5 ms·

The major ISPs have a ridiculous amount of resources and are free to publish datasets answering this question at any moment. In fact, I'd be astounded if they d

The major ISPs have a ridiculous amount of resources and are free to publish datasets answering this question at any moment. In fact, I'd be astounded if they don't already have this data, both for themselves and for their competitors. So until ISPs share that data, I'm terminally unsympathetic to any sort of bias in the public record on this particular topic. Also, the selection of left-leaning people doing publicly accessible research is, AFAICT, a self-selection. The problem isn't that our institutions are biased, but that conservatives (in general) choose not to pursue scientific careers in the same numbers as liberals. This suggests a fundamental limit to your proposed solution because there aren't enough "heterodox" collaborators to ensure viewpoint diversity. One of the studies published on the website you mentioned even suggests this underlying cause. Also, I'll note that in the vast majority of academia, internal politics (what research methodologies, maths, etc. someone likes to use) are far more of a problem than external politics (of the sort you'd typically call "politics" in general conversation). E.g. I'm not at all worried about "liberal bias" in physics or chemistry or CS; if it's a problem at all, then it's a minor one compared to other problems.

weberc2 9y ago
Whether or not the ISPs have this information is a fundamentally separate issue from whether ideological homogeneity biases science. There is no dichotomy here. The degree to which self selection plays a role is an interesting question. Firstly, there is a certain amount of overt harassment--for example, professors in the humanities and social sciences openly admit that they would be inclined to reject a candidate if they knew he or she was conservative. Also there are lots of other data, anecdotal or quantitative. Much more is needed, however. Importantly, the proportion of conservatives to liberals has been falling since the 90s, so something is driving the trend. It's also possible that conservatives are selecting out of a career that they (evidently correctly) perceive to be hostile to them or otherwise corrupt (more interested in furthering an agenda than seeking truth). The point is that even if it is self-selection, we may be able to improve the ratio enough to improve the science. And it's not like the ratio needs to be 50:50--probably 30:70 would suffice. Right now many fields are less than 10:90, and intuition suggests that the effect is nonlinear. If only 10% of faculty are conservative, intimidation causes them to suppress their already marginal voice, but 30% might be enough to allow them to feel secure in providing the sort of criticism those fields seem to desperately need. Of course, I'm picking on the academy, but the same probably holds true for journalism. Again, the point isn't to assign blame, but to improve the science.
- throwawayjava 9y ago
  > Whether or not the ISPs have this information is a fundamentally separate issue from whether ideological homogeneity biases science. There is no dichotomy here. I'm sort of making two only vaguely related claims here. Claim 1: In this particular case, I don't think bias is even a problem, because we shouldn't even be doing this leg work on behalf of ISPs in the first place. My point is that ISPs choose not to contribute to the quality of publicly available information. When entire industries (or governments) willfully hide data that's necessary for a populace to make an informed decision, I default to a worst-case assumption on that data. Not because I think that's most likely, but out of contempt for the lack of transparency and as a forcing function for greater transparency. In other words, these "biased" researchers are already a hell of a lot more charitable toward the ISPs' position than I think we ought to be. If ISPs aren't willing to share granular data on network accessibility, then assume it's a major problem until they muster up the will to share that data. >... the humanities and social sciences... Claim 2: On this issue, I think it's helpful to discuss "critical studies" and related departments separately from the rest of "academia" and separately from the natural and mathematical sciences in particular. I don't think that the liberal bias in natural/math sciences has the same underlying causes OR the same long-term effects. I.e., I don't think that chemistry departments are hiring based upon political beliefs, and I also don't think that political homogeneity effects the quality of chemistry research. You also have to explain why political diversity is even important in the face of other forms of homogeneity. E.g., I'd rather a very liberal, very theoretical physics department hire a flaming liberal experimentalist than yet another theorist who happens to be conservative. The importance of political diversity in humanities and social sciences is obvious, but I don't see why science would suffer if all algebraists were libertarians... My assertion is that if you want a politically diverse chemistry department, you have to 1) justify why that diversity is even necessary / more significant than other major problems; and then 2) probably also solve different underlying causes. > Of course, I'm picking on the academy, but the same probably holds true for journalism. And also literally every other profession, from clergy to CEOs to career criminals. There's even a trite quote about it.
  - jlardinois 9y ago
    Out of curiosity, what's the quote you mentioned?
PaulHoule 9y ago
Very frequently people call up a broadband provider, get told there is broadband at their address, then they get told later that in fact it is not. Thus it's not clear that providers have a real handle on this at an operational level, never mind a synoptic level. As for left v right, it's true that adjunct faculty who teach English are rabid leftists because they are working four jobs that are 60 miles apart, have no health insurance, qualify for food stamps, etc. One reason you see so few rightists in conventional academia is that they can go work for places like the Manhattan Institute, Hoover Institution, etc. and get paid much more, not have to teach, not deal with the rat race. There is a continuous drumbeat of reports on how there is no broadband problem in the U.S. that is funded by the industry -- these don't get much attention outside the trade press because normal people know that students camp outside the school some nights because they don't have broadband at home.
- thaumaturgy 9y ago
  > ...people call up a broadband provider, get told there is broadband at their address, then they get told later that in fact it is not. Thus it's not clear that providers have a real handle on this at an operational level, never mind a synoptic level. The provider (or the provider's CSR) is being lazy. They absolutely do have the data. In AT&T's case, they have a Java software interface ("CPSOS") into which you can plug in an address and get back the distance in thousands of feet from the address to the nearest RT or CO (major network interconnection). The distance between those points gives you an estimate for the maximum DSL speed that can likely be supported; you can guarantee up to 6mpbs down at up to 5k feet if I remember right, and it tapers off from there to 10k feet, at which point you start saying, "we might be able to get you 512kbps but we're not sure, we'd have to try installing it and see what happens." The sense you get, both as a consumer and as a service provider that gets a little more of an inside view into these companies, is that they absolutely do have the data and the capability, but that isn't where their priorities are. They just want to make a buck with as little capital investment as possible, and everything that they do reflects that.

weberc2 9y ago

Whether or not the ISPs have this information is a fundamentally separate issue from whether ideological homogeneity biases science. There is no dichotomy here. The degree to which self selection plays a role is an interesting question. Firstly, there is a certain amount of overt harassment--for example, professors in the humanities and social sciences openly admit that they would be inclined to reject a candidate if they knew he or she was conservative. Also there are lots of other data, anecdotal or quantitative. Much more is needed, however. Importantly, the proportion of conservatives to liberals has been falling since the 90s, so something is driving the trend. It's also possible that conservatives are selecting out of a career that they (evidently correctly) perceive to be hostile to them or otherwise corrupt (more interested in furthering an agenda than seeking truth). The point is that even if it is self-selection, we may be able to improve the ratio enough to improve the science. And it's not like the ratio needs to be 50:50--probably 30:70 would suffice. Right now many fields are less than 10:90, and intuition suggests that the effect is nonlinear. If only 10% of faculty are conservative, intimidation causes them to suppress their already marginal voice, but 30% might be enough to allow them to feel secure in providing the sort of criticism those fields seem to desperately need. Of course, I'm picking on the academy, but the same probably holds true for journalism. Again, the point isn't to assign blame, but to improve the science.

throwawayjava 9y ago
> Whether or not the ISPs have this information is a fundamentally separate issue from whether ideological homogeneity biases science. There is no dichotomy here. I'm sort of making two only vaguely related claims here. Claim 1: In this particular case, I don't think bias is even a problem, because we shouldn't even be doing this leg work on behalf of ISPs in the first place. My point is that ISPs choose not to contribute to the quality of publicly available information. When entire industries (or governments) willfully hide data that's necessary for a populace to make an informed decision, I default to a worst-case assumption on that data. Not because I think that's most likely, but out of contempt for the lack of transparency and as a forcing function for greater transparency. In other words, these "biased" researchers are already a hell of a lot more charitable toward the ISPs' position than I think we ought to be. If ISPs aren't willing to share granular data on network accessibility, then assume it's a major problem until they muster up the will to share that data. >... the humanities and social sciences... Claim 2: On this issue, I think it's helpful to discuss "critical studies" and related departments separately from the rest of "academia" and separately from the natural and mathematical sciences in particular. I don't think that the liberal bias in natural/math sciences has the same underlying causes OR the same long-term effects. I.e., I don't think that chemistry departments are hiring based upon political beliefs, and I also don't think that political homogeneity effects the quality of chemistry research. You also have to explain why political diversity is even important in the face of other forms of homogeneity. E.g., I'd rather a very liberal, very theoretical physics department hire a flaming liberal experimentalist than yet another theorist who happens to be conservative. The importance of political diversity in humanities and social sciences is obvious, but I don't see why science would suffer if all algebraists were libertarians... My assertion is that if you want a politically diverse chemistry department, you have to 1) justify why that diversity is even necessary / more significant than other major problems; and then 2) probably also solve different underlying causes. > Of course, I'm picking on the academy, but the same probably holds true for journalism. And also literally every other profession, from clergy to CEOs to career criminals. There's even a trite quote about it.
- jlardinois 9y ago
  Out of curiosity, what's the quote you mentioned?

PaulHoule 9y ago

Very frequently people call up a broadband provider, get told there is broadband at their address, then they get told later that in fact it is not. Thus it's not clear that providers have a real handle on this at an operational level, never mind a synoptic level. As for left v right, it's true that adjunct faculty who teach English are rabid leftists because they are working four jobs that are 60 miles apart, have no health insurance, qualify for food stamps, etc. One reason you see so few rightists in conventional academia is that they can go work for places like the Manhattan Institute, Hoover Institution, etc. and get paid much more, not have to teach, not deal with the rat race. There is a continuous drumbeat of reports on how there is no broadband problem in the U.S. that is funded by the industry -- these don't get much attention outside the trade press because normal people know that students camp outside the school some nights because they don't have broadband at home.

thaumaturgy 9y ago
> ...people call up a broadband provider, get told there is broadband at their address, then they get told later that in fact it is not. Thus it's not clear that providers have a real handle on this at an operational level, never mind a synoptic level. The provider (or the provider's CSR) is being lazy. They absolutely do have the data. In AT&T's case, they have a Java software interface ("CPSOS") into which you can plug in an address and get back the distance in thousands of feet from the address to the nearest RT or CO (major network interconnection). The distance between those points gives you an estimate for the maximum DSL speed that can likely be supported; you can guarantee up to 6mpbs down at up to 5k feet if I remember right, and it tapers off from there to 10k feet, at which point you start saying, "we might be able to get you 512kbps but we're not sure, we'd have to try installing it and see what happens." The sense you get, both as a consumer and as a service provider that gets a little more of an inside view into these companies, is that they absolutely do have the data and the capability, but that isn't where their priorities are. They just want to make a buck with as little capital investment as possible, and everything that they do reflects that.