6 ms·

> Because open, good-faith conversation around topics of identity such as gender, race, and sexuality (and the scholarship that works with them) is nearly impos

> Because open, good-faith conversation around topics of identity such as gender, race, and sexuality (and the scholarship that works with them) is nearly impossible, our aim has been to reboot these conversations. ... > a clear reason to look at the identitarian madness coming out of the academic and activist left I'm going to revisit the article later, because the first few paragraphs threw up many red flags, coming across as someones with a chip on their shoulder that sought out to "prove" themselves correct. Hopefully this is a misunderstanding on my part, but I recommend others attempting persuasion to avoid such signaling.

unparagoned 8y ago
Yeh, it's kind of redicoulius how much of a bias there is. It sounds like some Sam Harris or Jordan Peterson disciples going out to battle for them. It's been established that journals of all kind, including physics are susceptable to accepting papers that aren't up to snuff. The is even an app which will write such papers for you. It's just a hit piece. I'm more interested in the reason why to be honest.
- kryogen1c 8y ago
  As a serious JP fan I take offense to this. That is irrelevant, however. Did you read the article or just identify it as something you don't like philosophically and completely ignore it's merits? This is the exact identitarian madness in question. > It's been established that journals of all kind, including physics are susceptable to accepting papers that aren't up to snuff. The article is quite clear that it's not trying to sneak one slightly substandard paper under the radar. They write 20 papers with the same academic rigor as the accepted literature in the field. EDIT: typos
  - ForHackernews 8y ago
    Don't take this personally but Jordan Peterson is a hack: https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/03/the-intellectual-we-deserve https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/03/the-intellectual-we-d... (Or, if you don't want to read that, listen to him flailing around in this non-political debate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsyZcKUP_-k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsyZcKUP_-k )
    - Mediterraneo10 8y ago
      It is a shame to see you downvoted here for linking to that well-argued article. I know Jordan Peterson seems to have quite an impact on young men, but for older folks who have been around for a while, it is easy to see him as just this era’s Carlos Castaneda or other shallow (and probably rather ephemeral) spiritual guru.
      - kryogen1c 8y ago
        I dont think its a shame at all - that article is not the least bit well-argued. It goes pages before it quotes JP or in any way tries to debate his views. Here are some excepts from this "well-argued article": >Jordan Peterson appears very profound and has convinced many people to take him seriously. Yet he has almost nothing of value to say. >They are half nonsense, half banality. In a reasonable world, Peterson would be seen as the kind of tedious crackpot that one hopes not to get seated next to on a train. >A more important reason why Peterson is “misinterpreted” is that he is so consistently vague and vacillating that it’s impossible to tell what he is “actually saying.” Actually quotes JPs book, in what the author clearly thinks the reader will find is a confusing way (i dont) >But here I am already giving Peterson’s work a more coherent summary than it actually deserves. Note that i did not pull those out of context; there is no supporting evidence. the author just... says stuff. This is the opposite of well-written. It is ad-hominem after playground insult. there is no point counter-point or debate format of any kind. the author basically assumes you think JP is not meaningful and then makes fun of the way he speaks.
        ForHackernews 8y ago
        I don't understand how any technically-minded person can take this stuff seriously: https://images.currentaffairs.org/2018/03/peterson3.jpg https://images.currentaffairs.org/2018/03/peterson3.jpg
        buboard 8y ago
        But can you prove it wrong? I think you 'll find a lot of such comically simplistic "conjoined triangles of success" in the arts. More seriously, if you re interested to understand the people who take him seriously, pointing out those caricatures is the wrong way to go about it. He creates a narrative that has emotional appeal and is backed up by science. He does get his facts straight in his arguments - he's not using pseudoscience. The psychology literature leaves just enough cracks for his theories to fall through undamaged. Thats why those who oppose to him have to use aesthetic arguments like this.
- Yoric 8y ago
  Seriously, there's an app for that? Do you have more details?
  - kryogen1c 8y ago
    I don't remember when, but they discuss options here https://youtu.be/ras_VYgA77Q https://youtu.be/ras_VYgA77Q
waterhouse 8y ago
To be flippant, it sounds like you're quick to assume bad faith, which would seem to support the first point you quote. The experiment they ran was to try to get terrible papers published in authoritative journals in certain fields. If they succeeded, this would point towards a serious problem with established practice in those fields; their suspicion of such a problem might be labeled a "chip on their shoulder" or a "hypothesis". According to what they say, they succeeded. As for it being "identitarian madness" and "coming out of the academic and activist left"—do you think either of those parts is false or is irrelevant to what they're studying? If not, how would you suggest they talk about it?
- candiodari 8y ago
  You're oppressing the GP with your white straight male science. You see your argument only makes sense if objective reality exists, as the argument fundamentally is about measuring objective reality. But objective reality has been firmly demonstrated to be false, and nothing more than a tool for oppression of women and minorities.
  - dang 8y ago
    Please don't low-rent ideological flamewar here. It's staggeringly boring.
- slivym 8y ago
  They literally have a video in the introduction which documents them deliberately submitting papers that they've engineered to have problems in bad faith to try and manufacture evidence that bad studies can get into journals. They establish that they act in bad faith.
  - claudius 8y ago
    While authors ideally should act in good faith and only submit good papers, the whole idea of having journals and editors and peer review is to filter out bad papers. The problem here is not some people "deliberately submitting papers" which "have problems", the problem is that those papers were accepted by "academic" journals. This is not "manufacturing" evidence, this is simply evidence. The bad guys here are not random authors but the journal editors and peer reviewers accepting this stuff.
barry-cotter 8y ago
They got an article accepted in Hypatia, the flagship journal of feminist philosophy. I’ve never heard of any of the other journals and have no idea if they’re held in low regard generally but Hypatia is as good as it gets in that field. They may have had an almighty chip on their shoulders but they do seem to have proved themselves correct. They got articles accepted in the Journal of Poetry Therapy, Affilia, Fat Studies, Gender, Place and Culture, Sexuality and Culture, Sex Roles and Hypatia.

unparagoned 8y ago

Yeh, it's kind of redicoulius how much of a bias there is. It sounds like some Sam Harris or Jordan Peterson disciples going out to battle for them. It's been established that journals of all kind, including physics are susceptable to accepting papers that aren't up to snuff. The is even an app which will write such papers for you. It's just a hit piece. I'm more interested in the reason why to be honest.

kryogen1c 8y ago
As a serious JP fan I take offense to this. That is irrelevant, however. Did you read the article or just identify it as something you don't like philosophically and completely ignore it's merits? This is the exact identitarian madness in question. > It's been established that journals of all kind, including physics are susceptable to accepting papers that aren't up to snuff. The article is quite clear that it's not trying to sneak one slightly substandard paper under the radar. They write 20 papers with the same academic rigor as the accepted literature in the field. EDIT: typos
- ForHackernews 8y ago
  Don't take this personally but Jordan Peterson is a hack: https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/03/the-intellectual-we-deserve https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/03/the-intellectual-we-d... (Or, if you don't want to read that, listen to him flailing around in this non-political debate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsyZcKUP_-k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsyZcKUP_-k )
  - Mediterraneo10 8y ago
    It is a shame to see you downvoted here for linking to that well-argued article. I know Jordan Peterson seems to have quite an impact on young men, but for older folks who have been around for a while, it is easy to see him as just this era’s Carlos Castaneda or other shallow (and probably rather ephemeral) spiritual guru.
    - kryogen1c 8y ago
      I dont think its a shame at all - that article is not the least bit well-argued. It goes pages before it quotes JP or in any way tries to debate his views. Here are some excepts from this "well-argued article": >Jordan Peterson appears very profound and has convinced many people to take him seriously. Yet he has almost nothing of value to say. >They are half nonsense, half banality. In a reasonable world, Peterson would be seen as the kind of tedious crackpot that one hopes not to get seated next to on a train. >A more important reason why Peterson is “misinterpreted” is that he is so consistently vague and vacillating that it’s impossible to tell what he is “actually saying.” Actually quotes JPs book, in what the author clearly thinks the reader will find is a confusing way (i dont) >But here I am already giving Peterson’s work a more coherent summary than it actually deserves. Note that i did not pull those out of context; there is no supporting evidence. the author just... says stuff. This is the opposite of well-written. It is ad-hominem after playground insult. there is no point counter-point or debate format of any kind. the author basically assumes you think JP is not meaningful and then makes fun of the way he speaks.
      - ForHackernews 8y ago
        I don't understand how any technically-minded person can take this stuff seriously: https://images.currentaffairs.org/2018/03/peterson3.jpg https://images.currentaffairs.org/2018/03/peterson3.jpg
        buboard 8y ago
        But can you prove it wrong? I think you 'll find a lot of such comically simplistic "conjoined triangles of success" in the arts. More seriously, if you re interested to understand the people who take him seriously, pointing out those caricatures is the wrong way to go about it. He creates a narrative that has emotional appeal and is backed up by science. He does get his facts straight in his arguments - he's not using pseudoscience. The psychology literature leaves just enough cracks for his theories to fall through undamaged. Thats why those who oppose to him have to use aesthetic arguments like this.
Yoric 8y ago
Seriously, there's an app for that? Do you have more details?
- kryogen1c 8y ago
  I don't remember when, but they discuss options here https://youtu.be/ras_VYgA77Q https://youtu.be/ras_VYgA77Q

waterhouse 8y ago

To be flippant, it sounds like you're quick to assume bad faith, which would seem to support the first point you quote. The experiment they ran was to try to get terrible papers published in authoritative journals in certain fields. If they succeeded, this would point towards a serious problem with established practice in those fields; their suspicion of such a problem might be labeled a "chip on their shoulder" or a "hypothesis". According to what they say, they succeeded. As for it being "identitarian madness" and "coming out of the academic and activist left"—do you think either of those parts is false or is irrelevant to what they're studying? If not, how would you suggest they talk about it?

candiodari 8y ago
You're oppressing the GP with your white straight male science. You see your argument only makes sense if objective reality exists, as the argument fundamentally is about measuring objective reality. But objective reality has been firmly demonstrated to be false, and nothing more than a tool for oppression of women and minorities.
- dang 8y ago
  Please don't low-rent ideological flamewar here. It's staggeringly boring.
slivym 8y ago
They literally have a video in the introduction which documents them deliberately submitting papers that they've engineered to have problems in bad faith to try and manufacture evidence that bad studies can get into journals. They establish that they act in bad faith.
- claudius 8y ago
  While authors ideally should act in good faith and only submit good papers, the whole idea of having journals and editors and peer review is to filter out bad papers. The problem here is not some people "deliberately submitting papers" which "have problems", the problem is that those papers were accepted by "academic" journals. This is not "manufacturing" evidence, this is simply evidence. The bad guys here are not random authors but the journal editors and peer reviewers accepting this stuff.

barry-cotter 8y ago

They got an article accepted in Hypatia, the flagship journal of feminist philosophy. I’ve never heard of any of the other journals and have no idea if they’re held in low regard generally but Hypatia is as good as it gets in that field. They may have had an almighty chip on their shoulders but they do seem to have proved themselves correct. They got articles accepted in the Journal of Poetry Therapy, Affilia, Fat Studies, Gender, Place and Culture, Sexuality and Culture, Sex Roles and Hypatia.