5 ms·

This study needs to be replicated before its conclusions are taken seriously, because much of sociology is known to be deciding on a conclusion in line with int

This study needs to be replicated before its conclusions are taken seriously, because much of sociology is known to be deciding on a conclusion in line with intersectionality ideology dogma before writing the paper and producing papers with extreme methodology flaws. See the sokal hoax for a recent very clear expose of this academic bankruptcy

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
rosser 8y ago
I actually already have a copy of the first printing of The Sokal Hoax on my non-fiction bookshelf, thanks. EDIT: I too fail to see its relevance.
- asabjorn 8y ago
  They seem politically rather than scientifically motivated. They even redefined meritocracy into something where people with different capabilities as well as willingness to work hard in intellectual pursuits should have equal outcome. Essentially, the equity agenda. Choosing someone less qualified for a job because equity is not meritocracy. Rather, there are many less capable and willing to work from that upper class that would wish to take advantage of a less meritocratic system when they can’t competent with someone better from less privileged circumstances
  - rosser 8y ago
    There is a lot of nuance to unpack in these discussions. You'll pardon me if I express skepticism at it being worth the effort to have that conversation with someone whose own contributions to that conversation so far include calling an analysis of existing studies and patterns of behavior a "study" that can (and should) be "replicated", and the gems: "intersectionality ideology dogma" — emphasis added, and "secular theology for the intersectional faith". You display a dismissive, even disdainful attitude about the matter, and I really don't feel like fighting uphill like that today. But if you really want to have a good-faith discussion about this then you can start by explaining how you read their position as "redefin[ing] meritocracy into... equal outcome", when the only occurrence of the string "equal outcome" in The Fine Article was: > Just having the idea of skill in mind makes people more tolerant of unequal outcomes. The context was a "fake game of skill", where players were told they had won. This is about self-belief, not outcome. EDIT: Phrasing EDIT 2: And my new favorite: "People that share the intersectional beliefs does not believe in scientific reasoning." People who make statements like that don't appear to believe in logical reasoning.
    - asabjorn 8y ago
      Why do you think this methodology support their conclusion that meritocracy doesn’t exist?
    - asabjorn 8y ago
      I disagree that it is not logical to point out the religious aspects of some of people that subscribe to intersectional ideology. I hope you can hear me out since you had such a vocal objection, and that you can point out flaws in my reasoning. You might agree that creationists when expressing something resting on their faith might have some scientific methodology issues. I think we might agree that it is not illogical to point out that some research done by creationists have a religious overtone. Research outside their creationist dogma might not warrant such scrutiny. Can you after watching the following two videos, which contains core thoughtleaders in intersectionality like DiAngelo, that intersectionality does not have a religious overtone? [1,2] If not, why not? If so, why is it then illogical to point out that the authors are expressing something that to at least some degree seem to rely on intersectional dogma and that this has a religious overtone? [1] https://youtu.be/FH2WeWgcSMk https://youtu.be/FH2WeWgcSMk [2] https://youtu.be/A0W9QbkX8Cs https://youtu.be/A0W9QbkX8Cs
      - rosser 8y ago
        > I disagree that it is not logical to point out the religious aspects of some of people that subscribe to intersectional ideology. I hope you can hear me out since you had such a vocal objection, and that you can point out flaws in my reasoning. Primarily that you seem to be making a category error in saying that because people within the movement have acted in bad faith, intersectionality itself — or, possibly worse, the legitimate concerns it's trying to explore — is bullshit. I'm not here to debate the movement with you, but if your notion of it is something other than "people marginalized along multiple axes have an especially hard time of things", and particularly if it's something more nefarious than that, then you're quite possibly operating from someone's "they're coming to take your $whatever!" narrative, instead.
        asabjorn 8y ago
TelmoMenezes 8y ago
The Sokal Hoax happened in a journal of "postmodern cultural studies", not sociology. Furthermore, it was an academic essay, not an empiric and quantitative study. Can you point to anything akin to the Sokal Hoax that happened in the context of sociological empirical studies? Also, if you don't trust sociologists in general, replicating the study will not convince you anyway. It is a good idea to replicate, but it is not a good idea to care about the opinion of those who dismiss entire scientific fields based on ideological prejudice, be the field sociology, immunology, climate science of evolutionary biology.
- asabjorn 8y ago
  The point I am making is that the premise seems to be politically motivated and not scientifically. They even redefined meritocracy to fit an intersectional paradigm in the same way as the sokal hoax papers showed. I fail to see how it’s interesting that people with different capability as well as possibly willingness to work doesn’t succeed at equal rate in intellectually demanding jobs. Meritocracy is when such people of different class backgrounds succeed at about the same rate on average. Intersectionality muddles that water in an unhelpful way.
  - TelmoMenezes 8y ago
    I understand your point. I work with sociologists and I also follow the ongoing "Internet cultural wars". People like Jordan Peterson (who I don't either dislike nor agree 100%) really brought these matters to the forefront. His criticisms of postmerdernism are somewhat relevant, but they are also exaggerated. Some corners of "postmodernist academia" are as bad as he paints them, but not all of them, by any means. Even the Sokal scandal is somewhat simplified. It was not so easy for them to get the paper accepted, in fact they were rejected many times by other journals. This is rarely mentioned. The cited work in TFA compares performance evaluations with raises. It found that for the same performance evaluations, an explicit focus on meritocracy leads to worse monetary outcomes for women. That seems fairly objective and methodically sound to me, and not at all related to Sokal-style bullshit. The income gap is a complex topic, and it is clearly not as simple as either extremes of the cultural wars paint it. It is not true that the pay gap is 100% due to discrimination against women, but it is also not 100% true that such discrimination plays no role. As usual in real life, there are nuances and complexities that cannot easily be reduced to simple slogans. Silicon Valley has a religion-ideology that we have no name for yet. It is a very American kind of Protestantism with zero gods. I know the environment and I know what I'm talking about, even though I accept you might disagree. My view is that the self-proclaimed ultra-rationalists are not as rational as they would like to think. It is true that Sociology has a left-wing bias. In my view, this is true of all academia. There was a time, not so long ago, when academia had a right-wing bias. This too is a subject of sociological research :)
teucris 8y ago
My understanding was that Castillo’s work was building nuance around existing work that showed cognitive biases in structures that perceive themselves objective, eg https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749597807000611 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S074959780....
- asabjorn 8y ago
  That abstract seems very intersectional. The scientific bankruptcy of research that tow the intersectional line, such as papers that are similar to the sokal hoax papers, have demostrated that papers and programs towing that line is with all likelihood politically motivated. It is therefore reasonable to treat this kind of academic papers exactly as what it looks like, basically as politically motivated reasoning useful only to people that believe in those ideological tenets. Basically, as a secular theology for the intersectional faith.
maehwasu 8y ago
Not sure why this is getting downvoted. The flaws in social science studies have been demonstrated repeatedly. The existence of one study should barely move the probability (in either direction) of meritorcracy being legitimate.
- asabjorn 8y ago
  People that share the intersectional beliefs does not believe in scientific reasoning. See this aero expose for a more expansive reasoning on how the scientific and intersectional paradigms are inherently incompatible https://areomagazine.com/2019/03/15/teaching-to-transgress-rage-and-entitlement-at-evergreen-college/ https://areomagazine.com/2019/03/15/teaching-to-transgress-r...

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

rosser 8y ago

I actually already have a copy of the first printing of The Sokal Hoax on my non-fiction bookshelf, thanks. EDIT: I too fail to see its relevance.

asabjorn 8y ago
They seem politically rather than scientifically motivated. They even redefined meritocracy into something where people with different capabilities as well as willingness to work hard in intellectual pursuits should have equal outcome. Essentially, the equity agenda. Choosing someone less qualified for a job because equity is not meritocracy. Rather, there are many less capable and willing to work from that upper class that would wish to take advantage of a less meritocratic system when they can’t competent with someone better from less privileged circumstances
- rosser 8y ago
  There is a lot of nuance to unpack in these discussions. You'll pardon me if I express skepticism at it being worth the effort to have that conversation with someone whose own contributions to that conversation so far include calling an analysis of existing studies and patterns of behavior a "study" that can (and should) be "replicated", and the gems: "intersectionality ideology dogma" — emphasis added, and "secular theology for the intersectional faith". You display a dismissive, even disdainful attitude about the matter, and I really don't feel like fighting uphill like that today. But if you really want to have a good-faith discussion about this then you can start by explaining how you read their position as "redefin[ing] meritocracy into... equal outcome", when the only occurrence of the string "equal outcome" in The Fine Article was: > Just having the idea of skill in mind makes people more tolerant of unequal outcomes. The context was a "fake game of skill", where players were told they had won. This is about self-belief, not outcome. EDIT: Phrasing EDIT 2: And my new favorite: "People that share the intersectional beliefs does not believe in scientific reasoning." People who make statements like that don't appear to believe in logical reasoning.
  - asabjorn 8y ago
    Why do you think this methodology support their conclusion that meritocracy doesn’t exist?
  - asabjorn 8y ago
    I disagree that it is not logical to point out the religious aspects of some of people that subscribe to intersectional ideology. I hope you can hear me out since you had such a vocal objection, and that you can point out flaws in my reasoning. You might agree that creationists when expressing something resting on their faith might have some scientific methodology issues. I think we might agree that it is not illogical to point out that some research done by creationists have a religious overtone. Research outside their creationist dogma might not warrant such scrutiny. Can you after watching the following two videos, which contains core thoughtleaders in intersectionality like DiAngelo, that intersectionality does not have a religious overtone? [1,2] If not, why not? If so, why is it then illogical to point out that the authors are expressing something that to at least some degree seem to rely on intersectional dogma and that this has a religious overtone? [1] https://youtu.be/FH2WeWgcSMk https://youtu.be/FH2WeWgcSMk [2] https://youtu.be/A0W9QbkX8Cs https://youtu.be/A0W9QbkX8Cs
    - rosser 8y ago
      > I disagree that it is not logical to point out the religious aspects of some of people that subscribe to intersectional ideology. I hope you can hear me out since you had such a vocal objection, and that you can point out flaws in my reasoning. Primarily that you seem to be making a category error in saying that because people within the movement have acted in bad faith, intersectionality itself — or, possibly worse, the legitimate concerns it's trying to explore — is bullshit. I'm not here to debate the movement with you, but if your notion of it is something other than "people marginalized along multiple axes have an especially hard time of things", and particularly if it's something more nefarious than that, then you're quite possibly operating from someone's "they're coming to take your $whatever!" narrative, instead.
      - asabjorn 8y ago

TelmoMenezes 8y ago

The Sokal Hoax happened in a journal of "postmodern cultural studies", not sociology. Furthermore, it was an academic essay, not an empiric and quantitative study. Can you point to anything akin to the Sokal Hoax that happened in the context of sociological empirical studies? Also, if you don't trust sociologists in general, replicating the study will not convince you anyway. It is a good idea to replicate, but it is not a good idea to care about the opinion of those who dismiss entire scientific fields based on ideological prejudice, be the field sociology, immunology, climate science of evolutionary biology.

asabjorn 8y ago
The point I am making is that the premise seems to be politically motivated and not scientifically. They even redefined meritocracy to fit an intersectional paradigm in the same way as the sokal hoax papers showed. I fail to see how it’s interesting that people with different capability as well as possibly willingness to work doesn’t succeed at equal rate in intellectually demanding jobs. Meritocracy is when such people of different class backgrounds succeed at about the same rate on average. Intersectionality muddles that water in an unhelpful way.
- TelmoMenezes 8y ago
  I understand your point. I work with sociologists and I also follow the ongoing "Internet cultural wars". People like Jordan Peterson (who I don't either dislike nor agree 100%) really brought these matters to the forefront. His criticisms of postmerdernism are somewhat relevant, but they are also exaggerated. Some corners of "postmodernist academia" are as bad as he paints them, but not all of them, by any means. Even the Sokal scandal is somewhat simplified. It was not so easy for them to get the paper accepted, in fact they were rejected many times by other journals. This is rarely mentioned. The cited work in TFA compares performance evaluations with raises. It found that for the same performance evaluations, an explicit focus on meritocracy leads to worse monetary outcomes for women. That seems fairly objective and methodically sound to me, and not at all related to Sokal-style bullshit. The income gap is a complex topic, and it is clearly not as simple as either extremes of the cultural wars paint it. It is not true that the pay gap is 100% due to discrimination against women, but it is also not 100% true that such discrimination plays no role. As usual in real life, there are nuances and complexities that cannot easily be reduced to simple slogans. Silicon Valley has a religion-ideology that we have no name for yet. It is a very American kind of Protestantism with zero gods. I know the environment and I know what I'm talking about, even though I accept you might disagree. My view is that the self-proclaimed ultra-rationalists are not as rational as they would like to think. It is true that Sociology has a left-wing bias. In my view, this is true of all academia. There was a time, not so long ago, when academia had a right-wing bias. This too is a subject of sociological research :)

teucris 8y ago

My understanding was that Castillo’s work was building nuance around existing work that showed cognitive biases in structures that perceive themselves objective, eg https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749597807000611 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S074959780....

asabjorn 8y ago
That abstract seems very intersectional. The scientific bankruptcy of research that tow the intersectional line, such as papers that are similar to the sokal hoax papers, have demostrated that papers and programs towing that line is with all likelihood politically motivated. It is therefore reasonable to treat this kind of academic papers exactly as what it looks like, basically as politically motivated reasoning useful only to people that believe in those ideological tenets. Basically, as a secular theology for the intersectional faith.

maehwasu 8y ago

Not sure why this is getting downvoted. The flaws in social science studies have been demonstrated repeatedly. The existence of one study should barely move the probability (in either direction) of meritorcracy being legitimate.

asabjorn 8y ago
People that share the intersectional beliefs does not believe in scientific reasoning. See this aero expose for a more expansive reasoning on how the scientific and intersectional paradigms are inherently incompatible https://areomagazine.com/2019/03/15/teaching-to-transgress-rage-and-entitlement-at-evergreen-college/ https://areomagazine.com/2019/03/15/teaching-to-transgress-r...