political correctness gone mad
 

or, Academic Grievance Studies and the Corruption of Scholarship

this is too much gold to drop into a more general thread.

https://areomagazine.com/2018/10/02/...f-scholarship/

An interesting assertion. Are we waiting to see the authors take a similar approach with other disciplines to establish whether the humanities are indeed especially problematic in modern academia?

I'm familiar with the current push to publish, at least in NZ universities, and have heard complaints about the drive for quantity over quality. With the suggestion that people are too busy writing to read. And complaints of universities being run like businesses with managers and executives at the helm rather than academics. That doesn't seem to be what the authors are suggesting is what's wrong in the university today.

It's comforting to know this exercise was undertaken by paragons of virtue, any critique being about those making the criticism.

What always comes to mind when the study of power and its imbalances is challenged is what would happen as such study finds genuine power imbalances. Would those of us finding our positions undermined by any such research graciously accept our new less powerful positions? Or would we, consciously or otherwise, engage in efforts to bring such research into disrepute?

Sokal did it better, though I do have a soft spot for "Confirmational Response: Bias Among Social Work Journals" by William M. Epstein published in Science, Technology & Human Values.

Now now, let's not be quick to draw conclusions from such a small sample size

Sokal had a computer generate nonsense, it wasn't peer reviewed, and his purported subject matter was outside the expertise of the editors. AMong other lols these guys literally submitted a section of Mein Kampf to a journal, it passed review, and got published.

Yeah I understand all this - there is a long history of hoaxes, pranks and other shenanigans in academic publishing, particularly in the humanities (though physical geography seems pretty prone to it as well). They are healthy for fields to be exposed to.

Hell I used to use an automated generator similar to this to submit papers to computer science journals and conferences while doing post grad and tutoring - even had a couple (5 I think from memory) accepted, which of course I withdrew (with an explanation of why) because ethics.

All fields have issues with validating knowledge, no different to the open access issues with scientific fields.

Validating knowledge? Hypatia’s reviewers supported an article recommending that white students be put in chains.

:rolleyes:

They didn't fucking support it - they rejected and suggested revision and a resubmit. It's a philosophy journal - none of these are suggested directions of action, they're philosophical thought experiments. It's right there in the title. Stop being disingenuous.

Before anything like this was even considered to be implemented it would have to go through departmental reviews and cross examination by other disciplines and then go through an ethics committee. Of which it wouldn't get past any - because it's never intended to.

These are the same types of journals where philosophers argue if tables actually exist at all. And this one, Hypatia, has a laughably low IF of 0.72 (on a scale of 0-10).

Now that's out the way some other points.

They specifically picked a field where there are only 42 journals listed on the JCR - and of those that accepted their papers only 4 of them are even listed on the JCR - the other 3 literally don't have IF rankings. They've claimed that "bogus scholarship is reaching into sociology" and yet the 3 papers they submitted to journals identified in the JCR as being in the field of sociology were flatly rejected, not even making it to peer review stage. This leads us to their lack of a control - they've picked a small field of study and chosen not to submit similar "experiments" to other fields (for example economics or physics). They can certainly say that poor scholarship exists, but they can't say that it is limited to this field (or even humanities in general) because they've cherry picked their target and don't have a control.

Despite all this I still think this type of activity is healthy for fields.

Take that Pixie! All your points so succinctly rebutted.

"*selected* reviewer comments"
"first review"
"second review"

You have a weird idea of what constitutes "support".

Also, stop being disingenuous.

Interview with the authors:

https://quillette.com/2018/10/05/wri...ss-criticisms/

They must be good because they have doggos, right? :p

Hmm... there's a certain phrase that gets flung at Lightspeed that could be used here...

Armourking

Shut up, Ashley!

am I wearing leopard print tights and waving a laser? because you seem triggered

/me swoons at the in-jokes.

A+. Would read thread again.

A College Student Was Told To Remove A "Fuck Nazis" Sign Because It Wasn't "Inclusive"

Because snowflakes

Portland State Univ. professor to face discipline for exposing shoddy scholarship

"You're not allowed to point out the Emperor's nakedness"

The presumption being that this is special to these disciplines, others not being vulnerable to publishing broken papers presented as genuine?

It seems that the humanities and social sciences are particularly vulnerable to this woo-woo shit.

What's the source of that perception? How are we checking our biases?

The thing with the humanities and social sciences is we're all human. We all have something to say about being human and we all have a stake in what we discover about being human.

So I suspect there's a stronger drive to be hyper-critical about papers on rape culture than there are on papers about string theory.

Here's a fascinating book I've been reading this week, I recommend it apropos of this thread.

https://www.amazon.com.au/Coddling-A...3&sr=8-1-fkmr0

I gather the book grew out of this article, so if you're not the type to impulse-buy books on Amazon, try reading this:

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...n-mind/399356/

I'm not seeing anything particularly... robust.

What you're posting seems more about the US and its crazy circumstances right now than any particular discipline. Inequality messes with people. All I'm seeing is people jockeying for power any way they can. We learn the tiniest bit about something that might afford us some power, we crank the fuck out of that.

The volume of sexual trauma is still pretty much the same. Economic theft is pretty much the same. Which is to say at horrifying levels. There's a huge volume of people suffering deeply.

The madness is trying to solve these problems without solving the underlying causes. How do we stop the rape and violence, how do we ensure people are paid and can live off their work? While also keeping the world order intact, keeping a tiny proportion of people exceedingly wealthy while ensuring the rest are compelled to work as much as they can for the least reward.

More like, "You're allowed to point out the Emperor's nakedness but you've got to do so in a robust manner which adheres to the ethics guidelines that everyone else has to abide by".

He's being disciplined because he falsified data and failed to have ethics approval for a study that involved human subjects (and thus needs to meet both internal and federal standards) - not because of the topic of their research.

Best outcome for everyone is that he attends the mandated course on human subjects research, has a slap on the wrist and goes about his day.

https://www.chronicle.com/article/Pr...list_hp_latest

From what I understand, they were prepared for their hoax to impact their careers. If that's the case, take your firing like a man, be humble in your victory and go find another job.

What would be disappointing is if they went ahead with the hoax knowing their termination would go public in a Yale or Evergreen kind of way. So they got ready with documentary makers and the letters from Steven Pinker etc to record their victimhood and further deepen the battlelines.

see videos like this: https://youtu.be/thHO2btnWJA makes it seem like some Snowden-level shit went down.

A self-made martyr that complains about their predicament clearly isn't doing it right.

Seriously?

The guy wrote a paper claiming to have been based on the observations of 10,000 dogs genitals and by "applying Black feminist criminology categories through which (the) observations can be understood and by inferring from lessons relevant to human and dog interactions to suggest practical applications that disrupt hegemonic masculinities and improves access to emancipatory spaces" to show that "the cultural norms operating within and upon these spaces form microcultures where acceptable and unacceptable behavior in human communities may be reflected in the way human companions construct their interactions with dogs, particularly in regard to rape culture and queering, and a-/moral interpretations of such behaviors and their human analogues under the assumptions of rape culture", concluding that dog parks "become rape-condoning spaces in which human rape culture plays out by the moral permissiveness we extend to animals.”

Summary: human rape culture exists and can be improved by training men like dogs.

The University's objection: "you didn't really look at 10,000 dogs' genitals".

Yep, that's the problematic bit all right.

Well that's one bit that broke the rules. :rolleyes:

This is NZGames' anti-vax/fluoridation/1080 thread.

Gillette ad that's triggering a few people

How old were your kids when you let them go down to the shops by themselves?

I guess... 8 or 9? even that seems ridiculously coddled when I think of the independence I was given when I was younger than that.

Yeah, I remember being barely older than a toddler taking my plastic trike down to the dairy with 5c for some lollies.

It really looks like displacement to me. We face genuine existential threats. But they're too scary, too big. So we find threats that aren't so scary that we can actually deal with. For governments it's extremism. For us regular folk it's stuff like this.

The anxiety that's being generated reflects our deeper unconscious anxieties.

We let ours (6yrs) ride round the block a couple of times but then put a stop to it. Too many fences obscuring drivers views out of driveways and her awareness isn't there quite yet.

The Listener has discovered Haidt and Lukianoff's book.

https://www.noted.co.nz/currently/so...ety-fragility/

^^^
 

Reminds me of when Paul Buchanan got fired.

This article looks at WHY there’s a culture of safetyism in the middle & upper middle class.
So basically societal structures & economic dynamics are creating an environment where this is gonna happen. So if we’re serious about getting rid of safetyism (especially in the context of growing inequality & technology making jobs even more scarce) then let’s make it easier for people to survive and flourish in society – maybe something like a Universal Basic Income or Negative Income Tax.

I don't see how nervous middle-class parents put pressure on their kids to succeed at school and university translates into the victimhood culture examined in the book. I could see that turning into stressed students burning out chasing grades for their parents' approval Azn-styles, but not "oh noes you are negating my right to exist by appropriating that culture" or whatever fucking buzzwords the kids use these days.

Yeah, I heard Haidt mention this in a podcast recently. I think the title of the book was chosen by the publisher, and it does get the discussion off on a kinda confrontational foot, especially for people who haven't read it. The title of the book makes you think the thesis is "check out these precious little snowflakes" but really it's "the Academy is failing an entire generation of learners if we don't understand what is happening to them".