9 ms·

How outrage mobs silence academics – and what we can do to stop them

12 points by headalgorithm 7y ago

AftHurrahWinch 7y ago
> How outrage mobs silence academics... How seriously should one take an article when the author can't be bothered to find any examples of it to include in the article? > Rebecca Tuvel, a philosopher and assistant professor at Rhodes college, in 2017 published an article... Still at Rhodes, still teaching, still publishing... > Sarah Bond, an assistant professor of classics at the University of Iowa, published an article... Still at Iowa, still teaching, still publishing... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
- blacksqr 7y ago
  The article also inaccurately states that Tuvel's article was retracted.
- deogeo 7y ago
  Harvard professor fired over factually correct claim about IQ variance: https://mjperry.blogspot.com/2008/07/larry-summers-vindicated-by-new-study.html https://mjperry.blogspot.com/2008/07/larry-summers-vindicate... Nobel winning co-discoverer of DNA stripped of honors and removed from function over claim that the lower African IQ is genetic in origin: https://nypost.com/2019/01/14/dna-pioneer-james-watson-stripped-of-honors-over-reprehensible-racist-views/ https://nypost.com/2019/01/14/dna-pioneer-james-watson-strip... Very liberal professor pressured to resign over claim that whites should not be encouraged to stay home from campus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bret_Weinstein https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bret_Weinstein Published paper on IQ variance suppressed: https://quillette.com/2018/09/07/academic-activists-send-a-published-paper-down-the-memory-hole/ https://quillette.com/2018/09/07/academic-activists-send-a-p... For every academic that speaks up, many others see what happens to them, and decide to keep quiet.
  - gfvcdbjsnkm 7y ago
    > Nobel winning co-discoverer of DNA stripped of honors and removed from function over claim that the lower African IQ is genetic in origin He is still wrong about that claim despite being one part of a team that discovered the structure of DNA over half a century ago. Also, why does being a pioneer mean that he automatically deserves respect? He is an extremely foul person, according to basically everyone who has met him (including close friends of mine) and has done little to nothing to earn anyone's respect since that initial work.
    - deogeo 7y ago
      > He is still wrong about that claim Do you have a source for this? I've yet to see a convincing debunking (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence included), and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ claims IQ is between 57% and 86% heritable. And no-one gets fired for claiming the opposite, which has way less evidence supporting it, and lots opposing it.
      - gfvcdbjsnkm 7y ago
        https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0095798401027002004 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0095798401027002004 [edit to include accessible version: http://sci-hub.tw/https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0095798401027002004 http://sci-hub.tw/https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0...] > And no-one gets fired for claiming the opposite Maybe this is because it's bad science. Being a critical thinker is a major aspect of being a scientist, and generally you should not be employed as a scientist if you are not capable of critical thinking. You're basically ranting about reality having a left wing bias.
        deogeo 7y ago
        > You're basically ranting about reality having a left wing bias. How is a mountain of circumstantial evidence linking heredity and intelligence "reality having a left wing bias"? Isn't it the exact opposite? As for that article (one article, compared to countless others on the wikipedia pages I've linked to, that have not yet settled the debate. But this one totally will) - I can tell from the claims in the abstract it's worthless. Lets look at them: (a) intelligence is unidimensional and can be represented by a single factor, g; -- Multidimensional intelligence doesn't make it non-hereditary. (b) intelligence is fixed within individuals and across generations; -- Doesn't make it non-hereditary - there's a range of variation, that -must- be determined by genetics - otherwise trout could grow to be as intelligent as humans. (c) IQ tests accurately measure this fixed ability; -- That they are inaccurate doesn't make them worthless. Neither does measuring only one axis of a multidimensional intelligence. (d) IQ tests are equally valid across racial, ethnic, and cultural groups; -- If true, that implies race and ethnicity affect IQ and intelligence.. exactly what this article claims to disprove? (e) intelligence determines individuals’ professional and social standings; -- But it is correlated to it: https://www.vox.com/2016/5/24/11723182/iq-test-intelligence https://www.vox.com/2016/5/24/11723182/iq-test-intelligence Is this trying to say because IQ isn't perfectly deterministic of success, then it's worthless as a measure? (f) environment plays little role in determining an individual’s intelligence; -- It plays between 43% and 14% of the role, as per my wikipedia link. (g) the intelligence of populations is deteriorating over time; -- How does disproving this in any way disprove the link between ethnicity and intelligence? (h) scores on IQ tests are consistent with classical statistical and measurement theory. -- They're not happy that some tests don't produce a normal distribution. Why this would invalidate all the conclusions eludes me. Each premise is refuted on the basis of historical, sociological, psychological, and statistical evidence. -- Each premise is needlessly strict. If they held true, determining an intelligence-race link would be easier, but even if they're all false, it doesn't even remotely disprove the link. It's the classic "the model is imperfect and therefore entirely useless" criticism. In general, I'd suggest you be more skeptical when a single, low-impact article with barely any data behind it claims to settle a grand debate.
  - blacksqr 7y ago
    You're reinforcing the point that the linked article was poorly researched and written.
  - aiscapehumanity 7y ago
    Do Iq variance claims even account for epigenetics. Anyway, be weary of those who gloat on innate inequalities with such fervor, if they arent explicitly egalitarian transhumanists or posthumanists they are likely a nazi pf a sort. Factual implication.
    - gfvcdbjsnkm 7y ago
      This guy is parroting nazi propaganda and is probably a nazi or closeted nazi himself, so I don't think your advice is really gonna have that much of an impact.
gfvcdbjsnkm 7y ago
> While the article was not meant to be controversial, it generated a sizable negative response, particularly on social media. This was closely followed by an open letter signed by over five hundred academics to the journal's editors alleging (falsely) many ethical lapses and harms– this resulted in the article being retracted (an unprecedented move). This isn't a social media mob. This is professional review and response by academic peers. Retractions are part of the process, and are issued when bad research happens. The fact that so many peers called her out for doing bad research is basically indicative of the general consensus about her being wrong and publishing wrong ideas.
Cacklepot 7y ago
What's the difference between outrage mobs and social movements in general? Considering it was lobbying from outside groups that got being Trans reclassified in the dsm and not an organically cultivated academic consensus it seems that the 'good guys' are jabbing their fingers in the eye of science, at least social sciences, as much as anyone else.
- aiscapehumanity 7y ago
  Wow trans lobby conspiracy...
  - Cacklepot 7y ago
    It's not a conspiracy that the definition was changed in the newest DSM and it's similarly public and easy to lookup that a motivating force behind the change was presentations from advocacy groups. I happen to agree with the perspective those groups advocated but that should be an irrelevent detail. My point was simply that what's a "mob" and what's an advocacy group seems arbitrary and so it's important to have some sort of explanation for why it's okay when certain political groups try to influence the academic dialogue and not when others do it. Otherwise, involved sciences just become another political battleground. I agree that maybe it was unfair of me to point at the social sciences so quickly but they have this problem much more than the hard sciences by most metrics.
    - aiscapehumanity 7y ago
      You can say it's not science based but I beg to differ, it's a lot more nuanced classification: 1)https://www.pnas.org/content/112/50/15468.abstract https://www.pnas.org/content/112/50/15468.abstract 2)https://health.clevelandclinic.org/research-on-the-transgender-brain-what-you-should-know/ https://health.clevelandclinic.org/research-on-the-transgend... <- hyperlinks to a few studies

12 points by headalgorithm 7y ago

> How outrage mobs silence academics... How seriously should one take an article when the author can't be bothered to find any examples of it to include in the article? > Rebecca Tuvel, a philosopher and assistant professor at Rhodes college, in 2017 published an article... Still at Rhodes, still teaching, still publishing... > Sarah Bond, an assistant professor of classics at the University of Iowa, published an article... Still at Iowa, still teaching, still publishing... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

blacksqr 7y ago
The article also inaccurately states that Tuvel's article was retracted.
deogeo 7y ago
Harvard professor fired over factually correct claim about IQ variance: https://mjperry.blogspot.com/2008/07/larry-summers-vindicated-by-new-study.html https://mjperry.blogspot.com/2008/07/larry-summers-vindicate... Nobel winning co-discoverer of DNA stripped of honors and removed from function over claim that the lower African IQ is genetic in origin: https://nypost.com/2019/01/14/dna-pioneer-james-watson-stripped-of-honors-over-reprehensible-racist-views/ https://nypost.com/2019/01/14/dna-pioneer-james-watson-strip... Very liberal professor pressured to resign over claim that whites should not be encouraged to stay home from campus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bret_Weinstein https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bret_Weinstein Published paper on IQ variance suppressed: https://quillette.com/2018/09/07/academic-activists-send-a-published-paper-down-the-memory-hole/ https://quillette.com/2018/09/07/academic-activists-send-a-p... For every academic that speaks up, many others see what happens to them, and decide to keep quiet.
- gfvcdbjsnkm 7y ago
  > Nobel winning co-discoverer of DNA stripped of honors and removed from function over claim that the lower African IQ is genetic in origin He is still wrong about that claim despite being one part of a team that discovered the structure of DNA over half a century ago. Also, why does being a pioneer mean that he automatically deserves respect? He is an extremely foul person, according to basically everyone who has met him (including close friends of mine) and has done little to nothing to earn anyone's respect since that initial work.
  - deogeo 7y ago
    > He is still wrong about that claim Do you have a source for this? I've yet to see a convincing debunking (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence included), and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ claims IQ is between 57% and 86% heritable. And no-one gets fired for claiming the opposite, which has way less evidence supporting it, and lots opposing it.
    - gfvcdbjsnkm 7y ago
      https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0095798401027002004 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0095798401027002004 [edit to include accessible version: http://sci-hub.tw/https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0095798401027002004 http://sci-hub.tw/https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0...] > And no-one gets fired for claiming the opposite Maybe this is because it's bad science. Being a critical thinker is a major aspect of being a scientist, and generally you should not be employed as a scientist if you are not capable of critical thinking. You're basically ranting about reality having a left wing bias.
      - deogeo 7y ago
        > You're basically ranting about reality having a left wing bias. How is a mountain of circumstantial evidence linking heredity and intelligence "reality having a left wing bias"? Isn't it the exact opposite? As for that article (one article, compared to countless others on the wikipedia pages I've linked to, that have not yet settled the debate. But this one totally will) - I can tell from the claims in the abstract it's worthless. Lets look at them: (a) intelligence is unidimensional and can be represented by a single factor, g; -- Multidimensional intelligence doesn't make it non-hereditary. (b) intelligence is fixed within individuals and across generations; -- Doesn't make it non-hereditary - there's a range of variation, that -must- be determined by genetics - otherwise trout could grow to be as intelligent as humans. (c) IQ tests accurately measure this fixed ability; -- That they are inaccurate doesn't make them worthless. Neither does measuring only one axis of a multidimensional intelligence. (d) IQ tests are equally valid across racial, ethnic, and cultural groups; -- If true, that implies race and ethnicity affect IQ and intelligence.. exactly what this article claims to disprove? (e) intelligence determines individuals’ professional and social standings; -- But it is correlated to it: https://www.vox.com/2016/5/24/11723182/iq-test-intelligence https://www.vox.com/2016/5/24/11723182/iq-test-intelligence Is this trying to say because IQ isn't perfectly deterministic of success, then it's worthless as a measure? (f) environment plays little role in determining an individual’s intelligence; -- It plays between 43% and 14% of the role, as per my wikipedia link. (g) the intelligence of populations is deteriorating over time; -- How does disproving this in any way disprove the link between ethnicity and intelligence? (h) scores on IQ tests are consistent with classical statistical and measurement theory. -- They're not happy that some tests don't produce a normal distribution. Why this would invalidate all the conclusions eludes me. Each premise is refuted on the basis of historical, sociological, psychological, and statistical evidence. -- Each premise is needlessly strict. If they held true, determining an intelligence-race link would be easier, but even if they're all false, it doesn't even remotely disprove the link. It's the classic "the model is imperfect and therefore entirely useless" criticism. In general, I'd suggest you be more skeptical when a single, low-impact article with barely any data behind it claims to settle a grand debate.
- blacksqr 7y ago
  You're reinforcing the point that the linked article was poorly researched and written.
- aiscapehumanity 7y ago
  Do Iq variance claims even account for epigenetics. Anyway, be weary of those who gloat on innate inequalities with such fervor, if they arent explicitly egalitarian transhumanists or posthumanists they are likely a nazi pf a sort. Factual implication.
  - gfvcdbjsnkm 7y ago
    This guy is parroting nazi propaganda and is probably a nazi or closeted nazi himself, so I don't think your advice is really gonna have that much of an impact.

gfvcdbjsnkm 7y ago

> While the article was not meant to be controversial, it generated a sizable negative response, particularly on social media. This was closely followed by an open letter signed by over five hundred academics to the journal's editors alleging (falsely) many ethical lapses and harms– this resulted in the article being retracted (an unprecedented move). This isn't a social media mob. This is professional review and response by academic peers. Retractions are part of the process, and are issued when bad research happens. The fact that so many peers called her out for doing bad research is basically indicative of the general consensus about her being wrong and publishing wrong ideas.

Cacklepot 7y ago

What's the difference between outrage mobs and social movements in general? Considering it was lobbying from outside groups that got being Trans reclassified in the dsm and not an organically cultivated academic consensus it seems that the 'good guys' are jabbing their fingers in the eye of science, at least social sciences, as much as anyone else.

aiscapehumanity 7y ago
Wow trans lobby conspiracy...
- Cacklepot 7y ago
  It's not a conspiracy that the definition was changed in the newest DSM and it's similarly public and easy to lookup that a motivating force behind the change was presentations from advocacy groups. I happen to agree with the perspective those groups advocated but that should be an irrelevent detail. My point was simply that what's a "mob" and what's an advocacy group seems arbitrary and so it's important to have some sort of explanation for why it's okay when certain political groups try to influence the academic dialogue and not when others do it. Otherwise, involved sciences just become another political battleground. I agree that maybe it was unfair of me to point at the social sciences so quickly but they have this problem much more than the hard sciences by most metrics.
  - aiscapehumanity 7y ago
    You can say it's not science based but I beg to differ, it's a lot more nuanced classification: 1)https://www.pnas.org/content/112/50/15468.abstract https://www.pnas.org/content/112/50/15468.abstract 2)https://health.clevelandclinic.org/research-on-the-transgender-brain-what-you-should-know/ https://health.clevelandclinic.org/research-on-the-transgend... <- hyperlinks to a few studies