Laurier Censorship Scandal

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Go back and check those links to Heterodox Academy I posted. The extreme partisanship is real. Some faculties are 30:1 Democrat:Republican.

So what are you arguing, that Republicans are being pushed out or their ideas and arguments buckle under the weight of academic scrutiny.

Take this story published today:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...-plan-igm-poll

42 top economists were asked if the Republican tax plan would deliver on the stated policy goals to grow the economy and reduce the debt. 41 of the leading economists in the US said that the Republican tax plan would not accomplish those goals.

Is this some type of systemic bias against Republicans in academia or is it a systemic problem that Republican ideology is not compatible with reality? Looks a lot more like the latter.

So it's important to have some perspective here. No one should support Laurier's actions in this case but to use this story as some type of bellwether on whether Academia is fair to right-wing ideologies is just totally off-base.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by rubecube

The problem with Peterson is that he uses his credentials and professional pedigree as appeals to authority for some of his more ridiculous takes, especially those that fall outside his areas of expertise (constitutional law being one example).

I don't know anything about Peterson except what has been stated in this thread, but it sure sound to me like you just described David Suzuki.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Knalus

I don't know anything about Peterson except what has been stated in this thread, but it sure sound to me like you just described David Suzuki.

Definitely applies to both of them.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Definitely applies to both of them.

Poster boys

[Duruss]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Go back and check those links to Heterodox Academy I posted. The extreme partisanship is real. Some faculties are 30:1 Democrat:Republican.

This does not truly address my point, just because the faculty is left leaning does not make this a partisan issue. It can, but correlation does not equal causation.

I'm seeing this as University's are in competion with each other, they need to offer environments that student's want to be in, and we are seeing the effect of that. Remember this all started with student's complaining about what the TA showed. So it seems to be a problem with the administration being populist and corporatist.

I also looked at some of the research links you recommend and they would also indicate that the reason for the political imbalance is self inflicted by "conservative beliefs". In other words as science and knowledge increase the conservitive polarization and desire to let ideology govern their research has seen them leave acadamia at a disproportionate rate.

[Kjesse]

Originally Posted by Duruss

I'm seeing this as University's are in competion with each other....

In response to that entire paragraph, every university, even the bad ones, tend to attract students who already know how to use the apostrophe

Sorry to nitpick, but that was grating. All three are not used in the right place and one is probably not necessary at all.

[Duruss]

Originally Posted by Kjesse

In response to that entire paragraph, every university, even the bad ones, tend to attract students who already know how to use the apostrophe

Sorry to nitpick, but that was grating. All three are not used in the right place and one is probably not necessary at all.

I have never been good with them. I've been called out for comma splicing repeatedly too but it's how I view things.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by rubecube

You don't think that is at least in part because Republicans have for the better part of a century now adopted anti-science and anti-intellectual positions on most major issues?

But the disparity is far wider in the social sciences and humanities than in the hard sciences, economics, and engineering (20:1 vs 4:1). In other words, far more physicists and biologists reconcile being academics with being Republicans than anthropologists and English profs do. Haidt calls what's happening in the social sciences and humanities a purity spiral, something found in other social contexts outside academia.

Seriously, you'll learn a lot more about it from the horse's mouth, along with stats and links to studies, than you'll get from reading this thread.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Is this some type of systemic bias against Republicans in academia or is it a systemic problem that Republican ideology is not compatible with reality? Looks a lot more like the latter.

There are areas where progressive bias is not compatible with reality. For example, there's a far stronger correlation between parental marital status and poverty than there is between race and poverty. But research demonstrating the former meets a firestorm of criticism because it 'blames the victim.' And under social justice dogma, when the truth makes people feel bad you sacrifice the truth (or more commonly, you surrender to a cognitive bias where you pretend the two aren't in conflict).

The modern social left will recognize only systemic oppression as a source of disparity. All the other sources of disparities are discounted or taboo.

Go to 41:30 of this interview for an example: http://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/the-po...mpus-1.4280778

Then there's the science showing the heritability of traits like intelligence. It runs counter to ideological dogma, so it's regarded with suspicion or hostility, regardless of how sound the research is. The whole field of evolutionary psychology is under suspicion because it challenges the myth of the blank slate.

When someone like Stephen Pinker publishes a book demonstrating with extraordinary thoroughness how the world (and in particular the West) has been getting better in every way for the last 200 years, with violence and oppression and poverty down dramatically, you would expect conservatives to be the ones to get out the pitchforks. But nope, it's progressives who can't stand to see empirical evidence of the progress humans have made.

Social conservatives reject science when it challenges their values around religion and tradition. Progressives reject science when it challenges their values around egalitarianism and fairness.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

The modern social left will recognize only systemic oppression as a source of disparity. All the other sources of disparities are discounted or taboo.

I'm not really sure you can make a blanket statement about the modern social left when there are numerous examples of schisms and infighting about a great many subjects, including those you have mentioned.

[Red Slinger]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

But the disparity is far wider in the social sciences and humanities than in the hard sciences, economics, and engineering (20:1 vs 4:1). In other words, far more physicists and biologists reconcile being academics with being Republicans than anthropologists and English profs do. Haidt calls what's happening in the social sciences and humanities a purity spiral, something found in other social contexts outside academia.

Seriously, you'll learn a lot more about it from the horse's mouth, along with stats and links to studies, than you'll get from reading this thread.

I don't know. The things that conservatives tend to care about don't really slot in well with social sciences and humanities. I think it's more of a case of people with conservatives leanings tend to stay away from those faculties rather than those faculties turning the blank slate and/or right leaning students into frothing liberals.

[Duruss]

Is there really that much debate about heritable traits? And I do find evalutionary psychology suspect as it is a favorite subvered tool of the red pill movement. Also it fails to explain autism and why these traits continue to persist. However I follow the work of Dr. Russell Barkley and his findings from neuro imaging studies. For example self control being more a function of brain structure than taught skill.

[Duruss]

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

I don't know. The things that conservatives tend to care about don't really slot in well with social sciences and humanities. I think it's more of a case of people with conservatives leanings tend to stay away from those faculties rather than those faculties turning the blank slate and/or right leaning students into frothing liberals.

This link from Cliffs source suggests you are on to something.
https://heterodoxacademy.org/2015/11...a-closer-look/

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Duruss

And I do find evalutionary psychology suspect as it is a favorite subvered tool of the red pill movement.

But that's the whole point - looking at science through an ideological, partisan lens distorts the truth. A field of study is suspect because people you disagree with politically seem to favour it.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Duruss

Is there really that much debate about heritable traits? And I do find evalutionary psychology suspect as it is a favorite subvered tool of the red pill movement. Also it fails to explain autism and why these traits continue to persist. However I follow the work of Dr. Russell Barkley and his findings from neuro imaging studies. For example self control being more a function of brain structure that taught skill.

Yeah there are more than a few academics who are very skeptical of evolutionary psychology for a myriad of perfectly acceptable reasons.

[northcrunk]

Originally Posted by rubecube

You don't think that is at least in part because Republicans have for the better part of a century now adopted anti-science and anti-intellectual positions on most major issues?

They have but now the anti-science stance isn't just on the right. The left is guilty of it too. There is a quasi religious feel to it as they deny evidence to push an ideological position.

[Duruss]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

But that's the whole point - looking at science through an ideological, partisan lens distorts the truth. A field of study is suspect because people you disagree with politically seem to favour it.

Yes I agree. I am biased on this topic as redpill ideology is on the edges of autistic culture and very harmful.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

I don't know. The things that conservatives tend to care about don't really slot in well with social sciences and humanities. I think it's more of a case of people with conservatives leanings tend to stay away from those faculties rather than those faculties turning the blank slate and/or right leaning students into frothing liberals.

Can you imagine a University course on why abortion should be illegal?

Certain fields of university will always be the home of the liberal, just as areas of society, like religious institutions, will always be dominated by the conservatives. There's nothing wrong with that.

When a university - which in Canada is a public institution - begins to silence basic human rights, for no purpose other than to push the agenda of the professors, we have a problem.

[sworkhard]

I find evolutionary psychology precisely as unreliable as the other social sciences, and for the same reasons. They are all really difficult to do right and easy to do wrong; it doesn't matter if your talking about economics, history, or archaeology, it's hard to prove a hypothesis in these fields, but very easy to infer bad theories from poorly tested hypotheses. Further, it's also difficult to disprove a theory in these fields should it become generally accepted, even if this acceptance was for bad reasons.

Nevertheless, each social science has produced useful insight and knowledge and can't be dismissed as a whole. IMO, this is just as true of evolutionary psychology as it is of economics

[powderjunkie]

Just got around to listening to the full recording - I love the longwinded duded around 15:00 that implies Peterson is wrong about people being jailed for misgendering (which is certainly debatable) - all while being part of a lynch mob against a single individual for something way less serious than misgendering.

Shepherd really holds her own in a terrible handicap match (both in number and stature of her opponents).

19:35 - "tyranny of the majority" without any idea how ironic his words are as they are being said.