4 ms·

> Researchers should ask these questions to determine if the correlation is actually caused by anything real, or if it's better explained by some other underlyi

> Researchers should ask these questions to determine if the correlation is actually caused by anything real, or if it's better explained by some other underlying factor. Yes, absolutely! But this only works if people apply the same skepticism towards the theories they find more politically palatable. See: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/14/beware-isolated-demands-for-rigor/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/14/beware-isolated-demands... Since people are notoriously bad at being self-skeptical, the best way to learn what is actually true is by encouraging viewpoint diversity: https://heterodoxacademy.org/ https://heterodoxacademy.org/

dragonwriter 9y ago
> Since people are notoriously bad at being self-skeptical, the best way to learn what is actually true is by encouraging viewpoint diversity: The problem with that concept is that if the available evidence actually does strongly support a position, seeking viewpoint diversity means actively selecting people who either cannot analyze the evidence or who wilfully ignore it's content. Doing so within the research community may help the competent, and honest subset of the community avoid getting stuck in ruts formed by the subtle accumulation of confirmation bias from past results (if the other group doesn't end up getting filtered out by then over time, despite being present in the community, which is improbable), but it also means that you have to actively promote crackpots and their pet theories to do it; in terms of learning what is actually true, I don't think that's a net win.
- haberman 9y ago
  > The problem with that concept is that if the available evidence actually does strongly support a position, seeking viewpoint diversity means actively selecting people who either cannot analyze the evidence or who wilfully ignore it's content. We're not talking about diversity of opinion on whether gravity is real. We're talking about viewpoint diversity on questions that involve far more ambiguity, complexity, and interpretation, like how to measure human intelligence. Questions where the evidence can point in multiple directions depending on what data is collected and how it is interpreted. I think the site addresses this well: > For simple problems or fully resolved technical matters there is little need for viewpoint diversity. Sometimes there is just one answer, or just one way to approach a problem. But for “wicked problems” — those that can be framed in multiple ways and that may trigger passions or partisan motivations–viewpoint diversity is essential. --https://heterodoxacademy.org/the-problem/ https://heterodoxacademy.org/the-problem/
jahaja 9y ago
> Since people are notoriously bad at being self-skeptical, the best way to learn what is actually true is by encouraging viewpoint diversity: https://heterodoxacademy.org/ https://heterodoxacademy.org/ I don't know if this is because of my European point-of-view but that site seems to be exactly the opposite. It seems to identify changes in opinion on universities as an inherent problem and that the former ratio should be promoted. Furthermore it clumps together far-left & liberal in some absurd common pool "proving" the lack of diversity of opinion. I mean a lot of European "diversity of opinion" is in precisely that single pool.
- haberman 9y ago
  I don't think the site is arguing for historical ratios or that changes of opinion are bad. It is arguing against orthodoxy: situations where certain ideas become so sacred that questioning them is no longer tolerated. If demographics were skewed towards the left, but the left-leaning majority was willing to critically engage dissenting ideas, there would be no problem. Instead the dominance of the left (at least in the US/UK) seems to function largely through socially-enforced orthodoxy, where dissent is punished and stigmatized. I have heard that this is not as much of a problem outside of the Anglosphere, so if you are from continental Europe you might experience this differently.
  - jahaja 9y ago
    > I don't think the site is arguing for historical ratios or that changes of opinion are bad. It is arguing against orthodoxy: situations where certain ideas become so sacred that questioning them is no longer tolerated. Paradoxically it seems to be doing both at the same time. Here's a quote from the site: > "For example, as the graph shows, in the 15 years between 1995 and 2010, the American academy went from leaning left to being almost entirely on the left. Similar trends and problems are occurring in the UK and Canada, and to a lesser extent in Australia." How should I interpret this as something other than "We've seen a progressive shift during this certain period and we don't like it"? This says nothing about how diverse the opinions are - especially when you clump together a very wide spectrum of thought into "the left". For example, what goes for moderate/conservative ideas in the US translates normally to very hard right in many western-european countries (although admittedly less so recently), making it traditionally quite a fringe part of the political scene. But at the same time the European diversity of opinion is, in my opinion at least, far better than the essential two-party (both being firmly right-wing as well) scene of US politics. > Instead the dominance of the left (at least in the US/UK) seems to function largely through socially-enforced orthodoxy, where dissent is punished and stigmatized. This idea seems to be popular at the moment, but I can't find any proper backing for this claim - that one is disproportionately worse than its counter-parts - other than repetition.
ggggtez 9y ago
That's not even a true statement. In fact, you actually don't need to apply skepticism towards your pet political topics, in order to apply skepticism to the IQ test. Funny thing, the physics of this world seem to allow you to treat unrelated things differently. Even more so, your ability to predict the movement of the stars doesn't depend on reading articles from Flat Earthers either. Weird!
- haberman 9y ago
  I was talking about theories specifically related to the IQ test. "Every demographic has a priori equal IQ" is a politically palatable theory that many people want to believe. People need to be as skeptical towards this as they are towards "advantaged groups measure higher IQ because they are inherently smarter."

dragonwriter 9y ago

> Since people are notoriously bad at being self-skeptical, the best way to learn what is actually true is by encouraging viewpoint diversity: The problem with that concept is that if the available evidence actually does strongly support a position, seeking viewpoint diversity means actively selecting people who either cannot analyze the evidence or who wilfully ignore it's content. Doing so within the research community may help the competent, and honest subset of the community avoid getting stuck in ruts formed by the subtle accumulation of confirmation bias from past results (if the other group doesn't end up getting filtered out by then over time, despite being present in the community, which is improbable), but it also means that you have to actively promote crackpots and their pet theories to do it; in terms of learning what is actually true, I don't think that's a net win.

haberman 9y ago
> The problem with that concept is that if the available evidence actually does strongly support a position, seeking viewpoint diversity means actively selecting people who either cannot analyze the evidence or who wilfully ignore it's content. We're not talking about diversity of opinion on whether gravity is real. We're talking about viewpoint diversity on questions that involve far more ambiguity, complexity, and interpretation, like how to measure human intelligence. Questions where the evidence can point in multiple directions depending on what data is collected and how it is interpreted. I think the site addresses this well: > For simple problems or fully resolved technical matters there is little need for viewpoint diversity. Sometimes there is just one answer, or just one way to approach a problem. But for “wicked problems” — those that can be framed in multiple ways and that may trigger passions or partisan motivations–viewpoint diversity is essential. --https://heterodoxacademy.org/the-problem/ https://heterodoxacademy.org/the-problem/

jahaja 9y ago

> Since people are notoriously bad at being self-skeptical, the best way to learn what is actually true is by encouraging viewpoint diversity: https://heterodoxacademy.org/ https://heterodoxacademy.org/ I don't know if this is because of my European point-of-view but that site seems to be exactly the opposite. It seems to identify changes in opinion on universities as an inherent problem and that the former ratio should be promoted. Furthermore it clumps together far-left & liberal in some absurd common pool "proving" the lack of diversity of opinion. I mean a lot of European "diversity of opinion" is in precisely that single pool.

haberman 9y ago
I don't think the site is arguing for historical ratios or that changes of opinion are bad. It is arguing against orthodoxy: situations where certain ideas become so sacred that questioning them is no longer tolerated. If demographics were skewed towards the left, but the left-leaning majority was willing to critically engage dissenting ideas, there would be no problem. Instead the dominance of the left (at least in the US/UK) seems to function largely through socially-enforced orthodoxy, where dissent is punished and stigmatized. I have heard that this is not as much of a problem outside of the Anglosphere, so if you are from continental Europe you might experience this differently.
- jahaja 9y ago
  > I don't think the site is arguing for historical ratios or that changes of opinion are bad. It is arguing against orthodoxy: situations where certain ideas become so sacred that questioning them is no longer tolerated. Paradoxically it seems to be doing both at the same time. Here's a quote from the site: > "For example, as the graph shows, in the 15 years between 1995 and 2010, the American academy went from leaning left to being almost entirely on the left. Similar trends and problems are occurring in the UK and Canada, and to a lesser extent in Australia." How should I interpret this as something other than "We've seen a progressive shift during this certain period and we don't like it"? This says nothing about how diverse the opinions are - especially when you clump together a very wide spectrum of thought into "the left". For example, what goes for moderate/conservative ideas in the US translates normally to very hard right in many western-european countries (although admittedly less so recently), making it traditionally quite a fringe part of the political scene. But at the same time the European diversity of opinion is, in my opinion at least, far better than the essential two-party (both being firmly right-wing as well) scene of US politics. > Instead the dominance of the left (at least in the US/UK) seems to function largely through socially-enforced orthodoxy, where dissent is punished and stigmatized. This idea seems to be popular at the moment, but I can't find any proper backing for this claim - that one is disproportionately worse than its counter-parts - other than repetition.

ggggtez 9y ago

That's not even a true statement. In fact, you actually don't need to apply skepticism towards your pet political topics, in order to apply skepticism to the IQ test. Funny thing, the physics of this world seem to allow you to treat unrelated things differently. Even more so, your ability to predict the movement of the stars doesn't depend on reading articles from Flat Earthers either. Weird!

haberman 9y ago
I was talking about theories specifically related to the IQ test. "Every demographic has a priori equal IQ" is a politically palatable theory that many people want to believe. People need to be as skeptical towards this as they are towards "advantaged groups measure higher IQ because they are inherently smarter."