6 ms·

'Painful experiences long ago convinced Barvinok that requirements to affirm any ideal are corrosive in academia. “I grew up in the Soviet Union, where people

'Painful experiences long ago convinced Barvinok that requirements to affirm any ideal are corrosive in academia. “I grew up in the Soviet Union, where people had to affirm their fealty to ideals, and the leaders embodying those ideals, on a daily basis,” he told me. “As years went by, I observed the remarkable ease with which passionate communists turned first into passionate pro-Western liberals and then into passionate nationalists. This lived experience and also common sense convince me that only true conformists excel in this game. Do we really want our math departments to be populated by conformists?” Barvinok insists that it isn’t diversity to which he objects. Any coerced statement, he says, would trouble him as much. “Even if one is required to say ‘I passionately believe that water would certainly wet us, as fire would certainly burn,’” he wrote in his resignation letter, “the routine affirmation of one’s beliefs as a precondition of making a living constitutes compelled speech and corrupts everyone who participates in the performance.”'

throwup238 3y ago
> “the routine affirmation of one’s beliefs as a precondition of making a living constitutes compelled speech and corrupts everyone who participates in the performance.”' Very well said and it serves as a corollary to Goodhart's Law: "When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure." By making people affirm some belief, that affirmation itself becomes a target and ceases to reflect that belief in the real world. Even those who would normally act on that belief eventually twist it into an empty performance because they're forced to by their less scrupulous peers, just to keep their jobs.
throwaway5752 3y ago
[flagged]
- moose_man 3y ago
  The title was changed by the person who flagged it, it wasn't posted with that title.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
TotoHorner 3y ago
> I grew up in the Soviet Union, where people had to affirm their fealty to ideals Well, a scary % of the DEI professionals I've come across also self-identify as communists, so not sure if they view that as a bad association.
- coolhand2120 3y ago
  The E of DEI is very Marxist indeed. We all want equal opportunity, some just want to have the government forcibly take what others have earned.
  - sudosysgen 3y ago
    Actually, Marxists got into quite a fight against other leftists in the early days because they were opposed to equity. Marxists are, in theory, only for equality of opportunity, hence why Marxists countries like the USSR had things like pay by commission, higher pay for certain jobs, etc...
    - nvm0n2 3y ago
      Marx is the poster child for equality of outcome. Would be very interested to know where you heard he stood for equal opportunity. For example he is famous for saying "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need" i.e. everyone works as hard as they can yet gets the same pay, because everyone's "need" is the same. Maybe adjusted by a few exceptions like family size and medical conditions, but the point of this is to separate how hard you work from what you get.
      - sudosysgen 3y ago
        That is literally just false. That quote comes from "Critique of the Gotha Programme", and what it really means is that people have unequal capabilities and unequal needs, so that what people should receive cannot be equal, instead, it should follow from needs and abilities. In that text, Marx explains it by saying: "one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal." "But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right." "The elimination of all social and political inequality,” rather than “the abolition of all class distinctions,” is similarly a most dubious expression." Lenin also says: "Even the most dull-witted and ignorant person can grasp the fact that individual members of the nobility are not equal in physical and mental abilities any more than are people belonging to the “tax-paying”, “base”, ‘low-born” or “non-privileged” peasant class. But in rights all nobles are equal, just as all the peasants are equal in their lack of rights." "It means giving all citizens equal opportunities of working on the publicly-owned means of production, on the publicly-owned land, at the publicly-owned factories, and so forth." Marx absolutely was opposed to equality of outcome, and had a lot of conflict against other leftists on this point. He was against class as a source of inequality, but he recognized that people have unequal capabilities and unequal needs. I'm not a Marxist, but I actually read a bit of what he wrote - the difference between the words people typically put in his mouth and what he says is gigantic. This is an example. Marxism was a successful ideology over other leftist ideologies is in a huge part because it did recognize that people aren't equal, and that it based it's critique on capitalism on far more than that.
thaumasiotes 3y ago
> “Even if one is required to say ‘I passionately believe that water would certainly wet us, as fire would certainly burn,’” he wrote in his resignation letter, “the routine affirmation of one’s beliefs as a precondition of making a living constitutes compelled speech and corrupts everyone who participates in the performance.” An echo of how Rudyard Kipling was recently stripped out of Roald Dahl's Matilda because the idea that people might enjoy his literature has become offensive. The referenced poem is, aptly enough, on the theme that reality will still be there regardless of what your ideology says. In the Carboniferous Epoch we were promised abundance for all, By robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul; But, though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy, And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "If you don't work you die." Then the Gods of the Market tumbled, and their smooth-tongued wizards withdrew And the hearts of the meanest were humbled and began to believe it was true That All is not Gold that Glitters, and Two and Two make Four And the Gods of the Copybook Headings limped up to explain it once more. As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man There are only four things certain since Social Progress began. That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire, And the burnt Fool's bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire; And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins, As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn, The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return! (There are other verses: https://www.kiplingsociety.co.uk/poem/poems_copybook.htm https://www.kiplingsociety.co.uk/poem/poems_copybook.htm )
- moose_man 3y ago
  The Russians really love their Kipling. Not sure why he is so popular in Russia.
  - khzw8yyy 3y ago
    I can think of a few reasons. - Russians like poetry that actually rhymes - "The Jungle Book" and "Riki Tiki Tavi" were very popular - The controversial pieces like "The White Man's Burden" weren't translated until after Kipling's death Also, "The White Man's Burden" is viewed with a bit of distance. Few in America remember the context in which it was written, and that context is as important as the text of the poem if not more so. It was an argument for America subjugating the Philippines. Mark Twain wrote a poem to counter imperialism and that argument. Later Americans managed to both defeat the Philippines and cancel both poets :)

throwup238 3y ago

> “the routine affirmation of one’s beliefs as a precondition of making a living constitutes compelled speech and corrupts everyone who participates in the performance.”' Very well said and it serves as a corollary to Goodhart's Law: "When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure." By making people affirm some belief, that affirmation itself becomes a target and ceases to reflect that belief in the real world. Even those who would normally act on that belief eventually twist it into an empty performance because they're forced to by their less scrupulous peers, just to keep their jobs.

throwaway5752 3y ago

[flagged]

moose_man 3y ago
The title was changed by the person who flagged it, it wasn't posted with that title.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

TotoHorner 3y ago

> I grew up in the Soviet Union, where people had to affirm their fealty to ideals Well, a scary % of the DEI professionals I've come across also self-identify as communists, so not sure if they view that as a bad association.

coolhand2120 3y ago
The E of DEI is very Marxist indeed. We all want equal opportunity, some just want to have the government forcibly take what others have earned.
- sudosysgen 3y ago
  Actually, Marxists got into quite a fight against other leftists in the early days because they were opposed to equity. Marxists are, in theory, only for equality of opportunity, hence why Marxists countries like the USSR had things like pay by commission, higher pay for certain jobs, etc...
  - nvm0n2 3y ago
    Marx is the poster child for equality of outcome. Would be very interested to know where you heard he stood for equal opportunity. For example he is famous for saying "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need" i.e. everyone works as hard as they can yet gets the same pay, because everyone's "need" is the same. Maybe adjusted by a few exceptions like family size and medical conditions, but the point of this is to separate how hard you work from what you get.
    - sudosysgen 3y ago
      That is literally just false. That quote comes from "Critique of the Gotha Programme", and what it really means is that people have unequal capabilities and unequal needs, so that what people should receive cannot be equal, instead, it should follow from needs and abilities. In that text, Marx explains it by saying: "one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal." "But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right." "The elimination of all social and political inequality,” rather than “the abolition of all class distinctions,” is similarly a most dubious expression." Lenin also says: "Even the most dull-witted and ignorant person can grasp the fact that individual members of the nobility are not equal in physical and mental abilities any more than are people belonging to the “tax-paying”, “base”, ‘low-born” or “non-privileged” peasant class. But in rights all nobles are equal, just as all the peasants are equal in their lack of rights." "It means giving all citizens equal opportunities of working on the publicly-owned means of production, on the publicly-owned land, at the publicly-owned factories, and so forth." Marx absolutely was opposed to equality of outcome, and had a lot of conflict against other leftists on this point. He was against class as a source of inequality, but he recognized that people have unequal capabilities and unequal needs. I'm not a Marxist, but I actually read a bit of what he wrote - the difference between the words people typically put in his mouth and what he says is gigantic. This is an example. Marxism was a successful ideology over other leftist ideologies is in a huge part because it did recognize that people aren't equal, and that it based it's critique on capitalism on far more than that.

thaumasiotes 3y ago

> “Even if one is required to say ‘I passionately believe that water would certainly wet us, as fire would certainly burn,’” he wrote in his resignation letter, “the routine affirmation of one’s beliefs as a precondition of making a living constitutes compelled speech and corrupts everyone who participates in the performance.” An echo of how Rudyard Kipling was recently stripped out of Roald Dahl's Matilda because the idea that people might enjoy his literature has become offensive. The referenced poem is, aptly enough, on the theme that reality will still be there regardless of what your ideology says. In the Carboniferous Epoch we were promised abundance for all, By robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul; But, though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy, And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "If you don't work you die." Then the Gods of the Market tumbled, and their smooth-tongued wizards withdrew And the hearts of the meanest were humbled and began to believe it was true That All is not Gold that Glitters, and Two and Two make Four And the Gods of the Copybook Headings limped up to explain it once more. As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man There are only four things certain since Social Progress began. That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire, And the burnt Fool's bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire; And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins, As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn, The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return! (There are other verses: https://www.kiplingsociety.co.uk/poem/poems_copybook.htm https://www.kiplingsociety.co.uk/poem/poems_copybook.htm )

moose_man 3y ago
The Russians really love their Kipling. Not sure why he is so popular in Russia.
- khzw8yyy 3y ago
  I can think of a few reasons. - Russians like poetry that actually rhymes - "The Jungle Book" and "Riki Tiki Tavi" were very popular - The controversial pieces like "The White Man's Burden" weren't translated until after Kipling's death Also, "The White Man's Burden" is viewed with a bit of distance. Few in America remember the context in which it was written, and that context is as important as the text of the poem if not more so. It was an argument for America subjugating the Philippines. Mark Twain wrote a poem to counter imperialism and that argument. Later Americans managed to both defeat the Philippines and cancel both poets :)