= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Eugine_Nier comments on [Link] Diversity and Academic Open Mindedness - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (148)
How do you know the thing is false if you systematically censor any arguments for it?
Taboo "racism".
How do you know the thing is true if you would have promoted anybody that would say it?
Do you know all the arguments for marginalized positions with which you disagree? If not, would you say you do not know that some of them are really false?
Internet people are weird. I read Mill and Orwell all day and have no idea where they get their ideas of liberty from. They might talk like liberals when it comes to beating up gay kids. Ok, obviously good stuff is obvious. But then they start saying they same things about kids who beat up gay kids...
They'll talk like liberals when it comes to Klansmen and fascists and other nasty folk, and they'll talk like conservatives when it comes to black people and women. That makes sense: the principle is inexpensive when we're talking about the genuinely, completely marginal. But "other" groups that have a real shot at having a decent share of power...
I don't think anyone is calling for promoting anyone merely for being willing to say controversial things.
Here's an idea: try looking at the logic of their argument and not simply whether the conclusion feels repugnant to you for not.
You may want to start by figuring out what you mean by "racism", here are some questions (from one of my comments in another thread) to help guide the process:
I can repeat myself all day, but I'll do it just this once: I want administrators and faculty to think. I want them to think of Mr. Tilbert's white-robed weekends as a real cost before they make him Dr. Tilbert. Mr. Tilbert could be a perfectly decent economist. Don't hire him. Or he could be really good. Then hire him.
We could talk about what's been important here all along. Or I can restart by carefully explaining what I mean by "racism". But then, I'm not your pet monkey.
What do you think is important here? Shunning people whose opinions you abhour or aquiring true beliefs.
People tend to mean different things by "racism". I what to know what you mean by it.
I thought sticking to the original topic would be important, and I don't shun people whose opinions I abhor. I live in the South, and that would be a lonely life. With relevance in mind, we move onto
I'm not a university administrator or faculty member or newspaper editor. We're talking about those people. On this topic, those people are the ones responsible for recognizing false and nasty beliefs, e.g. racism. It's important to know how they evaluate it. And they will evaluate it, even if you want them to pretend that they aren't doing it. They'll notice what David Irving has done even if you very politely ask them to not do so. (I'll put this out there: I would hire Irving, assuming he was only to teach advanced students, were it not for his history of suing critics.)
As for what I mean by "racism", I suppose I wasn't clear before, so here it is: you're not Socrates, and I am not your pet monkey.
Addendum: If you want people to answer your questions, I suggest answering theirs.
So you won't say what you mean by "racism" but insist that it's false and nasty. I've heard different definitions of "racism", a number of those definitions wind up including making certain statements that are in fact true, or at least likely to be true.
Which question in particular were you refering to?
Ok, I can do give and take. First, an inadequately answered question:
To which you said
Where the opening paragraph of the article in this thread states a defender of Apartheid should given diversity have an increased likelihood of being hired by that virtue. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I somehow believe that telling our prestigious institutions to select for cranks will make it even harder for laymen to sort out the truth than it is already and undermine trust in those same institutions. It will also skew scientific consensus even when that consensus is deserved.
Second, a far more important and entirely unanswered question:
Give these items a good effort, and I will return in kind.
I'm looking forward to the give and take, so out of impatience I'm going to add another question. In return I'll give a rough idea of where I am concerning racism. From a different area of the comments:
You can change the "and" to an "or", if you like. I'm interested if you would say something like, "no, but significantly less open than it would have been were it not for X." We might agree.
Racism: I'd make some boilerplate noises about inherent tribalism and group psychology as general background. Then I'd make some more boilerplate noises about the particulars of racial history in America. For the conceptual work, I would avoid any bother with necessary and sufficient conditions and go straight to fuzzy categories and representatives, along with some type distinctions. As a Less Wrong resident, you should know why I'd prefer this approach to what non-nerds typically do when asked what they mean by something: try to give a precise definition. If you try to do that, you'll probably include some true things that should be believed and doesn't make you a racist in any significant sense. For example, "judging people by the color of their skin." That's a terrible definition, but I bet it's a common answer. I can very accurately infer quite a lot about a person using skin color. When I meet a Korean or American-Korean, I've met something locally rare: somebody who knows what I mean when I say I watch professional Starcraft.
So which elements of this fuzzy category do you consider "false and nasty". For example, what do you think of John Derbyshire?
I use several heuristics to decide which ones are worth my time. Most of them are the ones mentioned by Paul Graham in his essay What you can't say.
Ok, now use those heuristics to establish the following proposition as a university administrator: we should hire Graham instead of Robert, because Graham is a Stalinist.
Mission accomplished!
Your comment could be read two ways: it could mean that it is now taboo to actually practice racism, or it could mean that it is now taboo to accuse someone of doing so.