6 ms·

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.
        Turing_Machine 4y ago
        How about fixing stuff like hemophilia or sickle cell? "Eugenics" or nah?
        mrguyorama 4y ago
        Unless you provide genetic modification services 110% free to everyone and anyone regardless of literally anything, gene modification inevitably will result in an underclass that can't afford it.
        Turing_Machine 4y ago
        You've heard of "Medicaid"? Also, that didn't actually answer my question. Is using CRISPR (or similar) to fix hemophilia "eugenics" or not?
        polski-g 4y ago
        Almost everyone on the planet supports eugenics: "You're probably a eugenicist" https://dissentient.substack.com/p/eugenicist https://dissentient.substack.com/p/eugenicist
  - StanislavPetrov 4y ago
    Ironically, the same crowd that insists that it's racist and absolutely off limits to suggest genetics play a role in student outcomes, no matter what the studies say, do a complete 180 if you start talking about obesity. The lack of logical consistency says it all - you can't have it both ways! Unfortunately, these people view everything through the distorted lens of "race" (an arbitrary, ill-defined social construct), which necessarily results in having a distorted view of objective reality.
- banannaise 4y ago
  Sure, there are some DEI types who believe that. There are also some anti-DEI types who believe that whites are a superior race, and DEI is a conspiracy to subjugate them. (If you don't believe me, just keep reading the comments.) Judging a movement by its fringe is unhelpful. > 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 A more accurate way to frame this would be "If there is any discrepancy... it is likely influenced by discriminations and power struggles, and we should be paying very close attention to the societal factors at play in an effort to reduce their impact." You end up in looney tunes land pretty quick if you swing too far in either direction with absolute conviction. Too far in favor of DEI, you wind up with things like "actually, women are only physically weaker because they're oppressed". Too far in the other direction, you wind up with things like "actually, crime is genetic".
  - unconed 4y ago
    The group of people who believe (or claim) that any demographic discrepancy is due to discrimination includes Ibram Kendi and other intersectionalists / critical race theorists. Claiming that these people are somehow at the fringe of the DEI movement is ridiculous. These sorts of beliefs are openly professed and put into action with actual discriminatory policies. Walking it back to "influenced by factors" is just a classic motte and bailey defense. These people don't act like these factors need to be carefully investigated, they have a fucking checklist and it's all based on race, sex and sexuality. Then, you try to somehow equate the idea of white supremacy with the idea that DEI is an anti-white movement: as if any defense of white people requires belief in racial superiority. This is ridiculous. The irony is that it is exactly this sort of biased, sloppy reasoning that has allowed the looney tunes land of DEI to proliferate. Even if you can point to hard evidence of well recognized figures holding extremist views which are put into practice, there is always some eager nelly standing by to carefully explain why that's actually totally normal and the real worry is those scary right wingers over there. Absolutely nuts.
  - clairity 4y ago
    to take that further, whenever you see a dichotomy like this, it should be a signal to turn your brain on, not to conform to a side, which is turning your brain off. it's crucial for democracy that we do so. the best response to a dichotomy is rarely centrism (taking the middle position). that's just implicitly accepting the framework of the dichotomy. critical thinking requires moving laterally among multiple dimensions to uncover the crux of the dichotomy itself (the power interests that form the dichotomy) and to reason yourself into a better framing. with respect to DEI, the term DEI itself is now political, so that slides us right into the false dichotomy. if we want to talk reasonably about the issue, we should probably leave that term aside.
- commandlinefan 4y ago
  > whichever way you cut the population Not so sure about the “whichever” part here - you can cut the population a lot of ways that prove that current DEI efforts are focusing on the wrong subset(s).
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- reb 4y ago
  This just isn’t true. At the core of DEI is the understanding that negative cultural biases make life worse for everyone. These cultural biases (which differ individually based on a million factors) are an unavoidable part of the human experience and impact all of us in different ways, so DEI initiatives encourage being mindful of them in order to limit their harm. Critics, execs trying to CYA, and incompetent practitioners of DEI work focus obsessively on simplistic guidelines around race, gender, and sexuality, but legitimate DEI work aims to support everyone in the areas where prevailing attitudes are letting them down. You’re never going to hear about all the DEI professionals capably doing that work because it’s uncontroversial and often very private, but it’s happening all the same and it materially improves employees’ lives every day.
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
    In DEI's defense, SHRM generic policy is very generic indeed[1] and is unlikely to cause controversy. Just more corporate bureaucracy most people ignore. << This just isn’t true. At the core of DEI is the understanding that negative cultural biases make life worse for everyone. These cultural biases (which differ individually based on a million factors) are an unavoidable part of the human experience and impact all of us in different ways, so DEI initiatives encourage being mindful of them in order to limit their harm. Hmm. I am currently participating in a group that uses a more, lets say aggressive, interpretation ( white supremacy is pervasive and all that ). It gets old fast. <<You’re never going to hear about all the DEI professionals capably doing that work because it’s uncontroversial and often very private, but it’s happening all the same and it materially improves employees’ lives every day. Maybe, but then good actors have some responsibility to denounce bad actors. [1]https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/tools-and-samples/policies/pages/diversitypolicy.aspx https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/tools-and-samples/pol...
    - reb 4y ago
      > Hmm. I am currently participating in a group that uses a more, lets say aggressive, interpretation ( white supremacy is pervasive and all that ). It gets old fast. Go read my reply again, I namedrop the kind of people who fixate on this stuff. DEI is way, way more than "white supremacy is bad"; if that's all you're getting, they're letting you down. > Maybe, but then good actors have some responsibility to denounce bad actors. And they do, sometimes publicly, sometimes privately to the CEO who hired a grifter "DEI" consultant for a year-long engagement that only delivers experiences like yours.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- pyuser583 4y ago
  Biologists are very good at handling political controversy. A big reason is that biology is a very nuanced science.
- fidgewidge 4y ago
  That collision already happened in 2020 when "it's dangerous and illegal for people to meet even in small groups" turned overnight into "protests/riots are OK as long as they're for DEI reasons" and the only thing coming out of the public sector biology world was open letters of support. A lot of the so-called anti vax or misinformation wars are really just conflicts between the people who already realized that academia prefers collectivist ideology to the scientific method, and people who still talk about public sector expertise as if it's platonic ideal rendered real.

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.
      - Turing_Machine 4y ago
        How about fixing stuff like hemophilia or sickle cell? "Eugenics" or nah?
        mrguyorama 4y ago
        Unless you provide genetic modification services 110% free to everyone and anyone regardless of literally anything, gene modification inevitably will result in an underclass that can't afford it.
        Turing_Machine 4y ago
        You've heard of "Medicaid"? Also, that didn't actually answer my question. Is using CRISPR (or similar) to fix hemophilia "eugenics" or not?
      - polski-g 4y ago
        Almost everyone on the planet supports eugenics: "You're probably a eugenicist" https://dissentient.substack.com/p/eugenicist https://dissentient.substack.com/p/eugenicist
- StanislavPetrov 4y ago
  Ironically, the same crowd that insists that it's racist and absolutely off limits to suggest genetics play a role in student outcomes, no matter what the studies say, do a complete 180 if you start talking about obesity. The lack of logical consistency says it all - you can't have it both ways! Unfortunately, these people view everything through the distorted lens of "race" (an arbitrary, ill-defined social construct), which necessarily results in having a distorted view of objective reality.
banannaise 4y ago
Sure, there are some DEI types who believe that. There are also some anti-DEI types who believe that whites are a superior race, and DEI is a conspiracy to subjugate them. (If you don't believe me, just keep reading the comments.) Judging a movement by its fringe is unhelpful. > 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 A more accurate way to frame this would be "If there is any discrepancy... it is likely influenced by discriminations and power struggles, and we should be paying very close attention to the societal factors at play in an effort to reduce their impact." You end up in looney tunes land pretty quick if you swing too far in either direction with absolute conviction. Too far in favor of DEI, you wind up with things like "actually, women are only physically weaker because they're oppressed". Too far in the other direction, you wind up with things like "actually, crime is genetic".
- unconed 4y ago
  The group of people who believe (or claim) that any demographic discrepancy is due to discrimination includes Ibram Kendi and other intersectionalists / critical race theorists. Claiming that these people are somehow at the fringe of the DEI movement is ridiculous. These sorts of beliefs are openly professed and put into action with actual discriminatory policies. Walking it back to "influenced by factors" is just a classic motte and bailey defense. These people don't act like these factors need to be carefully investigated, they have a fucking checklist and it's all based on race, sex and sexuality. Then, you try to somehow equate the idea of white supremacy with the idea that DEI is an anti-white movement: as if any defense of white people requires belief in racial superiority. This is ridiculous. The irony is that it is exactly this sort of biased, sloppy reasoning that has allowed the looney tunes land of DEI to proliferate. Even if you can point to hard evidence of well recognized figures holding extremist views which are put into practice, there is always some eager nelly standing by to carefully explain why that's actually totally normal and the real worry is those scary right wingers over there. Absolutely nuts.
- clairity 4y ago
  to take that further, whenever you see a dichotomy like this, it should be a signal to turn your brain on, not to conform to a side, which is turning your brain off. it's crucial for democracy that we do so. the best response to a dichotomy is rarely centrism (taking the middle position). that's just implicitly accepting the framework of the dichotomy. critical thinking requires moving laterally among multiple dimensions to uncover the crux of the dichotomy itself (the power interests that form the dichotomy) and to reason yourself into a better framing. with respect to DEI, the term DEI itself is now political, so that slides us right into the false dichotomy. if we want to talk reasonably about the issue, we should probably leave that term aside.
commandlinefan 4y ago
> whichever way you cut the population Not so sure about the “whichever” part here - you can cut the population a lot of ways that prove that current DEI efforts are focusing on the wrong subset(s).
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
reb 4y ago
This just isn’t true. At the core of DEI is the understanding that negative cultural biases make life worse for everyone. These cultural biases (which differ individually based on a million factors) are an unavoidable part of the human experience and impact all of us in different ways, so DEI initiatives encourage being mindful of them in order to limit their harm. Critics, execs trying to CYA, and incompetent practitioners of DEI work focus obsessively on simplistic guidelines around race, gender, and sexuality, but legitimate DEI work aims to support everyone in the areas where prevailing attitudes are letting them down. You’re never going to hear about all the DEI professionals capably doing that work because it’s uncontroversial and often very private, but it’s happening all the same and it materially improves employees’ lives every day.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
  In DEI's defense, SHRM generic policy is very generic indeed[1] and is unlikely to cause controversy. Just more corporate bureaucracy most people ignore. << This just isn’t true. At the core of DEI is the understanding that negative cultural biases make life worse for everyone. These cultural biases (which differ individually based on a million factors) are an unavoidable part of the human experience and impact all of us in different ways, so DEI initiatives encourage being mindful of them in order to limit their harm. Hmm. I am currently participating in a group that uses a more, lets say aggressive, interpretation ( white supremacy is pervasive and all that ). It gets old fast. <<You’re never going to hear about all the DEI professionals capably doing that work because it’s uncontroversial and often very private, but it’s happening all the same and it materially improves employees’ lives every day. Maybe, but then good actors have some responsibility to denounce bad actors. [1]https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/tools-and-samples/policies/pages/diversitypolicy.aspx https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/tools-and-samples/pol...
  - reb 4y ago
    > Hmm. I am currently participating in a group that uses a more, lets say aggressive, interpretation ( white supremacy is pervasive and all that ). It gets old fast. Go read my reply again, I namedrop the kind of people who fixate on this stuff. DEI is way, way more than "white supremacy is bad"; if that's all you're getting, they're letting you down. > Maybe, but then good actors have some responsibility to denounce bad actors. And they do, sometimes publicly, sometimes privately to the CEO who hired a grifter "DEI" consultant for a year-long engagement that only delivers experiences like yours.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
pyuser583 4y ago
Biologists are very good at handling political controversy. A big reason is that biology is a very nuanced science.
fidgewidge 4y ago
That collision already happened in 2020 when "it's dangerous and illegal for people to meet even in small groups" turned overnight into "protests/riots are OK as long as they're for DEI reasons" and the only thing coming out of the public sector biology world was open letters of support. A lot of the so-called anti vax or misinformation wars are really just conflicts between the people who already realized that academia prefers collectivist ideology to the scientific method, and people who still talk about public sector expertise as if it's platonic ideal rendered real.