7 ms·

How is that not the same as forcing people to stay in an unpleasant class until they confess to racism?

shadowgovt 6y ago
I believe the fact some people perceive it to be is the root of, perhaps, quite a bit of consternation on the issue. But I see it is the same as forcing people to stay in an unpleasant class until they understand type theory. We teach people things they need to know so that they know them, because knowledge is useful. We're certainly not calling the question of "having education seminars" into question, are we?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- SuoDuanDao 6y ago
  But the 'knowledge is useful' stance presupposes that these classes have value, that what they're teaching is actually true or useful. That's precisely what many of us don't believe. Suppose we were discussing a risk management seminar which you had reason to believe was teaching a flawed methodology, one likely to cause serious harm if widely adopted. Would you be similarly sanguine in that case?
  - shadowgovt 6y ago
    > That's precisely what many of us don't believe. With respect, I'll defer to the career sociologists and psychologists on the topic, much as I'd defer to the risk management PhD on the topic of risk management. I've known too many tech-savvy folk who think humans can be reduced and deconstructed like a computer, declare humanities research bunk because it doesn't fit their mental model, and get profoundly surprised when their mental model doesn't fit actual human behavior. The psychologists and sociologists have a better track record on modeling and predicting human behavior.
    - SuoDuanDao 6y ago
      With respect, these careerists subscribe to journals that will literally publish translations of Mein Kampf so long as a few buzzwords are exchanged. On a less sensationalist but more quantifiable note, 70% of the research comprising the field can't be replicated. I think my scepticism is warranted.
      - shadowgovt 6y ago
        Even still, my Bayesian priors suggest that techies get worse than chance results on second-guessing them.
    - iguy 6y ago
      > With respect, I'll defer to the career sociologists and psychologists on the topic, much as I'd defer to the risk management PhD on the topic of risk management. This isn't a good heuristic, without some way of judging the entire field. Would you defer to expert career scientologists about E-meters? Would it help if they published papers on the topic and held conferences and you picked only the best-cited ones from that process? Why not? I think the relevant question is: If they were completely wrong about how the world actually works, would this have had any negative consequences for them? This would lead you to some degree of skepticism of risk management professionals, too. If the risks are small and frequent (like estimating how many car crashes per month) then you can trust that people & methods that are badly wrong will have been weeded out. But when the risks are of rare events (like, say, housing market crashes, or nuclear war) then professionals can pass an entire career without being tested against reality. So you should be wary that the most prominent voices are chosen for reasons other than actually predicting the risk. And career sociologists, of course, aren't heavily rewarded for accurate predictions.
    - qrpt 6y ago
      Psychology and sociology departments are radicalized echo chambers. No one in he street has any of the imaginary problems they concoct. Morgan Freeman (black) has said it years ago: "Stop talking about it".
- danmaz74 6y ago
  Having to publicly humiliate yourself is pure Maoism. How can you compare it to learning type theory?
  - shadowgovt 6y ago
    It's only public humiliation if people perceive it to be public humiliation. what's humiliating about having the same problem that basically everyone does?
    - danmaz74 6y ago
      Most people (luckily) perceive racism to be a bad thing. Being forced to publicly confess to being something you should be ashamed of is the definition of humiliation.
      - shadowgovt 6y ago
        If it's true and uncomfortable it's still true.
        danmaz74 6y ago
        My point is that public humiliation is much more likely to create resentment than to remove unconscious bias.
    - Chris2048 6y ago
      That's a funny stance given the context in which the material was introduced: as evidence that powerful people are racist "by their own admission". Doesn't sound like the no-big-deal definition of racism they might have thought they were confessing to. It also suggests it's up to session-organisers to decide what justifiably humiliates a person.
      - shadowgovt 6y ago
        Humiliation is in the eye of the beholder. I don't see them as humiliated. They don't appear to think they are humiliated. Perhaps it's just not humiliating.

I believe the fact some people perceive it to be is the root of, perhaps, quite a bit of consternation on the issue. But I see it is the same as forcing people to stay in an unpleasant class until they understand type theory. We teach people things they need to know so that they know them, because knowledge is useful. We're certainly not calling the question of "having education seminars" into question, are we?

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
SuoDuanDao 6y ago
But the 'knowledge is useful' stance presupposes that these classes have value, that what they're teaching is actually true or useful. That's precisely what many of us don't believe. Suppose we were discussing a risk management seminar which you had reason to believe was teaching a flawed methodology, one likely to cause serious harm if widely adopted. Would you be similarly sanguine in that case?
- shadowgovt 6y ago
  > That's precisely what many of us don't believe. With respect, I'll defer to the career sociologists and psychologists on the topic, much as I'd defer to the risk management PhD on the topic of risk management. I've known too many tech-savvy folk who think humans can be reduced and deconstructed like a computer, declare humanities research bunk because it doesn't fit their mental model, and get profoundly surprised when their mental model doesn't fit actual human behavior. The psychologists and sociologists have a better track record on modeling and predicting human behavior.
  - SuoDuanDao 6y ago
    With respect, these careerists subscribe to journals that will literally publish translations of Mein Kampf so long as a few buzzwords are exchanged. On a less sensationalist but more quantifiable note, 70% of the research comprising the field can't be replicated. I think my scepticism is warranted.
    - shadowgovt 6y ago
      Even still, my Bayesian priors suggest that techies get worse than chance results on second-guessing them.
  - iguy 6y ago
    > With respect, I'll defer to the career sociologists and psychologists on the topic, much as I'd defer to the risk management PhD on the topic of risk management. This isn't a good heuristic, without some way of judging the entire field. Would you defer to expert career scientologists about E-meters? Would it help if they published papers on the topic and held conferences and you picked only the best-cited ones from that process? Why not? I think the relevant question is: If they were completely wrong about how the world actually works, would this have had any negative consequences for them? This would lead you to some degree of skepticism of risk management professionals, too. If the risks are small and frequent (like estimating how many car crashes per month) then you can trust that people & methods that are badly wrong will have been weeded out. But when the risks are of rare events (like, say, housing market crashes, or nuclear war) then professionals can pass an entire career without being tested against reality. So you should be wary that the most prominent voices are chosen for reasons other than actually predicting the risk. And career sociologists, of course, aren't heavily rewarded for accurate predictions.
  - qrpt 6y ago
    Psychology and sociology departments are radicalized echo chambers. No one in he street has any of the imaginary problems they concoct. Morgan Freeman (black) has said it years ago: "Stop talking about it".
danmaz74 6y ago
Having to publicly humiliate yourself is pure Maoism. How can you compare it to learning type theory?
- shadowgovt 6y ago
  It's only public humiliation if people perceive it to be public humiliation. what's humiliating about having the same problem that basically everyone does?
  - danmaz74 6y ago
    Most people (luckily) perceive racism to be a bad thing. Being forced to publicly confess to being something you should be ashamed of is the definition of humiliation.
    - shadowgovt 6y ago
      If it's true and uncomfortable it's still true.
      - danmaz74 6y ago
        My point is that public humiliation is much more likely to create resentment than to remove unconscious bias.
  - Chris2048 6y ago
    That's a funny stance given the context in which the material was introduced: as evidence that powerful people are racist "by their own admission". Doesn't sound like the no-big-deal definition of racism they might have thought they were confessing to. It also suggests it's up to session-organisers to decide what justifiably humiliates a person.
    - shadowgovt 6y ago
      Humiliation is in the eye of the beholder. I don't see them as humiliated. They don't appear to think they are humiliated. Perhaps it's just not humiliating.