3 ms·

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.

by rosser 8y ago

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

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.

by 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