7 ms·

> newly adopted requirement that everybody presenting research at the group's conferences explain how their submission advances "equity, inclusion, and anti-rac

by imgabe 4y ago

> newly adopted requirement that everybody presenting research at the group's conferences explain how their submission advances "equity, inclusion, and anti-racism goals." Diversity is fine. But every single piece of research has to be related to diversity? Is it not possible to do research on anything else that maybe doesn’t have anything to do with identity issues? This is not a statement about promoting diversity, this is a statement that identity issues are the only thing that matters and only research that has to do with identity will be considered (for presentation at this conference) An ideological monoculture is not a healthy intellectual environment.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
SamReidHughes 4y ago
It's not so much off-topic research. The research output of much of social psychology tends to hurt the cause of DEI. They want to stop that.
- whythre 4y ago
  That sounds gross and corrupt.
- imgabe 4y ago
  Research should not be dependent on whether or not it hurts any cause. If the research is poorly done, exclude it for that reason. If not, maybe re-examine what your cause is in light of the research. Copernicus's research into the Earth revolving around the Sun hurt the Catcholic church's cause of being the ultimate source of truth for all humanity. They wanted to put a stop to that... Starting with the answer and rejecting anything that doesn't support it is not how research is supposed to work.
  - tpoacher 4y ago
    Copernicus and Galileo being harangued by the Church of their time, and stifling progress of the obvious, is more popular myth than historical fact. It has been debunked many, many times. Ironically, the fervor and persistence with which this story gets propagated ad nauseam feels almost ... religious. I wish people would stop dropping it as the de facto example of interference with science when there are so many better ones (and also current ones). It's a bad analogy, evokes emotion, and ultimately it typically does a disservice to the argument intended.
    - josephg 4y ago
      > I wish people would stop dropping it as the de facto example of interference with science when there are so many better ones (and also current ones) Could you provide some examples of better stories to use instead?
    - inglor_cz 4y ago
      Astronomical books regarding heliocentric theory were on the banned book list for centuries. The banned book list was compiled and maintained by the Church. We can split words whether Copernicus or Galileo were harangued in person and to what degree, but nascent modern astronomy was very much in the scope of Catholic censorship. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_Librorum_Prohibitorum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_Librorum_Prohibitorum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_authors_and_works_on_the_Index_Librorum_Prohibitorum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_authors_and_works_on_t...
    - codeflo 4y ago
      > Copernicus and Galileo being harangued by the Church of their time, and stifling progress of the obvious, is more popular myth than historical fact. I’m not sure why it has suddenly become so popular to claim that every single historical fact is a myth. Galileo’s prosecution by the Church is not only well-documented, John Paul II. officially apologized for it in 1992. He might have looked into their archives before doing that. I swear, going around smugly claiming “Only sheeple still believe that theory” about random facts doesn’t make a person seem nearly as smart as they might think it does.
    - 4y ago
- gnull 4y ago
  Then Desi's cause should me adjusted, not science.
- pas 4y ago
  > The research output of much of social psychology tends to hurt the cause of DEI. Demagogues will use any factoid for their own goals, and racists will use things to promote racism, but that's not an argument to stop research into biology, sociology, psychology, behavioral econ, etc.
- concordDance 4y ago
  You're sorta wrong. Most papers help it, but most papers are pretty shoddy... The good ones do often hurt the DEI cause though.
- logicalmonster 4y ago
  > It's not so much off-topic research. The research output of much of social psychology tends to hurt the cause of DEI. They want to stop that. This might be the most potentially fascinating comment in the thread. In what way is the research of much of social psychology hurting DEI? As far as I know, based on my limited understanding of the field, there's not a lot of research that's performed/approved/funded in that field where people know that the research could yield some "politically incorrect" data or conclusions.
defrost 4y ago
>> Is it not possible to do research on anything else that maybe doesn’t have anything to do with identity issues? It's the Society for Personality and Social Psychology ... You may as well ask is not possible to submit to the Association for Computing Machinery a piece of research unrelated to computing.
- imgabe 4y ago
  Are you saying there is not a single aspect of personality that is unrelated to race? That seems pretty racist.
  - JohnHaugeland 4y ago
    - _0ffh 4y ago
      I don't now how it started, but I'm sure it doesn't help that you edited all your posts to complain about it. Quoting from the HN guidelines [1]: "Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading." [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
    - arthur5005 4y ago
      Because a lot people disagree with you. It’s not a conspiracy, your take just isn’t popular.
      - JohnHaugeland 4y ago
        Flagging a gentle and reasonable statement like "that isn't what I meant" isn't a practical way to handle disagreement, and doesn't follow HN's rules The punishment culture for not being part of the crowd has gotten too much here.
JohnHaugeland 4y ago
- pas 4y ago
  did they really say this? reading the comments it seems they wanted people to commit to only doing work/research that also serves the goal of anti-racism, no?
- collegeburner 4y ago
  1. "anti-racism" is a specific ideological doctrine with nefarious branding because it falsely implies anyone who does not support present and future discrimination (c.f. kendi's def) is a racist. i am "anti racist" but not "Anti-Racist (TM)". 2. haidt is clearly protesting the requirement to describe how any research further's the associations "anti-racism goals". there's plenty of knowledge to be uncovered that has nothing to do with it and targeting all your work to uphold a specific viewpoint offends the general idea of "academia" as a tool for broadly and impartially adcancing knowledge.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

by imgabe 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

SamReidHughes 4y ago

It's not so much off-topic research. The research output of much of social psychology tends to hurt the cause of DEI. They want to stop that.

whythre 4y ago
That sounds gross and corrupt.
imgabe 4y ago
Research should not be dependent on whether or not it hurts any cause. If the research is poorly done, exclude it for that reason. If not, maybe re-examine what your cause is in light of the research. Copernicus's research into the Earth revolving around the Sun hurt the Catcholic church's cause of being the ultimate source of truth for all humanity. They wanted to put a stop to that... Starting with the answer and rejecting anything that doesn't support it is not how research is supposed to work.
- tpoacher 4y ago
  Copernicus and Galileo being harangued by the Church of their time, and stifling progress of the obvious, is more popular myth than historical fact. It has been debunked many, many times. Ironically, the fervor and persistence with which this story gets propagated ad nauseam feels almost ... religious. I wish people would stop dropping it as the de facto example of interference with science when there are so many better ones (and also current ones). It's a bad analogy, evokes emotion, and ultimately it typically does a disservice to the argument intended.
  - josephg 4y ago
    > I wish people would stop dropping it as the de facto example of interference with science when there are so many better ones (and also current ones) Could you provide some examples of better stories to use instead?
  - inglor_cz 4y ago
    Astronomical books regarding heliocentric theory were on the banned book list for centuries. The banned book list was compiled and maintained by the Church. We can split words whether Copernicus or Galileo were harangued in person and to what degree, but nascent modern astronomy was very much in the scope of Catholic censorship. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_Librorum_Prohibitorum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_Librorum_Prohibitorum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_authors_and_works_on_the_Index_Librorum_Prohibitorum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_authors_and_works_on_t...
  - codeflo 4y ago
    > Copernicus and Galileo being harangued by the Church of their time, and stifling progress of the obvious, is more popular myth than historical fact. I’m not sure why it has suddenly become so popular to claim that every single historical fact is a myth. Galileo’s prosecution by the Church is not only well-documented, John Paul II. officially apologized for it in 1992. He might have looked into their archives before doing that. I swear, going around smugly claiming “Only sheeple still believe that theory” about random facts doesn’t make a person seem nearly as smart as they might think it does.
  - 4y ago
gnull 4y ago
Then Desi's cause should me adjusted, not science.
pas 4y ago
> The research output of much of social psychology tends to hurt the cause of DEI. Demagogues will use any factoid for their own goals, and racists will use things to promote racism, but that's not an argument to stop research into biology, sociology, psychology, behavioral econ, etc.
concordDance 4y ago
You're sorta wrong. Most papers help it, but most papers are pretty shoddy... The good ones do often hurt the DEI cause though.
logicalmonster 4y ago
> It's not so much off-topic research. The research output of much of social psychology tends to hurt the cause of DEI. They want to stop that. This might be the most potentially fascinating comment in the thread. In what way is the research of much of social psychology hurting DEI? As far as I know, based on my limited understanding of the field, there's not a lot of research that's performed/approved/funded in that field where people know that the research could yield some "politically incorrect" data or conclusions.

defrost 4y ago

>> Is it not possible to do research on anything else that maybe doesn’t have anything to do with identity issues? It's the Society for Personality and Social Psychology ... You may as well ask is not possible to submit to the Association for Computing Machinery a piece of research unrelated to computing.

imgabe 4y ago
Are you saying there is not a single aspect of personality that is unrelated to race? That seems pretty racist.
- JohnHaugeland 4y ago
  - _0ffh 4y ago
    I don't now how it started, but I'm sure it doesn't help that you edited all your posts to complain about it. Quoting from the HN guidelines [1]: "Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading." [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - arthur5005 4y ago
    Because a lot people disagree with you. It’s not a conspiracy, your take just isn’t popular.
    - JohnHaugeland 4y ago
      Flagging a gentle and reasonable statement like "that isn't what I meant" isn't a practical way to handle disagreement, and doesn't follow HN's rules The punishment culture for not being part of the crowd has gotten too much here.

JohnHaugeland 4y ago

pas 4y ago
did they really say this? reading the comments it seems they wanted people to commit to only doing work/research that also serves the goal of anti-racism, no?
collegeburner 4y ago
1. "anti-racism" is a specific ideological doctrine with nefarious branding because it falsely implies anyone who does not support present and future discrimination (c.f. kendi's def) is a racist. i am "anti racist" but not "Anti-Racist (TM)". 2. haidt is clearly protesting the requirement to describe how any research further's the associations "anti-racism goals". there's plenty of knowledge to be uncovered that has nothing to do with it and targeting all your work to uphold a specific viewpoint offends the general idea of "academia" as a tool for broadly and impartially adcancing knowledge.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]