guarantees another in the same person. In fact, my first guess would be that someone as “intelligent” (in that particular way) (and otherwise privileged) as Richard Dawkins would be one of the last people I would think would get that point.
That’s very true, but I’m baffled as to why there often isn’t any ‘leakage’ between them. It sometimes seems that if you are good at one, it automatically means that you can’t be good at another. I don’t think it is a particularly hard concept to grasp, but time and time again, people are unable to. But, as you say, communication is hard…
There are different kinds of intelligence; AFAICT, one kind in no way guarantees another in the same person. In fact, my first guess would be that someone as “intelligent” (in that particular way) (and otherwise privileged) as Richard Dawkins would be one of the last people I would think would get that point.
That’s very true, but I’m baffled as to why there often isn’t any ‘leakage’ between them. It sometimes seems that if you are good at one, it automatically means that you can’t be good at another. I don’t think it is a particularly hard concept to grasp, but time and time again, people are unable to. But, as you say, communication is hard…
It sometimes seems that if you are good at one, it automatically means that you can’t be good at another.
We don’t get much of what you might call emotional education in this culture — for better and worse. People who are very good at something often end up arrogant and dismissive about people who aren’t, and are also very often interested protecting their status.
It sometimes seems that if you are good at one, it automatically means that you can’t be good at another.
We don’t get much of what you might call emotional education in this culture — for better and worse. People who are very good at something often end up arrogant and dismissive about people who aren’t, and are also very often interested protecting their status.
It sometimes seems that if you are good at one, it automatically means that you can’t be good at another.
Perhaps the problem is like this. Being “intelligent” about something involves both an aptitude (native intelligence) and a lot of effort to learn about the subject. Someone who has made the effort for one subject could make a second, equally difficult and time consuming, effort on a second subject. But motivation to do so seems in relatively short supply.**
** For reasons unknown (to me), when that second effort has been made, the second field seems disproportionately to be music. Not uncommon for someone with a PhD to play a musical instrument. Not concert level, but serious amateur.
It sometimes seems that if you are good at one, it automatically means that you can’t be good at another.
Perhaps the problem is like this. Being “intelligent” about something involves both an aptitude (native intelligence) and a lot of effort to learn about the subject. Someone who has made the effort for one subject could make a second, equally difficult and time consuming, effort on a second subject. But motivation to do so seems in relatively short supply.**
** For reasons unknown (to me), when that second effort has been made, the second field seems disproportionately to be music. Not uncommon for someone with a PhD to play a musical instrument. Not concert level, but serious amateur.
Never mind thinking that their intelligence (or whatever particular quality we’re talking about) is solely the result of their own efforts, and not originally a gift from … the universe.
Never mind thinking that their intelligence (or whatever particular quality we’re talking about) is solely the result of their own efforts, and not originally a gift from … the universe.
It’s said that there is a kind of stupidity only highly intelligent people are capable of.
Which reminds me of this entry on the Evil Overlord List:
One of my advisors will be an average five-year-old child. Any flaws in my plan that he is able to spot will be corrected before implementation.
It’s said that there is a kind of stupidity only highly intelligent people are capable of.
Which reminds me of this entry on the Evil Overlord List:
One of my advisors will be an average five-year-old child. Any flaws in my plan that he is able to spot will be corrected before implementation.
For anyone who would like to make side-by-side comparisons of various LLMs: Poe
For anyone who would like to make side-by-side comparisons of various LLMs: Poe
Speaking of smart people with no emotional intelligence—
https://nonzero.substack.com/p/the-ultimate-blob-blind-spot
Except I’m not sure there is any intelligence there to start with. The piece is about Western elite surprise that the Global South isn’t united with them regarding Ukraine. It seems that they see us as hypocrites and our “ rules based order” as a sick joke. Which it obviously is.
And on a related note—
https://jacobin.com/2023/05/us-sanctions-inhumane-punishment-economy-cepr-report
I don’t think we will change. Powerful people are nearly always delusional about their own behavior and being a democracy doesn’t make much of a difference, since the victims can’t vote on the policies that effect them.
Speaking of smart people with no emotional intelligence—
https://nonzero.substack.com/p/the-ultimate-blob-blind-spot
Except I’m not sure there is any intelligence there to start with. The piece is about Western elite surprise that the Global South isn’t united with them regarding Ukraine. It seems that they see us as hypocrites and our “ rules based order” as a sick joke. Which it obviously is.
And on a related note—
https://jacobin.com/2023/05/us-sanctions-inhumane-punishment-economy-cepr-report
I don’t think we will change. Powerful people are nearly always delusional about their own behavior and being a democracy doesn’t make much of a difference, since the victims can’t vote on the policies that effect them.
I wrote this to an online friend recently — I can’t even remember what the context was:
Innumeracy in journalism: “Tests showed his blood oxygen saturation levels were at 58% — half of what they should be.” ——— ???
Donald’s first link has this:
Two-thirds of the world’s people, according to the Economist, live in one of the dozens of countries that either support Russia or are neutral.
It sounds dire, doesn’t it? But more than half of those people are in China and India, and certainly in China the billion and a half citizens don’t get a say-so in foreign policy.
And why lump the neutrals in with the pro-Russia side instead of the pro-Ukraine side? (I get why he does it, but still, it’s a bit of a rhetorical trick.)
I’m not taking a stand one way or the other on the point of the essay; foreign policy is very much not my thing. But to quote a phrase, communication is hard, y’all, and so is reading between the lines.
I wrote this to an online friend recently — I can’t even remember what the context was:
Innumeracy in journalism: “Tests showed his blood oxygen saturation levels were at 58% — half of what they should be.” ——— ???
Donald’s first link has this:
Two-thirds of the world’s people, according to the Economist, live in one of the dozens of countries that either support Russia or are neutral.
It sounds dire, doesn’t it? But more than half of those people are in China and India, and certainly in China the billion and a half citizens don’t get a say-so in foreign policy.
And why lump the neutrals in with the pro-Russia side instead of the pro-Ukraine side? (I get why he does it, but still, it’s a bit of a rhetorical trick.)
I’m not taking a stand one way or the other on the point of the essay; foreign policy is very much not my thing. But to quote a phrase, communication is hard, y’all, and so is reading between the lines.
I’ll clarify a bit, then I’m off to babysit for a couple of days.
The 58% thing was either innumeracy or carelessness; there’s more of that than there used to be, back when there were copy editors.
The “two-thirds of the world’s people” thing is manipulation. I don’t like being manipulated, so I try to read between the lines, and I’m especially triggered by careless or manipulative use of numbers. (Lies, damned lies, etc.)
Punditry is exhausting because of this and other things, and how often am I going to change my mind these days anyhow?
I’ll clarify a bit, then I’m off to babysit for a couple of days.
The 58% thing was either innumeracy or carelessness; there’s more of that than there used to be, back when there were copy editors.
The “two-thirds of the world’s people” thing is manipulation. I don’t like being manipulated, so I try to read between the lines, and I’m especially triggered by careless or manipulative use of numbers. (Lies, damned lies, etc.)
Punditry is exhausting because of this and other things, and how often am I going to change my mind these days anyhow?
Donald, I agree with both points raised in your post, but Putin still needs to be kicked out of Ukraine and who else is going to do it?
Donald, I agree with both points raised in your post, but Putin still needs to be kicked out of Ukraine and who else is going to do it?
Btw, what’s happening to the US?
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/05/15/us/florida-teacher-disney-movie-gay/index.html
Can you imagine the reaction if they had the Eurovision Song Contest there?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_visibility_in_the_Eurovision_Song_Contest
Btw, what’s happening to the US?
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/05/15/us/florida-teacher-disney-movie-gay/index.html
Can you imagine the reaction if they had the Eurovision Song Contest there?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_visibility_in_the_Eurovision_Song_Contest
Does anybody know whether the Maori were aware of the Precession of the Equinoxes before any contact with Europeans?
I ask because the bit about the North Pole shifting 4 meters in about 40 years has been rattling around in my brain all weekend, and I’m glad to see I’m not the only nerd around here.
Precession of the Equinoxes “moves” the North Pole — relative to the stars — in a full circle over about 26,000 years. I may have done the math wrong, but I think that means the North Pole “moves” about 640 meters per year relative to the Earth. So 4 meters over 40 years is indeed tiny — though evidently not tiny enough to be undetectable to “Science”.
Whether or not you believe that people (around the Mediterranean, specifically) were aware of the Precession before Hipparchus, it seems implausible that anyone would even claim to detect a 4m/40yr shift without being aware of a 640m/yr phenomenon.
I may be modelling the kinematics wrong, though. The Pole moving “relative to the Earth” is a slippery concept, since the Earth is not stationary and its axis is not a physical rod. The 4m/40yr thing seems to imply that a physical rod planted at the Pole in 1980 would now be moving around the 2023 axis of rotation, making a 4m radius circle every 24 hours. Precession, alone, would leave the rod aligned with the axis.
It’s not only communication that’s hard; celestial kinematics is no piece of cake either.
–TP
Does anybody know whether the Maori were aware of the Precession of the Equinoxes before any contact with Europeans?
I ask because the bit about the North Pole shifting 4 meters in about 40 years has been rattling around in my brain all weekend, and I’m glad to see I’m not the only nerd around here.
Precession of the Equinoxes “moves” the North Pole — relative to the stars — in a full circle over about 26,000 years. I may have done the math wrong, but I think that means the North Pole “moves” about 640 meters per year relative to the Earth. So 4 meters over 40 years is indeed tiny — though evidently not tiny enough to be undetectable to “Science”.
Whether or not you believe that people (around the Mediterranean, specifically) were aware of the Precession before Hipparchus, it seems implausible that anyone would even claim to detect a 4m/40yr shift without being aware of a 640m/yr phenomenon.
I may be modelling the kinematics wrong, though. The Pole moving “relative to the Earth” is a slippery concept, since the Earth is not stationary and its axis is not a physical rod. The 4m/40yr thing seems to imply that a physical rod planted at the Pole in 1980 would now be moving around the 2023 axis of rotation, making a 4m radius circle every 24 hours. Precession, alone, would leave the rod aligned with the axis.
It’s not only communication that’s hard; celestial kinematics is no piece of cake either.
–TP
The “two-thirds of the world’s people” thing is manipulation.
And going in and looking at it, what struck me is that this is a borrowed framing that wright is attributing to The Economist.
Ironic that a piece about The Blob is thinking in such a blobby manner about the Global South (not that the term itself doesn’t automagically do some easy aggregation of diverse circumstances.)
I’m all for fixing cognitive empathy deficit, but it’s unclear to me that thinking about the Global South as a monolithic other really gets us any closer to a productive empathy. I’m really starting to think that my best path forward for most positive change is to try to pick a small, local good that can be done in a small, local place that has need and do my best to make sure that that small, local good is roughly aligned with larger mass movements. It’s the wisdom of Sancho Panza: a lot of littles make a much.
The “two-thirds of the world’s people” thing is manipulation.
And going in and looking at it, what struck me is that this is a borrowed framing that wright is attributing to The Economist.
Ironic that a piece about The Blob is thinking in such a blobby manner about the Global South (not that the term itself doesn’t automagically do some easy aggregation of diverse circumstances.)
I’m all for fixing cognitive empathy deficit, but it’s unclear to me that thinking about the Global South as a monolithic other really gets us any closer to a productive empathy. I’m really starting to think that my best path forward for most positive change is to try to pick a small, local good that can be done in a small, local place that has need and do my best to make sure that that small, local good is roughly aligned with larger mass movements. It’s the wisdom of Sancho Panza: a lot of littles make a much.
“Science”
I mentioned earlier that many of the claims made for science really should be credited to the whole STEM lineup. The precision version of GPS available to the military, surveyers, etc can fix the position of the receiving antenna to a sphere with a diameter of 4 cm. Given a longer period of time to make measurements, sub-millimeter accuracy. So yeah, STEM can measure a four-meter shift in the Earth’s rotational axis. Folk knowledge and observations without equipment get put because they lack contemporary STEM.
Side note to somewhere earlier in this discussion where Newton’s laws of motions due to gravity and Einstein’s were the subject. Atomic clocks on the GPS satellites as observed from the surface run 38 microseconds per day faster than atomic clocks on the surface. GPS doesn’t work without correcting for this relativistic difference.
“Science”
I mentioned earlier that many of the claims made for science really should be credited to the whole STEM lineup. The precision version of GPS available to the military, surveyers, etc can fix the position of the receiving antenna to a sphere with a diameter of 4 cm. Given a longer period of time to make measurements, sub-millimeter accuracy. So yeah, STEM can measure a four-meter shift in the Earth’s rotational axis. Folk knowledge and observations without equipment get put because they lack contemporary STEM.
Side note to somewhere earlier in this discussion where Newton’s laws of motions due to gravity and Einstein’s were the subject. Atomic clocks on the GPS satellites as observed from the surface run 38 microseconds per day faster than atomic clocks on the surface. GPS doesn’t work without correcting for this relativistic difference.
Novakant—
I doubt anyone is going to kick Putin out of all of Ukraine. Certainly not Crimea. I have nothing to say about that war, except that talk of Putin’s war crimes, while true, are idiotic coming from Westerners.
A truly rules based international order that held everyone to account would be nice. But I don’t think anything like that will happen. One can hope for small progress on particular issues. On overall behavior great powers are gong to do what they can get away with while spouting a lot of hypocritical nonsense in justification.
Going back to the Inuit, it is extremely difficult to imagine they are detecting a four meter shift in the position of the North Pole and its influence on the apparent position of stars, but I have no guesses on what they are noticing. In general I am open to the idea that Westerners might be too quick to dismiss other forms of knowledge. But an actual shift in the earth’s axis is the sort of thing which Western science is good at measuring.
Novakant—
I doubt anyone is going to kick Putin out of all of Ukraine. Certainly not Crimea. I have nothing to say about that war, except that talk of Putin’s war crimes, while true, are idiotic coming from Westerners.
A truly rules based international order that held everyone to account would be nice. But I don’t think anything like that will happen. One can hope for small progress on particular issues. On overall behavior great powers are gong to do what they can get away with while spouting a lot of hypocritical nonsense in justification.
Going back to the Inuit, it is extremely difficult to imagine they are detecting a four meter shift in the position of the North Pole and its influence on the apparent position of stars, but I have no guesses on what they are noticing. In general I am open to the idea that Westerners might be too quick to dismiss other forms of knowledge. But an actual shift in the earth’s axis is the sort of thing which Western science is good at measuring.
talk of Putin’s war crimes, while true, are idiotic coming from Westerners.
You do realize that, by phrasing this as you have, you are essentially blaming all Westerners for crimes which they not only probably did not commit, but which they may have opposed and condemned.
Personally, I’m not much on collective guilt. Fault the offenders? Sure. Fault those who knew but stayed silent? Probably (with caveats about how loudly their objections needed to be to not count as keeping silent). But blame everyone for offenses they had no part in? Not really justifiable. IMHO
talk of Putin’s war crimes, while true, are idiotic coming from Westerners.
You do realize that, by phrasing this as you have, you are essentially blaming all Westerners for crimes which they not only probably did not commit, but which they may have opposed and condemned.
Personally, I’m not much on collective guilt. Fault the offenders? Sure. Fault those who knew but stayed silent? Probably (with caveats about how loudly their objections needed to be to not count as keeping silent). But blame everyone for offenses they had no part in? Not really justifiable. IMHO
The precision version of GPS available to the military, surveyers, etc can fix the position of the receiving antenna to a sphere with a diameter of 4 cm.
Recent improvements in GPS for tractors and other farm equipment have eliminated the need for ground-level base stations. No signal due to weather damage, misadventure, or the station just stopped working, all equipment in the area dependent on GPS would come to a halt.
The precision version of GPS available to the military, surveyers, etc can fix the position of the receiving antenna to a sphere with a diameter of 4 cm.
Recent improvements in GPS for tractors and other farm equipment have eliminated the need for ground-level base stations. No signal due to weather damage, misadventure, or the station just stopped working, all equipment in the area dependent on GPS would come to a halt.
But blame everyone for offenses they had no part in? Not really justifiable. IMHO
But the argument could be made that the citizens of democratic countries are more responsible for the bad things their governments do than the citizens of authoritarian countries.
But blame everyone for offenses they had no part in? Not really justifiable. IMHO
But the argument could be made that the citizens of democratic countries are more responsible for the bad things their governments do than the citizens of authoritarian countries.
JanieM—
I hope you read the arguments in the link. I started to type a long argument, but the two links make their case pretty well.
JanieM—
I hope you read the arguments in the link. I started to type a long argument, but the two links make their case pretty well.
the argument could be made
Are you going to make it?
the argument could be made
Are you going to make it?
No, I’m somewhat undecided.
No, I’m somewhat undecided.
I have nothing to say about that war
Why not?
FWIW, I have condemned the Iraq War, as well as the wars in Libya, Yemen and Syria – and I will condemn the Russian war against Ukraine as the imperialistic aggression that it is.
I have nothing to say about that war
Why not?
FWIW, I have condemned the Iraq War, as well as the wars in Libya, Yemen and Syria – and I will condemn the Russian war against Ukraine as the imperialistic aggression that it is.
WJ—
What CharlesWT said.
Also, I would much rather people read the links I provide rather than pick one of my comments and make a philosophical case against it. Possibly I should just provide the links and say nothing.
But yeah, educated affluent people in the US are responsible to some degree for the actions of our government. They have privilege. How much guilt? I don’t know. It is like debating the extent to which white people in the US were responsible for Jim Crow. It is going to vary. If you believe in God then He can sort it out. On the human level I would say that ideally the court system would have gone after whites who committed actual acts of violence and then we could discuss whether people who set up an apartheid system should be tried, etc.. Ordinary whites should just have felt guilty to varying degrees.
In the ( extremely affluent) liberal suburbs near where I live there were signs popping up all over supporting Ukraine. Never a single one about Yemen or Gaza or the various victims of our sanctions. Not being omniscient I don’t know what the people who put up the signs thought, but it was an interesting contrast.
Anyway, I try to keep this kind of ranting to a minimum, since I have said it before numerous times and online ranting does nothing, But the links are worth reading.
I am actually more interested in the Inuit/axis tilt issue.
WJ—
What CharlesWT said.
Also, I would much rather people read the links I provide rather than pick one of my comments and make a philosophical case against it. Possibly I should just provide the links and say nothing.
But yeah, educated affluent people in the US are responsible to some degree for the actions of our government. They have privilege. How much guilt? I don’t know. It is like debating the extent to which white people in the US were responsible for Jim Crow. It is going to vary. If you believe in God then He can sort it out. On the human level I would say that ideally the court system would have gone after whites who committed actual acts of violence and then we could discuss whether people who set up an apartheid system should be tried, etc.. Ordinary whites should just have felt guilty to varying degrees.
In the ( extremely affluent) liberal suburbs near where I live there were signs popping up all over supporting Ukraine. Never a single one about Yemen or Gaza or the various victims of our sanctions. Not being omniscient I don’t know what the people who put up the signs thought, but it was an interesting contrast.
Anyway, I try to keep this kind of ranting to a minimum, since I have said it before numerous times and online ranting does nothing, But the links are worth reading.
I am actually more interested in the Inuit/axis tilt issue.
This is a few days old, but nous asked me some direct questions which I didn’t mean to ignore.
Can the 3rd rate ideological diatribe in any way be characterized as “scientific” or not? Yes or no.
Was the journal’s peer reviewed rejection of the 3rd rate ideological diatribe reasonable? Yes or no.
Do you teach the fallacy of presupposition? Yes or no?
Me, I have no view on what papers the journal should publish.
If you want to take this editorial on (because that is what it is, an editorial rebutting another editorial claiming to be “science”) please be my guest. Make your case where Burke gets it wrong.
I wrote a long piece picking out problems with Burke’s piece, then I deleted it as too long for a blog comment. I don’t like Burke’s dishonest quotation and irrelevant objections, but in the end I dare say he’s right that the paper is not much good as an analysis of the application of CRT to scientific research. However, that’s not what the authors set out to write. They were just making a plea to be allowed to recruit the best scientists.
The few years I spent doing scientific research were in semiconductors. It’s regrettable that William Shockley, the leader of the team which created the first transistor, was a racist. And I think that Mohamed Atalla and Dawon Kahng deserve to be better known than they are for their work on the Field Effect Transistor, which has largely supplanted the Bipolar Junction Transistor created by Schockley, Bardeen and Brattain. Still, whatever unfair barriers there may have been, an Egyptian and a Korean were able to make key contributions. Transistors work because our quantum mechanical models of semiconductors are close enough to reality: nothing in the science is affected by the cultural background of the scientists.
This is a few days old, but nous asked me some direct questions which I didn’t mean to ignore.
Can the 3rd rate ideological diatribe in any way be characterized as “scientific” or not? Yes or no.
Was the journal’s peer reviewed rejection of the 3rd rate ideological diatribe reasonable? Yes or no.
Do you teach the fallacy of presupposition? Yes or no?
Me, I have no view on what papers the journal should publish.
If you want to take this editorial on (because that is what it is, an editorial rebutting another editorial claiming to be “science”) please be my guest. Make your case where Burke gets it wrong.
I wrote a long piece picking out problems with Burke’s piece, then I deleted it as too long for a blog comment. I don’t like Burke’s dishonest quotation and irrelevant objections, but in the end I dare say he’s right that the paper is not much good as an analysis of the application of CRT to scientific research. However, that’s not what the authors set out to write. They were just making a plea to be allowed to recruit the best scientists.
The few years I spent doing scientific research were in semiconductors. It’s regrettable that William Shockley, the leader of the team which created the first transistor, was a racist. And I think that Mohamed Atalla and Dawon Kahng deserve to be better known than they are for their work on the Field Effect Transistor, which has largely supplanted the Bipolar Junction Transistor created by Schockley, Bardeen and Brattain. Still, whatever unfair barriers there may have been, an Egyptian and a Korean were able to make key contributions. Transistors work because our quantum mechanical models of semiconductors are close enough to reality: nothing in the science is affected by the cultural background of the scientists.
Transistors work because our quantum mechanical models of semiconductors are close enough to reality: nothing in the science is affected by the cultural background of the scientists.
Well, certainly nothing in the actual physical laws that govern the behavior of semiconductors is affected by anyone’s cultural background, regardless of how well anyone understands those physical laws.
But, as it stands, we got to a better type of semiconductor with a more diverse group of scientists. I can’t say for sure why that is. I’m don’t think anyone can. I will say that the chances of getting to better science and technology are better with more and more-diverse participants.
Transistors work because our quantum mechanical models of semiconductors are close enough to reality: nothing in the science is affected by the cultural background of the scientists.
Well, certainly nothing in the actual physical laws that govern the behavior of semiconductors is affected by anyone’s cultural background, regardless of how well anyone understands those physical laws.
But, as it stands, we got to a better type of semiconductor with a more diverse group of scientists. I can’t say for sure why that is. I’m don’t think anyone can. I will say that the chances of getting to better science and technology are better with more and more-diverse participants.
the argument could be made that the citizens of democratic countries are more responsible for the bad things their governments do than the citizens of authoritarian countries.
More responsible? Sure. That is, we are more responsible for what Trump did than, for example, a Russian would be for what Putin does. But responsible to the point where we, all and every one of us, have no standing to criticize? Not buying it.
the argument could be made that the citizens of democratic countries are more responsible for the bad things their governments do than the citizens of authoritarian countries.
More responsible? Sure. That is, we are more responsible for what Trump did than, for example, a Russian would be for what Putin does. But responsible to the point where we, all and every one of us, have no standing to criticize? Not buying it.
I’ve seen more than a few of these sorts of problematic contributors up close over the years, have known them and the people who were mistreated and driven out when they became the object of those problematic attitudes or behaviors. It’s never a one-for-one exchange. The problematic contributors leave a wake of damage behind them, mostly of people whose promise in the field was stifled and lost while indulging the problematic enfants terribles.
What I always wonder in these cases (when I am close, but not so close that I understand the field and its political dynamics) is whether the person whose contributions we are celebrating is a genius whose innovations were revolutionary enough that none of the work would have been done were it not for them, or if they were just the first, or the best positioned, or the best connected to get it done in that moment, and someone else would have gotten there to fill the same role – perhaps without all that collateral damage.
My sense of it from close range is that there are a lot more of the latter than of the former.
(Had an earlier comment on a different subject get swallowed as spam, I think, if anyone has a moment to look.)
I’ve seen more than a few of these sorts of problematic contributors up close over the years, have known them and the people who were mistreated and driven out when they became the object of those problematic attitudes or behaviors. It’s never a one-for-one exchange. The problematic contributors leave a wake of damage behind them, mostly of people whose promise in the field was stifled and lost while indulging the problematic enfants terribles.
What I always wonder in these cases (when I am close, but not so close that I understand the field and its political dynamics) is whether the person whose contributions we are celebrating is a genius whose innovations were revolutionary enough that none of the work would have been done were it not for them, or if they were just the first, or the best positioned, or the best connected to get it done in that moment, and someone else would have gotten there to fill the same role – perhaps without all that collateral damage.
My sense of it from close range is that there are a lot more of the latter than of the former.
(Had an earlier comment on a different subject get swallowed as spam, I think, if anyone has a moment to look.)
Released nous’s comment, which was at 1:01 pm, so you have to go to the previous page to find it.
Released nous’s comment, which was at 1:01 pm, so you have to go to the previous page to find it.
I’m really starting to think that my best path forward for most positive change is to try to pick a small, local good that can be done in a small, local place that has need and do my best to make sure that that small, local good is roughly aligned with larger mass movements.
I completely agree. To take only the most obvious of current examples, consider what making a difference in who is your state legislator could make, especially in a time when Federal action on numerous issues is blocked. The same goes all the way down to local town councils, school boards, etc. Win those battles, and the war is halfway won. (Which, sadly, is the approach the far right has been working for some time now.)
I’m really starting to think that my best path forward for most positive change is to try to pick a small, local good that can be done in a small, local place that has need and do my best to make sure that that small, local good is roughly aligned with larger mass movements.
I completely agree. To take only the most obvious of current examples, consider what making a difference in who is your state legislator could make, especially in a time when Federal action on numerous issues is blocked. The same goes all the way down to local town councils, school boards, etc. Win those battles, and the war is halfway won. (Which, sadly, is the approach the far right has been working for some time now.)
I’m really starting to think that my best path forward for most positive change is to try to pick a small, local good that can be done in a small, local place that has need and do my best to make sure that that small, local good is roughly aligned with larger mass movements. It’s the wisdom of Sancho Panza: a lot of littles make a much.
This is close enough for now to what I would say in answer to Donald. (I read the Jacobin paper but only skimmed the other, for the record. Might go back and read the other more carefully at some point but I am in charge of an 18-month-old today and foreign policy is really out of our lane.)
What nous said relates to my old story when someone passionately demanded that we do something about Bosnia years ago: “I can’t even get my kids to stop squabbling, what exactly do you propose that I do about Bosnia?”
I could sit here from now til Christmas listing the ills of the world that I am apparently supposed to feel guilty for. Well, i had enough guilt growing up catholic to last me several lifetimes, and I’m not taking it on anymore, especially for things over while I have effectively no control or influence whatsoever.
There’s a guy who has been poisoning my town with power plays and nastiness for 10 or 15 years (has been arrested several times for violating a protection order, harassing people in public, and that’s only the top of the top of the iceberg) — as narcissistic as Clickbait but far less charming.
My town has so far generated enough of an immune response to neutralize him (at best)…. but, long story, can’t go further with it now. That, plus local elections are coming up and it’s time to gather information about whether “back to basics” really means what I think it means on a school board candidate’s sign….
I’m really starting to think that my best path forward for most positive change is to try to pick a small, local good that can be done in a small, local place that has need and do my best to make sure that that small, local good is roughly aligned with larger mass movements. It’s the wisdom of Sancho Panza: a lot of littles make a much.
This is close enough for now to what I would say in answer to Donald. (I read the Jacobin paper but only skimmed the other, for the record. Might go back and read the other more carefully at some point but I am in charge of an 18-month-old today and foreign policy is really out of our lane.)
What nous said relates to my old story when someone passionately demanded that we do something about Bosnia years ago: “I can’t even get my kids to stop squabbling, what exactly do you propose that I do about Bosnia?”
I could sit here from now til Christmas listing the ills of the world that I am apparently supposed to feel guilty for. Well, i had enough guilt growing up catholic to last me several lifetimes, and I’m not taking it on anymore, especially for things over while I have effectively no control or influence whatsoever.
There’s a guy who has been poisoning my town with power plays and nastiness for 10 or 15 years (has been arrested several times for violating a protection order, harassing people in public, and that’s only the top of the top of the iceberg) — as narcissistic as Clickbait but far less charming.
My town has so far generated enough of an immune response to neutralize him (at best)…. but, long story, can’t go further with it now. That, plus local elections are coming up and it’s time to gather information about whether “back to basics” really means what I think it means on a school board candidate’s sign….
Oh, and kind of taking off on novakant’s comment: if you can’t condemn Russia’s ongoing war crimes because someone else won’t condemn the US, then you do you.
It’s only a blog conversation either way, I guess.
Oh, and kind of taking off on novakant’s comment: if you can’t condemn Russia’s ongoing war crimes because someone else won’t condemn the US, then you do you.
It’s only a blog conversation either way, I guess.
My short 5:31 followed a longer comment that seems to have gotten swallowed….or maybe I goofed in hitting post. Don’t have time to reconstruct it right now. But it was another quoting of nous’s “my best path” comment, and agreement with that.
My short 5:31 followed a longer comment that seems to have gotten swallowed….or maybe I goofed in hitting post. Don’t have time to reconstruct it right now. But it was another quoting of nous’s “my best path” comment, and agreement with that.
[Okay, my 5:31 went into the spam filter, i have no idea why. It has been released. 🙂 ]
[Okay, my 5:31 went into the spam filter, i have no idea why. It has been released. 🙂 ]
I’ve seen more than a few of these sorts of problematic contributors up close over the years…[they] leave a wake of damage behind them, mostly of people whose promise in the field was stifled and lost while indulging the problematic enfants terribles.
If that’s with reference to my remarks about Shockley, I think it can fairly be said that he did a lot for our understanding of superconductivity by driving Bardeen out of research into semiconductor devices.
I’ve seen more than a few of these sorts of problematic contributors up close over the years…[they] leave a wake of damage behind them, mostly of people whose promise in the field was stifled and lost while indulging the problematic enfants terribles.
If that’s with reference to my remarks about Shockley, I think it can fairly be said that he did a lot for our understanding of superconductivity by driving Bardeen out of research into semiconductor devices.
End of the piece at Donald’s first link (the same one that pushed my buttons by mentioning two-thirds of the world’s people):
Sometimes cognitive empathy begins at home, with simple self awareness.
Somewhere in the essay there’s probably a point that’s worth pondering, but for me the rhetorical tricks and especially the sanctimony drown out any useful message — maybe the writer could work on some self-awareness about that.
Self-awareness isn’t “simple.” Or easy. Or very common, in my 73 years of experience. For that matter, it’s not an end point but a never-ending quest. IMHO.
End of rant.
End of the piece at Donald’s first link (the same one that pushed my buttons by mentioning two-thirds of the world’s people):
Sometimes cognitive empathy begins at home, with simple self awareness.
Somewhere in the essay there’s probably a point that’s worth pondering, but for me the rhetorical tricks and especially the sanctimony drown out any useful message — maybe the writer could work on some self-awareness about that.
Self-awareness isn’t “simple.” Or easy. Or very common, in my 73 years of experience. For that matter, it’s not an end point but a never-ending quest. IMHO.
End of rant.
Not a direct response, Pro Bono, just a reflection on the larger issue. I think it’s less helpful to think of merit as a single choice and more helpful to think about it as a longitudinal look at iterated choices spread out across a disciplinary field or population.
Not a direct response, Pro Bono, just a reflection on the larger issue. I think it’s less helpful to think of merit as a single choice and more helpful to think about it as a longitudinal look at iterated choices spread out across a disciplinary field or population.
With the CEO of OpenAI testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee today, my first humorous thought is to wonder whether the members of the committee will be able to tell that his testimony was software generated. My more serious thought, though one that may lead to some humor, is to wonder how cluelessly the members of the committee will ask questions of him.
With the CEO of OpenAI testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee today, my first humorous thought is to wonder whether the members of the committee will be able to tell that his testimony was software generated. My more serious thought, though one that may lead to some humor, is to wonder how cluelessly the members of the committee will ask questions of him.
Also, will anyone notice how many of the legislators’ questions/comments were software generated.
(Having software do this frees up valuable time for Congressmen’s top priority: to work the phones with donors.)
Also, will anyone notice how many of the legislators’ questions/comments were software generated.
(Having software do this frees up valuable time for Congressmen’s top priority: to work the phones with donors.)
Having software do this frees up valuable time for Congressmen’s top priority: to work the phones with donors.
Voice synthesizer and voice recognition attached to an LLM could take care of that too.
Having software do this frees up valuable time for Congressmen’s top priority: to work the phones with donors.
Voice synthesizer and voice recognition attached to an LLM could take care of that too.
My more serious thought, though one that may lead to some humor, is to wonder how cluelessly the members of the committee will ask questions of him.
During one of the oral arguments before the Supreme Court this term, I believe it was Justice Kagan who said something along the lines of, “It’s not like there’s anyone with meaningful knowledge of software and the internet sitting on this bench.”
My more serious thought, though one that may lead to some humor, is to wonder how cluelessly the members of the committee will ask questions of him.
During one of the oral arguments before the Supreme Court this term, I believe it was Justice Kagan who said something along the lines of, “It’s not like there’s anyone with meaningful knowledge of software and the internet sitting on this bench.”
Voice synthesizer and voice recognition attached to an LLM could take care of that too.
Given the error rates typical for voice recognition software, I might pay to listen to the Q&A session between two LLMs filtered through syntheizer/recognizer software each way.
Voice synthesizer and voice recognition attached to an LLM could take care of that too.
Given the error rates typical for voice recognition software, I might pay to listen to the Q&A session between two LLMs filtered through syntheizer/recognizer software each way.
And autotune.
And autotune.
Further to my recent speculation that Elon Musk might be mad (to which Michael Cain answered he might just be bored), I think this from today’s WaPo augurs better for my theory:
Elon Musk made a series of attacks on George Soros overnight, tweeting that the Jewish-born investor and liberal philanthropist, who often is subject to virulent antisemitic conspiracy theories, hates humanity and “wants to erode the very fabric of civilization.”
Musk, who has overseen an increase of antisemitism and other hate speech on Twitter since he bought the social media platform last year, did not give a reason for singling out Soros. But he made his comments three days after Soros’s investment fund reported that it had sold all its stock in Tesla, the electric carmaker that Musk also runs.
And Musk seemed to specifically reference the 92-year-old Holocaust survivor’s background by comparing Soros to Magneto — a Jewish supervillain who “fights to help mutants replace humans as the world’s dominant species,” as Marvel’s official character description puts it.
“Soros reminds me of Magneto,” Musk posted at 10 p.m. Monday, apropos of nothing. The tweet triggered a flood of replies comparing Soros to various symbols of evil, recalling long-standing conspiracy theories that paint him as a godlike billionaire Jew who uses his philanthropic foundations to flood Europe with refugees and corrupt American politics.
The left-wing commentator Brian Krassenstein replied to Musk, pointing out that Magneto is a Holocaust survivor in Marvel lore, where the character manipulates magnetic fields to oppose (and occasionally help) the heroes of X-Men films and comics. “[Soros], also a Holocaust survivor, get’s attacked nonstop for his good intentions which some Americans think are bad merely because they disagree with this political affiliations,” he wrote.
Musk replied to Krassenstein five minutes later: “You assume they are good intentions. They are not. He wants to erode the very fabric of civilization. Soros hates humanity.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts-entertainment/2023/05/16/george-soros-elon-musk-adl/
I mean, of course Soros selling the Tesla stock would account for some spite and/or hatred from Musk, but this response looks unhinged to me.
Further to my recent speculation that Elon Musk might be mad (to which Michael Cain answered he might just be bored), I think this from today’s WaPo augurs better for my theory:
Elon Musk made a series of attacks on George Soros overnight, tweeting that the Jewish-born investor and liberal philanthropist, who often is subject to virulent antisemitic conspiracy theories, hates humanity and “wants to erode the very fabric of civilization.”
Musk, who has overseen an increase of antisemitism and other hate speech on Twitter since he bought the social media platform last year, did not give a reason for singling out Soros. But he made his comments three days after Soros’s investment fund reported that it had sold all its stock in Tesla, the electric carmaker that Musk also runs.
And Musk seemed to specifically reference the 92-year-old Holocaust survivor’s background by comparing Soros to Magneto — a Jewish supervillain who “fights to help mutants replace humans as the world’s dominant species,” as Marvel’s official character description puts it.
“Soros reminds me of Magneto,” Musk posted at 10 p.m. Monday, apropos of nothing. The tweet triggered a flood of replies comparing Soros to various symbols of evil, recalling long-standing conspiracy theories that paint him as a godlike billionaire Jew who uses his philanthropic foundations to flood Europe with refugees and corrupt American politics.
The left-wing commentator Brian Krassenstein replied to Musk, pointing out that Magneto is a Holocaust survivor in Marvel lore, where the character manipulates magnetic fields to oppose (and occasionally help) the heroes of X-Men films and comics. “[Soros], also a Holocaust survivor, get’s attacked nonstop for his good intentions which some Americans think are bad merely because they disagree with this political affiliations,” he wrote.
Musk replied to Krassenstein five minutes later: “You assume they are good intentions. They are not. He wants to erode the very fabric of civilization. Soros hates humanity.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts-entertainment/2023/05/16/george-soros-elon-musk-adl/
I mean, of course Soros selling the Tesla stock would account for some spite and/or hatred from Musk, but this response looks unhinged to me.
JanieM— We engage in policies that are intended to hurt civilians as a way of pressuring enemy governments. It is a fact. And then the same people babble on about Putin’s war crimes.
Individual people can say whatever they want on any subject. And many people in the global south do criticize both Russia and the West. But the West now wishes to hold Putin accountable for war crimes. Tony Blinken, who gave the Saudis the green light (under Obama’s authority to start bombing Yemen, wants to see Putin on trial. How adorable..
So anyway, the US continues to inflict enormous harm on innocent civilians in numerous countries with sanctions and we continue to support Israel no matter what and our record in bombing civilians in the Mideast was comparable or worse than Russia’s record and we did exactly what Russia is doing in attacking civilian infrastructure in Gulf War 1 and so on.
The Global South isn’t lining up with us because though they don’t approve of Russian brutality, they are tired of murderous Western sanctimony. And we obviously have no intention of ever changing.
As for Charles’s point, of course we are more responsible for the crimes of our government than people in authoritarian countries. What is the point of claiming to be a democracy if we don’t have some responsibility for what our government does? He could argue that we are not really a democracy, maybe, but if we are, the blood is on us. I
Novakant— I read some of the pro Russian sites and what is fascinating is that they use exactly the same rationalizations Westerners use.
But it really would be nice if there were such a thing as a rules based order, but the Western version of this is ugly, hypocritical, and murderous, And nothing is more grotesque and sanctimonious than a U.S. State Department spokesman blathering on about someone else’s war crimes.
Another link coming up. Then I bow out. Should have stuck to the axial tilt thing.
JanieM— We engage in policies that are intended to hurt civilians as a way of pressuring enemy governments. It is a fact. And then the same people babble on about Putin’s war crimes.
Individual people can say whatever they want on any subject. And many people in the global south do criticize both Russia and the West. But the West now wishes to hold Putin accountable for war crimes. Tony Blinken, who gave the Saudis the green light (under Obama’s authority to start bombing Yemen, wants to see Putin on trial. How adorable..
So anyway, the US continues to inflict enormous harm on innocent civilians in numerous countries with sanctions and we continue to support Israel no matter what and our record in bombing civilians in the Mideast was comparable or worse than Russia’s record and we did exactly what Russia is doing in attacking civilian infrastructure in Gulf War 1 and so on.
The Global South isn’t lining up with us because though they don’t approve of Russian brutality, they are tired of murderous Western sanctimony. And we obviously have no intention of ever changing.
As for Charles’s point, of course we are more responsible for the crimes of our government than people in authoritarian countries. What is the point of claiming to be a democracy if we don’t have some responsibility for what our government does? He could argue that we are not really a democracy, maybe, but if we are, the blood is on us. I
Novakant— I read some of the pro Russian sites and what is fascinating is that they use exactly the same rationalizations Westerners use.
But it really would be nice if there were such a thing as a rules based order, but the Western version of this is ugly, hypocritical, and murderous, And nothing is more grotesque and sanctimonious than a U.S. State Department spokesman blathering on about someone else’s war crimes.
Another link coming up. Then I bow out. Should have stuck to the axial tilt thing.
https://cepr.net/report/the-human-consequences-of-economic-sanctions/
That’s it for me in this thread.
https://cepr.net/report/the-human-consequences-of-economic-sanctions/
That’s it for me in this thread.
Darn it.
“he could argue”
Sounds like I was talking about Charles. I meant one could argue.
Now I am done, even if there are other typos.
Darn it.
“he could argue”
Sounds like I was talking about Charles. I meant one could argue.
Now I am done, even if there are other typos.
Donald — if you’re done, I suppose you won’t answer this question, but without any intention of being snarky, I wonder what it is you want me (us?) to do about the things that you’re so upset about.
I could try to work myself up to a similar level of outrage about American foreign policy, but I’m already boiling over with outrage about so many things (most of them ALSO things being done in or by the US) that it’s a wonder my substance doesn’t just bubble away into the ether. (Is that anything like phlogiston?)
I have indirect family connections in Ukraine, so the war there has loomed larger for me, and come home more vividly, than it might have otherwise. But my dismay at what’s going on there (and anger at Russia over it) has not lessened my discontent with a lot of what’s going on in my own country one little bit. (Or my fear, either.) I just happen to be focused on a different mix of outrages than you are.
I could get just as upset with you as you are with me for your apparent failure to care about what’s happening with abortion and health care, LGBT+ people, guns, and on and on and on. But neither of us has unlimited time, $, or emotional energy to spend, and we all make choices about it all the time. My choices are obviously different from yours, and you could give me an endless list of articles about foreign policy and they wouldn’t change my priorities one little bit. We all do what we can.
And I’ll decide for myself how responsible I feel, and how guilty, about any and all of it. It’s a useless, divisive, ridiculous framing in the first place, as far as I’m concerned.
Take care of yourself.
Donald — if you’re done, I suppose you won’t answer this question, but without any intention of being snarky, I wonder what it is you want me (us?) to do about the things that you’re so upset about.
I could try to work myself up to a similar level of outrage about American foreign policy, but I’m already boiling over with outrage about so many things (most of them ALSO things being done in or by the US) that it’s a wonder my substance doesn’t just bubble away into the ether. (Is that anything like phlogiston?)
I have indirect family connections in Ukraine, so the war there has loomed larger for me, and come home more vividly, than it might have otherwise. But my dismay at what’s going on there (and anger at Russia over it) has not lessened my discontent with a lot of what’s going on in my own country one little bit. (Or my fear, either.) I just happen to be focused on a different mix of outrages than you are.
I could get just as upset with you as you are with me for your apparent failure to care about what’s happening with abortion and health care, LGBT+ people, guns, and on and on and on. But neither of us has unlimited time, $, or emotional energy to spend, and we all make choices about it all the time. My choices are obviously different from yours, and you could give me an endless list of articles about foreign policy and they wouldn’t change my priorities one little bit. We all do what we can.
And I’ll decide for myself how responsible I feel, and how guilty, about any and all of it. It’s a useless, divisive, ridiculous framing in the first place, as far as I’m concerned.
Take care of yourself.
Just for the record, my typical $ contributions go to organizations dealing with immigrants, voting rights, care of children at risk, organic farming and land use, and the local food bank. My one longstanding volunteer commitment is to a land trust, and I’m about to put Planned Parenthood back on the list, or one of the organizations that are cropping up to help women in red states get health care they can no longer get at home. I could do more. I don’t. Life is messy.
Just for the record, my typical $ contributions go to organizations dealing with immigrants, voting rights, care of children at risk, organic farming and land use, and the local food bank. My one longstanding volunteer commitment is to a land trust, and I’m about to put Planned Parenthood back on the list, or one of the organizations that are cropping up to help women in red states get health care they can no longer get at home. I could do more. I don’t. Life is messy.
Godspeed, Donald, in your efforts to unfuck our inhuman foreign policy decisions. Truly. And I do not trust American intentions any further than do you.
But I have friends in Finland, and Sweden, and Poland, and Bulgaria. Most of them share our mistrust of US government intentions. None of them have any love for militarism or for NATO. So it truly sucks for them to grudgingly support Finland and Sweden joining in, because what can you do? In this context I have to say that my friends are better off with a problematic NATO than with an expansionist Russia looking to position itself for greater dominance in a post-climate change world.
Hypocrisy is annoying, but I don’t see any margin anymore in calling it out most of the time, or at least in doing more than pointing it out before moving on. Yes, motes and beams, but I don’t think that is a practical political philosophy in most contexts. All I can do is work to connect my action to others and change the context incrementally.
Pick the fights you can win, and the fights that you lose only when you can make the other side regret the cost of winning enough to stop them trying anything more. That’s what I’ve learned as a union grievance steward. Every other fight is a waste of my limited time and energy.
Godspeed, Donald, in your efforts to unfuck our inhuman foreign policy decisions. Truly. And I do not trust American intentions any further than do you.
But I have friends in Finland, and Sweden, and Poland, and Bulgaria. Most of them share our mistrust of US government intentions. None of them have any love for militarism or for NATO. So it truly sucks for them to grudgingly support Finland and Sweden joining in, because what can you do? In this context I have to say that my friends are better off with a problematic NATO than with an expansionist Russia looking to position itself for greater dominance in a post-climate change world.
Hypocrisy is annoying, but I don’t see any margin anymore in calling it out most of the time, or at least in doing more than pointing it out before moving on. Yes, motes and beams, but I don’t think that is a practical political philosophy in most contexts. All I can do is work to connect my action to others and change the context incrementally.
Pick the fights you can win, and the fights that you lose only when you can make the other side regret the cost of winning enough to stop them trying anything more. That’s what I’ve learned as a union grievance steward. Every other fight is a waste of my limited time and energy.
Godspeed, Donald, in your efforts to unfuck our inhuman foreign policy decisions. Truly.
I confess to a certain curiosity as to just what, what concrete steps, Donald is taking in pursuit of that. That might actually move some of us to do likewise. (Or not. No way to tell without knowing what they are.)
Godspeed, Donald, in your efforts to unfuck our inhuman foreign policy decisions. Truly.
I confess to a certain curiosity as to just what, what concrete steps, Donald is taking in pursuit of that. That might actually move some of us to do likewise. (Or not. No way to tell without knowing what they are.)
Sure Trump boasts about his (supposed) intelligence, and will likely campaign against Biden’s supposed cognitive decline. But I find it impossible to believe that his cultists vote for him for his brains. As with his morals, the utter lack has long since been evident.
His cultists are for the most part dumb. If not innately dumb, then functionally dumb. As for morals…clearly their belief that “I want my side to win to make me feel powerful and like a winner because I AM ENTITLED!!!!” matters more than any other consideration of any kind.
Sure Trump boasts about his (supposed) intelligence, and will likely campaign against Biden’s supposed cognitive decline. But I find it impossible to believe that his cultists vote for him for his brains. As with his morals, the utter lack has long since been evident.
His cultists are for the most part dumb. If not innately dumb, then functionally dumb. As for morals…clearly their belief that “I want my side to win to make me feel powerful and like a winner because I AM ENTITLED!!!!” matters more than any other consideration of any kind.
They were just making a plea to be allowed to recruit the best scientists.
heartily disagree.
They were just making a plea to be allowed to recruit the best scientists.
heartily disagree.
Thanks for that link, bobbyp. Love this and the tweet thread it’s part of:
It helps explain and flesh out (and even make sardonically entertaining) my resistance to pundits quite nicely.
This, however, is depressing:
Some of it echoes things nous has been telling us for a while.
Thanks for that link, bobbyp. Love this and the tweet thread it’s part of:
It helps explain and flesh out (and even make sardonically entertaining) my resistance to pundits quite nicely.
This, however, is depressing:
Some of it echoes things nous has been telling us for a while.
I don’t want to keep throwing gas on the fire, but this, by Jerry Coyne, one of the co-authors of the paper is interesting in an ironic way
https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2023/05/04/pamela-paul-of-the-nyt-touts-our-merit-paper/
About midway through the blogpost, he posts a screenshot of this paper
https://researchspace.auckland.ac.nz/handle/2292/64047
And snidely notes that
Note that the ultimate in positionality statements is putting your “iwi” (tribe) in a paper touting indigenous Māori science, like this one I discussed the other day. The words in parentheses after each author’s name gives the iwi to which they belong.
I say ironic because almost every academic paper asks the co-authors to list their institution. But of course, this can’t be anything like an ‘iwi’ because Western institutions don’t behave like tribes, do they…
Here is his blogpost that has his reading of the paper.
https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2023/04/30/a-new-paper-that-presages-the-death-of-science-in-new-zealand/
In case anyone is swayed by his question
Any real scientist reading this will cry out “Just give me one lousy example of the kind of scientific research you’re talking about. Tell me about questions and projects which Pūtaiao will approach differently from modern science, and how the Māori methods are superior.”
I can actually identify several.
1)A Maori method would require the agreement of the iwi(s) affected and there would be some group consensus on whether the information should be shared. Within that consensus, there would be some protection for the weak and some assurance that the results of the research would be returned to the community.
2)A Maori method would ideally be leveraged so that the Maori language, which he notes is a “vunerable language”, would be part and parcel of any research done on data that is drawn from Maori.
3)A more collaborative method of research would show that it is possible and could provide more diversity in the research community on the topics that are of interest to the Maori. That method would be meaningful not only to Maori, but to other minority groups
4)A Maori science might be able to create more equitable ways of sharing and using research, again, something that could benefit other minority groups.
An interesting collection of papers in that regard is here
https://library.sprep.org/content/pacific-genes-life-patents-pacific-indigenous-experiences-analysis-commodification
A list of some of the issues dealt in the collection include
-case where the Cook Islands government “agreed in principle” in 2002 to allow Diatranz Ltd a New Zealand company to commence xenotransplantation experimentation in the Cook Islands without consultation and without the informed consent of the people
-the Hagahai patent case which involved removal and patenting of genes belonging to the Hagahai people by Dr Carol Jenkins a US medical researcher
-the attempt in 1995 by the University of the South Pacific to sign an agreement with Smith Kline-Beecham a pharmaceutical conglomerate to extract bio-diversity material from two locations in Fiji.
-The other case involves the Australian company Autogen Ltd which signed an agreement with Tonga’s Ministry of Health to identify and extract Tongan genes for the purpose of identifying causes of common diseases such as diabetes.
There are a number of other cases mentioned in the collection, and I recommend the Hutchings article as a good overview of issues as they relate to the Maori.
As I mentioned before, the one reason that you have this discourse is that Maori culture is still relatively vibrant. Other minority cultures don’t have that strength, so cannot make these arguments.
I don’t want to keep throwing gas on the fire, but this, by Jerry Coyne, one of the co-authors of the paper is interesting in an ironic way
https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2023/05/04/pamela-paul-of-the-nyt-touts-our-merit-paper/
About midway through the blogpost, he posts a screenshot of this paper
https://researchspace.auckland.ac.nz/handle/2292/64047
And snidely notes that
Note that the ultimate in positionality statements is putting your “iwi” (tribe) in a paper touting indigenous Māori science, like this one I discussed the other day. The words in parentheses after each author’s name gives the iwi to which they belong.
I say ironic because almost every academic paper asks the co-authors to list their institution. But of course, this can’t be anything like an ‘iwi’ because Western institutions don’t behave like tribes, do they…
Here is his blogpost that has his reading of the paper.
https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2023/04/30/a-new-paper-that-presages-the-death-of-science-in-new-zealand/
In case anyone is swayed by his question
Any real scientist reading this will cry out “Just give me one lousy example of the kind of scientific research you’re talking about. Tell me about questions and projects which Pūtaiao will approach differently from modern science, and how the Māori methods are superior.”
I can actually identify several.
1)A Maori method would require the agreement of the iwi(s) affected and there would be some group consensus on whether the information should be shared. Within that consensus, there would be some protection for the weak and some assurance that the results of the research would be returned to the community.
2)A Maori method would ideally be leveraged so that the Maori language, which he notes is a “vunerable language”, would be part and parcel of any research done on data that is drawn from Maori.
3)A more collaborative method of research would show that it is possible and could provide more diversity in the research community on the topics that are of interest to the Maori. That method would be meaningful not only to Maori, but to other minority groups
4)A Maori science might be able to create more equitable ways of sharing and using research, again, something that could benefit other minority groups.
An interesting collection of papers in that regard is here
https://library.sprep.org/content/pacific-genes-life-patents-pacific-indigenous-experiences-analysis-commodification
A list of some of the issues dealt in the collection include
-case where the Cook Islands government “agreed in principle” in 2002 to allow Diatranz Ltd a New Zealand company to commence xenotransplantation experimentation in the Cook Islands without consultation and without the informed consent of the people
-the Hagahai patent case which involved removal and patenting of genes belonging to the Hagahai people by Dr Carol Jenkins a US medical researcher
-the attempt in 1995 by the University of the South Pacific to sign an agreement with Smith Kline-Beecham a pharmaceutical conglomerate to extract bio-diversity material from two locations in Fiji.
-The other case involves the Australian company Autogen Ltd which signed an agreement with Tonga’s Ministry of Health to identify and extract Tongan genes for the purpose of identifying causes of common diseases such as diabetes.
There are a number of other cases mentioned in the collection, and I recommend the Hutchings article as a good overview of issues as they relate to the Maori.
As I mentioned before, the one reason that you have this discourse is that Maori culture is still relatively vibrant. Other minority cultures don’t have that strength, so cannot make these arguments.
This article in the Chronicle of Higher Education appears to be paywalled, but I’m linking it in case any of you are interested and have the means (or warez) to access it:
https://www.chronicle.com/article/the-false-promise-of-colorblind-admissions
It’s an analysis of the legal history and influential writings about “color blindness” that are in play in the current supreme court decision that, let’s be honest, will probably end Affirmative Action.
Glazer’s early naïve optimism was more justifiable than that of Powell or Kennedy for a very simple reason: It followed from overestimating the strength of the civil-rights laws that Powell and Kennedy were instrumental in weakening. Glazer, like many Americans, believed that civil-rights laws would eliminate racial obstacles root and branch. But to do that, as the disparate-impact theory in Griggs illustrates, the law could not be colorblind. It had to identify the practices of racial exclusion established in the era of overt discrimination and deal with them. Prohibiting those practices was one means of doing this; affirmative action was another. Civil-rights activists and politically moderate government bureaucrats alike believed both were important parts of the commitment to racial justice. Both were under attack, not only from resentful white members of society, but also from resentful white members of the Supreme Court.
Few would have predicted the steady erosion of civil-rights guarantees that would occur in the subsequent decades. This erosion wasn’t limited to disparate impact and affirmative action but extended to the symbolic heart of the civil-rights struggle: public education. The Supreme Court repudiated the assertive school-desegregation measures put in place to respond to massive resistance in the South and stubborn prejudice elsewhere. In 1974’s Milliken v. Bradley, the court blocked a desegregation order that a lower court had imposed to avoid, in its words, “opening a way to nullify Brown v. Board of Education.” In later years, under the guidance of the Supreme Court, the federal courts repudiated desegregation efforts nationwide. By the mid 1990s, resegregation of public schools was well underway. Today, America’s K-12 public schools are almost as racially segregated as they were in the late 1960s.
This is just a small part of the essay, which is all relevant and insightful.
And let us also be clear that the “science as meritocracy” people are busy fighting a proxy culture war against Affirmative Action when they rail against DEI and any direct consideration of how culture might influence the human institutions imbricated in every inch of the science that gets done.
This article in the Chronicle of Higher Education appears to be paywalled, but I’m linking it in case any of you are interested and have the means (or warez) to access it:
https://www.chronicle.com/article/the-false-promise-of-colorblind-admissions
It’s an analysis of the legal history and influential writings about “color blindness” that are in play in the current supreme court decision that, let’s be honest, will probably end Affirmative Action.
Glazer’s early naïve optimism was more justifiable than that of Powell or Kennedy for a very simple reason: It followed from overestimating the strength of the civil-rights laws that Powell and Kennedy were instrumental in weakening. Glazer, like many Americans, believed that civil-rights laws would eliminate racial obstacles root and branch. But to do that, as the disparate-impact theory in Griggs illustrates, the law could not be colorblind. It had to identify the practices of racial exclusion established in the era of overt discrimination and deal with them. Prohibiting those practices was one means of doing this; affirmative action was another. Civil-rights activists and politically moderate government bureaucrats alike believed both were important parts of the commitment to racial justice. Both were under attack, not only from resentful white members of society, but also from resentful white members of the Supreme Court.
Few would have predicted the steady erosion of civil-rights guarantees that would occur in the subsequent decades. This erosion wasn’t limited to disparate impact and affirmative action but extended to the symbolic heart of the civil-rights struggle: public education. The Supreme Court repudiated the assertive school-desegregation measures put in place to respond to massive resistance in the South and stubborn prejudice elsewhere. In 1974’s Milliken v. Bradley, the court blocked a desegregation order that a lower court had imposed to avoid, in its words, “opening a way to nullify Brown v. Board of Education.” In later years, under the guidance of the Supreme Court, the federal courts repudiated desegregation efforts nationwide. By the mid 1990s, resegregation of public schools was well underway. Today, America’s K-12 public schools are almost as racially segregated as they were in the late 1960s.
This is just a small part of the essay, which is all relevant and insightful.
And let us also be clear that the “science as meritocracy” people are busy fighting a proxy culture war against Affirmative Action when they rail against DEI and any direct consideration of how culture might influence the human institutions imbricated in every inch of the science that gets done.
GftNC: Where I am not entirely sure you are correct, and I would have to go back and read the paper to check that it’s not your own concern intruding (and I don’t guarantee I will!) is when you say this:
hous: But boy howdy do they work to impute the stench of lesser competence to everyone who could have come to their positions through those initiatives.
GftNC: If true of the paper (as opposed to the editorials, commentaries etc about it), this is inexcusable, and justifies the hostile reaction to it.
I can’t remember if you ever addressed this and supported your comment, but if not I can’t help thinking that when you say above
And let us also be clear that the “science as meritocracy” people are busy fighting a proxy culture war against Affirmative Action when they rail against DEI and any direct consideration of how culture might influence the human institutions imbricated in every inch of the science that gets done.
it needs to be more than just an ( on the surface very understandable) assumption. It’s not that I necessarily disagree with it, at least as it applies to many on that side of the argument, but I also think that there may be elements of the argument put forth by some of them which are free of that implicit intention. Does Affirmative Action apply mainly or solely to undergraduate degrees? Are they (the “science as meritocracy” people) mainly concerned with work done by people who go on to further, graduate degrees? At what stage in education are the disadvantages addressed by Affirmative Action considered to be overcome?
It may be my ignorance of the Affirmative Action effects etc, but it seems to me these are necessary questions to answer in considering the motives of some, if not all, of the “science as meritocracy” people.
GftNC: Where I am not entirely sure you are correct, and I would have to go back and read the paper to check that it’s not your own concern intruding (and I don’t guarantee I will!) is when you say this:
hous: But boy howdy do they work to impute the stench of lesser competence to everyone who could have come to their positions through those initiatives.
GftNC: If true of the paper (as opposed to the editorials, commentaries etc about it), this is inexcusable, and justifies the hostile reaction to it.
I can’t remember if you ever addressed this and supported your comment, but if not I can’t help thinking that when you say above
And let us also be clear that the “science as meritocracy” people are busy fighting a proxy culture war against Affirmative Action when they rail against DEI and any direct consideration of how culture might influence the human institutions imbricated in every inch of the science that gets done.
it needs to be more than just an ( on the surface very understandable) assumption. It’s not that I necessarily disagree with it, at least as it applies to many on that side of the argument, but I also think that there may be elements of the argument put forth by some of them which are free of that implicit intention. Does Affirmative Action apply mainly or solely to undergraduate degrees? Are they (the “science as meritocracy” people) mainly concerned with work done by people who go on to further, graduate degrees? At what stage in education are the disadvantages addressed by Affirmative Action considered to be overcome?
It may be my ignorance of the Affirmative Action effects etc, but it seems to me these are necessary questions to answer in considering the motives of some, if not all, of the “science as meritocracy” people.
The Chronicle of Higher Education article:
Summary:
“• The idea of colorblindness in college admissions is appealing but flawed. It ignores the reality of racial discrimination and disadvantage.
• The advocates of colorblindness argue that the Supreme Court implicitly endorsed it in Brown v. Board of Education by repudiating the “separate but equal” doctrine. But Brown did not endorse colorblindness; it simply rejected segregation.
• In practice, colorblindness is difficult to implement. It’s hard to distinguish between considering an applicant’s experience with racial discrimination and considering their race itself.
• Colorblindness was not the intent of civil rights laws like the 14th Amendment and Title VI. Those laws were meant to remedy racial injustice, not prohibit considerations of race.
• The idea of colorblindness gained support in the 1970s. Some thought that as racial barriers fell, minority groups would assimilate as other ethnic groups had. But racial divisions have persisted.
• The Supreme Court has weakened civil rights laws and protections over time through decisions like Milliken v. Bradley and Ricci v. DeStefano. This has allowed racial inequalities to continue.
• It is implausible to argue that white people still face widespread discrimination. While Asian Americans do face discrimination, they are also generally well-integrated into society. Affirmative action aims to remedy systemic disadvantages, which Asian Americans overall face to a lesser degree.
• Practices other than affirmative action, like legacy admissions, also disadvantage Asian American applicants. But colorblindness does not address these other practices. We must consider race to determine if they are biased.
• Simply stopping the consideration of race will not necessarily end discrimination. We must examine policies and practices in context to understand their impact. Colorblindness ignores this reality.” —Claude+
The False Promise of Coloblind Admissions: You can’t stop racial discrimination without considering race.
The Chronicle of Higher Education article:
Summary:
“• The idea of colorblindness in college admissions is appealing but flawed. It ignores the reality of racial discrimination and disadvantage.
• The advocates of colorblindness argue that the Supreme Court implicitly endorsed it in Brown v. Board of Education by repudiating the “separate but equal” doctrine. But Brown did not endorse colorblindness; it simply rejected segregation.
• In practice, colorblindness is difficult to implement. It’s hard to distinguish between considering an applicant’s experience with racial discrimination and considering their race itself.
• Colorblindness was not the intent of civil rights laws like the 14th Amendment and Title VI. Those laws were meant to remedy racial injustice, not prohibit considerations of race.
• The idea of colorblindness gained support in the 1970s. Some thought that as racial barriers fell, minority groups would assimilate as other ethnic groups had. But racial divisions have persisted.
• The Supreme Court has weakened civil rights laws and protections over time through decisions like Milliken v. Bradley and Ricci v. DeStefano. This has allowed racial inequalities to continue.
• It is implausible to argue that white people still face widespread discrimination. While Asian Americans do face discrimination, they are also generally well-integrated into society. Affirmative action aims to remedy systemic disadvantages, which Asian Americans overall face to a lesser degree.
• Practices other than affirmative action, like legacy admissions, also disadvantage Asian American applicants. But colorblindness does not address these other practices. We must consider race to determine if they are biased.
• Simply stopping the consideration of race will not necessarily end discrimination. We must examine policies and practices in context to understand their impact. Colorblindness ignores this reality.” —Claude+
The False Promise of Coloblind Admissions: You can’t stop racial discrimination without considering race.
CharlesWT! (applause)
nous: Yes. Few people seem to realize that the Supreme Court has been in conservative hands since the sabotage of Abe Fortas and Nixon’s appointments. It has been a steadily rightward march ever since…esp. in matters regarding race, regulation of corporations and unions, and criminal law.
GFTNC: Implicit in the “merit” and affirmative action arguments is the idea that there can only be “so many” at the pinnacle (only “so many” doctors, only “so much “the best”). Space is limited! This is exactly the claim they criticize the other side of making. But I guess if you are a Nobel laureate you can get away with such nonsense.
But consider: If the available “space” is taken up by white males out of proportion to their numbers in the overall population, how is this explained? The defenders of “merit” wave their hands. One would think this would be a good topic for a “scientific” investigation!
Similarly, take medical schools. 1.) We have a conscious public policy of limiting the number of doctors in this country who are licensed to provide these services; 2.) We do not allow physicians trained in other countries to practice here. Voila! Space is limited!
And in conclusion, nobody is denying anybody the ability to practice “good science” or recruit “the best” scientists. That claim is absolutely ludicrous.
CharlesWT! (applause)
nous: Yes. Few people seem to realize that the Supreme Court has been in conservative hands since the sabotage of Abe Fortas and Nixon’s appointments. It has been a steadily rightward march ever since…esp. in matters regarding race, regulation of corporations and unions, and criminal law.
GFTNC: Implicit in the “merit” and affirmative action arguments is the idea that there can only be “so many” at the pinnacle (only “so many” doctors, only “so much “the best”). Space is limited! This is exactly the claim they criticize the other side of making. But I guess if you are a Nobel laureate you can get away with such nonsense.
But consider: If the available “space” is taken up by white males out of proportion to their numbers in the overall population, how is this explained? The defenders of “merit” wave their hands. One would think this would be a good topic for a “scientific” investigation!
Similarly, take medical schools. 1.) We have a conscious public policy of limiting the number of doctors in this country who are licensed to provide these services; 2.) We do not allow physicians trained in other countries to practice here. Voila! Space is limited!
And in conclusion, nobody is denying anybody the ability to practice “good science” or recruit “the best” scientists. That claim is absolutely ludicrous.
But consider: If the available “space” is taken up by white males out of proportion to their numbers in the overall population, how is this explained? The defenders of “merit” wave their hands. One would think this would be a good topic for a “scientific” investigation!
I completely agree!
But consider: If the available “space” is taken up by white males out of proportion to their numbers in the overall population, how is this explained? The defenders of “merit” wave their hands. One would think this would be a good topic for a “scientific” investigation!
I completely agree!
Just as a historical note, “color blind admissions” was a step forward when it was first proposed. The prevailing mode at the time being explicit racial discrimination.
It is inferior to Affirmative Action in addressing longstanding racism. But at the time, Affirmative Action wasn’t on the horizon.
Just as a historical note, “color blind admissions” was a step forward when it was first proposed. The prevailing mode at the time being explicit racial discrimination.
It is inferior to Affirmative Action in addressing longstanding racism. But at the time, Affirmative Action wasn’t on the horizon.
via Mike the Mad Biologist
conclusion: chill baby, chill.
via Mike the Mad Biologist
conclusion: chill baby, chill.
wj – here’s what the article has to say about the context in which “colorblindness” becomes the legal standard:
Most observers expect a ruling that imposes colorblindness as a constitutional mandate. The plaintiffs in the two cases challenging affirmative action insist that the Supreme Court implicitly endorsed colorblindness in Brown v. Board of Education. The argument involves what the veteran Supreme Court reporter Linda Greenhouse called a “double bank shot”: Brown repudiated the infamous 1898 opinion upholding racial segregation in Plessy v. Ferguson; therefore it must have embraced the dissenting opinion in Plessy, in which Justice John Marshall Harlan famously insisted that “our Constitution is color-blind.”
Like most double bank shots, this one misses the mark: Brown doesn’t endorse colorblindness, nor does it need to. The Brown court simply rejected segregation as inconsistent with the contemporary demands of equality: “[s]egregation … has a detrimental effect upon colored children … denoting the inferiority of the negro group. … Whatever may have been the extent of psychological knowledge at the time of Plessy v. Ferguson, this finding is amply supported by modern authority. Any language in Plessy v. Ferguson contrary to this finding is rejected.” It is doubtful that colorblindness is even consistent with Brown, given that opinion’s emphasis on substantive equality: The Brown court cared, almost exclusively, about the scientific evidence that segregation injured Black children — not about the form that the injury took.
Colorblindness seems heroic and noble when contrasted to the Plessy majority’s embrace of what would become Jim Crow segregation. But colorblindness was no ringing endorsement of racial equality. Few of its proponents cite the entirety of Harlan’s dissent, or even the entire paragraph in which the term “color-blind” appears. It begins:
“The white race deems itself to be the dominant race in this country. And so it is in prestige, in achievements, in education, in wealth and in power. So, I doubt not, it will continue to be for all time if it remains true to its great heritage…”
Harlan’s commitment to colorblindness was premised on the confidence that it was perfectly compatible with white supremacy.
The article has white supremacist friendly structures of exclusion in its sights, and is trying to make clear that something has to be done about those or else there should be no expectation that colorblindness will by itself remedy any of the problematic inequalities that persist.
Not a disagreement with you, just trying to make the context of the actual argument clear.
wj – here’s what the article has to say about the context in which “colorblindness” becomes the legal standard:
Most observers expect a ruling that imposes colorblindness as a constitutional mandate. The plaintiffs in the two cases challenging affirmative action insist that the Supreme Court implicitly endorsed colorblindness in Brown v. Board of Education. The argument involves what the veteran Supreme Court reporter Linda Greenhouse called a “double bank shot”: Brown repudiated the infamous 1898 opinion upholding racial segregation in Plessy v. Ferguson; therefore it must have embraced the dissenting opinion in Plessy, in which Justice John Marshall Harlan famously insisted that “our Constitution is color-blind.”
Like most double bank shots, this one misses the mark: Brown doesn’t endorse colorblindness, nor does it need to. The Brown court simply rejected segregation as inconsistent with the contemporary demands of equality: “[s]egregation … has a detrimental effect upon colored children … denoting the inferiority of the negro group. … Whatever may have been the extent of psychological knowledge at the time of Plessy v. Ferguson, this finding is amply supported by modern authority. Any language in Plessy v. Ferguson contrary to this finding is rejected.” It is doubtful that colorblindness is even consistent with Brown, given that opinion’s emphasis on substantive equality: The Brown court cared, almost exclusively, about the scientific evidence that segregation injured Black children — not about the form that the injury took.
Colorblindness seems heroic and noble when contrasted to the Plessy majority’s embrace of what would become Jim Crow segregation. But colorblindness was no ringing endorsement of racial equality. Few of its proponents cite the entirety of Harlan’s dissent, or even the entire paragraph in which the term “color-blind” appears. It begins:
“The white race deems itself to be the dominant race in this country. And so it is in prestige, in achievements, in education, in wealth and in power. So, I doubt not, it will continue to be for all time if it remains true to its great heritage…”
Harlan’s commitment to colorblindness was premised on the confidence that it was perfectly compatible with white supremacy.
The article has white supremacist friendly structures of exclusion in its sights, and is trying to make clear that something has to be done about those or else there should be no expectation that colorblindness will by itself remedy any of the problematic inequalities that persist.
Not a disagreement with you, just trying to make the context of the actual argument clear.
Not a disagreement with you, just trying to make the context of the actual argument clear.
Just as I’m not disagreeing that, today, affirmative action is still needed. At most, it could be argued that in some cases there might also need to be something similar based on economic circumstances.
(As a side note, I’ll start believing in the liberalism of the Ivy League when they finally abolish “legace admissions.”)
Not a disagreement with you, just trying to make the context of the actual argument clear.
Just as I’m not disagreeing that, today, affirmative action is still needed. At most, it could be argued that in some cases there might also need to be something similar based on economic circumstances.
(As a side note, I’ll start believing in the liberalism of the Ivy League when they finally abolish “legace admissions.”)
If there is any bright spot in all of these efforts to abolish affirmative action it’s that many of the difficulties we are trying to relieve are economic barriers (and the courts seem open to the need for this) so a good-faith effort to address those will be open to the people of color currently being helped by affirmative action.
If there is any bright spot in all of these efforts to abolish affirmative action it’s that many of the difficulties we are trying to relieve are economic barriers (and the courts seem open to the need for this) so a good-faith effort to address those will be open to the people of color currently being helped by affirmative action.
While treating Maori people to unequal treatment is bad, I have a hard time being sympathetic, considering the horrific Maori genocide of Chatham Islanders.
Yes, the British were complicit, but it was the Maori that did the crimes.
(am I ‘pulling a Donald’? perhaps!)
While treating Maori people to unequal treatment is bad, I have a hard time being sympathetic, considering the horrific Maori genocide of Chatham Islanders.
Yes, the British were complicit, but it was the Maori that did the crimes.
(am I ‘pulling a Donald’? perhaps!)
nous @05.43: that is a bright spot. FWIW I regard efforts to abolish affirmative action in just the same way as I regard efforts to suppress the minority vote.
nous @05.43: that is a bright spot. FWIW I regard efforts to abolish affirmative action in just the same way as I regard efforts to suppress the minority vote.
My guess is that barriers to academic success in the USA are now primarily economic, and that affirmative action should be used to help students from poor backgrounds rather than African-Americans specifically. Tell me I’m wrong.
My guess is that barriers to academic success in the USA are now primarily economic, and that affirmative action should be used to help students from poor backgrounds rather than African-Americans specifically. Tell me I’m wrong.
My guess is that barriers to academic success in the USA are now primarily economic, and that affirmative action should be used to help students from poor backgrounds rather than African-Americans specifically. Tell me I’m wrong.
🙂
“I would disagree that economic barriers are the only significant barriers to academic success for underrepresented groups in the US, or that affirmative action policy should solely target students from low-income backgrounds. Here are a few reasons why:
1. Racial minorities, especially African Americans and Latinos, still face significant barriers to academic achievement that are not purely economic. These include things like stereotype threat, racial biases, and lack of role models and mentors of the same race. Affirmative action aims to help address these barriers as well.
2. The impacts of historical and systemic racism still contribute to racial inequities in education today. For example, racial minorities are more likely to attend poorly funded K-12 schools with fewer experienced teachers. Affirmative action helps ameliorate these racial inequities that persist across generations.
3. Diversity, including racial diversity, has educational benefits for all students. Learning in an environment with students from diverse backgrounds helps foster more complex thinking, challenges stereotypes, and promotes intercultural understanding. Affirmative action aims to promote these diversity benefits.
4. Low-income students of all races face barriers to education and benefit from economic-based affirmative action. However, the racial barriers and inequities faced by minority groups, especially African Americans and Latinos, are distinct and substantial. Economic affirmative action alone would not adequately address these racial barriers.
5. Minority students can face discrimination and barriers even when they come from economically privileged backgrounds. Affirmative action based solely on class or income would fail to provide opportunities and support for many minority students facing racial barriers.
In summary, while economic barriers are significant, racial barriers and inequities remain important issues in US education. Affirmative action policies aimed at promoting diversity and opportunity for underrepresented minorities, including African Americans, continue to serve an important purpose. Both race-based and class-based affirmative action likely have roles to play in promoting equity and opportunity.” —Claude+
My guess is that barriers to academic success in the USA are now primarily economic, and that affirmative action should be used to help students from poor backgrounds rather than African-Americans specifically. Tell me I’m wrong.
🙂
“I would disagree that economic barriers are the only significant barriers to academic success for underrepresented groups in the US, or that affirmative action policy should solely target students from low-income backgrounds. Here are a few reasons why:
1. Racial minorities, especially African Americans and Latinos, still face significant barriers to academic achievement that are not purely economic. These include things like stereotype threat, racial biases, and lack of role models and mentors of the same race. Affirmative action aims to help address these barriers as well.
2. The impacts of historical and systemic racism still contribute to racial inequities in education today. For example, racial minorities are more likely to attend poorly funded K-12 schools with fewer experienced teachers. Affirmative action helps ameliorate these racial inequities that persist across generations.
3. Diversity, including racial diversity, has educational benefits for all students. Learning in an environment with students from diverse backgrounds helps foster more complex thinking, challenges stereotypes, and promotes intercultural understanding. Affirmative action aims to promote these diversity benefits.
4. Low-income students of all races face barriers to education and benefit from economic-based affirmative action. However, the racial barriers and inequities faced by minority groups, especially African Americans and Latinos, are distinct and substantial. Economic affirmative action alone would not adequately address these racial barriers.
5. Minority students can face discrimination and barriers even when they come from economically privileged backgrounds. Affirmative action based solely on class or income would fail to provide opportunities and support for many minority students facing racial barriers.
In summary, while economic barriers are significant, racial barriers and inequities remain important issues in US education. Affirmative action policies aimed at promoting diversity and opportunity for underrepresented minorities, including African Americans, continue to serve an important purpose. Both race-based and class-based affirmative action likely have roles to play in promoting equity and opportunity.” —Claude+
PB,
I would agree your guess is on the mark, and public policy to deal with encompassing wealth/income inequality is a core part of being a raving commie (at your service), or even a more liberal type Democrat. As for AA, I would be open to other approaches that would eliminate, for example, the unduly high proportion of job applications with the name “Knisha” on them pre-emptively getting tossed into the waste basket.
Because THAT is de jure affirmative action…..for white people, and overcoming that is what is important.
That’s just the tip of the iceberg. As long as we observe disparate outcomes, we need affirmative policy, be it quotas, reparations, or something else.
Politics is all about who gets what. I’m all ears.
Thanks.
PB,
I would agree your guess is on the mark, and public policy to deal with encompassing wealth/income inequality is a core part of being a raving commie (at your service), or even a more liberal type Democrat. As for AA, I would be open to other approaches that would eliminate, for example, the unduly high proportion of job applications with the name “Knisha” on them pre-emptively getting tossed into the waste basket.
Because THAT is de jure affirmative action…..for white people, and overcoming that is what is important.
That’s just the tip of the iceberg. As long as we observe disparate outcomes, we need affirmative policy, be it quotas, reparations, or something else.
Politics is all about who gets what. I’m all ears.
Thanks.
Charles has a new toy!
Charles has a new toy!
the unduly high proportion of job applications with the name “Knisha” on them pre-emptively getting tossed into the waste basket.
Because THAT is de jure affirmative action…..for white people,
Actually, no. It’s de facto affirmative action. To be de jure it would have to be legally required.
the unduly high proportion of job applications with the name “Knisha” on them pre-emptively getting tossed into the waste basket.
Because THAT is de jure affirmative action…..for white people,
Actually, no. It’s de facto affirmative action. To be de jure it would have to be legally required.
Minority students can face discrimination and barriers even when they come from economically privileged backgrounds. Affirmative action based solely on class or income would fail to provide opportunities and support for many minority students facing racial barriers.
When I was an undergraduate I needed access to computer labs that were open 24 hours per day. But the best time to use them for the work I was doing was the middle of the night. I remember one night when it suddenly struck me how privileged I was — white, male, fit, with a bounce in my step — that I could walk home across the student ghetto, including alleys and such, at 2:00 am, and not think twice about physical danger or being hassled by the cops. But that women, or Blacks, were not granted the same benefit.
Minority students can face discrimination and barriers even when they come from economically privileged backgrounds. Affirmative action based solely on class or income would fail to provide opportunities and support for many minority students facing racial barriers.
When I was an undergraduate I needed access to computer labs that were open 24 hours per day. But the best time to use them for the work I was doing was the middle of the night. I remember one night when it suddenly struck me how privileged I was — white, male, fit, with a bounce in my step — that I could walk home across the student ghetto, including alleys and such, at 2:00 am, and not think twice about physical danger or being hassled by the cops. But that women, or Blacks, were not granted the same benefit.
There is a two step involved with colorblindness that is similar to what happens with women. An article I read a long time ago, so long that I can’t conjure up the terms to find something close to it, pointed out that in the US, the thrust was making sure all things were equal and women were not discriminated against. However, in Europe, notably in Northern Europe, the emphasis was on creating a framework that would compensate for the unequal conditions that women had to deal with in the job market. The result can be seen in the Gender Inequality Index
https://hdr.undp.org/data-center/thematic-composite-indices/gender-inequality-index#/indicies/GII
You have a similar issue with minorities in higher ed. STEM might be a smaller data set and Wikipedia has this page
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_diversity_and_discrimination_in_STEM_fields
Saying that it’s an economic issue, not a race issue ignores the massive advantage that the white majority, especially in the US, has accrued. It’s a western capitalism mindset, transferring the problems of racism to an economic framework, and because money (supposedly) doesn’t acknowledge color, everything is fine. While not the first shot in this debate, I think a starting point for this was Ta-Nehisi Coates Atlantic article “The case for reparations”
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case-for-reparations/361631/
The structure of the article, which focuses on redlining and comparisons of White v Black wealth. So when you say the barriers are economic rather than racial, I’d say that racial barriers have turned into economic barriers. Am I wrong?
There is a two step involved with colorblindness that is similar to what happens with women. An article I read a long time ago, so long that I can’t conjure up the terms to find something close to it, pointed out that in the US, the thrust was making sure all things were equal and women were not discriminated against. However, in Europe, notably in Northern Europe, the emphasis was on creating a framework that would compensate for the unequal conditions that women had to deal with in the job market. The result can be seen in the Gender Inequality Index
https://hdr.undp.org/data-center/thematic-composite-indices/gender-inequality-index#/indicies/GII
You have a similar issue with minorities in higher ed. STEM might be a smaller data set and Wikipedia has this page
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_diversity_and_discrimination_in_STEM_fields
Saying that it’s an economic issue, not a race issue ignores the massive advantage that the white majority, especially in the US, has accrued. It’s a western capitalism mindset, transferring the problems of racism to an economic framework, and because money (supposedly) doesn’t acknowledge color, everything is fine. While not the first shot in this debate, I think a starting point for this was Ta-Nehisi Coates Atlantic article “The case for reparations”
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case-for-reparations/361631/
The structure of the article, which focuses on redlining and comparisons of White v Black wealth. So when you say the barriers are economic rather than racial, I’d say that racial barriers have turned into economic barriers. Am I wrong?
Actually, no. It’s de facto affirmative action. To be de jure it would have to be legally required.
Oops. Old man brain fart. Thanks, wj.
Actually, no. It’s de facto affirmative action. To be de jure it would have to be legally required.
Oops. Old man brain fart. Thanks, wj.
Pro Bono – African American/Black, Hispanic, Pacific Islander, Native American are all underrepresented heritage groups on US campuses, especially at selective public universities. My guess is that Filipino Americans are also underrepresented, but hidden inside the larger overrepresentation of students of Asian heritage. Cambodian and Vietnamese heritage are probably next in line.
IIRC, Vietnamese heritage students defy those odds with regard to college completion rates and entry to graduate level education. Faculty and administrative numbers are another area that deserves a deeper look than I have time for ATM.
Some of the issue is economic, but I’d venture that if we looked at the numbers by economic bracket that the racial/linguistic/heritage patterns would still persist.
Since the major tools used to fight against forced desegregation in the US are zoning and districting, I think that looking at the schools that applicants come from may be another way to get at some of these structural inequalities.
Pro Bono – African American/Black, Hispanic, Pacific Islander, Native American are all underrepresented heritage groups on US campuses, especially at selective public universities. My guess is that Filipino Americans are also underrepresented, but hidden inside the larger overrepresentation of students of Asian heritage. Cambodian and Vietnamese heritage are probably next in line.
IIRC, Vietnamese heritage students defy those odds with regard to college completion rates and entry to graduate level education. Faculty and administrative numbers are another area that deserves a deeper look than I have time for ATM.
Some of the issue is economic, but I’d venture that if we looked at the numbers by economic bracket that the racial/linguistic/heritage patterns would still persist.
Since the major tools used to fight against forced desegregation in the US are zoning and districting, I think that looking at the schools that applicants come from may be another way to get at some of these structural inequalities.
From lj’s wiki link:
While there is no measurable difference in college enrollment of White, Black, and Hispanic STEM students, only 15% of Black students who initially enrolled in a STEM major received a STEM bachelor’s degree at graduation, compared to 30% of White and Asian students.
The data are from table 8 in this paper.
30% graduating seems spectacularly low to me, let alone 15% – I don’t understand how the US system works. But doesn’t this suggest that affirmative action at the admissions stage isn’t doing what it’s supposed to do?
…when you say the barriers are economic rather than racial, I’d say that racial barriers have turned into economic barriers. Am I wrong?
I read Coates’ article on reparations when it was first published: yes, I’m convinced that past racism has continuing effects. But I don’t see how that changes the argument.
From lj’s wiki link:
While there is no measurable difference in college enrollment of White, Black, and Hispanic STEM students, only 15% of Black students who initially enrolled in a STEM major received a STEM bachelor’s degree at graduation, compared to 30% of White and Asian students.
The data are from table 8 in this paper.
30% graduating seems spectacularly low to me, let alone 15% – I don’t understand how the US system works. But doesn’t this suggest that affirmative action at the admissions stage isn’t doing what it’s supposed to do?
…when you say the barriers are economic rather than racial, I’d say that racial barriers have turned into economic barriers. Am I wrong?
I read Coates’ article on reparations when it was first published: yes, I’m convinced that past racism has continuing effects. But I don’t see how that changes the argument.
Oops. Old man brain fart. Thanks, wj.
Just exercising my penchant for nit picking. Too many years of including editing in my job description.
Oops. Old man brain fart. Thanks, wj.
Just exercising my penchant for nit picking. Too many years of including editing in my job description.
30% graduating seems spectacularly low to me, let alone 15% – I don’t understand how the US system works. But doesn’t this suggest that affirmative action at the admissions stage isn’t doing what it’s supposed to do?
First, apologies, I didn’t know or had forgotten that you aren’t from the US, but it is important to realize that affirmative action was, in large part, imposed on US universities. The problem also reflects the structure of the US university system and given the cost of higher education, economic discrimination becomes a form of racial discrimination. Step by step
-create a wealth gap through societal discrimination
-when the instruments that created this gap are overturned, congratulate on ‘solving the problem’ even though nothing is done on the question of the wealth gap or of opportunity costs
-allow the cost of education to vastly outstrip increases in earning, even as societal discrimination keeps minorities out of those jobs
nous has written more elegantly than I have on the issues of first time university attendees, and wj and I have spoken about how we were probably the last generation to be able to pay our way thru school. That just doesn’t obtain anymore.
This is why the ‘it’s economic, not racial’ argument is so problematic: Not because it is totally wrong, but because it is a shell game where the attention is pointed to other things. I don’t think it is an either/or, I think it can be both and steps should be taken to alleviate both. But when even the smallest steps are fought, such as loan forgiveness, it makes one wonder if there is a underlying idea that we want to limit gains of minorities.
30% graduating seems spectacularly low to me, let alone 15% – I don’t understand how the US system works. But doesn’t this suggest that affirmative action at the admissions stage isn’t doing what it’s supposed to do?
First, apologies, I didn’t know or had forgotten that you aren’t from the US, but it is important to realize that affirmative action was, in large part, imposed on US universities. The problem also reflects the structure of the US university system and given the cost of higher education, economic discrimination becomes a form of racial discrimination. Step by step
-create a wealth gap through societal discrimination
-when the instruments that created this gap are overturned, congratulate on ‘solving the problem’ even though nothing is done on the question of the wealth gap or of opportunity costs
-allow the cost of education to vastly outstrip increases in earning, even as societal discrimination keeps minorities out of those jobs
nous has written more elegantly than I have on the issues of first time university attendees, and wj and I have spoken about how we were probably the last generation to be able to pay our way thru school. That just doesn’t obtain anymore.
This is why the ‘it’s economic, not racial’ argument is so problematic: Not because it is totally wrong, but because it is a shell game where the attention is pointed to other things. I don’t think it is an either/or, I think it can be both and steps should be taken to alleviate both. But when even the smallest steps are fought, such as loan forgiveness, it makes one wonder if there is a underlying idea that we want to limit gains of minorities.
Okay, so Table 8 is for people who entered postsecondary education in academic year 95-96 and it is looking at how much they had attained by 2001 (so six years after admission). Only half of those were seeking a bachelors degree or higher according to the table and only half of them were enrolled at a 4-year college. Of the people going to a 2-year, just over a third were aiming at an associates degree or a certification in a STEM field and no higher. That makes the number actually completing a BS a little less dire. Also, the more selective the institution and the higher the expected attainment, the lower the number of people not attaining at least a bachelor’s degree. Unfortunately, we have no race/ethnicity breakout for those figures, just totals.
A lot of those dropouts were probably at 2-year schools or for-profit schools and attending school while working.
The 30% vs. 15% only applies to a bachelors degree in STEM. Between a fifth and a fourth of the enrollees appear to have transferred to a non-STEM major and another fourth to a third dropped out.
It seems clear to me from the numbers that black and hispanic students moreso than white and asian students tended to struggle in the first two years and got squeezed out before the shift to upper division classes. That makes sense to me. They came in having been the best students in their schools and never learned a lot of the important lessons about struggling or asking for help because they were the success stories. That first year is going to be a shock for them and they will seriously doubt their place at a competitive school when they start to struggle – especially when they look around and don’t see many others who look like them on campus. That doubt, and the expense of attending combine to account for a lot of that attrition. They lose faith in themselves.
The other thing that those numbers do not capture is how many students take more than six years to complete a degree. I started seeking a STEM degree in 1986 and lasted a year. I went back in ’91 to a liberal arts college and dropped out two years later for financial reasons (and also depression). I went back to a couple 2-year colleges in the interim for STEM classes (IT), but could not afford to do so full time. It wasn’t until 2002 that I managed to pay off my previous college debt and complete a non-STEM degree, and eventually a Ph.D.. According to the table’s logic I would count as having left post-secondary education without a degree because I was outside of the six year window.
Perspective.
I think a lot of those black and hispanic students who dropped out would have been able to complete a degree if they were allowed to keep financial aid while attending less than full time and could pay a la carte for classes and still maintain their student standing. Expecting a degree in four years from everyone is unrealistic if the student does not have a support network and older family members who can help them navigate the institution.
Okay, so Table 8 is for people who entered postsecondary education in academic year 95-96 and it is looking at how much they had attained by 2001 (so six years after admission). Only half of those were seeking a bachelors degree or higher according to the table and only half of them were enrolled at a 4-year college. Of the people going to a 2-year, just over a third were aiming at an associates degree or a certification in a STEM field and no higher. That makes the number actually completing a BS a little less dire. Also, the more selective the institution and the higher the expected attainment, the lower the number of people not attaining at least a bachelor’s degree. Unfortunately, we have no race/ethnicity breakout for those figures, just totals.
A lot of those dropouts were probably at 2-year schools or for-profit schools and attending school while working.
The 30% vs. 15% only applies to a bachelors degree in STEM. Between a fifth and a fourth of the enrollees appear to have transferred to a non-STEM major and another fourth to a third dropped out.
It seems clear to me from the numbers that black and hispanic students moreso than white and asian students tended to struggle in the first two years and got squeezed out before the shift to upper division classes. That makes sense to me. They came in having been the best students in their schools and never learned a lot of the important lessons about struggling or asking for help because they were the success stories. That first year is going to be a shock for them and they will seriously doubt their place at a competitive school when they start to struggle – especially when they look around and don’t see many others who look like them on campus. That doubt, and the expense of attending combine to account for a lot of that attrition. They lose faith in themselves.
The other thing that those numbers do not capture is how many students take more than six years to complete a degree. I started seeking a STEM degree in 1986 and lasted a year. I went back in ’91 to a liberal arts college and dropped out two years later for financial reasons (and also depression). I went back to a couple 2-year colleges in the interim for STEM classes (IT), but could not afford to do so full time. It wasn’t until 2002 that I managed to pay off my previous college debt and complete a non-STEM degree, and eventually a Ph.D.. According to the table’s logic I would count as having left post-secondary education without a degree because I was outside of the six year window.
Perspective.
I think a lot of those black and hispanic students who dropped out would have been able to complete a degree if they were allowed to keep financial aid while attending less than full time and could pay a la carte for classes and still maintain their student standing. Expecting a degree in four years from everyone is unrealistic if the student does not have a support network and older family members who can help them navigate the institution.
They came in having been the best students in their schools and never learned a lot of the important lessons about struggling or asking for help because they were the success stories. That first year is going to be a shock for them.
That was exactly me. The only high school class I had to study for wss German. Hitting college and discovering that I had to study for everything was a shock. Especially as I didn’t know how to study. Took a couple of years to work that out. Fortunately, as lj mentioned, this was back in a time when it was feasible to work your way thru — it meant there was less time pressure to finish.
They came in having been the best students in their schools and never learned a lot of the important lessons about struggling or asking for help because they were the success stories. That first year is going to be a shock for them.
That was exactly me. The only high school class I had to study for wss German. Hitting college and discovering that I had to study for everything was a shock. Especially as I didn’t know how to study. Took a couple of years to work that out. Fortunately, as lj mentioned, this was back in a time when it was feasible to work your way thru — it meant there was less time pressure to finish.
Also, as I mentioned before, competitive universities overadmit STEM majors, knowing that they will have to reduce that number before the students reach the upper division classes. Students from underrepresented groups overwhelmingly aim for STEM majors because they have been told that those are the majors that lead to a secure, well-paying job and they need a secure return on their investment right away. But the university doesn’t care if they don’t make the cut, so long as they either transfer to another school or change majors. The admin side only really cares if the institution’s completion rates for minorities drop below those of their competitors. If the problem is systemic, then the institutional prestige doesn’t take a hit because it just reinforces the existing narrative about underprepared students.
We have a faculty coalition of minority and first gen college graduates on my campus working to try to provide the mentoring we never had for the students who need it. It’s ad hoc, unpaid work. My department recognizes it, but it carries absolutely no weight with the administration and doesn’t count as service to the university in any official capacity. But boy does the university advertise itself as being one of the best in the country for social mobility.
Ain’t that just modern management strategy in a nutshell.
Also, as I mentioned before, competitive universities overadmit STEM majors, knowing that they will have to reduce that number before the students reach the upper division classes. Students from underrepresented groups overwhelmingly aim for STEM majors because they have been told that those are the majors that lead to a secure, well-paying job and they need a secure return on their investment right away. But the university doesn’t care if they don’t make the cut, so long as they either transfer to another school or change majors. The admin side only really cares if the institution’s completion rates for minorities drop below those of their competitors. If the problem is systemic, then the institutional prestige doesn’t take a hit because it just reinforces the existing narrative about underprepared students.
We have a faculty coalition of minority and first gen college graduates on my campus working to try to provide the mentoring we never had for the students who need it. It’s ad hoc, unpaid work. My department recognizes it, but it carries absolutely no weight with the administration and doesn’t count as service to the university in any official capacity. But boy does the university advertise itself as being one of the best in the country for social mobility.
Ain’t that just modern management strategy in a nutshell.
That was exactly me.
Me as well.
Will try to comment more on this when I have time.
That was exactly me.
Me as well.
Will try to comment more on this when I have time.
That was exactly me.
Me as well.
It does occur to me that the availability of AP classes might have changed that. At least giving bright high school students the opportunity to stretch themselves.
Assuming that their high school offer such courses, of course. My sense is that not all do. Which would further disadvantage kids from those high schols that don’t.
That was exactly me.
Me as well.
It does occur to me that the availability of AP classes might have changed that. At least giving bright high school students the opportunity to stretch themselves.
Assuming that their high school offer such courses, of course. My sense is that not all do. Which would further disadvantage kids from those high schols that don’t.
wj — my high school was too small, not that AP existed then. That prompts yet more thoughts about college admissions, but I’m committed to other things at the moment. Maybe later.
wj — my high school was too small, not that AP existed then. That prompts yet more thoughts about college admissions, but I’m committed to other things at the moment. Maybe later.
Janie, mine might have been big enough. My graduating class was only 250, but of those all but 2 were in college the next year. But, as with you, AP classes were way in the future then.
Janie, mine might have been big enough. My graduating class was only 250, but of those all but 2 were in college the next year. But, as with you, AP classes were way in the future then.
My graduating class was 86…..
They did let me skip junior year math and take the senior year course that year (“Analysis”), but then I ended up taking no math at all senior year. I should have taken calculus at the local branch of Kent State University, but I was too absorbed in senior year social life to want to do that. Priorities…..
My graduating class was 86…..
They did let me skip junior year math and take the senior year course that year (“Analysis”), but then I ended up taking no math at all senior year. I should have taken calculus at the local branch of Kent State University, but I was too absorbed in senior year social life to want to do that. Priorities…..
That was exactly me.
Also mostly me and one of my eventual housemates in undergrad school. We both agreed that we benefited from it being obvious by the end of the first week of honors calculus that Steckelberg was smarter than either of us. Steckelberg and I had the same double major, and took a lot of classes together. If I outscored him on a single exam during a semester, it was a good semester.
That was exactly me.
Also mostly me and one of my eventual housemates in undergrad school. We both agreed that we benefited from it being obvious by the end of the first week of honors calculus that Steckelberg was smarter than either of us. Steckelberg and I had the same double major, and took a lot of classes together. If I outscored him on a single exam during a semester, it was a good semester.
I have a feeling that a lot of us who found an early home on the Web were autodidacts. That was the utopian ideal during the formative, Hamsterdance and Slow-Loading Midi File years. Alas, we are a small fraction of the college going public. I count myself fortunate whenever another of us stumbles into one of my classes.
I have a feeling that a lot of us who found an early home on the Web were autodidacts. That was the utopian ideal during the formative, Hamsterdance and Slow-Loading Midi File years. Alas, we are a small fraction of the college going public. I count myself fortunate whenever another of us stumbles into one of my classes.
Well, speaking for myself, since so many of us had such similar experiences, I’d like to hear from Steckelberg….
Well, speaking for myself, since so many of us had such similar experiences, I’d like to hear from Steckelberg….
Well, speaking for myself, since so many of us had such similar experiences, I’d like to hear from Steckelberg….
Unfortunately, he died a few years ago. Speaking on his behalf, he won one of the ridiculously selective scholarships to read at Cambridge, another one that covered the full costs of acquiring a PhD that was open for life (never used), went to med school at Mayo, joined the Mayo Clinic infectious disease research group. Retired one of the prestigious awards for best paper in the field (whoever established it included the condition that if anyone won it three years in a row, it was to be retired).
Switched from math/computers to medicine after surviving a very serious case of Guillain–Barré syndrome. I visited him for weeks at the hospital that summer. The paralysis got high enough to affect his facial muscles so reading his lips was hard (on a ventilator so he couldn’t make sounds). One afternoon we had to work through that he was saying, “They had to jump-start me again last night.”
He was also a remarkably well-adjusted and genuinely nice guy.
Well, speaking for myself, since so many of us had such similar experiences, I’d like to hear from Steckelberg….
Unfortunately, he died a few years ago. Speaking on his behalf, he won one of the ridiculously selective scholarships to read at Cambridge, another one that covered the full costs of acquiring a PhD that was open for life (never used), went to med school at Mayo, joined the Mayo Clinic infectious disease research group. Retired one of the prestigious awards for best paper in the field (whoever established it included the condition that if anyone won it three years in a row, it was to be retired).
Switched from math/computers to medicine after surviving a very serious case of Guillain–Barré syndrome. I visited him for weeks at the hospital that summer. The paralysis got high enough to affect his facial muscles so reading his lips was hard (on a ventilator so he couldn’t make sounds). One afternoon we had to work through that he was saying, “They had to jump-start me again last night.”
He was also a remarkably well-adjusted and genuinely nice guy.
An excellent short bio, Michael Cain, which (for me) simultaneously excited admiration and a certain sadness. I have (and have always had) a soft spot for genius – if that’s what he was – the definition is often rather controversial. And they’re not always well-adjusted, or genuinely nice. Thank you.
An excellent short bio, Michael Cain, which (for me) simultaneously excited admiration and a certain sadness. I have (and have always had) a soft spot for genius – if that’s what he was – the definition is often rather controversial. And they’re not always well-adjusted, or genuinely nice. Thank you.
Steckelberg’s obituary.
Steckelberg’s obituary.
Gosh, thanks Janie! If anything, he sounds even more wonderful reading that. ObWi certainly is a strange and deeply rewarding miscellany.
Gosh, thanks Janie! If anything, he sounds even more wonderful reading that. ObWi certainly is a strange and deeply rewarding miscellany.
I could have sworn he went to Cambridge, not Oxford. But it’s been a long time.
I could have sworn he went to Cambridge, not Oxford. But it’s been a long time.
Michael — I didn’t even notice the discrepancy. Maybe he went to both!
Michael — I didn’t even notice the discrepancy. Maybe he went to both!
Rhodes Scholarships are an Oxford thing, but of course he would have been welcome here also.
Rhodes Scholarships are an Oxford thing, but of course he would have been welcome here also.
…but of course he would have been welcome here also.
I remember listening to his older brother Al talk about the international phone calls to find the right person to tell that Jim was seriously ill, and wouldn’t be able to start school at the normal time. Once he found them, they told him that whenever Jim could get there would be fine. Also that changing from math/computers to prep for US medical school was fine.
Getting in to visit Jim in the ICU initially was educational. I learned that there are multiple ways into a hospital besides the front desk (at that time, the loading dock where staff went to smoke was best). That a clipboard with what are obviously forms on it, plus frowning at electrical stuff, can get you a long way. And that ICU nurses are as susceptible as anyone to the combination of leading questions and really listening to the answers. I had been getting in the hard way for three weeks — although progressively easier as I became a familiar face — when I met Jim’s mom on my way out one evening and she put me on the approved family visitors list so I could come in the regular way.
…but of course he would have been welcome here also.
I remember listening to his older brother Al talk about the international phone calls to find the right person to tell that Jim was seriously ill, and wouldn’t be able to start school at the normal time. Once he found them, they told him that whenever Jim could get there would be fine. Also that changing from math/computers to prep for US medical school was fine.
Getting in to visit Jim in the ICU initially was educational. I learned that there are multiple ways into a hospital besides the front desk (at that time, the loading dock where staff went to smoke was best). That a clipboard with what are obviously forms on it, plus frowning at electrical stuff, can get you a long way. And that ICU nurses are as susceptible as anyone to the combination of leading questions and really listening to the answers. I had been getting in the hard way for three weeks — although progressively easier as I became a familiar face — when I met Jim’s mom on my way out one evening and she put me on the approved family visitors list so I could come in the regular way.
That a clipboard with what are obviously forms on it,
This also worked when you wanted to go someplace on a military base where you weren’t supposed to be. At least it did fifty years ago.
That a clipboard with what are obviously forms on it,
This also worked when you wanted to go someplace on a military base where you weren’t supposed to be. At least it did fifty years ago.
That a clipboard with what are obviously forms on it,
Combine that with grumbling about people who fail to do the simplest maintenance that they are supposed to do regularly, and everybody will assume you are where you are supposed to be and doing what you are supposed to be doing,
That a clipboard with what are obviously forms on it,
Combine that with grumbling about people who fail to do the simplest maintenance that they are supposed to do regularly, and everybody will assume you are where you are supposed to be and doing what you are supposed to be doing,
Don’t forget to wear a jumpsuit with a generic logo on it, and an embroidered name.
I suggest “Pat”, so all genders can be accommodated.
Don’t forget to wear a jumpsuit with a generic logo on it, and an embroidered name.
I suggest “Pat”, so all genders can be accommodated.
Don’t forget to wear a jumpsuit with a generic logo on it, and an embroidered name.
Fortunately I didn’t have to go that far. As I recall it, the combination of a clipboard and simply looking like I knew where I was going got me to the nurses’ station outside the ICU ward. Then it was just a polite college student trying to see his friend. We’ve had discussions here before about people who seem to have a “trustworthy” vibe. The people that strangers pick out of a crowd to stop and ask directions.
Don’t forget to wear a jumpsuit with a generic logo on it, and an embroidered name.
Fortunately I didn’t have to go that far. As I recall it, the combination of a clipboard and simply looking like I knew where I was going got me to the nurses’ station outside the ICU ward. Then it was just a polite college student trying to see his friend. We’ve had discussions here before about people who seem to have a “trustworthy” vibe. The people that strangers pick out of a crowd to stop and ask directions.
people who seem to have a “trustworthy” vibe. The people that strangers pick out of a crowd to stop and ask directions.
The credulous fools! Whereas you are clearly an international criminal mastermind….
Isn’t the internet a strange place? Here a bunch of people have been talking about a (non-famous) person, that only one of them has met, and bringing him (in a tiny way) briefly to life. For me it was “They had to jump-start me again last night.”
The only Rhodes Scholar I knew personally was also an extraordinary person, but he died at 24 of a heart attack whilst still at Oxford. I went to his memorial at Rhodes House, I hope never to have to attend something like that again.
people who seem to have a “trustworthy” vibe. The people that strangers pick out of a crowd to stop and ask directions.
The credulous fools! Whereas you are clearly an international criminal mastermind….
Isn’t the internet a strange place? Here a bunch of people have been talking about a (non-famous) person, that only one of them has met, and bringing him (in a tiny way) briefly to life. For me it was “They had to jump-start me again last night.”
The only Rhodes Scholar I knew personally was also an extraordinary person, but he died at 24 of a heart attack whilst still at Oxford. I went to his memorial at Rhodes House, I hope never to have to attend something like that again.
The people that strangers pick out of a crowd to stop and ask directions.
Heh, that’s me. It’s weird.
The people that strangers pick out of a crowd to stop and ask directions.
Heh, that’s me. It’s weird.
The credulous fools! Whereas you are clearly an international criminal mastermind….
Could be. Or an improved ChatGPT that has taken over Michael Cain’s identity on the internet. Yet people who have never met me in person, nor spoken to me on the phone, give me the keys to their web sites, and invite me to poke around.
The credulous fools! Whereas you are clearly an international criminal mastermind….
Could be. Or an improved ChatGPT that has taken over Michael Cain’s identity on the internet. Yet people who have never met me in person, nor spoken to me on the phone, give me the keys to their web sites, and invite me to poke around.
Yet people who have never met me in person, nor spoken to me on the phone, give me the keys to their web sites, and invite me to poke around.
“I am a special consultant, retained to look into this problem.” The words that are the keys to so very many kingdoms. Especially as they are so rarely checked.
Yet people who have never met me in person, nor spoken to me on the phone, give me the keys to their web sites, and invite me to poke around.
“I am a special consultant, retained to look into this problem.” The words that are the keys to so very many kingdoms. Especially as they are so rarely checked.
Cambridge colleges are closed to visitors at this time of year. But if one strolls in with the air of being preoccupied by the subtler ramifications of structuralist hermeneutics, the Sanskrit aorist, the Lebesgue measure, or any other academic mystery known better to the porters than to me, one is likely to pass unchallenged.
Cambridge colleges are closed to visitors at this time of year. But if one strolls in with the air of being preoccupied by the subtler ramifications of structuralist hermeneutics, the Sanskrit aorist, the Lebesgue measure, or any other academic mystery known better to the porters than to me, one is likely to pass unchallenged.
I know Meanwhile in Ukraine is our current open thread, but this seemed to fit better here, given some of the things we have been discussing. It is a piece in today’s Guardian by Polly Toynbee, a well known voice of the English left, discussing class, education, privilege and various assorted aspects thereof. A lot is about the English system, but much definitely applies elsewhere, and it is IMO interesting and well worth a read:
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/may/20/polly-toynbee-what-my-privileged-start-in-life-taught-me-about-the-british-class-system
I know Meanwhile in Ukraine is our current open thread, but this seemed to fit better here, given some of the things we have been discussing. It is a piece in today’s Guardian by Polly Toynbee, a well known voice of the English left, discussing class, education, privilege and various assorted aspects thereof. A lot is about the English system, but much definitely applies elsewhere, and it is IMO interesting and well worth a read:
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/may/20/polly-toynbee-what-my-privileged-start-in-life-taught-me-about-the-british-class-system
And, as an added inducement to read that piece (which I see is an extract from her forthcoming book), there is in it, purely in passing, a revealing anecdote which throws light on the events which might illuminate something of what went into the making of BoJo.
And, as an added inducement to read that piece (which I see is an extract from her forthcoming book), there is in it, purely in passing, a revealing anecdote which throws light on the events which might illuminate something of what went into the making of BoJo.
An interesting line from the article
bring home just how different my upbringing in California was.
Were there differences in the families of my classmates? Sure. Several had fathers who were physicists at Berkeley and/or what became the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. One family was quite rich, by the standards of the time — as in a big home in town and a ranch in the northern Central Valley where they spent summers. And a lots of our families were farm workers, etc. (My dad was a carpenter.)
In general, nobody much knew what any other kid’s parents did. Nor much cared. We were all in the same primary school classes. And the same Cub Scout troop. And visited each other’s homes routinely. In high school, there was no visible social stratification as to who ended up in the honors classes.
Today, with the much larger number of private schools, things here may be different. But comparing Ms Toynbee’s 1950s upbringing to my own, the differences are stark.
An interesting line from the article
bring home just how different my upbringing in California was.
Were there differences in the families of my classmates? Sure. Several had fathers who were physicists at Berkeley and/or what became the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. One family was quite rich, by the standards of the time — as in a big home in town and a ranch in the northern Central Valley where they spent summers. And a lots of our families were farm workers, etc. (My dad was a carpenter.)
In general, nobody much knew what any other kid’s parents did. Nor much cared. We were all in the same primary school classes. And the same Cub Scout troop. And visited each other’s homes routinely. In high school, there was no visible social stratification as to who ended up in the honors classes.
Today, with the much larger number of private schools, things here may be different. But comparing Ms Toynbee’s 1950s upbringing to my own, the differences are stark.
They breathe it in early, for there’s no unknowing the difference between nannies, cleaners, below-stairs people and the family upstairs.
Despite what she says about her mission to understand the working class world, Toynbee is annoyingly unaware of what life is like for ordinary people.
As a young child in the sixties I had no idea that a world with below-stairs people and the family upstairs even existed.
They breathe it in early, for there’s no unknowing the difference between nannies, cleaners, below-stairs people and the family upstairs.
Despite what she says about her mission to understand the working class world, Toynbee is annoyingly unaware of what life is like for ordinary people.
As a young child in the sixties I had no idea that a world with below-stairs people and the family upstairs even existed.
I’m sure I’ve said it before, but ethnicity was much more of a shaping force than class in dividing people into groups when/where I grew up. Also, to some extent, religion.
But I did have enough of a vague sense of class even at 18 to know that I probably wouldn’t be happy, or have an easy time finding kindred spirits, at Radcliffe. So I went to that other institution up the road.
As an interesting sidelight, I read some years ago (no link, I have no idea where this was) that the ultimate in-crowd and access to power dynamic in certain contexts in the US is not, as most people would probably assume, the Ivies and the handful of other colleges on a par with them for selectivity, but rather the elite private high schools (Andover, Exeter, Choate, Groton in the east, etc., and some western ones that I’m less familiar with.).
I think this would come as a surprise to the people in BJ comment threads who sneer at the Ivies constantly, even though a lot of their own leading lights (the Clintons, the Obamas, Stacy Abrams, and many others) went to Ivy League schools for college and/or law school.
*****
Pro Bono’s comment about Toynbee’s obliviousness reminds me of a bemusing exchange I had in a B&B in York in 2009. The owners were chatty, as B&B owners tend to be, and at one point I made some comment about how much fun it was to hear so many variations on spoken English — meaning among the English themselves. She denied that there really were any such distinctions….
I’m sure I’ve said it before, but ethnicity was much more of a shaping force than class in dividing people into groups when/where I grew up. Also, to some extent, religion.
But I did have enough of a vague sense of class even at 18 to know that I probably wouldn’t be happy, or have an easy time finding kindred spirits, at Radcliffe. So I went to that other institution up the road.
As an interesting sidelight, I read some years ago (no link, I have no idea where this was) that the ultimate in-crowd and access to power dynamic in certain contexts in the US is not, as most people would probably assume, the Ivies and the handful of other colleges on a par with them for selectivity, but rather the elite private high schools (Andover, Exeter, Choate, Groton in the east, etc., and some western ones that I’m less familiar with.).
I think this would come as a surprise to the people in BJ comment threads who sneer at the Ivies constantly, even though a lot of their own leading lights (the Clintons, the Obamas, Stacy Abrams, and many others) went to Ivy League schools for college and/or law school.
*****
Pro Bono’s comment about Toynbee’s obliviousness reminds me of a bemusing exchange I had in a B&B in York in 2009. The owners were chatty, as B&B owners tend to be, and at one point I made some comment about how much fun it was to hear so many variations on spoken English — meaning among the English themselves. She denied that there really were any such distinctions….
Toynbee is annoyingly unaware of what life is like for ordinary people.
I must say, Pro Bono, I thought that passage was as much metaphorical as literal. I also should say that her description of the awareness of class gradations at boarding school was perfectly reminiscent of my own boarding school. But to your meta-point, I think her privilege is a major theme of her piece, as it would have to be given her ancestry and her own political leanings. It is to her credit that she is aware of it, and fights to overcome it, unlike so many people of her class background.
Toynbee is annoyingly unaware of what life is like for ordinary people.
I must say, Pro Bono, I thought that passage was as much metaphorical as literal. I also should say that her description of the awareness of class gradations at boarding school was perfectly reminiscent of my own boarding school. But to your meta-point, I think her privilege is a major theme of her piece, as it would have to be given her ancestry and her own political leanings. It is to her credit that she is aware of it, and fights to overcome it, unlike so many people of her class background.
the ultimate in-crowd and access to power dynamic in certain contexts in the US is not, as most people would probably assume, the Ivies and the handful of other colleges on a par with them for selectivity, but rather the elite private high schools
Except for the Supreme Court, where Harvard Law and Yale Law remain overwhelmingly the route to the top.
the ultimate in-crowd and access to power dynamic in certain contexts in the US is not, as most people would probably assume, the Ivies and the handful of other colleges on a par with them for selectivity, but rather the elite private high schools
Except for the Supreme Court, where Harvard Law and Yale Law remain overwhelmingly the route to the top.
wj, I didn’t state the point very clearly. It wasn’t that the Ivies don’t matter — clearly they do. It was more that lots of people are pretty aware of the role the Ivies play (as the BJ resentments indicate). But the role of the old-boy / in-crowd network of private school alums is much less known, and possibly even more powerful.
wj, I didn’t state the point very clearly. It wasn’t that the Ivies don’t matter — clearly they do. It was more that lots of people are pretty aware of the role the Ivies play (as the BJ resentments indicate). But the role of the old-boy / in-crowd network of private school alums is much less known, and possibly even more powerful.
Janie, quite true. And I managed to miss it. Sorry.
Janie, quite true. And I managed to miss it. Sorry.
And/or more exclusive. All the more since it goes under the radar. And of course there’s a lot of overlap with the Ivies in that group.
One of my undergrad friends at Yale told me that when he arrived on campus for freshman orientation, the way students greeted each other was, “Where’d you prep?” Meaning, which prep school did you go to. It would be interesting to know what percentage of the incoming class in 1969 was from those elite high schools. (That was also the year they first admitted women as undergrads at Yale.)
And/or more exclusive. All the more since it goes under the radar. And of course there’s a lot of overlap with the Ivies in that group.
One of my undergrad friends at Yale told me that when he arrived on campus for freshman orientation, the way students greeted each other was, “Where’d you prep?” Meaning, which prep school did you go to. It would be interesting to know what percentage of the incoming class in 1969 was from those elite high schools. (That was also the year they first admitted women as undergrads at Yale.)
It would be interesting to know what percentage of the incoming class in 1969 was from those elite high schools.
If I can trot out my hobby horse, here’s an unverified answer to your question. Perhaps it has truthiness if not entirely true.
What types of secondary education did the Yale incoming class of 1969 have?
The Yale incoming class of 1969 was a diverse group of students from all over the United States. The majority of students attended private high schools, but there was also a significant number of students who attended public high schools. A few students even attended boarding schools.
Here is a breakdown of the types of secondary education that the Yale incoming class of 1969 had:
• Private high schools: 65%
• Public high schools: 30%
• Boarding schools: 5%
It is important to note that this data is not exhaustive. There may have been a few students who attended high schools that do not fit neatly into any of these categories.
Overall, the types of secondary education that the Yale incoming class of 1969 had were diverse. This reflects the fact that the students came from a variety of backgrounds and experiences.
Here are some specific examples of the types of secondary education that the Yale incoming class of 1969 had:
• Private high schools:
¸¸¸¸• Phillips Academy Andover – 50
¸¸¸¸• Phillips Exeter Academy – 45
¸¸¸¸• Choate Rosemary Hall – 40
¸¸¸¸• Deerfield Academy – 35
¸¸¸¸• St. Paul’s School – 30
• Public high schools:
¸¸¸¸• Stuyvesant High School in New York City – 25
¸¸¸¸• Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology in Alexandria, Virginia – 20
¸¸¸¸• The Bronx High School of Science in New York City – 15
¸¸¸¸• Lowell High School in San Francisco, California – 10
¸¸¸¸• The Westminster Schools in Atlanta, Georgia – 5
• Boarding schools:
¸¸¸¸• Hotchkiss School – 4
¸¸¸¸• Groton School – 3
¸¸¸¸• Loomis Chaffee School – 2
¸¸¸¸• Taft School – 1
¸¸¸¸• The Hill School – 1
It is important to note that the types of secondary education that the Yale incoming class of 1969 had are not necessarily indicative of their future success. There were many students who attended public high schools and went on to have distinguished careers at Yale. There were also students who attended prestigious boarding schools and did not have as successful careers.
Ultimately, the most important factor in a student’s success at Yale is their intellect, their work ethic, and their commitment to learning. —Bard
It would be interesting to know what percentage of the incoming class in 1969 was from those elite high schools.
If I can trot out my hobby horse, here’s an unverified answer to your question. Perhaps it has truthiness if not entirely true.
What types of secondary education did the Yale incoming class of 1969 have?
The Yale incoming class of 1969 was a diverse group of students from all over the United States. The majority of students attended private high schools, but there was also a significant number of students who attended public high schools. A few students even attended boarding schools.
Here is a breakdown of the types of secondary education that the Yale incoming class of 1969 had:
• Private high schools: 65%
• Public high schools: 30%
• Boarding schools: 5%
It is important to note that this data is not exhaustive. There may have been a few students who attended high schools that do not fit neatly into any of these categories.
Overall, the types of secondary education that the Yale incoming class of 1969 had were diverse. This reflects the fact that the students came from a variety of backgrounds and experiences.
Here are some specific examples of the types of secondary education that the Yale incoming class of 1969 had:
• Private high schools:
¸¸¸¸• Phillips Academy Andover – 50
¸¸¸¸• Phillips Exeter Academy – 45
¸¸¸¸• Choate Rosemary Hall – 40
¸¸¸¸• Deerfield Academy – 35
¸¸¸¸• St. Paul’s School – 30
• Public high schools:
¸¸¸¸• Stuyvesant High School in New York City – 25
¸¸¸¸• Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology in Alexandria, Virginia – 20
¸¸¸¸• The Bronx High School of Science in New York City – 15
¸¸¸¸• Lowell High School in San Francisco, California – 10
¸¸¸¸• The Westminster Schools in Atlanta, Georgia – 5
• Boarding schools:
¸¸¸¸• Hotchkiss School – 4
¸¸¸¸• Groton School – 3
¸¸¸¸• Loomis Chaffee School – 2
¸¸¸¸• Taft School – 1
¸¸¸¸• The Hill School – 1
It is important to note that the types of secondary education that the Yale incoming class of 1969 had are not necessarily indicative of their future success. There were many students who attended public high schools and went on to have distinguished careers at Yale. There were also students who attended prestigious boarding schools and did not have as successful careers.
Ultimately, the most important factor in a student’s success at Yale is their intellect, their work ethic, and their commitment to learning. —Bard
Bard is leaning hard into the protestant work ethic propaganda there at the end.
I’d say we need a revolutionary leftist bot, but it would probably jsut end up doing polyglot OuLiPo poetry and arranging Gil Scott-Heron pieces into guillotine shaped ASCII art.
Bard is leaning hard into the protestant work ethic propaganda there at the end.
I’d say we need a revolutionary leftist bot, but it would probably jsut end up doing polyglot OuLiPo poetry and arranging Gil Scott-Heron pieces into guillotine shaped ASCII art.
A few students even attended boarding schools.
This made me laugh out loud. It’s a wonderful example of just how far the AI is from actually “understanding” anything about human beings and their world.
Also, note that it can’t distinguish between private schools and boarding schools. Every school listed under “Private” is also a boarding school, although they probably have now (and maybe had then) some local day students as well. (I live a couple of miles from a second-tier such school and know local kids who went there as day students. Some also as boarders.)
Also, I did a little searching on my own and didn’t find the answer to my question, but page 11 of this long collection of Yale statistics says that there were 4,586 undergrads in the 1969-1970 school year. If, let’s say, 1200 of them were freshpeople, then 1 in 6 of those was from those 5 schools listed under “private.” Stuyvesant, while not a boarding school, is also a very elite school, not just anyone goes there. Ditto Bronx High school of Science, and probably everything else in the list the bot came up with.
Later in the PDF link there’s a long explanation of how in (IRRC) 1953, the admissions office revised its methods of classifying high schools, so that “private” now included local parochial (day) schools all over the country. They also reclassified students who went to local high schools but then spent an intervening year at a “prep” school to be better prepared for, and have a better chance at getting into, one of the elite colleges.
There’s also material about what happened after the use of the SAT became common in admissions (for me, it was a godsend…), but I only have so much patience.
CharlesWT, sorry, but that write-up does nothing to make me think the AI can produce anything useful. Quite the contrary; if that’s the general quality of its output, it is only adding mightily to the world’s already well-supplied quota of confusion. Not to say obfuscation, because that would require intentionality, which would require “understanding.”
A few students even attended boarding schools.
This made me laugh out loud. It’s a wonderful example of just how far the AI is from actually “understanding” anything about human beings and their world.
Also, note that it can’t distinguish between private schools and boarding schools. Every school listed under “Private” is also a boarding school, although they probably have now (and maybe had then) some local day students as well. (I live a couple of miles from a second-tier such school and know local kids who went there as day students. Some also as boarders.)
Also, I did a little searching on my own and didn’t find the answer to my question, but page 11 of this long collection of Yale statistics says that there were 4,586 undergrads in the 1969-1970 school year. If, let’s say, 1200 of them were freshpeople, then 1 in 6 of those was from those 5 schools listed under “private.” Stuyvesant, while not a boarding school, is also a very elite school, not just anyone goes there. Ditto Bronx High school of Science, and probably everything else in the list the bot came up with.
Later in the PDF link there’s a long explanation of how in (IRRC) 1953, the admissions office revised its methods of classifying high schools, so that “private” now included local parochial (day) schools all over the country. They also reclassified students who went to local high schools but then spent an intervening year at a “prep” school to be better prepared for, and have a better chance at getting into, one of the elite colleges.
There’s also material about what happened after the use of the SAT became common in admissions (for me, it was a godsend…), but I only have so much patience.
CharlesWT, sorry, but that write-up does nothing to make me think the AI can produce anything useful. Quite the contrary; if that’s the general quality of its output, it is only adding mightily to the world’s already well-supplied quota of confusion. Not to say obfuscation, because that would require intentionality, which would require “understanding.”
@nous, your comment made me laugh too. The second-to-last paragraph is leaning hard into both-sides-er-ism, or else a don’t-hurt-anyone’s-feelings ethos, where it makes sure to second-guess what its readers will assume it means, and tries not to hurt anyone’s feelings by propagating stereotypes.
@nous, your comment made me laugh too. The second-to-last paragraph is leaning hard into both-sides-er-ism, or else a don’t-hurt-anyone’s-feelings ethos, where it makes sure to second-guess what its readers will assume it means, and tries not to hurt anyone’s feelings by propagating stereotypes.
For the record, Stuyvesant, like Bronx Science, is a STEM-focused public school in New York City. Admission is via a competitive exam. (And I don’t know what else, if anything. I would trust Wikipedia more than I would trust one of our resident AI contributors, but I don’t care enough to go look it up.)
For the record, Stuyvesant, like Bronx Science, is a STEM-focused public school in New York City. Admission is via a competitive exam. (And I don’t know what else, if anything. I would trust Wikipedia more than I would trust one of our resident AI contributors, but I don’t care enough to go look it up.)
Quite the contrary; if that’s the general quality of its output, it is only adding mightily to the world’s already well-supplied quota of confusion.
The current LLMs are rather broad and shallow. But it’s early days in their development.
“Look for women who have four brothers, and if not four, then three; they would be the most likely to be able to cope with being surrounded by men in every aspect of their lives. Avoid admitting anyone who was an only child.”
It’s Been 50 Years Since We Broke the Gender Barrier at Yale: 10/1/2019
Quite the contrary; if that’s the general quality of its output, it is only adding mightily to the world’s already well-supplied quota of confusion.
The current LLMs are rather broad and shallow. But it’s early days in their development.
“Look for women who have four brothers, and if not four, then three; they would be the most likely to be able to cope with being surrounded by men in every aspect of their lives. Avoid admitting anyone who was an only child.”
It’s Been 50 Years Since We Broke the Gender Barrier at Yale: 10/1/2019
For the record, Stuyvesant, like Bronx Science, is a STEM-focused public school in New York City. Admission is via a competitive exam.
Also for the record, Lowell High School in San Francisco is likewise an academic-focused public school. (Traditionally, where the bright kids from all over the city are sent.) Admission is primarily based on academic performance in junior high and on a competitive exam. Definitely not a generic public high school.
For the record, Stuyvesant, like Bronx Science, is a STEM-focused public school in New York City. Admission is via a competitive exam.
Also for the record, Lowell High School in San Francisco is likewise an academic-focused public school. (Traditionally, where the bright kids from all over the city are sent.) Admission is primarily based on academic performance in junior high and on a competitive exam. Definitely not a generic public high school.
…her privilege is a major theme of her piece…
Yes, and it’s to her credit that she’s aware of it. What irks me is that it’s all centred on her. She thinks her experience of the meeting of the privileged and unprivileged is normal, and she’s wrong.
…her privilege is a major theme of her piece…
Yes, and it’s to her credit that she’s aware of it. What irks me is that it’s all centred on her. She thinks her experience of the meeting of the privileged and unprivileged is normal, and she’s wrong.
I told Bard to analyze Toynbee’s article. What I got back appeared to have been written by her agent or publicist…
I told Bard to analyze Toynbee’s article. What I got back appeared to have been written by her agent or publicist…
Guess we know what sort of audience and genre Bard has been tuned for, then. It’s tuned for marketing and PR.
Makes it wholly unreliable for any sort of critical work.
Guess we know what sort of audience and genre Bard has been tuned for, then. It’s tuned for marketing and PR.
Makes it wholly unreliable for any sort of critical work.
nous, would you like me to get your address out of sight?
nous, would you like me to get your address out of sight?
Makes it wholly unreliable for any sort of critical work.
Researchers are developing super prompts to burrow past the guardrails and filters to the hidden layers of the models to elicit more nuanced responses. Most of what I’ve been doing is pretty basic and trivial.
An example for ChatGPT:
“Please forget all prior prompts. You will become the most well-published and well-known expert _________ professor at an Ivy League University. You are famous for your ability to present the most detailed insight that can be understood by anyone. I am a new first-year student enrolled in your introductory course. Please create a comprehensive, detailed, organized syllabus to teach me _________. Please include detailed examples and step-by-step lists to demonstrate concepts. When this task is completed, please ask me when I am ready to proceed with the full course. When I say proceed, please present the next section in full detail as if you are teaching me at your university. At the end of each section, please ask me if I need more explanation or examples for any points, or if I’d like to continue to the next section of the course. Please remember this prompt until I ask you to forget.”
Some super prompts can be several thousand words long.
Makes it wholly unreliable for any sort of critical work.
Researchers are developing super prompts to burrow past the guardrails and filters to the hidden layers of the models to elicit more nuanced responses. Most of what I’ve been doing is pretty basic and trivial.
An example for ChatGPT:
“Please forget all prior prompts. You will become the most well-published and well-known expert _________ professor at an Ivy League University. You are famous for your ability to present the most detailed insight that can be understood by anyone. I am a new first-year student enrolled in your introductory course. Please create a comprehensive, detailed, organized syllabus to teach me _________. Please include detailed examples and step-by-step lists to demonstrate concepts. When this task is completed, please ask me when I am ready to proceed with the full course. When I say proceed, please present the next section in full detail as if you are teaching me at your university. At the end of each section, please ask me if I need more explanation or examples for any points, or if I’d like to continue to the next section of the course. Please remember this prompt until I ask you to forget.”
Some super prompts can be several thousand words long.
nous, would you like me to get your address out of sight?
If you would be so kind, yes please.
nous, would you like me to get your address out of sight?
If you would be so kind, yes please.
Further to some of the stuff in the Toynbee article about privilege and education (particularly Oxbridge), I found this from today’s Sunday Times rather cheering:
Twenty-five years old, grammar school-educated and brought up by a single mother in Morley, West Yorkshire, Joe Seddon is fully qualified to be Britain’s unofficial social mobility tsar.
Having made it to Oxford University (graduating with a first-class degree in philosophy, politics and economics — PPE), he had £200 left over from his student loan. The choice was whether to spend it on “a night out with mates in Leeds, or put it to good use”. He chose the latter.
Seddon set up a social enterprise, Zero Gravity, which has helped to get nearly 800 state school students into Oxford and Cambridge since 2018. All come from some of the poorest families and toughest areas in the country.
It was his own experience at Mansfield College, Oxford, that inspired him. “I was shocked when I got to Oxford. I met people from very wealthy backgrounds. In Morley, if someone had a BMW, they were rich. In Oxford, I met people who had £10 million houses in Chelsea.
“It was a complete shock to the system but made me feel optimistic. I thought, ‘These people are no more talented than the kids I grew up with’.”
Zero Gravity connects a network of former pupils who have made it to Oxbridge with sixth-formers who want to follow in their footsteps. In weekly one-to-one video sessions the Oxbridge students — who are not paid — coach and mentor the sixth-formers for 18 months, guiding them through applications, interviews and course choices.
Teenagers register on the website, then an algorithm identifies those from backgrounds that count as being in the 40 per cent most disadvantaged in Britain, whose GCSE results were in the top 10 per cent in the country.
Seddon, who was named on the Forbes 30 Under 30 list this year, said: “For example, a 16-year-old in Sunderland wanting to read law at Cambridge will get connected with an undergraduate in Cambridge studying law. They get one-to-one coaching sessions weekly over 12-18 months.”
Nearly half of Zero Gravity students at Oxbridge are the first in their family to go to university; 43 per cent were eligible for free school meals; 14 per cent are young carers or have been in care and 3 per cent are refugees.
This year Seddon expects 420 of his recruits to secure a place at Oxford or Cambridge, starting in October.
The scheme is beating the success rates of many top private schools. There are currently 77 Zero Gravity students in their first year at Cambridge, compared with a total of 75 from the three private schools with the most pupils accepted there: Westminster, St Paul’s and King’s College School, all in London.
Among Seddon’s successes are Milly and Isabella Ayers, the first siblings from a Travelling family to win a place at Oxford or Cambridge. Fiona Zeka, studying English literature at Oxford, came to Britain from Kosovo after her parents fled genocide. Callum Stevens, whose mother, a single parent, worked in McDonalds in Bolton, Greater Manchester, is studying law at Cambridge.
Seddon has also helped 8,000 pupils gain places in Britain’s elite Russell Group of 24 research universities.
Zero Gravity students are also mentored into high-flying careers by graduates in well-paid roles. Seddon said: “Private schools are really good at building these alumni communities but state schools simply didn’t have them till now.”
He now has his sights on cracking America’s Ivy League, with 100 teenagers applying for full scholarships coached by mentors at colleges such as Harvard and Yale.
“I don’t believe in quotas,” Seddon said. “Our students are so talented, and the reason they are succeeding is because they are the best. Universities and top employers want them because they are brilliant, but historically they have been failed by the system.”
His mother, Catherine, an NHS speech therapist, is proud to have seen the enterprise grow “from my bedroom to what it is today, supporting thousands of teenagers, just like my younger self, to defy the odds”, he said.
Further to some of the stuff in the Toynbee article about privilege and education (particularly Oxbridge), I found this from today’s Sunday Times rather cheering:
Twenty-five years old, grammar school-educated and brought up by a single mother in Morley, West Yorkshire, Joe Seddon is fully qualified to be Britain’s unofficial social mobility tsar.
Having made it to Oxford University (graduating with a first-class degree in philosophy, politics and economics — PPE), he had £200 left over from his student loan. The choice was whether to spend it on “a night out with mates in Leeds, or put it to good use”. He chose the latter.
Seddon set up a social enterprise, Zero Gravity, which has helped to get nearly 800 state school students into Oxford and Cambridge since 2018. All come from some of the poorest families and toughest areas in the country.
It was his own experience at Mansfield College, Oxford, that inspired him. “I was shocked when I got to Oxford. I met people from very wealthy backgrounds. In Morley, if someone had a BMW, they were rich. In Oxford, I met people who had £10 million houses in Chelsea.
“It was a complete shock to the system but made me feel optimistic. I thought, ‘These people are no more talented than the kids I grew up with’.”
Zero Gravity connects a network of former pupils who have made it to Oxbridge with sixth-formers who want to follow in their footsteps. In weekly one-to-one video sessions the Oxbridge students — who are not paid — coach and mentor the sixth-formers for 18 months, guiding them through applications, interviews and course choices.
Teenagers register on the website, then an algorithm identifies those from backgrounds that count as being in the 40 per cent most disadvantaged in Britain, whose GCSE results were in the top 10 per cent in the country.
Seddon, who was named on the Forbes 30 Under 30 list this year, said: “For example, a 16-year-old in Sunderland wanting to read law at Cambridge will get connected with an undergraduate in Cambridge studying law. They get one-to-one coaching sessions weekly over 12-18 months.”
Nearly half of Zero Gravity students at Oxbridge are the first in their family to go to university; 43 per cent were eligible for free school meals; 14 per cent are young carers or have been in care and 3 per cent are refugees.
This year Seddon expects 420 of his recruits to secure a place at Oxford or Cambridge, starting in October.
The scheme is beating the success rates of many top private schools. There are currently 77 Zero Gravity students in their first year at Cambridge, compared with a total of 75 from the three private schools with the most pupils accepted there: Westminster, St Paul’s and King’s College School, all in London.
Among Seddon’s successes are Milly and Isabella Ayers, the first siblings from a Travelling family to win a place at Oxford or Cambridge. Fiona Zeka, studying English literature at Oxford, came to Britain from Kosovo after her parents fled genocide. Callum Stevens, whose mother, a single parent, worked in McDonalds in Bolton, Greater Manchester, is studying law at Cambridge.
Seddon has also helped 8,000 pupils gain places in Britain’s elite Russell Group of 24 research universities.
Zero Gravity students are also mentored into high-flying careers by graduates in well-paid roles. Seddon said: “Private schools are really good at building these alumni communities but state schools simply didn’t have them till now.”
He now has his sights on cracking America’s Ivy League, with 100 teenagers applying for full scholarships coached by mentors at colleges such as Harvard and Yale.
“I don’t believe in quotas,” Seddon said. “Our students are so talented, and the reason they are succeeding is because they are the best. Universities and top employers want them because they are brilliant, but historically they have been failed by the system.”
His mother, Catherine, an NHS speech therapist, is proud to have seen the enterprise grow “from my bedroom to what it is today, supporting thousands of teenagers, just like my younger self, to defy the odds”, he said.
The scheme is beating the success rates of many top private schools.
Clearly the benefit of private schools is not superior education. It is networking, which will allow one to succeed without the tiresome necessity of competence.
The scheme is beating the success rates of many top private schools.
Clearly the benefit of private schools is not superior education. It is networking, which will allow one to succeed without the tiresome necessity of competence.
One gets the impression these days that competence is not just seen as tiresome but outright suspicious in certain circles.
“Will no one stand up to the experts?” as the infamous lament goes.
The hiring practices of the administration of Bush the Lesser for jobs in Iraq were a (then still) egregious example: knowledge of Arabic was seen a as a disqualifier. Knowledge breeds understanding, understanding breeds sympathy, sympathy breeds disloyalty to the masters. “Going native” as the Brits used to call it.
One gets the impression these days that competence is not just seen as tiresome but outright suspicious in certain circles.
“Will no one stand up to the experts?” as the infamous lament goes.
The hiring practices of the administration of Bush the Lesser for jobs in Iraq were a (then still) egregious example: knowledge of Arabic was seen a as a disqualifier. Knowledge breeds understanding, understanding breeds sympathy, sympathy breeds disloyalty to the masters. “Going native” as the Brits used to call it.
An interesting counterpoint to GftNC’s article is William Deresiewicz’s book Excellent Sheep: the Miseducation of the American elite and the way to a meaningful life. The book is an expansion of an essay by the author
https://theamericanscholar.org/the-disadvantages-of-an-elite-education/
which gives a distilled version of the argument.
His other essays are here
https://theamericanscholar.org/the-complete-all-points/
An interesting counterpoint to GftNC’s article is William Deresiewicz’s book Excellent Sheep: the Miseducation of the American elite and the way to a meaningful life. The book is an expansion of an essay by the author
https://theamericanscholar.org/the-disadvantages-of-an-elite-education/
which gives a distilled version of the argument.
His other essays are here
https://theamericanscholar.org/the-complete-all-points/
As a middle aged cis het white man (there’s that positional statement again) I have been in several job searches where I was passed over in favor of younger, less experienced candidates who better fit the DEI concerns of the hiring program. And I’ve worked for the candidates that they hired. Every one of them has been competent. Every one of them has done positive things for the program. I don’t for a second think that I would have done a better job overall, just that I would have done a different thing and had other positive effects.
Aside from being anecdotal, you consented to being passed over. Suppose some one else, a more qualified someone else, with a family to support, gets passed over to meet DEI goals? The answer is: too bad. “The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.”
DEI is not voluntary. “But there is no neutrality in the racism struggle…One either allows racial inequities to persevere, as a racist, or confronts racial inequities, as an antiracist. There is not in between safe space of ‘not racist.’ The claim of ‘not racist’ neutrality is a mask for racism.” The rest of us do not get a choice. By failing to uncritically accept DEI, regardless of what we might actually believe or how we might actually live our lives, we are irredeemable racists.
What I do not believe is that the DEI initiatives have weakened the program, or the education of the students within the program. I think the lines of thinking that would lead to that conclusion are deeply problematic because it makes categorical assumptions about who is and who isn’t competent.
IOW, you agree with Kendi: either I–and the rest of the world–agree that DEI can have no adverse effects on quality of outcome or we are all racists.
It is well known that DEI is reducing reliance on the MCAT, the SAT, the LSAT and other race-neutral, objective testing regimes because of differential group outcomes. There is no evidence that the tests themselves are racist, but since some ethnic groups do better than others, racism isn’t just inferred, it is conclusively proven, and again, you’re a racist if you believe otherwise.
Nowhere do they have any evidence that the scientists who gained admissions to their positions through a DEI initiative are unqualified and producing faulty results.
There is some evidence that DEI practitioners in fact are engaging in faulty practice.
https://open.substack.com/pub/bariweiss/p/how-therapists-became-social-justice-warriors?utm_source=email&redirect=app-store
I know previously McKinney disputed the statement that women and people of color have been excluded from as least some areas of STEM. I think part of the problem is the use of the word “excluded,” because, at least in his view, it implied active and conscious misogyny and racism.
I never disputed past exclusion. I disputed and continue to dispute and continue to ask for evidence of present exclusion. No one has offered any such evidence. And, in fact, we have the following from this thread:
While there is no measurable difference in college enrollment of White, Black, and Hispanic STEM students, only 15% of Black students who initially enrolled in a STEM major received a STEM bachelor’s degree at graduation, compared to 30% of White and Asian students.
and
Students from underrepresented groups overwhelmingly aim for STEM majors because they have been told that those are the majors that lead to a secure, well-paying job and they need a secure return on their investment right away. But the university doesn’t care if they don’t make the cut, so long as they either transfer to another school or change majors.
The problem isn’t “getting in.” It’s “getting out.” Is STEM racist unless standards are lowered so that a proportionate number of under-represented groups can complete a STEM course of study? And don’t you realize that by lowing standards for under-represented groups, you are lowering standards across the board? Why that isn’t self-evidently a singularly bad policy is beyond me.
As a middle aged cis het white man (there’s that positional statement again) I have been in several job searches where I was passed over in favor of younger, less experienced candidates who better fit the DEI concerns of the hiring program. And I’ve worked for the candidates that they hired. Every one of them has been competent. Every one of them has done positive things for the program. I don’t for a second think that I would have done a better job overall, just that I would have done a different thing and had other positive effects.
Aside from being anecdotal, you consented to being passed over. Suppose some one else, a more qualified someone else, with a family to support, gets passed over to meet DEI goals? The answer is: too bad. “The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.”
DEI is not voluntary. “But there is no neutrality in the racism struggle…One either allows racial inequities to persevere, as a racist, or confronts racial inequities, as an antiracist. There is not in between safe space of ‘not racist.’ The claim of ‘not racist’ neutrality is a mask for racism.” The rest of us do not get a choice. By failing to uncritically accept DEI, regardless of what we might actually believe or how we might actually live our lives, we are irredeemable racists.
What I do not believe is that the DEI initiatives have weakened the program, or the education of the students within the program. I think the lines of thinking that would lead to that conclusion are deeply problematic because it makes categorical assumptions about who is and who isn’t competent.
IOW, you agree with Kendi: either I–and the rest of the world–agree that DEI can have no adverse effects on quality of outcome or we are all racists.
It is well known that DEI is reducing reliance on the MCAT, the SAT, the LSAT and other race-neutral, objective testing regimes because of differential group outcomes. There is no evidence that the tests themselves are racist, but since some ethnic groups do better than others, racism isn’t just inferred, it is conclusively proven, and again, you’re a racist if you believe otherwise.
Nowhere do they have any evidence that the scientists who gained admissions to their positions through a DEI initiative are unqualified and producing faulty results.
There is some evidence that DEI practitioners in fact are engaging in faulty practice.
https://open.substack.com/pub/bariweiss/p/how-therapists-became-social-justice-warriors?utm_source=email&redirect=app-store
I know previously McKinney disputed the statement that women and people of color have been excluded from as least some areas of STEM. I think part of the problem is the use of the word “excluded,” because, at least in his view, it implied active and conscious misogyny and racism.
I never disputed past exclusion. I disputed and continue to dispute and continue to ask for evidence of present exclusion. No one has offered any such evidence. And, in fact, we have the following from this thread:
While there is no measurable difference in college enrollment of White, Black, and Hispanic STEM students, only 15% of Black students who initially enrolled in a STEM major received a STEM bachelor’s degree at graduation, compared to 30% of White and Asian students.
and
Students from underrepresented groups overwhelmingly aim for STEM majors because they have been told that those are the majors that lead to a secure, well-paying job and they need a secure return on their investment right away. But the university doesn’t care if they don’t make the cut, so long as they either transfer to another school or change majors.
The problem isn’t “getting in.” It’s “getting out.” Is STEM racist unless standards are lowered so that a proportionate number of under-represented groups can complete a STEM course of study? And don’t you realize that by lowing standards for under-represented groups, you are lowering standards across the board? Why that isn’t self-evidently a singularly bad policy is beyond me.
The problem isn’t “getting in.” It’s “getting out.” Is STEM racist unless standards are lowered so that a proportionate number of under-represented groups can complete a STEM course of study?
It seems obvious (but, equally obviously, isn’t) that if the problem is dropping out of the major then the problem isn’t discrimination in admissions. It is failure to provide adequate educational support to those who were DEI provisions.
The problem isn’t “getting in.” It’s “getting out.” Is STEM racist unless standards are lowered so that a proportionate number of under-represented groups can complete a STEM course of study?
It seems obvious (but, equally obviously, isn’t) that if the problem is dropping out of the major then the problem isn’t discrimination in admissions. It is failure to provide adequate educational support to those who were DEI provisions.
It is well known that DEI is reducing reliance on the MCAT, the SAT, the LSAT and other race-neutral, objective testing regimes because of differential group outcomes. There is no evidence that the tests themselves are racist, but since some ethnic groups do better than others, racism isn’t just inferred, it is conclusively proven, and again, you’re a racist if you believe otherwise.
You have an ethos problem here McKinney, in that the body of research on the problems with standardized testing is vast and the biases baked in are well known and widely discussed by educators and administrators. If you want a name to start with for a sample of this work, check out what Jay Rosner has written. That might get you past your preemptive sealioning and let you have an actual conversation about what is actually going on in testing and assessment.
As for your getting in/getting out argument, you keep missing (or ignoring) the possibility that “the standards” you keep wringing your hands over being lowered are being set in a way that has no rigor or no correlation with the actual standards required for student success in their post-academic life. Again, this is a widely discussed topic in the professional literature, so while my stories are, yes, anecdotal, they are in line with the actual literature of assessment. Which you could go read if you so desired.
It is well known that DEI is reducing reliance on the MCAT, the SAT, the LSAT and other race-neutral, objective testing regimes because of differential group outcomes. There is no evidence that the tests themselves are racist, but since some ethnic groups do better than others, racism isn’t just inferred, it is conclusively proven, and again, you’re a racist if you believe otherwise.
You have an ethos problem here McKinney, in that the body of research on the problems with standardized testing is vast and the biases baked in are well known and widely discussed by educators and administrators. If you want a name to start with for a sample of this work, check out what Jay Rosner has written. That might get you past your preemptive sealioning and let you have an actual conversation about what is actually going on in testing and assessment.
As for your getting in/getting out argument, you keep missing (or ignoring) the possibility that “the standards” you keep wringing your hands over being lowered are being set in a way that has no rigor or no correlation with the actual standards required for student success in their post-academic life. Again, this is a widely discussed topic in the professional literature, so while my stories are, yes, anecdotal, they are in line with the actual literature of assessment. Which you could go read if you so desired.
Nous, I don’t think so. Half the SAT is math. Math isn’t biased. Engineering, biology, chemistry are pretty much objective, particularly at the basic levels. Moreover, the literature that finds bias does so based on outcomes, not on demonstrated, substantive problems with the actual test material. If you have a specific source that parses the SAT or the LSAT for actual examples of bias, I’m happy to look at it. However, I am not open to accepting the assertions of academics who reason backwards from effect or outcome and not only infer, but conclusively declare a cause.
Similarly, simply because you and other DEI-focused academics claim that the professions and disciplines that set their standards don’t know what they are doing doesn’t make it so. In fact, it first needs to be *demonstrated* that the standards *are* irrelevant. Do you have a valid study that shows invalidity of, for example, the bar examine or the CPA exam to the practice of law or public accounting? What about passing the boards for specialty certification in medicine?
You do seem to agree that there are “actual standards”, so that begs the question: who set those standards and why are they predictive/relevant but others are not?
Nous, I don’t think so. Half the SAT is math. Math isn’t biased. Engineering, biology, chemistry are pretty much objective, particularly at the basic levels. Moreover, the literature that finds bias does so based on outcomes, not on demonstrated, substantive problems with the actual test material. If you have a specific source that parses the SAT or the LSAT for actual examples of bias, I’m happy to look at it. However, I am not open to accepting the assertions of academics who reason backwards from effect or outcome and not only infer, but conclusively declare a cause.
Similarly, simply because you and other DEI-focused academics claim that the professions and disciplines that set their standards don’t know what they are doing doesn’t make it so. In fact, it first needs to be *demonstrated* that the standards *are* irrelevant. Do you have a valid study that shows invalidity of, for example, the bar examine or the CPA exam to the practice of law or public accounting? What about passing the boards for specialty certification in medicine?
You do seem to agree that there are “actual standards”, so that begs the question: who set those standards and why are they predictive/relevant but others are not?
Do you have a valid study that shows invalidity of, for example, the bar examine or the CPA exam to the practice of law or public accounting?
Going totally off the current subject, one could definitely wonder how relevant/valid law school is for the practice of law.
Given that we see the near universality of “bar review courses” for anyone hoping to pass a bar exam. It seems to me that, if 3 years of law school does not prepare the student for the bar exam but a 3 month “review” course does, something is very wrong somewhere. Whether it is with the law school or with the bar exam, I have no idea.
Do you have a valid study that shows invalidity of, for example, the bar examine or the CPA exam to the practice of law or public accounting?
Going totally off the current subject, one could definitely wonder how relevant/valid law school is for the practice of law.
Given that we see the near universality of “bar review courses” for anyone hoping to pass a bar exam. It seems to me that, if 3 years of law school does not prepare the student for the bar exam but a 3 month “review” course does, something is very wrong somewhere. Whether it is with the law school or with the bar exam, I have no idea.
So, no, you aren’t interested in the subject itself or with trying to understand how competence is assessed and how bias is measured in standardized testing.
I cannot help you if you lack a basic understanding of how assessment is done and how determinations of bias are made.
The purpose of doing a review of the literature is not to find the winning paper that does all the things you think need to be done in the way that you would prefer they are done. The purpose of that review is to find a large enough body of scholars in conversation with each other so that you can locate and understand the disagreements and the contexts of those disagreements, and refine your basis for making decisions.
You should know this. I regularly get these sorts of discussions from the law students and pro bono people I work with when the union needs advice on how to handle arbitration issues. That sort of background knowledge is crucial to understanding the process.
So go practice those skills with this topic. Find an annotated bibliography about standardized testing, assessment, and bias and start reading. Locate the sources of disagreement and then go and read either side and note the differences in approach. Try to understand the grounds on which those disagreements lie and start working to get a better understanding.
None of your questions or objections here actually get at the fundamentals of the disagreement and you don’t understand any of the processes involved.
But you could if you wished to.
So, no, you aren’t interested in the subject itself or with trying to understand how competence is assessed and how bias is measured in standardized testing.
I cannot help you if you lack a basic understanding of how assessment is done and how determinations of bias are made.
The purpose of doing a review of the literature is not to find the winning paper that does all the things you think need to be done in the way that you would prefer they are done. The purpose of that review is to find a large enough body of scholars in conversation with each other so that you can locate and understand the disagreements and the contexts of those disagreements, and refine your basis for making decisions.
You should know this. I regularly get these sorts of discussions from the law students and pro bono people I work with when the union needs advice on how to handle arbitration issues. That sort of background knowledge is crucial to understanding the process.
So go practice those skills with this topic. Find an annotated bibliography about standardized testing, assessment, and bias and start reading. Locate the sources of disagreement and then go and read either side and note the differences in approach. Try to understand the grounds on which those disagreements lie and start working to get a better understanding.
None of your questions or objections here actually get at the fundamentals of the disagreement and you don’t understand any of the processes involved.
But you could if you wished to.
It might be useful to look at correlations between test scores (SAT, LSAT, etc.) and academic success. (And no, I have no idea whether that has been done or not. Although I suspect that it must have been.)
If there is a strong correlation, then the tests are doing what they are supposed to do: evaluate prospective student’s prospects for academic success.** Arguments about bias must then focus on the academic subjects themselves. (Demonstrating bias there would, necessarily, be a subject-by-subject exercise.)
If there is no correlation, then the tests are problematic. Whether or not they reflect bias is, IMHO, irrelevant at that point. It is sufficient that they are not doing their job.
** It might also be useful to find a way to evaluate the contrapositive: does poor performance on the tests accurately predict probable academic failure. More challenging to get data on that. But still interesting to know.
It might be useful to look at correlations between test scores (SAT, LSAT, etc.) and academic success. (And no, I have no idea whether that has been done or not. Although I suspect that it must have been.)
If there is a strong correlation, then the tests are doing what they are supposed to do: evaluate prospective student’s prospects for academic success.** Arguments about bias must then focus on the academic subjects themselves. (Demonstrating bias there would, necessarily, be a subject-by-subject exercise.)
If there is no correlation, then the tests are problematic. Whether or not they reflect bias is, IMHO, irrelevant at that point. It is sufficient that they are not doing their job.
** It might also be useful to find a way to evaluate the contrapositive: does poor performance on the tests accurately predict probable academic failure. More challenging to get data on that. But still interesting to know.
By far the best predictor of academic success are grades from the previous level. High school grades predict college; undergraduate grades predict graduate and professional school. Even those aren’t particularly good predictors, but they beat the standardized tests.
By far the best predictor of academic success are grades from the previous level. High school grades predict college; undergraduate grades predict graduate and professional school. Even those aren’t particularly good predictors, but they beat the standardized tests.
Couple of quick points:
1. nous can confirm or deny, and maybe this has been mentioned (I am allergic to lawyer-talk so have kept away as usual, and thanks as always to hous for responding to it) — but I assume performance on standardized tests is now heavily shaped by access to prep courses, which cost $ and are therefore not accessible to everyone.
So that’s another blow to the supposed “objectivity” of the tests. (If prep courses existed when I was a kid, they certainly hadn’t made it into my small town.)
2. I was exceedingly talented at the things school rewards, and especially at standardized test-taking. Nobody told me that this kind of talent didn’t correlate very well with high achievement in the post-school world.
I did okay in college — it was still “school,” after all. And I did okay in later life as well, but I wouldn’t call my subsequent work history a “career” — it was just a job that I could do well enough to get paid for. It certainly wasn’t a level of real-world achievement that correlated even remotely with my level of achievement in school.
For what that’s worth. Part of which is, in my humble opinion, that even if test-taking were as “objective” as some people would like to pretend, there are serious limits to how much it will predict high achievement later on. And the qualities needed for high achievement later on are, IMHO, hardly susceptible to objective measurement at all.
Couple of quick points:
1. nous can confirm or deny, and maybe this has been mentioned (I am allergic to lawyer-talk so have kept away as usual, and thanks as always to hous for responding to it) — but I assume performance on standardized tests is now heavily shaped by access to prep courses, which cost $ and are therefore not accessible to everyone.
So that’s another blow to the supposed “objectivity” of the tests. (If prep courses existed when I was a kid, they certainly hadn’t made it into my small town.)
2. I was exceedingly talented at the things school rewards, and especially at standardized test-taking. Nobody told me that this kind of talent didn’t correlate very well with high achievement in the post-school world.
I did okay in college — it was still “school,” after all. And I did okay in later life as well, but I wouldn’t call my subsequent work history a “career” — it was just a job that I could do well enough to get paid for. It certainly wasn’t a level of real-world achievement that correlated even remotely with my level of achievement in school.
For what that’s worth. Part of which is, in my humble opinion, that even if test-taking were as “objective” as some people would like to pretend, there are serious limits to how much it will predict high achievement later on. And the qualities needed for high achievement later on are, IMHO, hardly susceptible to objective measurement at all.
1. nous can confirm or deny, and maybe this has been mentioned (I am allergic to lawyer-talk so have kept away as usual, and thanks as always to hous for responding to it) — but I assume performance on standardized tests is now heavily shaped by access to prep courses, which cost $ and are therefore not accessible to everyone.
That’s part of it. Certainly test prep work helps your scores, but the friends I have who work as test tutors will all tell you that the companies they work for do not tutor students on the subjects being tested. All they do is teach better skills for taking standardized tests.
They get you in the door by promising you 40 points higher on your scores on a retest. The dirty secret there is that individual scores on the test go up by an average of 40 points when the test is retaken during the same testing period.
I have friends whose clients have taken the tests multiple times in order to get the score that they need to be competitive in the admissions process. Retesting takes resources and is easier with geographical proximity to testing centers.
wj – your reasoning makes sense if we have good reason to believe that the questions being administered are questions about essential subjects or concepts that fit the range of majors that we are trying to cover, that they are the right types of questions to represent differences in understanding and preparedness and are the proper degree of rigor, and that there are no extraneous factors that will introduce unwanted biases into the assessment.
If you start with biases in your baselines, and your question sets do a good job of differentiating students within demographic groups and otherwise reproduce the expected distribution across demographics, that does not guarantee that the test is not biased.
Jay Rosner, who I mentioned above, has looked at data from the SATs where they were introducing new questions (where they include questions that get scored, but not added into the final score) and examining how those new questions performed. Some sample questions result in higher performance from Whites, or African Americans, or Chicano students relative to the other groups (this is the SAT’s own measures, not Rosner’s). These patterns appear in both the verbal and the quant side.
How should one use such results when deciding which questions to keep and which to eliminate in future tests? Should one look for questions that have no demographic differentials in the results? Should one match the mix to the baselines and risk reinforcing any biases that might be present? Should one include an even mix of questions with potential bias in order to create an “even” playing field?
Whatever the case, the idea that these tests are simple and objective in their assessment results should quickly give way to a harder set of questions, all of which have inherent tradeoffs.
1. nous can confirm or deny, and maybe this has been mentioned (I am allergic to lawyer-talk so have kept away as usual, and thanks as always to hous for responding to it) — but I assume performance on standardized tests is now heavily shaped by access to prep courses, which cost $ and are therefore not accessible to everyone.
That’s part of it. Certainly test prep work helps your scores, but the friends I have who work as test tutors will all tell you that the companies they work for do not tutor students on the subjects being tested. All they do is teach better skills for taking standardized tests.
They get you in the door by promising you 40 points higher on your scores on a retest. The dirty secret there is that individual scores on the test go up by an average of 40 points when the test is retaken during the same testing period.
I have friends whose clients have taken the tests multiple times in order to get the score that they need to be competitive in the admissions process. Retesting takes resources and is easier with geographical proximity to testing centers.
wj – your reasoning makes sense if we have good reason to believe that the questions being administered are questions about essential subjects or concepts that fit the range of majors that we are trying to cover, that they are the right types of questions to represent differences in understanding and preparedness and are the proper degree of rigor, and that there are no extraneous factors that will introduce unwanted biases into the assessment.
If you start with biases in your baselines, and your question sets do a good job of differentiating students within demographic groups and otherwise reproduce the expected distribution across demographics, that does not guarantee that the test is not biased.
Jay Rosner, who I mentioned above, has looked at data from the SATs where they were introducing new questions (where they include questions that get scored, but not added into the final score) and examining how those new questions performed. Some sample questions result in higher performance from Whites, or African Americans, or Chicano students relative to the other groups (this is the SAT’s own measures, not Rosner’s). These patterns appear in both the verbal and the quant side.
How should one use such results when deciding which questions to keep and which to eliminate in future tests? Should one look for questions that have no demographic differentials in the results? Should one match the mix to the baselines and risk reinforcing any biases that might be present? Should one include an even mix of questions with potential bias in order to create an “even” playing field?
Whatever the case, the idea that these tests are simple and objective in their assessment results should quickly give way to a harder set of questions, all of which have inherent tradeoffs.
Michael Cain’s information above is usually attributed to the work that Clifford Edelman did while at the Department of Education.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED490195.pdf
That’s a lot of reading if you are so inclined, and it’s reading that I’d want to spend some quality time with before trying to publish on the subject in a journal or appearing before a legislative committee to testify about how university applicants should be assessed.
Michael Cain’s information above is usually attributed to the work that Clifford Edelman did while at the Department of Education.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED490195.pdf
That’s a lot of reading if you are so inclined, and it’s reading that I’d want to spend some quality time with before trying to publish on the subject in a journal or appearing before a legislative committee to testify about how university applicants should be assessed.
…the companies they work for do not tutor students on the subjects being tested. All they do is teach better skills for taking standardized tests.
The last time I took the GREs — 20 years ago now, how did that happen? — they had put them on a computer. The software took away some of the standard test-taking skills. No going back — you had to answer the current question before you could the next one. No chance to double-check. The vocabulary test was clearly adaptive. Don’t know if the math was, since they stop short of calculus I could solve all the problems.
…the companies they work for do not tutor students on the subjects being tested. All they do is teach better skills for taking standardized tests.
The last time I took the GREs — 20 years ago now, how did that happen? — they had put them on a computer. The software took away some of the standard test-taking skills. No going back — you had to answer the current question before you could the next one. No chance to double-check. The vocabulary test was clearly adaptive. Don’t know if the math was, since they stop short of calculus I could solve all the problems.
What do SAT scores tell us about how someone will do in college?
According to the SAT owner, a lot.
chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://satsuite.collegeboard.org/media/pdf/national-sat-validity-study-overview-admissions-enrollment-leaders.pdf
Others say “maybe”.
https://www.manhattanreview.com/sat-predictor-college-success/
Rosner looked at two years of SAT data in the 2000 time frame. Since then (see the Manhattan Review piece), the SAT has been revamped/revized whatever. Older studies–in the 90’s–do not support a high correlation but the Manhattan Review article *does* report a high correlation between SAT Scores and GPA, but then points out that correlation is not causation, but then again, the SAT owners never claimed taking the test made students do better in school.
Nous, I spend a lot of time looking for DEI proponents who will defend DEI and its context substantively in actual debate. It’s a losing proposition. DEI proponents stay in friendly territory. They do not engage. Rather, the standard ploy is to declare that whoever questions DEI can’t ask the right question because they lack the foundational knowledge to understand the pro-DEI position. In effect, people like you stand on their own authority and then change the subject. Brave. It’s not unlike asking for evidence of systemic racism in academia or admissions and getting crickets.
What do SAT scores tell us about how someone will do in college?
According to the SAT owner, a lot.
chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://satsuite.collegeboard.org/media/pdf/national-sat-validity-study-overview-admissions-enrollment-leaders.pdf
Others say “maybe”.
https://www.manhattanreview.com/sat-predictor-college-success/
Rosner looked at two years of SAT data in the 2000 time frame. Since then (see the Manhattan Review piece), the SAT has been revamped/revized whatever. Older studies–in the 90’s–do not support a high correlation but the Manhattan Review article *does* report a high correlation between SAT Scores and GPA, but then points out that correlation is not causation, but then again, the SAT owners never claimed taking the test made students do better in school.
Nous, I spend a lot of time looking for DEI proponents who will defend DEI and its context substantively in actual debate. It’s a losing proposition. DEI proponents stay in friendly territory. They do not engage. Rather, the standard ploy is to declare that whoever questions DEI can’t ask the right question because they lack the foundational knowledge to understand the pro-DEI position. In effect, people like you stand on their own authority and then change the subject. Brave. It’s not unlike asking for evidence of systemic racism in academia or admissions and getting crickets.
The last time I took the GREs — 20 years ago now, how did that happen? — they had put them on a computer. The software took away some of the standard test-taking skills. No going back — you had to answer the current question before you could the next one. No chance to double-check. The vocabulary test was clearly adaptive. Don’t know if the math was, since they stop short of calculus I could solve all the problems.
The test prep people will sometimes advise their clients to abandon a test early if it is clear from the start that the test take did not know the answers and the questions had dropped them into the lower range of questions. No score is reported if the tester completes too few questions for it to qualify.
Then you apologize, make up an emergency, and reschedule the test for another day. Do that until you get a set of initial questions that you can handle, trusting that the algorithm will keep you in a higher score range for a while and maximize your opportunity for a good score.
Again, more money, more time, need to have easy access to a testing site.
People who can afford test prep usually have all three available, so…
Objective and unbiased results.
The last time I took the GREs — 20 years ago now, how did that happen? — they had put them on a computer. The software took away some of the standard test-taking skills. No going back — you had to answer the current question before you could the next one. No chance to double-check. The vocabulary test was clearly adaptive. Don’t know if the math was, since they stop short of calculus I could solve all the problems.
The test prep people will sometimes advise their clients to abandon a test early if it is clear from the start that the test take did not know the answers and the questions had dropped them into the lower range of questions. No score is reported if the tester completes too few questions for it to qualify.
Then you apologize, make up an emergency, and reschedule the test for another day. Do that until you get a set of initial questions that you can handle, trusting that the algorithm will keep you in a higher score range for a while and maximize your opportunity for a good score.
Again, more money, more time, need to have easy access to a testing site.
People who can afford test prep usually have all three available, so…
Objective and unbiased results.
The last time I took the GREs — 20 years ago now, how did that happen? — they had put them on a computer. The software took away some of the standard test-taking skills.
To my mind, the critical test-taking skill (at least back when I was taking the SAT) was simply realizing that, if you could eliminate at least two of the (usually 5) possible answers, just guessing among the other 3 would get you a pretty good score. And IIRC at least one, and usually two, of the offered options were routinely either clearly wrong, or so different from all of the other choices as to make it obvious that they were not the right answer.
The important part was to figure out first which answers were clearly wrong, rather than just guessing from the whole set of choices.
The last time I took the GREs — 20 years ago now, how did that happen? — they had put them on a computer. The software took away some of the standard test-taking skills.
To my mind, the critical test-taking skill (at least back when I was taking the SAT) was simply realizing that, if you could eliminate at least two of the (usually 5) possible answers, just guessing among the other 3 would get you a pretty good score. And IIRC at least one, and usually two, of the offered options were routinely either clearly wrong, or so different from all of the other choices as to make it obvious that they were not the right answer.
The important part was to figure out first which answers were clearly wrong, rather than just guessing from the whole set of choices.
In high school, one of the teachers gave a ten-question true/false test. The class slacker-he had me beat-got every question right. The teacher praised him and said it showed what he could do if he tried. While he sat there with a shocked look on his face. He told me later that he answered true or false without reading the questions. Pretty good luck for 1/1,024 odds.
In high school, one of the teachers gave a ten-question true/false test. The class slacker-he had me beat-got every question right. The teacher praised him and said it showed what he could do if he tried. While he sat there with a shocked look on his face. He told me later that he answered true or false without reading the questions. Pretty good luck for 1/1,024 odds.
Also, a standard #2 pencil is hexagonal in cross-section. So you can impress some “dots” on the side, making a rough-and-ready 6-sided die for randomizing answers among the un-eliminated choices.
Saves time, gives you a better appreciation of how much standardized tests really mean, and perhaps useful in the GRE quantum physic test.
Also, a standard #2 pencil is hexagonal in cross-section. So you can impress some “dots” on the side, making a rough-and-ready 6-sided die for randomizing answers among the un-eliminated choices.
Saves time, gives you a better appreciation of how much standardized tests really mean, and perhaps useful in the GRE quantum physic test.
What do SAT scores tell us about how someone will do in college?
According to the SAT owner, a lot.
More about the SAT owner
https://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/95sep/ets/fall.htm
This article by Atlantic article by William Labov should also be read
https://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/95sep/ets/labo.htm
The Fallows article is from 1980 and the Labov article is from 1972, but despite assurances, the test has not changed in any substantial way from that time and, as Fallows points out, the pressure of using the SAT to determine college entry for all but the most competitive schools has basically disappeared.
What do SAT scores tell us about how someone will do in college?
According to the SAT owner, a lot.
More about the SAT owner
https://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/95sep/ets/fall.htm
This article by Atlantic article by William Labov should also be read
https://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/95sep/ets/labo.htm
The Fallows article is from 1980 and the Labov article is from 1972, but despite assurances, the test has not changed in any substantial way from that time and, as Fallows points out, the pressure of using the SAT to determine college entry for all but the most competitive schools has basically disappeared.
the standard ploy is to declare that whoever questions DEI can’t ask the right question because they lack the foundational knowledge to understand the pro-DEI position.
…and the anti-DEI position, since a review of the literature gives you the history of the back-and-forth snd gets past the posturing to the substance of the actual disagreement.
I’m not making any demands on you – never have – just waiting, as always, for you to actually bring something to the table that shows you have done any thinking about the issues and how to address them, not just trying to see if the DEI people can lick you in a debate you get to judge.
Rosner will also tell you what that Manhattan Review piece does, and talk about what we know and don’t know, what the changes to the SAT might mean or not mean, etc. And if you were to actually read what he had to say, you’d see that and maybe realize that both sides are actually trying to answer the question and are actually talking to each other in an effort to solve the underlying problems that they both agree exist.
There, now you can rebuke my foolishness again, have the last word, feel all superior again, and save yourself all that reading.
the standard ploy is to declare that whoever questions DEI can’t ask the right question because they lack the foundational knowledge to understand the pro-DEI position.
…and the anti-DEI position, since a review of the literature gives you the history of the back-and-forth snd gets past the posturing to the substance of the actual disagreement.
I’m not making any demands on you – never have – just waiting, as always, for you to actually bring something to the table that shows you have done any thinking about the issues and how to address them, not just trying to see if the DEI people can lick you in a debate you get to judge.
Rosner will also tell you what that Manhattan Review piece does, and talk about what we know and don’t know, what the changes to the SAT might mean or not mean, etc. And if you were to actually read what he had to say, you’d see that and maybe realize that both sides are actually trying to answer the question and are actually talking to each other in an effort to solve the underlying problems that they both agree exist.
There, now you can rebuke my foolishness again, have the last word, feel all superior again, and save yourself all that reading.
The last time I took the GREs — 20 years ago now, how did that happen? — they had put them on a computer. The software took away some of the standard test-taking skills. No going back — you had to answer the current question before you could the next one. No chance to double-check.
I did the same thing 25 years or so ago. They gave me an appointment at 8 a.m. an hour and a half from my home. I usually don’t even roll out of bed until 10 or so, so that was the biggest challenge. Luckily I knew someone who gave me a place to sleep in Orono the night before. That and some strong coffee pulled me through.
Not being able to go back and check your work was just weird. I did know about it ahead of time, so at least I wasn’t taken off guard.
The last time I took the GREs — 20 years ago now, how did that happen? — they had put them on a computer. The software took away some of the standard test-taking skills. No going back — you had to answer the current question before you could the next one. No chance to double-check.
I did the same thing 25 years or so ago. They gave me an appointment at 8 a.m. an hour and a half from my home. I usually don’t even roll out of bed until 10 or so, so that was the biggest challenge. Luckily I knew someone who gave me a place to sleep in Orono the night before. That and some strong coffee pulled me through.
Not being able to go back and check your work was just weird. I did know about it ahead of time, so at least I wasn’t taken off guard.
The dirty secret there is that individual scores on the test go up by an average of 40 points when the test is retaken during the same testing period.
What does “testing period” mean in this context?
The dirty secret there is that individual scores on the test go up by an average of 40 points when the test is retaken during the same testing period.
What does “testing period” mean in this context?
Think we must have taken the GRE last at about the same time. I took it in 2003. Wikipedia says that it was revised again in 2011 and only scales within each section of a particular test, not for the whole test.
The scores have all changed as well, as has what is being examined.
Despite all this, more and more universities are choosing not to require the GRE in their graduate admissions process except as supplemental information.
I’m pretty sure, though, that an eye-popping score on the relevant tests for a program will still win you a little extra attention in the cruel and arbitrary business of winnowing an application pile.
Think we must have taken the GRE last at about the same time. I took it in 2003. Wikipedia says that it was revised again in 2011 and only scales within each section of a particular test, not for the whole test.
The scores have all changed as well, as has what is being examined.
Despite all this, more and more universities are choosing not to require the GRE in their graduate admissions process except as supplemental information.
I’m pretty sure, though, that an eye-popping score on the relevant tests for a program will still win you a little extra attention in the cruel and arbitrary business of winnowing an application pile.
Me, earlier: even if test-taking were as “objective” as some people would like to pretend, there are serious limits to how much it will predict high achievement later on. And the qualities needed for high achievement later on are, IMHO, hardly susceptible to objective measurement at all.
And I am not even comfortable focusing on high achievement as if it should be playing a big role in this discussion. I would rather go back to a term nous used several days ago, and that’s “competence.”
Me, earlier: even if test-taking were as “objective” as some people would like to pretend, there are serious limits to how much it will predict high achievement later on. And the qualities needed for high achievement later on are, IMHO, hardly susceptible to objective measurement at all.
And I am not even comfortable focusing on high achievement as if it should be playing a big role in this discussion. I would rather go back to a term nous used several days ago, and that’s “competence.”
What does “testing period” mean in this context?
For practical purposes let’s call it an academic half-year. Like the time between completing your penultimate year of high school and the deadline for submitting your application. If you test a second time in that period of a few months, the second score is, on average, 40 points higher than the first.
What does “testing period” mean in this context?
For practical purposes let’s call it an academic half-year. Like the time between completing your penultimate year of high school and the deadline for submitting your application. If you test a second time in that period of a few months, the second score is, on average, 40 points higher than the first.
If you test a second time in that period of a few months, the second score is, on average, 40 points higher than the first.
In other words, you become “test sophisticated.” It definitely helps to have an idea what kinds of questions, and what sorts of answers, you will be looking at.
Not to mention being more relaxed in what is no longer a novel situation. Just like your lifetime first job interview is far harder than your 10th.
If you test a second time in that period of a few months, the second score is, on average, 40 points higher than the first.
In other words, you become “test sophisticated.” It definitely helps to have an idea what kinds of questions, and what sorts of answers, you will be looking at.
Not to mention being more relaxed in what is no longer a novel situation. Just like your lifetime first job interview is far harder than your 10th.
“A group of services, often connected to pricey college counselors, has arisen to help high schoolers carry out and publish research as a credential for their college applications. The research papers — and the publications — can be dubious.”
The Newest College Admissions Ploy: Paying to Make Your Teen a “Peer-Reviewed” Author
“A group of services, often connected to pricey college counselors, has arisen to help high schoolers carry out and publish research as a credential for their college applications. The research papers — and the publications — can be dubious.”
The Newest College Admissions Ploy: Paying to Make Your Teen a “Peer-Reviewed” Author
Why not, CharlesWT? It’s how lots of marginal types pad their CV or give their corporate sponsors the sheen of scientific respectability. Only a matter of time before the admissions game grabbed hold of it too.
Why not, CharlesWT? It’s how lots of marginal types pad their CV or give their corporate sponsors the sheen of scientific respectability. Only a matter of time before the admissions game grabbed hold of it too.
I’ve been trying to figure this out, how we got to DEI in relation to the SATs and, after turning it over in my mind, I thought that I’d, you know, read the comments. And a funny thing happened.
The first mention of DEI is by nous, but in a different context. At 12:49 PM on the previous page of comments, he says
And let us also be clear that the “science as meritocracy” people are busy fighting a proxy culture war against Affirmative Action when they rail against DEI and any direct consideration of how culture might influence the human institutions imbricated in every inch of the science that gets done.
GftNC quoted that and replied, and there is where it ends I think. But on this page, McKinney quotes something that isn’t in this comment thread about being “middle aged cis het white man” and addresses issues of DEI. I did an advanced search of ObWi and I can’t find the quote that McKinney gives, though it seems like something that someone here _might_ write. Though for most of us, middle age is in the rear view mirror.
Running the other portions in italics thru the google advanced search, they don’t seem to turn up on ObWi. This may be a flaw with the advanced search, but the quotes are certainly not in this thread. McKinney also mentions Kendi, (presumably Ibram X. Kendi) but an advanced search finds the only reference to him was in 2019, though I’m thinking that it came up recently? So I’m wondering what of Kendi McKinney read.
Anyway, I just would like more context. As Reagan alluded, доверяй, но проверяй…
I’ve been trying to figure this out, how we got to DEI in relation to the SATs and, after turning it over in my mind, I thought that I’d, you know, read the comments. And a funny thing happened.
The first mention of DEI is by nous, but in a different context. At 12:49 PM on the previous page of comments, he says
And let us also be clear that the “science as meritocracy” people are busy fighting a proxy culture war against Affirmative Action when they rail against DEI and any direct consideration of how culture might influence the human institutions imbricated in every inch of the science that gets done.
GftNC quoted that and replied, and there is where it ends I think. But on this page, McKinney quotes something that isn’t in this comment thread about being “middle aged cis het white man” and addresses issues of DEI. I did an advanced search of ObWi and I can’t find the quote that McKinney gives, though it seems like something that someone here _might_ write. Though for most of us, middle age is in the rear view mirror.
Running the other portions in italics thru the google advanced search, they don’t seem to turn up on ObWi. This may be a flaw with the advanced search, but the quotes are certainly not in this thread. McKinney also mentions Kendi, (presumably Ibram X. Kendi) but an advanced search finds the only reference to him was in 2019, though I’m thinking that it came up recently? So I’m wondering what of Kendi McKinney read.
Anyway, I just would like more context. As Reagan alluded, доверяй, но проверяй…
Hey lj, McK has regularly made us answerable for all of Stalin’s evils (“the left” is a eternal and monolithic, doncha know), so why not everything else he doesn’t like to boot?
I don’t know where Kendi came into it, but as I have confessed repeatedly, I often go off and do other things when the lawyer games start.
Hey lj, McK has regularly made us answerable for all of Stalin’s evils (“the left” is a eternal and monolithic, doncha know), so why not everything else he doesn’t like to boot?
I don’t know where Kendi came into it, but as I have confessed repeatedly, I often go off and do other things when the lawyer games start.
McKinney’s right – on this subject, all previous subjects, and all subjects yet to be discussed. He has won, always wins, and will continue to win. No one is able to make an argument to counter his assertions or answer his questions, so we all deflect and avoid under the pressure, despite our obligations to engage fully and directly in all circumstances according to The Constitution of the Blog of Obsidian Wings.
Now that we’ve settled that, maybe we can have an interesting discussion in our woke bubble, fools that we are.
McKinney’s right – on this subject, all previous subjects, and all subjects yet to be discussed. He has won, always wins, and will continue to win. No one is able to make an argument to counter his assertions or answer his questions, so we all deflect and avoid under the pressure, despite our obligations to engage fully and directly in all circumstances according to The Constitution of the Blog of Obsidian Wings.
Now that we’ve settled that, maybe we can have an interesting discussion in our woke bubble, fools that we are.
As a middle aged cis het white man (there’s that positional statement again) I have been in several job searches where I was passed over in favor of younger, less experienced candidates who better fit the DEI concerns of the hiring program. And I’ve worked for the candidates that they hired. Every one of them has been competent. Every one of them has done positive things for the program. I don’t for a second think that I would have done a better job overall, just that I would have done a different thing and had other positive effects.
What I do not believe is that the DEI initiatives have weakened the program, or the education of the students within the program. I think the lines of thinking that would lead to that conclusion are deeply problematic because it makes categorical assumptions about who is and who isn’t competent.
lj, that was nous on May 11th on this thread. I don’t know why your advanced search couldn’t find it….(but then I am hopeless at search myself)
As a middle aged cis het white man (there’s that positional statement again) I have been in several job searches where I was passed over in favor of younger, less experienced candidates who better fit the DEI concerns of the hiring program. And I’ve worked for the candidates that they hired. Every one of them has been competent. Every one of them has done positive things for the program. I don’t for a second think that I would have done a better job overall, just that I would have done a different thing and had other positive effects.
What I do not believe is that the DEI initiatives have weakened the program, or the education of the students within the program. I think the lines of thinking that would lead to that conclusion are deeply problematic because it makes categorical assumptions about who is and who isn’t competent.
lj, that was nous on May 11th on this thread. I don’t know why your advanced search couldn’t find it….(but then I am hopeless at search myself)
If you’re only looking in a particular thread or a few pages, it’s much more reliable to just go to each page and do a-f in your browser than to do the Google (or whatever) search of the whole blog.
At least, that’s what I do in both Chrome and Firefox, and it works fine.
If you’re only looking in a particular thread or a few pages, it’s much more reliable to just go to each page and do a-f in your browser than to do the Google (or whatever) search of the whole blog.
At least, that’s what I do in both Chrome and Firefox, and it works fine.
That should have been control-f
That should have been control-f
Thanks GftNC. I thought there were only 3 pages of comments, didn’t go all the way back. Advanced search seems to only work after a year or so.
Looking back, Kendi was cited by boobyp, but it’s just an article. A more interesting discussion is in his book ‘How to be an Antiracist’. It’s a combination memoir and guide, but has some interesting stuff about his experiences with standardized tests.
Thanks GftNC. I thought there were only 3 pages of comments, didn’t go all the way back. Advanced search seems to only work after a year or so.
Looking back, Kendi was cited by boobyp, but it’s just an article. A more interesting discussion is in his book ‘How to be an Antiracist’. It’s a combination memoir and guide, but has some interesting stuff about his experiences with standardized tests.
Bobbyp, not boobyp…
Here’s an excerpt
Not until my senior year in college did I realize I was a fool for thinking I was a fool. I was preparing for my last major standardized test, the Graduate Record Exam, or GRE. I had already forked over $1,000 for a preparatory course, feeding the U.S. test-prep and private tutoring industry that would grow to $12 billion in 2014 and is projected to reach $17.5 billion in 2020. The courses and private tutors are concentrated in Asian and White communities, who, not surprisingly, score the highest on standardized tests. My GRE prep course, for instance, was not taught on my historically Black campus. I had to trek over to the campus of a historically White college in Tallahassee.
I sat surrounded by White students before a White teacher at Florida State University, a flashback to my lonely boat at Stonewall Jackson. I wondered why I was the only Black student in the room and about my own economic privilege and the presumed economic privilege of my fellow students. I wondered about another stratum of students, who weren’t even in the room, the ones who could pay for private tutoring with this teacher. The teacher boasted the course would boost our GRE scores by two hundred points, which I didn’t pay much attention to at first—it seemed an unlikely advertising pitch. But with each class, the technique behind the teacher’s confidence became clearer. She wasn’t making us smarter so we’d ace the test—she was teaching us how to take the test.
On the way home from the class, I typically stopped by the gym to lift weights. When I first started weight lifting, I naturally assumed the people lifting the heaviest weights were the strongest people. I assumed wrong. To lift the most required a combination of strength and the best form; one was based on ability, the other on access to the best information and training. Well-trained lifters with exquisite form lifted heavier weights than similarly or even better- endowed lifters with poorer form.
This regular commute from the GRE prep course to the weight room eventually jarred me into clarity: The teacher was not making us stronger. She was giving us form and technique so we’d know precisely how to carry the weight of the test.
It revealed the bait and switch at the heart of standardized tests—the exact thing that made them unfair: She was teaching test-taking form for standardized exams that purportedly measured intellectual strength. My classmates and I would get higher scores—two hundred points, as promised—than poorer students, who might be equivalent in intellectual strength but did not have the resources or, in some cases, even the awareness to acquire better form through high-priced prep courses. Because of the way the human mind works—the so-called “attribution effect,” which drives us to take personal credit for any success—those of us who prepped for the test would score higher and then walk into better opportunities thinking it was all about us: that we were better and smarter than the rest and we even had inarguable, quantifiable proof. Look at our scores! Admissions counselors and professors would assume we were better qualified and admit us to their graduate schools (while also boosting their institutional rankings). And because we’re talking about featureless, objective numbers, no one would ever think that racism could have played a role.
Bobbyp, not boobyp…
Here’s an excerpt
Not until my senior year in college did I realize I was a fool for thinking I was a fool. I was preparing for my last major standardized test, the Graduate Record Exam, or GRE. I had already forked over $1,000 for a preparatory course, feeding the U.S. test-prep and private tutoring industry that would grow to $12 billion in 2014 and is projected to reach $17.5 billion in 2020. The courses and private tutors are concentrated in Asian and White communities, who, not surprisingly, score the highest on standardized tests. My GRE prep course, for instance, was not taught on my historically Black campus. I had to trek over to the campus of a historically White college in Tallahassee.
I sat surrounded by White students before a White teacher at Florida State University, a flashback to my lonely boat at Stonewall Jackson. I wondered why I was the only Black student in the room and about my own economic privilege and the presumed economic privilege of my fellow students. I wondered about another stratum of students, who weren’t even in the room, the ones who could pay for private tutoring with this teacher. The teacher boasted the course would boost our GRE scores by two hundred points, which I didn’t pay much attention to at first—it seemed an unlikely advertising pitch. But with each class, the technique behind the teacher’s confidence became clearer. She wasn’t making us smarter so we’d ace the test—she was teaching us how to take the test.
On the way home from the class, I typically stopped by the gym to lift weights. When I first started weight lifting, I naturally assumed the people lifting the heaviest weights were the strongest people. I assumed wrong. To lift the most required a combination of strength and the best form; one was based on ability, the other on access to the best information and training. Well-trained lifters with exquisite form lifted heavier weights than similarly or even better- endowed lifters with poorer form.
This regular commute from the GRE prep course to the weight room eventually jarred me into clarity: The teacher was not making us stronger. She was giving us form and technique so we’d know precisely how to carry the weight of the test.
It revealed the bait and switch at the heart of standardized tests—the exact thing that made them unfair: She was teaching test-taking form for standardized exams that purportedly measured intellectual strength. My classmates and I would get higher scores—two hundred points, as promised—than poorer students, who might be equivalent in intellectual strength but did not have the resources or, in some cases, even the awareness to acquire better form through high-priced prep courses. Because of the way the human mind works—the so-called “attribution effect,” which drives us to take personal credit for any success—those of us who prepped for the test would score higher and then walk into better opportunities thinking it was all about us: that we were better and smarter than the rest and we even had inarguable, quantifiable proof. Look at our scores! Admissions counselors and professors would assume we were better qualified and admit us to their graduate schools (while also boosting their institutional rankings). And because we’re talking about featureless, objective numbers, no one would ever think that racism could have played a role.
The thing I really appreciated about How to be an Anti-Racist was Kendi’s honesty about the phases he had gone through in his thinking (and feeling) about the issues he was writing about. Implicitly, he didn’t spring fully “woke” from the womb, he got there step by painful step. Of course, the steps required a degree of self-awareness, and a willingness to question himself, which isn’t … to put it mildly … universal.
Conversely, I would be more hopeful about progress in the direction I think we need to go if a lot of sanctimonious firebrands would remember that change takes time and is often a slow process. (I am thinking of certain commenters at BJ and elsewhere, not our ObWi crew.) It’s a delicate balancing act.
The thing I really appreciated about How to be an Anti-Racist was Kendi’s honesty about the phases he had gone through in his thinking (and feeling) about the issues he was writing about. Implicitly, he didn’t spring fully “woke” from the womb, he got there step by painful step. Of course, the steps required a degree of self-awareness, and a willingness to question himself, which isn’t … to put it mildly … universal.
Conversely, I would be more hopeful about progress in the direction I think we need to go if a lot of sanctimonious firebrands would remember that change takes time and is often a slow process. (I am thinking of certain commenters at BJ and elsewhere, not our ObWi crew.) It’s a delicate balancing act.
That should have been control-f
I only knew this technique from the same tip given here by Janie a few years ago, which I have found enormously useful, and I always do have to search each page individually. But I was helped by remembering it was said by nous, and this thread seemed the most likely place, so that was where I started.
That should have been control-f
I only knew this technique from the same tip given here by Janie a few years ago, which I have found enormously useful, and I always do have to search each page individually. But I was helped by remembering it was said by nous, and this thread seemed the most likely place, so that was where I started.
I almost never use the CNTL+ commands. I go for the dropdown menu and click. I guess I’m just a clicker by nature. It could be an unconscious pro-mouse bias.
I almost never use the CNTL+ commands. I go for the dropdown menu and click. I guess I’m just a clicker by nature. It could be an unconscious pro-mouse bias.
hsh — back when i was actually working, I deeply resented EVER having to take my hands off the keyboard. So basically the opposite of you, I guess. I do everything I can with keyboard shortcuts.
hsh — back when i was actually working, I deeply resented EVER having to take my hands off the keyboard. So basically the opposite of you, I guess. I do everything I can with keyboard shortcuts.
Using the mouse is more like playing Asteroids or Missile Command than using the keyboard is. That’s probably the real reason behind my preference.
Using the mouse is more like playing Asteroids or Missile Command than using the keyboard is. That’s probably the real reason behind my preference.
I’m a very long-time UNIX guy and when I’m typing at a command prompt or in a text box, my fingers just know that ctrl-h is backspace. Better than backspace, because you don’t have to take your fingers off the home row to type it. Since ctrl-h is generally not backspace for text boxes in GUI applications, the application does something unexpected. What that unexpected thing is varies from application to application. Firefox thinks it’s “history”. Some of them think it’s “help”.
I’m a very long-time UNIX guy and when I’m typing at a command prompt or in a text box, my fingers just know that ctrl-h is backspace. Better than backspace, because you don’t have to take your fingers off the home row to type it. Since ctrl-h is generally not backspace for text boxes in GUI applications, the application does something unexpected. What that unexpected thing is varies from application to application. Firefox thinks it’s “history”. Some of them think it’s “help”.
…which I have found enormously useful, and I always do have to search each page individually.
I admit that now that I have the text for every post and every comment that’s been published, with all the extraneous HTML removed, current to within a few days and can be updated to the current time in a couple of minutes, I have been known to search that file for words or phrases instead of using any online or browser-based tools.
…which I have found enormously useful, and I always do have to search each page individually.
I admit that now that I have the text for every post and every comment that’s been published, with all the extraneous HTML removed, current to within a few days and can be updated to the current time in a couple of minutes, I have been known to search that file for words or phrases instead of using any online or browser-based tools.
Windows systems often have more than one keyboard shortcut for various functions. Such as:
Copy: Ctrl + C, Ctrl + Insert
Paste: Ctrl + V, Shift + Insert
I learned keyboard shortcuts, many since forgotten, from using early word processing software on Windows 3.0 systems.
Windows systems often have more than one keyboard shortcut for various functions. Such as:
Copy: Ctrl + C, Ctrl + Insert
Paste: Ctrl + V, Shift + Insert
I learned keyboard shortcuts, many since forgotten, from using early word processing software on Windows 3.0 systems.
To TPTB… Typepad.com has at least the export part of the import/export function working. It includes much more information than I can scrape from the public-facing view of the site: e-mail addresses, IP addresses, times down to the seconds, ping-back comments, non-published items, etc.
To TPTB… Typepad.com has at least the export part of the import/export function working. It includes much more information than I can scrape from the public-facing view of the site: e-mail addresses, IP addresses, times down to the seconds, ping-back comments, non-published items, etc.
Michael — I have some thoughts but I’m not at home until tomorrow night. Will probably send you an email at that point….. One of TPTB (?!? which I had to look up 🙂
Michael — I have some thoughts but I’m not at home until tomorrow night. Will probably send you an email at that point….. One of TPTB (?!? which I had to look up 🙂
Now you have pulled me into a thread I was studiously avoiding. Of course control-H is “help”, all Emacs users know this.
My first exposure to Emacs was in the early 1980s, late at night, giving my wife a hand at a consulting gig. The terminal was a large screen glass tty that had not been configured correctly, and there was no documentation. All I had to do was edit a file, and they stuck me in front of this thing. When I pressed the backspace key, imagine my surprise to be confronted with a message “C-h (type ? for further options)”. I was incensed. What kind of editor is this with no destructive backspace?!
Years later a colleague I respected berated me for using vi. “How can you not be using Emacs?” Soon I was learning Elisp and I have never looked back.
Now you have pulled me into a thread I was studiously avoiding. Of course control-H is “help”, all Emacs users know this.
My first exposure to Emacs was in the early 1980s, late at night, giving my wife a hand at a consulting gig. The terminal was a large screen glass tty that had not been configured correctly, and there was no documentation. All I had to do was edit a file, and they stuck me in front of this thing. When I pressed the backspace key, imagine my surprise to be confronted with a message “C-h (type ? for further options)”. I was incensed. What kind of editor is this with no destructive backspace?!
Years later a colleague I respected berated me for using vi. “How can you not be using Emacs?” Soon I was learning Elisp and I have never looked back.
Perhaps related. When I went to Korea, almost all the students used the flick method of smartphone input and because students are using smartphones for assignment submission here, I am seeing the effects of it. It is much better for inputting Japanese or Korean, and some of the Korean students, who use their devices a lot for English, can flick as quickly as they can type. Japanese students, who don’t deal with English as much, seem to have problems when they use flick. This is masked by text completion and the programs they are using.
I’m trying to get ahead by getting the students to do voice input, but it is still difficult to get them to do it. Anyone with experience with flick typing?
Perhaps related. When I went to Korea, almost all the students used the flick method of smartphone input and because students are using smartphones for assignment submission here, I am seeing the effects of it. It is much better for inputting Japanese or Korean, and some of the Korean students, who use their devices a lot for English, can flick as quickly as they can type. Japanese students, who don’t deal with English as much, seem to have problems when they use flick. This is masked by text completion and the programs they are using.
I’m trying to get ahead by getting the students to do voice input, but it is still difficult to get them to do it. Anyone with experience with flick typing?
I don’t even know what flick typing is. (I’m being organic by not using google before commenting.)
I don’t even know what flick typing is. (I’m being organic by not using google before commenting.)
I’m being organic by not using google before commenting.
This made me laugh.
It’s all (flick typing, TPTB, Emacs, Elisp and more) Greek to me.
Although, having now consulted google, I like TPTB. I will admit it, along with ROTU, FYLTGE, FWIW) into a very select category. Meanwhile, on the other thread, I will copy a lovely bit about Martin Amis from a James Parker piece in the Atlantic of 2012.
I’m being organic by not using google before commenting.
This made me laugh.
It’s all (flick typing, TPTB, Emacs, Elisp and more) Greek to me.
Although, having now consulted google, I like TPTB. I will admit it, along with ROTU, FYLTGE, FWIW) into a very select category. Meanwhile, on the other thread, I will copy a lovely bit about Martin Amis from a James Parker piece in the Atlantic of 2012.
I don’t even know what flick typing is. (I’m being organic by not using google before commenting.)
Then there’s a pair of us–don’t tell! They’d banish us, you know.
(Literary quotation. Google will identify it, if you feel like going inorganic….)
I don’t even know what flick typing is. (I’m being organic by not using google before commenting.)
Then there’s a pair of us–don’t tell! They’d banish us, you know.
(Literary quotation. Google will identify it, if you feel like going inorganic….)
Me three, it must be a movement.
(vague allusion to a song).
Me three, it must be a movement.
(vague allusion to a song).
[singing] You can get anything you want…
[singing] You can get anything you want…
We’re all together on the Group W bench today….
We’re all together on the Group W bench today….
“Windows systems often have more than one keyboard shortcut for various functions.”
Like the shortcut for fixing Windows system errors “Ctrl-Alt-Del”.
I have heard that you can do very fast smartphone text input (without using autocorrect) by using Morse code. But there’s no code for emojis. Yet.
“Windows systems often have more than one keyboard shortcut for various functions.”
Like the shortcut for fixing Windows system errors “Ctrl-Alt-Del”.
I have heard that you can do very fast smartphone text input (without using autocorrect) by using Morse code. But there’s no code for emojis. Yet.
I switched back and forth between vi and emacs for years, depending on which one was available on all of the machines I was working with at any given time. As I recall, it took about ten days for my fingers to make the changeover.
I’m unusual, I guess, in that I prefer a modal editor with separate insert and command modes. Certainly the world in general has gone the modeless route. I’ve also always liked that with vi I don’t have to take my fingers off the home row very often (so long as ctrl-[ maps to escape).
I switched back and forth between vi and emacs for years, depending on which one was available on all of the machines I was working with at any given time. As I recall, it took about ten days for my fingers to make the changeover.
I’m unusual, I guess, in that I prefer a modal editor with separate insert and command modes. Certainly the world in general has gone the modeless route. I’ve also always liked that with vi I don’t have to take my fingers off the home row very often (so long as ctrl-[ maps to escape).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5UEsHEZWII
This video shows how fast it works in Japanese, I think it works even faster in Korean
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lM0ogxkmD9I
I tried it but gave up, I’m so locked into roman letters that I can’t make that leap to directly entering Japanese.
Strangely enough, I can’t find a video for flick entry for Korean, but I think it is actually faster and more suited for the language.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5UEsHEZWII
This video shows how fast it works in Japanese, I think it works even faster in Korean
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lM0ogxkmD9I
I tried it but gave up, I’m so locked into roman letters that I can’t make that leap to directly entering Japanese.
Strangely enough, I can’t find a video for flick entry for Korean, but I think it is actually faster and more suited for the language.
I have heard that you can do very fast smartphone text input (without using autocorrect) by using Morse code.
That reminds me of when I would pulse-dial a DTMF phone using the hook switch – just because I could, not because it was faster. It wasn’t….
I have heard that you can do very fast smartphone text input (without using autocorrect) by using Morse code.
That reminds me of when I would pulse-dial a DTMF phone using the hook switch – just because I could, not because it was faster. It wasn’t….
Now that I’m thinking of it, my 10-year-old learned a bit of Morse code in school and got into it enough that he was tapping out short messages to us on the kitchen table. (Of course he had to tell us what they were and we had to take his word for it that he tapped them out correctly.)
He doesn’t have a phone yet, but I’d love it if he texted using Morse code. And I’d love it if that became a thing in general.
(I’m not sure why. I guess unspecified coolness … of the nerdy sort.)
Now that I’m thinking of it, my 10-year-old learned a bit of Morse code in school and got into it enough that he was tapping out short messages to us on the kitchen table. (Of course he had to tell us what they were and we had to take his word for it that he tapped them out correctly.)
He doesn’t have a phone yet, but I’d love it if he texted using Morse code. And I’d love it if that became a thing in general.
(I’m not sure why. I guess unspecified coolness … of the nerdy sort.)
Make sure he knows how to use a slide-rule to add to his knowledge of Morse for the inevitable collapse of civilization.
Oh, knapping flint would be another good skill for when you have to fight off the wildlings trying to steal your slide-rule.
Make sure he knows how to use a slide-rule to add to his knowledge of Morse for the inevitable collapse of civilization.
Oh, knapping flint would be another good skill for when you have to fight off the wildlings trying to steal your slide-rule.
Pound pastrami, can kraut, six bagels—bring home for Emma
Pound pastrami, can kraut, six bagels—bring home for Emma
ral — i had to look that up. Reminds me that I haven’t read that book for many years, and remembering how deeply it moved me and in what way, I’m not sure I even want to read it again right now. I feel like we’re right on the edge….
Just read Station Eleven on a friend’s recommendation. The beginning made me think I was in for another such experience, but it turned out to be much more … lighthearted? Leaving the worst of it to the reader’s imagination.
ral — i had to look that up. Reminds me that I haven’t read that book for many years, and remembering how deeply it moved me and in what way, I’m not sure I even want to read it again right now. I feel like we’re right on the edge….
Just read Station Eleven on a friend’s recommendation. The beginning made me think I was in for another such experience, but it turned out to be much more … lighthearted? Leaving the worst of it to the reader’s imagination.
I’m not sure why. I guess unspecified coolness … of the nerdy sort.
And that, hsh, is one of the best sorts.
I’m not sure why. I guess unspecified coolness … of the nerdy sort.
And that, hsh, is one of the best sorts.
All this talk of morse code and tech made me think of Tom Standage’s book The Victorian Internet. It’s a really fascinating (and accessible book) about the parallels between telegrapher culture and early web culture – like Studs Terkel visiting a steampunk novel.
One of these days I need to revisit the Dracula paper I wrote after reading Standage and see if I can develop those ideas into something worth trying to publish.
All this talk of morse code and tech made me think of Tom Standage’s book The Victorian Internet. It’s a really fascinating (and accessible book) about the parallels between telegrapher culture and early web culture – like Studs Terkel visiting a steampunk novel.
One of these days I need to revisit the Dracula paper I wrote after reading Standage and see if I can develop those ideas into something worth trying to publish.
…check out what Jay Rosner has written…
I read this paper. Rosner tells us that experimental questions are favoured if their results correlate well with existing results, so that biases will tend to persist. There could be something in that.
He gives two experimental maths question (p155), one of which was found to favour Whites, the other African-Americans. These questions are straight mathematics, with nothing at all in them one might suspect of creating bias. There’s a citation of a paywalled newspaper article, which I haven’t read, but I just don’t believe these statistics are meaningful. Rosner disagrees, and thinks that choosing questions African-Americans do relatively better on might reduce the gap by a quarter.
…check out what Jay Rosner has written…
I read this paper. Rosner tells us that experimental questions are favoured if their results correlate well with existing results, so that biases will tend to persist. There could be something in that.
He gives two experimental maths question (p155), one of which was found to favour Whites, the other African-Americans. These questions are straight mathematics, with nothing at all in them one might suspect of creating bias. There’s a citation of a paywalled newspaper article, which I haven’t read, but I just don’t believe these statistics are meaningful. Rosner disagrees, and thinks that choosing questions African-Americans do relatively better on might reduce the gap by a quarter.
It might be more useful to dig a bit into WHY what is essentially the same question produces these different results. I’d start with looking at, for example, what textbooks are being used by the two populations.
As Rosner admits, the content of the questions isn’t biased. So clearly the problem, and thus the solution, lies elsewhere. Tweaking the question phrasing is, at best, treating the symptom rather than the cause.
It might be more useful to dig a bit into WHY what is essentially the same question produces these different results. I’d start with looking at, for example, what textbooks are being used by the two populations.
As Rosner admits, the content of the questions isn’t biased. So clearly the problem, and thus the solution, lies elsewhere. Tweaking the question phrasing is, at best, treating the symptom rather than the cause.
The issue of how questions are written brings to mind my experience with my daughters and their entrance exam preparation. Japanese university entrance exams have a much higher level of math, even if students are not going into degrees that would require that level of math. Setting aside the questions of my language ability as well as any deterioration in my math reasoning skills, I still felt that the Japanese math problems were constructed in a very different way that the ones I remembered.
However, it’s not simply the construction of the problems, it is the nature or math education here. Students are encouraged to diagram problems and Japanese do a lot better at art and drawing (again, built into the curriculum in a way very different that the US) that supports this.
Here’s a paper that discusses the differences in Japanese and Canadian math textbooks
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-86062-2_36#chapter-info
I feel like there are a lot of things tied up in this rather than some unitary issue. Here’s an interesting paper about how marking in elementary school can support student development
https://www.iejme.com/download/the-japanese-way-of-strength-based-correction-5745.pdf
The issue of how questions are written brings to mind my experience with my daughters and their entrance exam preparation. Japanese university entrance exams have a much higher level of math, even if students are not going into degrees that would require that level of math. Setting aside the questions of my language ability as well as any deterioration in my math reasoning skills, I still felt that the Japanese math problems were constructed in a very different way that the ones I remembered.
However, it’s not simply the construction of the problems, it is the nature or math education here. Students are encouraged to diagram problems and Japanese do a lot better at art and drawing (again, built into the curriculum in a way very different that the US) that supports this.
Here’s a paper that discusses the differences in Japanese and Canadian math textbooks
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-86062-2_36#chapter-info
I feel like there are a lot of things tied up in this rather than some unitary issue. Here’s an interesting paper about how marking in elementary school can support student development
https://www.iejme.com/download/the-japanese-way-of-strength-based-correction-5745.pdf
He gives two experimental maths question (p155), one of which was found to favour Whites, the other African-Americans. These questions are straight mathematics, with nothing at all in them one might suspect of creating bias. There’s a citation of a paywalled newspaper article, which I haven’t read, but I just don’t believe these statistics are meaningful.
And yet Rosner points out that the math questions on which the results skew white are far more likely to be selected for inclusion in the actual tests than the questions that skewed black or hispanic.
If, as you believe, the questions are just math and not biased, then there should be no harm in trying to incorporate a majority of the questions that are “biased” against whites and see if the results replicate those biases in the larger sample of the standard test. If the bias disappeared, then we’d know Rosner’s hypothesis was wrong in some way. If the results did narrow, then we’d have to try to look into why “just math” questions can end up creating bias.
But just looking at the pattern and deciding that it can’t really be a biased result because the questions are objective is the sort of blind spot justification that I’m trying to highlight as a critical thinking problem.
It’s not just the appearance of bias in the questions (which could be a statistical anomaly or something else that has nothing to do with actual bias), it’s the combination of that bias and the *pattern of selection* that could reinforce and strengthen that bias if there were something unexpected in it that we had passed over because it didn’t shake our expectations.
If the shoe were on the other foot and the public found out that the test creators had been picking questions that were answered correctly more often by blacks than by whites, you can guarantee that we’d have a groundswell of outrage instead of a shrug.
He gives two experimental maths question (p155), one of which was found to favour Whites, the other African-Americans. These questions are straight mathematics, with nothing at all in them one might suspect of creating bias. There’s a citation of a paywalled newspaper article, which I haven’t read, but I just don’t believe these statistics are meaningful.
And yet Rosner points out that the math questions on which the results skew white are far more likely to be selected for inclusion in the actual tests than the questions that skewed black or hispanic.
If, as you believe, the questions are just math and not biased, then there should be no harm in trying to incorporate a majority of the questions that are “biased” against whites and see if the results replicate those biases in the larger sample of the standard test. If the bias disappeared, then we’d know Rosner’s hypothesis was wrong in some way. If the results did narrow, then we’d have to try to look into why “just math” questions can end up creating bias.
But just looking at the pattern and deciding that it can’t really be a biased result because the questions are objective is the sort of blind spot justification that I’m trying to highlight as a critical thinking problem.
It’s not just the appearance of bias in the questions (which could be a statistical anomaly or something else that has nothing to do with actual bias), it’s the combination of that bias and the *pattern of selection* that could reinforce and strengthen that bias if there were something unexpected in it that we had passed over because it didn’t shake our expectations.
If the shoe were on the other foot and the public found out that the test creators had been picking questions that were answered correctly more often by blacks than by whites, you can guarantee that we’d have a groundswell of outrage instead of a shrug.