1/ @UChicago Prof. Dorian Abbot is currently being targeted by student activists for questioning his department's DEI policies. They claim his opinions "threaten the safety and belonging of all underrepresented groups" and are "an aggressive act." They issued 11 absurd demands.
2/ Many of these demands would result in the humiliation and social ostracization of Prof Abbot. They demand stripping him of titles, courses, and privileges. Also want the department to publicly denounce him and require DEI statements on all future department job applications.
3/ This is an ideological witch hunt. I've censored student names on the document (to protect their individual rights to free expression), but look how nearly every student prominently displays their pronouns.
Not a lot of ideological diversity on display here.
4/ @UChicago is known for their strong commitment to freedom of expression in their famous "Chicago Principles" which that state:
“The principle of complete freedom of speech on all subjects has from the beginning been regarded as fundamental in the University of Chicago" and...
5/ that "this principle can neither now nor at any future time be called into question.”
In response to the student demands I have helped draft a letter defending Prof Abbot from these attacks, hosted by @SpeechUnion, urging @UChicago to uphold the Chicago Principles.
6/ We are currently acquiring signatures from academics and prominent public figures. Thank you @sapinker for your early support!
If YOU want to help, you can sign this petition defending Prof Abbot's right to free expression without punishment. change.org/p/university-o…
7/ Please read Prof Abbot's account of events and his opinions about his department's DEI policies below. This document contains links to the original slides Prof Abbot had uploaded to YouTube, which is what the student letter and demands are responding to.drive.google.com/file/d/1J_vf46…
We are also creating a separate list of signatures for academics. These signatures will be attached to the Free Speech Union letter and sent to @UChicago President Robert J. Zimmer and the faculty in Prof Abbot's department. To sign, use the link below:
Activists want to retract AlShebli's paper finding a female protégé's research had less impact under female vs male mentors, citing methodological flaws.
Where are the calls to retract her paper using the same methods finding that ethnic diversity improved research impact? 🤔
This depends on where the claims of methodological errors arise. Perhaps they approved of the way ethnicity relationships were defined, but not how mentorship was defined in the other paper. But the authors properly qualified their definitions on the mentorship paper.
Though this article suggests people are claiming to have problems with both how they defined mentorship and how they quantified scientific impact. Though they also think the paper is flawed because it didn't consider non-binary mentors... 🤦♂️ sciencemag.org/news/2020/11/a…
1/ I learned a lot more from my experiments that "failed" than from the ones that went according to plan. Failed methods followed by troubleshooting and retesting makes you understand your system much more intimately, and often leads to insight and new lines of research.
2/ In fact, I came up with the idea for my PhD dissertation after a "failed" field experiment where ants destroyed spider colonies within hours that my colleagues spent weeks setting up. And my own subsequent methodological failures led to great insight.escholarship.org/uc/item/4pm302…
3/ And the first time I tried studying paper wasps in the field I attempted to place queens in nest boxes and planned to follow colony growth and reproductive output over the season. The second I opened their nest boxes, EVERY SINGLE QUEEN flew away and never came back. 😐
1/ I don't understand the claim that this election will cause introspection among the woke regarding their ideology. They're incapable of viewing problems from a POV outside their ideological framework. In their minds all outcomes are are perfectly consonant with their ideology.
2/ Their ideology has never aligned with reality, and that has never stopped them from doubling and tripling down. It is beyond falsification *by design*. It is not a correspondence theory of truth. It only pretends to be one when some bit of data happens to lean in its favor.
3/ It is fundamentally about power, not truth. It doesn't matter one bit whether *we* view certain outcomes as falsifying woke narratives. We can only hope that those who haven't already succumbed to the ideology will be inoculated against it.
It's hard to square Sam's take on this with his past insistence that we start actually believing what people openly tell us they believe instead of hunting for increasingly cryptic yet more palatable explanations for their utterances.
Whether Kamala was lying, ignorant, or meant what she said, we should hold people to their actual words. As a rule I believe what people tell me they believe. I'm no psychic. If they sound nuts, ask them to clarify. If they still sound nuts, accept they may believe nutty things.
A lot of people accuse Sam of having TDS. I really don't think this is accurate. His takes on Trump have, IMO, been entirely reasonable. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to be extremely anti-Trump. But I do think he doesn't take the woke left as seriously as he should.
People aren't talking nearly enough about the Equality Act that Biden says he'll enact within 100 days of taking office.
This act changes the definition of "sex" in the 1964 Civil Rights Act to include "gender identity." This will make all sex-based rights impossible to enforce.
By including "gender identity" WITHIN the definition of "sex", as opposed to making gender identity a separate protected category, all sex-based rights and protections will be based solely on the sex someone merely "identifies" with, regardless of their actual biological sex.
This "study" looked at whether external qigong, an Ancient Chinese practice involving waving your hands over someone to guide "qi energy" through them, could reduce chronic pain.
Might be good to have a sham control, right? Nope! That would impose "Western biomedical concepts"!
What the hell is the point of even doing a study and submitting it to a journal if you refuse to use the methods that would enable you to determine whether or not the effects were real and infer a causal relationship between treatment and outcome?
By the way, their EAT treatment they used as a "control" (it's not) stands for "equal attention time" and consisted of someone just chatting with the participant for 30 mins.