5 ms·

The New Scientific Method: Identity Politics

10 points by EvgeniyZh 5y ago

rich_sasha 5y ago
You just can’t win. If you right now go out to hire the best candidates (on paper: degree, publications, experience etc) you will overwhelmingly hire white men-because of the usual biases. If you want to diversify, you necessarily have to hire people who look less good on traditional criteria. I’m not saying it’s good or bad (I frankly don’t know), I’m sure marginalised groups have candidates much stronger than the CV suggests), I just can’t get wound up about both opposites of this dilemma at the same time.
- Bancakes 5y ago
  What are the usual biases? (Not a HR/employer)
  - rich_sasha 5y ago
    The usual sleugh of reasons why women or minorities are underrepresented in academia/science: - historical bias against women continuing education - pressure on women to have children at an age crucial to career development - lack of encouragement to pursue academic careers - poorer access to education for minorities - poorer access to finding necessary to continue education - perpetuation of status quo Etc etc. With all of those present, to varying degrees, in the last 50-100 years, it is not surprising that when looking at senior, accomplished academics at the peak of their careers, it will predominantly be white men. Civil rights movement changes are as recent as 1960s. None of this of course is a comment on distribution of ability across gender and race, only about societal constructs around it...
    - failwhaleshark 5y ago
      Sounds about the usual. It's also worth noting nowadays: - Women comprise 58% of Master's graduates and 53% of doctoral graduates. - With a couple both WfH, it's possible now to prioritize life to have children in their mid-20's and still hold a job. - There are plenty of people in non-majority groups who don't have chips on their shoulders and don't want the indignity of special treatment (which would imply that they're not as capable). If it were me, I would insist on no special treatment because that itself perpetuates presumptions of inferiority. There are continuing, real problems with inconsistent education where the rich kids' public schools are far, far better than urban ones; it also extends to the pupils' peer attitudes about academic accomplishment (which can be inculcated with good, inspiring teachers). Punishing one group or favoring another isn't a moral or ethical solution to actual disadvantaged situations; solving the root-causes of disadvantages by bringing appropriately-consistent resources and opportunities rather than after-the-fact identity merit points seems like common sense.
      - rich_sasha 5y ago
        I definitely agree with your general view, it is my opinion too. But then... that doesn’t help someone now who is very talented, able, hard working, but was overlooked for promotions because of gender or race. And part of breaking the pattern of white men promoting white men for the top jobs is mixing it up a bit. The country has the right to get the best experts for the top jobs, but also people have the right for an equal chance to get that job. I won’t pretend I have the answer, but I’m less pragmatic about it than I used to be.
        failwhaleshark 5y ago
        There's no perfect answer to please everyone, but I think there are better answers to prepare, attract, and graduate more competent graduates. I think the only fair option on the admissions-side is to maintain high standards of selection the same for everyone. Race, gender, disabilities, adversity, income (handled after admission), and legacy shouldn't be considered... name and address should also be blinded to avoid biases. The main discriminants ought to be leadership, achievement, curiosity, and potential. There should be some discretion without focusing on who's the most wronged victim. At the macro scale: all underperforming schools anywhere below a threshold should receive specialized "A-teams" of educators and organization miracle-workers with the legal authority, clout, and budgetary influence to get buy-in and improve the schools over a long-enough term until they're at least as good as the "rich kids'" schools. Any school that fails to maintain themselves up to minimum (good) standards gets taken over and run by the county or state. Buildings and classroom conditions should also be regularly-inspected like restaurants. At the micro scale: - Serious mentorship of students should be a universal right. There are plenty of older people with exceptional wisdom and life experiences that kids can benefit from, especially hope and positive mental attitude. - Some sort of personable, respected, well-liked school counselor needs to have ongoing 1:1 with each student throughout the year and as-needed. - Students who are underperforming or disengaged should be nonjudgmentally listened to to see if there's any way the school and/or parents can help. Do they need a vacation or change of scenery? Are they being bullied? Are they depressed? Are they ill? Do they get enough to eat? .. IOW, what is really going on with them that could possibly be helped and supported without it being a punishment, embarrassment, or lack of agency? - Mental healthcare, actual healthcare, hearing and vision care, social services, housing, and nutritional assistance all need to be assured so students can focus and have a fair opportunity to do their best. In the US, there has to be the will and the backing to maintain a high-performing educational system, or it will crumble and lose what made that exceptional. Edit: One love and human family.
failwhaleshark 5y ago
So I recently posted an ad for a roommate, but I had to find someone else. Dude: - admitted he lied about his credentials to get his job - said he does as little as possible always - claims science (the scientific method) is "racist" - spoke harshly to his mother on mother's day - mooched at every opportunity - was hours late to an appointment and didn't even apologize - didn't even get a "thanks" for going out-of-my-way to accommodate them - stood around glued to their phone while I was working on something and needed help to get it done faster so we could leave - whining and wingeing about being a victim I think he feels entitled to be a liar and a dick because of identity / chip-on-shoulder things that I won't get into.

10 points by EvgeniyZh 5y ago

You just can’t win. If you right now go out to hire the best candidates (on paper: degree, publications, experience etc) you will overwhelmingly hire white men-because of the usual biases. If you want to diversify, you necessarily have to hire people who look less good on traditional criteria. I’m not saying it’s good or bad (I frankly don’t know), I’m sure marginalised groups have candidates much stronger than the CV suggests), I just can’t get wound up about both opposites of this dilemma at the same time.

Bancakes 5y ago
What are the usual biases? (Not a HR/employer)
- rich_sasha 5y ago
  The usual sleugh of reasons why women or minorities are underrepresented in academia/science: - historical bias against women continuing education - pressure on women to have children at an age crucial to career development - lack of encouragement to pursue academic careers - poorer access to education for minorities - poorer access to finding necessary to continue education - perpetuation of status quo Etc etc. With all of those present, to varying degrees, in the last 50-100 years, it is not surprising that when looking at senior, accomplished academics at the peak of their careers, it will predominantly be white men. Civil rights movement changes are as recent as 1960s. None of this of course is a comment on distribution of ability across gender and race, only about societal constructs around it...
  - failwhaleshark 5y ago
    Sounds about the usual. It's also worth noting nowadays: - Women comprise 58% of Master's graduates and 53% of doctoral graduates. - With a couple both WfH, it's possible now to prioritize life to have children in their mid-20's and still hold a job. - There are plenty of people in non-majority groups who don't have chips on their shoulders and don't want the indignity of special treatment (which would imply that they're not as capable). If it were me, I would insist on no special treatment because that itself perpetuates presumptions of inferiority. There are continuing, real problems with inconsistent education where the rich kids' public schools are far, far better than urban ones; it also extends to the pupils' peer attitudes about academic accomplishment (which can be inculcated with good, inspiring teachers). Punishing one group or favoring another isn't a moral or ethical solution to actual disadvantaged situations; solving the root-causes of disadvantages by bringing appropriately-consistent resources and opportunities rather than after-the-fact identity merit points seems like common sense.
    - rich_sasha 5y ago
      I definitely agree with your general view, it is my opinion too. But then... that doesn’t help someone now who is very talented, able, hard working, but was overlooked for promotions because of gender or race. And part of breaking the pattern of white men promoting white men for the top jobs is mixing it up a bit. The country has the right to get the best experts for the top jobs, but also people have the right for an equal chance to get that job. I won’t pretend I have the answer, but I’m less pragmatic about it than I used to be.
      - failwhaleshark 5y ago
        There's no perfect answer to please everyone, but I think there are better answers to prepare, attract, and graduate more competent graduates. I think the only fair option on the admissions-side is to maintain high standards of selection the same for everyone. Race, gender, disabilities, adversity, income (handled after admission), and legacy shouldn't be considered... name and address should also be blinded to avoid biases. The main discriminants ought to be leadership, achievement, curiosity, and potential. There should be some discretion without focusing on who's the most wronged victim. At the macro scale: all underperforming schools anywhere below a threshold should receive specialized "A-teams" of educators and organization miracle-workers with the legal authority, clout, and budgetary influence to get buy-in and improve the schools over a long-enough term until they're at least as good as the "rich kids'" schools. Any school that fails to maintain themselves up to minimum (good) standards gets taken over and run by the county or state. Buildings and classroom conditions should also be regularly-inspected like restaurants. At the micro scale: - Serious mentorship of students should be a universal right. There are plenty of older people with exceptional wisdom and life experiences that kids can benefit from, especially hope and positive mental attitude. - Some sort of personable, respected, well-liked school counselor needs to have ongoing 1:1 with each student throughout the year and as-needed. - Students who are underperforming or disengaged should be nonjudgmentally listened to to see if there's any way the school and/or parents can help. Do they need a vacation or change of scenery? Are they being bullied? Are they depressed? Are they ill? Do they get enough to eat? .. IOW, what is really going on with them that could possibly be helped and supported without it being a punishment, embarrassment, or lack of agency? - Mental healthcare, actual healthcare, hearing and vision care, social services, housing, and nutritional assistance all need to be assured so students can focus and have a fair opportunity to do their best. In the US, there has to be the will and the backing to maintain a high-performing educational system, or it will crumble and lose what made that exceptional. Edit: One love and human family.

failwhaleshark 5y ago

So I recently posted an ad for a roommate, but I had to find someone else. Dude: - admitted he lied about his credentials to get his job - said he does as little as possible always - claims science (the scientific method) is "racist" - spoke harshly to his mother on mother's day - mooched at every opportunity - was hours late to an appointment and didn't even apologize - didn't even get a "thanks" for going out-of-my-way to accommodate them - stood around glued to their phone while I was working on something and needed help to get it done faster so we could leave - whining and wingeing about being a victim I think he feels entitled to be a liar and a dick because of identity / chip-on-shoulder things that I won't get into.