3 ms·

I think the problem with tptacek's explanation is that it does not address the larger context of how certain topics have become sacred in academia [5], and how

I think the problem with tptacek's explanation is that it does not address the larger context of how certain topics have become sacred in academia [5], and how breaking or criticising these sacred ideas leads to an outsized reaction. Do you think the reaction was focusing on merits and that it was not an outsized reaction due to someone violating something sacred? Lets dig more into evidence of suppression of biological research: How would you then explain the reactions to anyone stating the biological fact that human gender is overwhelmingly bimodal with almost everyone being male/female [1], suppression of research into intelligence [2], or the diversity pledges some candidates now have to write before becoming professors [3]. The grievance studies hoax proved how grievance studies is acting like ideological whitewashing of extreme political ideas that would be unacceptable otherwise [4]. These ideas are used to justify political actions in universities and in culture to suppress sacrilegious ideas [5], and it is a concept of sacred only a small very loud minority of progressives believe in and these comprise 8% of the population [6]. Personally I find the radical leftist explanation of these two incidences unconvincing: - it seems like the opposition to McKinnon’s paper was argued primarily from a moral angle due to his violation of some progressive sacred principles, and other explanation does not seem to explain the size of the response - The reaction to the grievance studies hoax was that peer review is flawed and them still claiming that it is fair to use favored political views as a valid criteria of what should be publishing of papers of very poor scholarship. This does not engage with the real very disturbing conclusions of this study, and the fact that their hoax papers in addition to winning prices within grievance studies are also indistinguishable from other scholarship regularly published there. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6phePAZueQw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6phePAZueQw [2] https://jordanbpeterson.com/transcripts/douglas-murray/ https://jordanbpeterson.com/transcripts/douglas-murray/ [3] https://www.thecollegefix.com/ucla-to-require-diversity-pledges-from-professors/ https://www.thecollegefix.com/ucla-to-require-diversity-pled... [4] https://areomagazine.com/2018/10/02/academic-grievance-studies-and-the-corruption-of-scholarship/comment-page-1/ https://areomagazine.com/2018/10/02/academic-grievance-studi... [5] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gatn5ameRr8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gatn5ameRr8 [6] https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/large-majorities-dislike-political-correctness/572581/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/large-majo...

lifthrasiir 8y ago
You seem to complain to tptacek for not addressing the "larger context" but you don't really give any alternative explanation of the event. I'm just pointing out that the event is probably not a good example given the context, and tptacek in the linked thread just presents that context. I'm pretty much aware that, for example, variability hypothesis is being thoroughly attacked while there are evidences supporting some (but not all) sorts of variability and you don't have to repeat your claim to me.
- asabjorn 8y ago
  I think you are missing my claim that the severity of the response seem to be due to him violating a sacred value and that this was a large part of the justification of the response, regardless of the merit of any other claim they could have made on the merits of the paper itself. My second follow-up claim is that if the response had been entirely based upon merits then the response would have not been anything remotely this severe. tptaceks claim is on the merits of the paper, which might or might not be correct to some degree, but does not address this concern with the response and how problematic it is that sacredness is now part of the academic review process. Ideas should be engaged with and critiqued through scholarship, and basing any rejection of scholarship partially or fully on an idea of sacredness is dangerous to the integrity of our scholarship. We need to have zero tolerance of this, and McKinnon’s situation or the reaction to Charles Murray before it shows how sacredness stops us from properly critiquing ideas through scholarship.
  - lifthrasiir 8y ago
    So you are not concerned about the response itself; you are concerned that the response is too severe. How can that be relevant to my initial reply assuming that? And I think his response was severe exactly because sacredness had won over merits---reviewers accepting a sub-par paper for a political reason. He even explicitly stated that Mathematical Intelligencer could be a reasonable fit for the paper.
    - asabjorn 8y ago

lifthrasiir 8y ago

You seem to complain to tptacek for not addressing the "larger context" but you don't really give any alternative explanation of the event. I'm just pointing out that the event is probably not a good example given the context, and tptacek in the linked thread just presents that context. I'm pretty much aware that, for example, variability hypothesis is being thoroughly attacked while there are evidences supporting some (but not all) sorts of variability and you don't have to repeat your claim to me.

asabjorn 8y ago
I think you are missing my claim that the severity of the response seem to be due to him violating a sacred value and that this was a large part of the justification of the response, regardless of the merit of any other claim they could have made on the merits of the paper itself. My second follow-up claim is that if the response had been entirely based upon merits then the response would have not been anything remotely this severe. tptaceks claim is on the merits of the paper, which might or might not be correct to some degree, but does not address this concern with the response and how problematic it is that sacredness is now part of the academic review process. Ideas should be engaged with and critiqued through scholarship, and basing any rejection of scholarship partially or fully on an idea of sacredness is dangerous to the integrity of our scholarship. We need to have zero tolerance of this, and McKinnon’s situation or the reaction to Charles Murray before it shows how sacredness stops us from properly critiquing ideas through scholarship.
- lifthrasiir 8y ago
  So you are not concerned about the response itself; you are concerned that the response is too severe. How can that be relevant to my initial reply assuming that? And I think his response was severe exactly because sacredness had won over merits---reviewers accepting a sub-par paper for a political reason. He even explicitly stated that Mathematical Intelligencer could be a reasonable fit for the paper.
  - asabjorn 8y ago