7 ms·

Science is incidental. The purpose is to select candidates that will produce ammunition in the form of research (e.g. various marginalization studies) for your

Science is incidental. The purpose is to select candidates that will produce ammunition in the form of research (e.g. various marginalization studies) for your side, and exclude candidates that might produce research useful to your opponents. This has been the case for a while in social sciences [1], now it's taking over all fields, and being made explicit and open [2,3,4]. The result of "just stick to your research, they won't bother STEM" attitudes. [1] The authors also submitted different test studies to different peer-review boards. The methodology was identical, and the variable was that the purported findings either went for, or against, the liberal worldview (for example, one found evidence of discrimination against minority groups, and another found evidence of "reverse discrimination" against straight white males). Despite equal methodological strengths, the studies that went against the liberal worldview were criticized and rejected, and those that went with it were not. - https://theweek.com/articles/441474/how-academias-liberal-bias-killing-social-science https://theweek.com/articles/441474/how-academias-liberal-bi... [2] Advancing knowledge and understanding is a fundamental public good. In some cases, however, potential harms to the populations studied may outweigh the benefit of publication. - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-022-01443-2 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-022-01443-2 [3] Science Must Not Be Used to Foster White Supremacy - https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/science-must-not-be-used-to-foster-white-supremacy/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/science-must-not-... [4] Study: Diversity Statements Required for One-Fifth of Academic Jobs - https://freebeacon.com/campus/study-diversity-statements-required-for-one-fifth-of-academic-jobs/ https://freebeacon.com/campus/study-diversity-statements-req...

evancox100 4y ago
It’s the biology department!
- cm2187 4y ago
  I still think biology is on a collision course with DEI. At the core of DEI there is the belief that if there is any discrepency in outcome between two groups (whichever way you cut the population), it is the result of discriminations and power struggles. There is a remote possibly that our genes have zero influence on our brain and behaviour, but I wouldn't bet on that. And that is an unacceptable outcome to DEI.
  - goatlover 4y ago
    Seems like it. Professor Paige Harden, who is a progressive herself, has gotten into all sorts of controversy by arguing that genetics do play a role in outcomes and society would be better off recognizing where genes matter for student outcomes and what not instead of pretending they don't. Then you can tailor your approach accordingly. The thing is she isn't arguing for genetic supremacy over environment, only that they play some percentage of a role. Which seems entirely reasonable. It's an interplay with genes and environment.
    - derbOac 4y ago
      I think the pushback is more about adopting a passive predictive approach than an interventionist approach, and about the stigma that genetic-based approaches create when they don't predict beyond past behavior very well. It's unclear what using genes to predict educational outcomes adds beyond just trying to provide the best possible opportunities over and over again. It doesn't really matter if it's genes or some fixed environmental history.
      - zozbot234 4y ago
        Well, once you know which genes are causal for which adverse social outcomes, you could use CRISPR to address the problem. Unfortunately, genome-wide association studies are famous for yielding poor results wrt. these things. So a good default guess is that the effect of various social, institutional, cultural etc. factors is being misidentified as primarily genetic.
        kodah 4y ago
        Pretty sure that's called Eugenics my guy. Let's not do that.
        MockObject 4y ago
        It's probably as inevitable as every other technological advance that some warned us to avoid. Even if banned in some Western countries, I don't see every advanced nation willingly cooperating.
commandlinefan 4y ago
> This has been the case for a while in social sciences “Oh, the humanities!”
bayesian_horse 4y ago
You're accusing mild opinionism by being even more opionated.
- DiggyJohnson 4y ago
  What? Can you break your perspective down more into the context of the comment you're replying to?
josephcsible 4y ago
IMO, your second link is the scariest thing. It's basically saying that Nature is going to censor (i.e., refuse to publish) any facts that conflict with their preferred political opinions.
- dandare 4y ago
  > research may — inadvertently — stigmatize individuals or human groups. It may be discriminatory, racist, sexist, ableist or homophobic. Sexist research, racist facts.
  - MockObject 4y ago
    Hate facts.

evancox100 4y ago

It’s the biology department!

cm2187 4y ago
I still think biology is on a collision course with DEI. At the core of DEI there is the belief that if there is any discrepency in outcome between two groups (whichever way you cut the population), it is the result of discriminations and power struggles. There is a remote possibly that our genes have zero influence on our brain and behaviour, but I wouldn't bet on that. And that is an unacceptable outcome to DEI.
- goatlover 4y ago
  Seems like it. Professor Paige Harden, who is a progressive herself, has gotten into all sorts of controversy by arguing that genetics do play a role in outcomes and society would be better off recognizing where genes matter for student outcomes and what not instead of pretending they don't. Then you can tailor your approach accordingly. The thing is she isn't arguing for genetic supremacy over environment, only that they play some percentage of a role. Which seems entirely reasonable. It's an interplay with genes and environment.
  - derbOac 4y ago
    I think the pushback is more about adopting a passive predictive approach than an interventionist approach, and about the stigma that genetic-based approaches create when they don't predict beyond past behavior very well. It's unclear what using genes to predict educational outcomes adds beyond just trying to provide the best possible opportunities over and over again. It doesn't really matter if it's genes or some fixed environmental history.
    - zozbot234 4y ago
      Well, once you know which genes are causal for which adverse social outcomes, you could use CRISPR to address the problem. Unfortunately, genome-wide association studies are famous for yielding poor results wrt. these things. So a good default guess is that the effect of various social, institutional, cultural etc. factors is being misidentified as primarily genetic.
      - kodah 4y ago
        Pretty sure that's called Eugenics my guy. Let's not do that.
        MockObject 4y ago
        It's probably as inevitable as every other technological advance that some warned us to avoid. Even if banned in some Western countries, I don't see every advanced nation willingly cooperating.

commandlinefan 4y ago

> This has been the case for a while in social sciences “Oh, the humanities!”

bayesian_horse 4y ago

You're accusing mild opinionism by being even more opionated.

DiggyJohnson 4y ago
What? Can you break your perspective down more into the context of the comment you're replying to?

josephcsible 4y ago

IMO, your second link is the scariest thing. It's basically saying that Nature is going to censor (i.e., refuse to publish) any facts that conflict with their preferred political opinions.

dandare 4y ago
> research may — inadvertently — stigmatize individuals or human groups. It may be discriminatory, racist, sexist, ableist or homophobic. Sexist research, racist facts.
- MockObject 4y ago
  Hate facts.