Wow, two guys who are so completely and totally full of shit.
Coleman Hughes was correct. TED has gone Woke.
Specifically, to combat Chris Anderson's lie: Coleman's TED Talk has less views on the TED TALK SITE specifically BECAUSE it is being throttled by the TED Talk people. If you go and look at his numbers on YouTube, you see that Hughe…
Wow, two guys who are so completely and totally full of shit.
Coleman Hughes was correct. TED has gone Woke.
Specifically, to combat Chris Anderson's lie: Coleman's TED Talk has less views on the TED TALK SITE specifically BECAUSE it is being throttled by the TED Talk people. If you go and look at his numbers on YouTube, you see that Hughes's talk is perfectly inline with other TED videos on that platform. So not only Chris a liar, he is using semantics in a way that is especially deceitful because it's his organization that is throttling-down the ability of people to see Hughes's talk.
As for Adam Grant... dude... NO ONE trusts your "rigorous research." No one. We know what that means in today's academic world. It means the researchers have a predetermined outcome, and any and all evidence to the contrary is purposefully not included in the final findings.
And no wonder he offended some of those people. He took away their identity given to them by people like Grant- victim identity... instead the of the hopeful individual identity that Hughes wants for them.
“Many people have been genuinely hurt and offended by what they heard Hughes say.”
Genuinely hurt? Suck it up buttercup. I have to hear offensive bastards like him prattle on every day about equity and institutional racism. Doesn’t hurt me, but annoys the hell out of me.
Several people have reported that the TEDTalk app is shadow banning Coleman's video. Apparently if you do a search for "Coleman Hughes," no results come up.
I don't personally have that app, so I can't check this out. But more than one person has noted this happening. If it is, then yes, TED is *literally* censoring Hughes.
Just a few years ago, it was shown that something like 90% of published “social science research” could not be replicated, that the field is rife with made up bullshit. Most of the “researchers” are progressive wokesters and ALL of the journals are fully woke. This is an excellent example of how anything but the dogma is suppressed.
The telling aspect of Grant's claim was the metric that he purported to be measuring against. It is vague and ill-defined, and likely serves as a rough rubric for "how much traction is gained by toxic ideas from cultures that we unduly elevate." I've little doubt that neoracism achieves "better outcomes" according to the measure they've fabricated, but I have even less doubt that that metric is not one we actually care to optimize.
Or maybe you just see conspiracy everywhere?? Maybe the topic just wasn't interesting? I watched it because I read his article yesterday, but I would not have otherwise.
As to Adam Grant, I trust the "rigorous research". It makes sense to me that when people allow other people to be who they are, you tend to get along with those people better. It kind of feels like you have a predetermined outcome as well... just sayin.
Yes, but according to Grant, the debate was supposed to be with a member of the research team who produced the study Grant relied on in his advice to TED. Instead, they had Coleman Hughes debate Jamelle Bouie, a columnist from the NYT. Bouie is a very enthusiastic and uncritical supporter of all things BLM/DEI/CRT. And Bouie will crucify in his column anyone who even remotely disagrees with the Gospel according to Kendi. So TED was disingenuous in proposing the debate to Hughes as recommended by Grant and then using bait and switch to make it a feeding of the Christian to the Lion. Bad on them.
The fact that you refuse to see, when there is ample evidence to be found, of the immense fraud and unethical practices when it comes to the kind of "rigorous research" in academia and in the social sciences in particular, really says it all, Ava. Your blindness is of your own choosing; it's the blindness of ignorance.
And the fact that you call it "conspiracy" is patronizing bullshit and both an ad hominem and a strawman at the same time. So... congrats?
How convenient for you. Anyone that disagrees is a strawman.
I did address what you said. I told you I disagreed with your opinion. I think you are flat out wrong to call these people liars. I think your opinion is tainted by recency bias and an overall distrust of all institutions. Academia, has a long and storied history of producing policy and innovation in our country, so forgive me if I don’t just fall in line with your opinion of these people.
Are you being obtuse on purpose. A strawman is created by someone to argue against instead of the point raised.
One of the points I raised was about the "rigorous research" of social scientists being bullshit as exposed by many, many people the last few years. Also the fact that it's Chris's own site / app that is throttling and shadow banning Hughes's video, which has also been proven to be true, while the numbers in the same video on YouTube are within the same range as the other TED Talk videos posted there. Both points I made were clear, and they're backed by fact.
Instead of arguing against either of those points, because you can't, you commit both an ad hominem AND a strawman by calling it "conspiracy." And then you go on about how I'm talking out of my ass because it doesn't align with my world view.
You're wasting everyone's time here, Ava. It's obvious you're not here to argue in good faith. People who create strawmen never are.
That’s bull shit Matthew. Where is the evidence that you say is out there about them throttling it on the site??? The fact that viewership on YouTube is different from the TED talk site is not proof. It’s an interesting data point, and may indicate that that is the case, but it is not proof. They never said they did. Them not promoting it is proof only that they did not want to get caught in the storm that they currently are in. This is a smart business decision. It’s called knowing your audience.
I asked you multiple times to source your claim and you can’t. All you keep saying is go find it, but you never source these “facts”. It is your argument. The burden of proof is on you.
I don’t really have a lot of animus against Coleman’s argument. I think it is reasonable, but most likely unattainable. Notice how I say, “I think that”. As in I realize that I may not be aware of other things that may have an impact on how I think about the topic. The arrogance with which you present your argument betrays how much you are just seeking reinforcement of your beliefs.
I believe your premise to be flawed. You see recent examples of academia that do not line up with your world view as an indictment on academia. I think it is just as much an indictment on your world view and your inability to accept that you may be wrong. I will point out that the academia that you are calling into question, is one of the most influential and sought after exports that the United States produces.
Show me the research that counters what Grant said. You call into question social science. Prove it.
As I thought... you have created a strawman to argue against and not what I actually said.
It's not "Examples that don't line up with my world view," it is VERIFIABLE proof of fraud, unethical behavior, and studies, papers, and experiments tainted with actual bias to the point where anything that goes against the predetermined outcome is excised so the outcome is the Woke nonsense they want.
It's out there for you to find. No, you won't find it on CNN or WaPo or at the NYT, but Bari has written about it here. Others have covered this and talked about this ad naseum the last few years. There is no such as "rigorous research" anymore, especially in social sciences and climate science, where the expected results matter more than the truth.
Go find it. Or stay ignorant. Either way, I've spoken way too much with someone who insists on creating strawman to argue against instead of addressing what I've said. I usually dismiss people who do that with extreme prejudice.
It seems far more likely that the YouTube algorithm is messing with these numbers than the TED people. Users of YouTube have almost no control over who gets to see their stuff and the comments about liking and commenting on videos to boost the algorithm are things I've heard numerous times from unrelated sources. Add this to the fact that we know YouTube puts its fingers on the scale constantly and I'm not at all certain blaming TED makes much sense here.
If TED was trying to suppress the video what are the methods they would use? I can imagine two, which I'm not sure would even be effective: reposting or replacing the original video, mis-tagging the video. I have doubts about the efficacy of trying to suppress one's own video particularly and it seems far more likely that any issues are caused by YouTube itself.
I'm just waiting for Grant to address the replication crisis in his field and how that affects the validity of his meta analysis. Garbage in, garbage out.
Additionally, there's the fact that no one can any longer get a study published that runs against the progressive orthodoxy.
Agree re Adam Grant's "rigorous research." The telling line for me was when his experts write "discrimination may be most problematic in organizations where color blindness prevails.” May be?
Whenever I see the left-wing buzzword "problematic," I immediately take everything that comes after it with a grain of salt. Just that term derailed any respect I would have had for his "research." By "discrimination" I'm sure Grant means merit-based outcomes that don't favor people of color; otherwise known as the B.S. concept of "disparate impact." In other words, some people can't cut it unless they are given a leg up. What they want is special treatment, not equal treatment.
I took it to mean that organizations that describe their hiring and promotion practices as "color blind" show more discrimination in the actual practices, as may be evidenced by stats on who is promoted, who is hired, etc. I realize I have had to insert a lot of "mays" and "mights" here but I'm extrapolating based on the kinds of stats that typically appear in such studies. Is Grant's response a thorough, in-depth analysis of the research/evidence? No. But reading it with an eye for trying to first understand before I poke holes, that's what I came up with.
I took this to be a reference to something like the orchestra tryout example from Coleman's TED talk. You may get disparate results in some situations with a very fair process, but the measured output looks like discrimination.
Changing the process to force the outcome does not address the root cause of the issue.
This is the “disparate outcome” theory of discrimination. The feds have been using this for the past 30 years. Basically it says that if there is no discrimination each race/group should show up in X place in the same % they exist in the community/applicant pool. Our family experienced this during the 1995-96 school year when our kids were in the local GT program. The city was trying to get out from under a busing order. The school board got into a deal with the DOE and long story short, one of the requirements was to raise the % of Black kids in the GT program. The city was about 40% Black but they were only 20% of the program. Hence automatic finding of discrimination (if there was no discrimination the two %’s should be the same, according to the theory).
Since the school board didn’t like the GT program anyway (“the last thing we need is more gifted kids”), instead of IQ testing to find more gifted Black students, they changed the program to run off the white families (bus the kids to the other side of town in a really dangerous neighborhood). White families fled the system and presto! The Black kids were now a larger % of the much smaller GT program. Not a single new gifted Black student, but they were now 40% of the city and 40% of the program. Problem solved, “no discrimination”. Gotta love the logic.
Yes, "disparate impact" (that is how I have heard the term used) has been the
bogus intellectual/legal basis for much of the racialist divisiveness of recent decades. In other words, if outcomes in virtually any field of endeavor show a "protected group" represented at something less than their proportion of the overall population, than "discrimination" is, prima facie, the cause. Disparate impact needs to be identified as a the bogus proposition that it is and done away with, along with all the racialist gerrymandering that it has spawned.
Thanks for that. “Disparate Impact” is exactly the term the DOE people used against us back then. The school board broke up a good half dozen top notch magnet programs in addition to the GT program, and they almost destroyed the Academic & Performing Arts high school that was the crown jewel of the system and the city. The damage was incalculable. So many families moved either to private school, Catholic school, or even just physically moved to the next county to get away from what was left of the system after the dust settled that I think we lost 30% of our enrollment. But they got rid of the busing order, so they said “Mission Accomplished”.
Thanks for sharing your story, Ann. It is consistent with others I have heard that have been driven by the noxious doctrine of "disparate impact." It needs to be critiqued at every opportunity.
Yes. This is exactly where the Woke mind is. They do not expect nor want meritocratic outcomes. They want "fair" outcomes. To them, this means that if you and I compete and both work hard, we should get the same. Regardless of whether you outperformed me. Especially if I am deemed by society to deserve special protection based on historical wrongs.
So, I as a woman, worked hard building a house. You as a man worked equally hard building a house. Because you are bigger and stronger innately, you finished first and, since I had to rush to even attempt to keep up, your work was finer and, overall, better.
In woke, "fair" terms, we both deserve equal pay, and I should win the contract because I am from the oppressed group (female).
There is an unpleasant implication to that statement. If there is color-blindness, then presumably meritocracy is the metric to use when hiring, promoting etc. Are these experts saying that under meritocracy certain groups of people do less well? Have they thought through what they are saying about those people? I'm not going to unpack that any further: that's now their job having made such an inflammatory statement.
That statement boggled my mind, I don’t even understand what it means. A place where people don’t recognize color may be the most problematic in terms of discrimination? How? Seems oxymoronic, would love to be enlightened
He's probably (deliberately) confusing "discrimination" and "disparate outcomes". If there is colorblindness and meritocracy, there may well be "disparate outcomes" if, for example, blacks on average receive a poor education from dysfunctional public schools and accordingly face diminished employment prospects. But, this is not "discrimination." It is disingenuous for Grant to say that it is and, importantly, mislabeling it distracts from addressing the serious problems--for example, the dysfunctional educational system. (Grant's appeal to what are likely badly flawed psychology studies is also disingenuous, particularly his reference to RCTs. RCTs are not immune to producing wrong answers if, for example, they study the wrong question, use flawed methodology (aside from randomized treatment), or use a sample not representative of the population of interest.)
If you saw Hughes' TED talk on YT, I think he gave an excellent example when asked how to address these "disparate outcomes." Asked what should be done about "blind" orchestra auditions which result in black musicians being shut out, he proposed the solution is not to "grade on a curve" but to invest more in young minority musicians by helping them get instruments and lessons so they can improve their abilities. Address the root of the problem.
Easy. He is just pointing to every situation where there isn’t a precise demographic representation of society - so every single situation - and he is calling this “discriminatory”.
Too many Asian people playing the violin?? DISCRIMINATION!!!
You’re having trouble grasping this approach because you aren’t a sack of shit. This approach is often baffling to people who aren’t sacks of shit.
Well I didn’t say it is impossible for normal nice people to understand this way of thinking. It’s just disorienting the first time you encounter it if you aren’t a Democrat who is possessed by Satan.
Answer: Those places are FILLED with micro aggressions!!! It’s “horrible” and “dangerous” for people of color to be subjected to such extreme conditions.
Likely due to resentment from those who were hired based strictly on their ability to do a job having to work with less qualified people hired due to their ethnicity.
I've always wanted to hear the SPECIFIC PROOF that the George Floyd killing was Racially motivated. We have white people harming and killing other white people for a wide variety of motives and reasons. We have a black people killing other black people for a wide variety of motives and reasons. We have whites killing blacks . We have blacks killing whites. While police kill other white people. Black police kill black people. SOME people kill other people simply based on race. SO- again what were the specific factors, evidence that Floyd was killed BECAUSE the cop was Racist?
There was not a single shred of evidence presented at Derek Chauvin's trial that the killing was racially motivated, or that Chauvin had a history of racism, because it didn't exist. One of the four officers involved was black, one was Asian. Floyd had fentanyl in his system and was resisting arrest. He also had a history of swallowing drugs and saying "I can't breathe" when he was pulled over by cops. Chauvin used excessive force to subdue him. That's it. All of that mayhem and destruction over that.
I almost DON'T want to hear this- I cannot believe that we are considered a "civilized" society and how little it takes for so many people to lose their rational minds and behave this way- Corp and Social Media certainly are responsible for igniting this powder keg. Covid lock downs of course didn't help. I do recall a pod by Sam Harris now that I'm recalling some things and I was extremely impressed with his explanation of how there was no indication to prove the action was racially motivated.
Oh my, and who knows what types of questions were asked to derive that "empirical" data he alludes to. Psychology, sociology, and even anthropology are really compromised fields......
Wow, two guys who are so completely and totally full of shit.
Coleman Hughes was correct. TED has gone Woke.
Specifically, to combat Chris Anderson's lie: Coleman's TED Talk has less views on the TED TALK SITE specifically BECAUSE it is being throttled by the TED Talk people. If you go and look at his numbers on YouTube, you see that Hughes's talk is perfectly inline with other TED videos on that platform. So not only Chris a liar, he is using semantics in a way that is especially deceitful because it's his organization that is throttling-down the ability of people to see Hughes's talk.
As for Adam Grant... dude... NO ONE trusts your "rigorous research." No one. We know what that means in today's academic world. It means the researchers have a predetermined outcome, and any and all evidence to the contrary is purposefully not included in the final findings.
And no wonder he offended some of those people. He took away their identity given to them by people like Grant- victim identity... instead the of the hopeful individual identity that Hughes wants for them.
I knew he was full of shit by this comment:
“Many people have been genuinely hurt and offended by what they heard Hughes say.”
Genuinely hurt? Suck it up buttercup. I have to hear offensive bastards like him prattle on every day about equity and institutional racism. Doesn’t hurt me, but annoys the hell out of me.
Amen on the assessment of Adam Grant’s “research”.
Several people have reported that the TEDTalk app is shadow banning Coleman's video. Apparently if you do a search for "Coleman Hughes," no results come up.
I don't personally have that app, so I can't check this out. But more than one person has noted this happening. If it is, then yes, TED is *literally* censoring Hughes.
Just a few years ago, it was shown that something like 90% of published “social science research” could not be replicated, that the field is rife with made up bullshit. Most of the “researchers” are progressive wokesters and ALL of the journals are fully woke. This is an excellent example of how anything but the dogma is suppressed.
Matthew C. I could not have written this comment better myself.
The telling aspect of Grant's claim was the metric that he purported to be measuring against. It is vague and ill-defined, and likely serves as a rough rubric for "how much traction is gained by toxic ideas from cultures that we unduly elevate." I've little doubt that neoracism achieves "better outcomes" according to the measure they've fabricated, but I have even less doubt that that metric is not one we actually care to optimize.
Research much like statistics can be manipulated anyway you want to reach one’s desired outcome. Really, really disappointed in TED
There's a wondeful book from the 50s, titled; How To Lie With Statistics. It's still available.
Yep.
Or maybe you just see conspiracy everywhere?? Maybe the topic just wasn't interesting? I watched it because I read his article yesterday, but I would not have otherwise.
As to Adam Grant, I trust the "rigorous research". It makes sense to me that when people allow other people to be who they are, you tend to get along with those people better. It kind of feels like you have a predetermined outcome as well... just sayin.
Everyone has biases. That's exactly why robust discussion should not be limited by "social science".
It sounds like they agree with you, which is why there was a debate afterwards. I'm not sure what your point is here?
Yes, but according to Grant, the debate was supposed to be with a member of the research team who produced the study Grant relied on in his advice to TED. Instead, they had Coleman Hughes debate Jamelle Bouie, a columnist from the NYT. Bouie is a very enthusiastic and uncritical supporter of all things BLM/DEI/CRT. And Bouie will crucify in his column anyone who even remotely disagrees with the Gospel according to Kendi. So TED was disingenuous in proposing the debate to Hughes as recommended by Grant and then using bait and switch to make it a feeding of the Christian to the Lion. Bad on them.
The fact that you refuse to see, when there is ample evidence to be found, of the immense fraud and unethical practices when it comes to the kind of "rigorous research" in academia and in the social sciences in particular, really says it all, Ava. Your blindness is of your own choosing; it's the blindness of ignorance.
And the fact that you call it "conspiracy" is patronizing bullshit and both an ad hominem and a strawman at the same time. So... congrats?
How convenient for you. Anyone that disagrees is a strawman.
I did address what you said. I told you I disagreed with your opinion. I think you are flat out wrong to call these people liars. I think your opinion is tainted by recency bias and an overall distrust of all institutions. Academia, has a long and storied history of producing policy and innovation in our country, so forgive me if I don’t just fall in line with your opinion of these people.
Are you being obtuse on purpose. A strawman is created by someone to argue against instead of the point raised.
One of the points I raised was about the "rigorous research" of social scientists being bullshit as exposed by many, many people the last few years. Also the fact that it's Chris's own site / app that is throttling and shadow banning Hughes's video, which has also been proven to be true, while the numbers in the same video on YouTube are within the same range as the other TED Talk videos posted there. Both points I made were clear, and they're backed by fact.
Instead of arguing against either of those points, because you can't, you commit both an ad hominem AND a strawman by calling it "conspiracy." And then you go on about how I'm talking out of my ass because it doesn't align with my world view.
You're wasting everyone's time here, Ava. It's obvious you're not here to argue in good faith. People who create strawmen never are.
That’s bull shit Matthew. Where is the evidence that you say is out there about them throttling it on the site??? The fact that viewership on YouTube is different from the TED talk site is not proof. It’s an interesting data point, and may indicate that that is the case, but it is not proof. They never said they did. Them not promoting it is proof only that they did not want to get caught in the storm that they currently are in. This is a smart business decision. It’s called knowing your audience.
I asked you multiple times to source your claim and you can’t. All you keep saying is go find it, but you never source these “facts”. It is your argument. The burden of proof is on you.
I don’t really have a lot of animus against Coleman’s argument. I think it is reasonable, but most likely unattainable. Notice how I say, “I think that”. As in I realize that I may not be aware of other things that may have an impact on how I think about the topic. The arrogance with which you present your argument betrays how much you are just seeking reinforcement of your beliefs.
Said one cult leader to the other... I wish there were eye roll emojis on here.
Ignorance is a choice, Ava. Remember that.
We agree on that.
I believe your premise to be flawed. You see recent examples of academia that do not line up with your world view as an indictment on academia. I think it is just as much an indictment on your world view and your inability to accept that you may be wrong. I will point out that the academia that you are calling into question, is one of the most influential and sought after exports that the United States produces.
Show me the research that counters what Grant said. You call into question social science. Prove it.
As I thought... you have created a strawman to argue against and not what I actually said.
It's not "Examples that don't line up with my world view," it is VERIFIABLE proof of fraud, unethical behavior, and studies, papers, and experiments tainted with actual bias to the point where anything that goes against the predetermined outcome is excised so the outcome is the Woke nonsense they want.
It's out there for you to find. No, you won't find it on CNN or WaPo or at the NYT, but Bari has written about it here. Others have covered this and talked about this ad naseum the last few years. There is no such as "rigorous research" anymore, especially in social sciences and climate science, where the expected results matter more than the truth.
Go find it. Or stay ignorant. Either way, I've spoken way too much with someone who insists on creating strawman to argue against instead of addressing what I've said. I usually dismiss people who do that with extreme prejudice.
It seems far more likely that the YouTube algorithm is messing with these numbers than the TED people. Users of YouTube have almost no control over who gets to see their stuff and the comments about liking and commenting on videos to boost the algorithm are things I've heard numerous times from unrelated sources. Add this to the fact that we know YouTube puts its fingers on the scale constantly and I'm not at all certain blaming TED makes much sense here.
If TED was trying to suppress the video what are the methods they would use? I can imagine two, which I'm not sure would even be effective: reposting or replacing the original video, mis-tagging the video. I have doubts about the efficacy of trying to suppress one's own video particularly and it seems far more likely that any issues are caused by YouTube itself.
You've got it. YouTube algorithms are programmed to be woke.
If it is hard to find the book on Amazon will you think otherwise?
My exact first thought too. What a couple of bull shitters!
I'm just waiting for Grant to address the replication crisis in his field and how that affects the validity of his meta analysis. Garbage in, garbage out.
Additionally, there's the fact that no one can any longer get a study published that runs against the progressive orthodoxy.
I’m putting together a study as to why there are no white cornerbacks.
Because there are no white corners.
TED has gone WOKE. What hasn't? Please folks, name some.
TED hasn't "gone" WOKE, i'd argue it's ALWAYS been WOKE...
You could have just stopped at "full of shit" (especially Grant)
Agree re Adam Grant's "rigorous research." The telling line for me was when his experts write "discrimination may be most problematic in organizations where color blindness prevails.” May be?
Whenever I see the left-wing buzzword "problematic," I immediately take everything that comes after it with a grain of salt. Just that term derailed any respect I would have had for his "research." By "discrimination" I'm sure Grant means merit-based outcomes that don't favor people of color; otherwise known as the B.S. concept of "disparate impact." In other words, some people can't cut it unless they are given a leg up. What they want is special treatment, not equal treatment.
I took it to mean that organizations that describe their hiring and promotion practices as "color blind" show more discrimination in the actual practices, as may be evidenced by stats on who is promoted, who is hired, etc. I realize I have had to insert a lot of "mays" and "mights" here but I'm extrapolating based on the kinds of stats that typically appear in such studies. Is Grant's response a thorough, in-depth analysis of the research/evidence? No. But reading it with an eye for trying to first understand before I poke holes, that's what I came up with.
I took this to be a reference to something like the orchestra tryout example from Coleman's TED talk. You may get disparate results in some situations with a very fair process, but the measured output looks like discrimination.
Changing the process to force the outcome does not address the root cause of the issue.
This is the “disparate outcome” theory of discrimination. The feds have been using this for the past 30 years. Basically it says that if there is no discrimination each race/group should show up in X place in the same % they exist in the community/applicant pool. Our family experienced this during the 1995-96 school year when our kids were in the local GT program. The city was trying to get out from under a busing order. The school board got into a deal with the DOE and long story short, one of the requirements was to raise the % of Black kids in the GT program. The city was about 40% Black but they were only 20% of the program. Hence automatic finding of discrimination (if there was no discrimination the two %’s should be the same, according to the theory).
Since the school board didn’t like the GT program anyway (“the last thing we need is more gifted kids”), instead of IQ testing to find more gifted Black students, they changed the program to run off the white families (bus the kids to the other side of town in a really dangerous neighborhood). White families fled the system and presto! The Black kids were now a larger % of the much smaller GT program. Not a single new gifted Black student, but they were now 40% of the city and 40% of the program. Problem solved, “no discrimination”. Gotta love the logic.
Yes, "disparate impact" (that is how I have heard the term used) has been the
bogus intellectual/legal basis for much of the racialist divisiveness of recent decades. In other words, if outcomes in virtually any field of endeavor show a "protected group" represented at something less than their proportion of the overall population, than "discrimination" is, prima facie, the cause. Disparate impact needs to be identified as a the bogus proposition that it is and done away with, along with all the racialist gerrymandering that it has spawned.
Thanks for that. “Disparate Impact” is exactly the term the DOE people used against us back then. The school board broke up a good half dozen top notch magnet programs in addition to the GT program, and they almost destroyed the Academic & Performing Arts high school that was the crown jewel of the system and the city. The damage was incalculable. So many families moved either to private school, Catholic school, or even just physically moved to the next county to get away from what was left of the system after the dust settled that I think we lost 30% of our enrollment. But they got rid of the busing order, so they said “Mission Accomplished”.
Thanks for sharing your story, Ann. It is consistent with others I have heard that have been driven by the noxious doctrine of "disparate impact." It needs to be critiqued at every opportunity.
Yes. This is exactly where the Woke mind is. They do not expect nor want meritocratic outcomes. They want "fair" outcomes. To them, this means that if you and I compete and both work hard, we should get the same. Regardless of whether you outperformed me. Especially if I am deemed by society to deserve special protection based on historical wrongs.
So, I as a woman, worked hard building a house. You as a man worked equally hard building a house. Because you are bigger and stronger innately, you finished first and, since I had to rush to even attempt to keep up, your work was finer and, overall, better.
In woke, "fair" terms, we both deserve equal pay, and I should win the contract because I am from the oppressed group (female).
It is insanity.
There is an unpleasant implication to that statement. If there is color-blindness, then presumably meritocracy is the metric to use when hiring, promoting etc. Are these experts saying that under meritocracy certain groups of people do less well? Have they thought through what they are saying about those people? I'm not going to unpack that any further: that's now their job having made such an inflammatory statement.
That statement boggled my mind, I don’t even understand what it means. A place where people don’t recognize color may be the most problematic in terms of discrimination? How? Seems oxymoronic, would love to be enlightened
He's probably (deliberately) confusing "discrimination" and "disparate outcomes". If there is colorblindness and meritocracy, there may well be "disparate outcomes" if, for example, blacks on average receive a poor education from dysfunctional public schools and accordingly face diminished employment prospects. But, this is not "discrimination." It is disingenuous for Grant to say that it is and, importantly, mislabeling it distracts from addressing the serious problems--for example, the dysfunctional educational system. (Grant's appeal to what are likely badly flawed psychology studies is also disingenuous, particularly his reference to RCTs. RCTs are not immune to producing wrong answers if, for example, they study the wrong question, use flawed methodology (aside from randomized treatment), or use a sample not representative of the population of interest.)
If you saw Hughes' TED talk on YT, I think he gave an excellent example when asked how to address these "disparate outcomes." Asked what should be done about "blind" orchestra auditions which result in black musicians being shut out, he proposed the solution is not to "grade on a curve" but to invest more in young minority musicians by helping them get instruments and lessons so they can improve their abilities. Address the root of the problem.
Easy. He is just pointing to every situation where there isn’t a precise demographic representation of society - so every single situation - and he is calling this “discriminatory”.
Too many Asian people playing the violin?? DISCRIMINATION!!!
You’re having trouble grasping this approach because you aren’t a sack of shit. This approach is often baffling to people who aren’t sacks of shit.
Then what does it make you if you understand this line of logic 🤔.. Kidding, I think you’re right thanks for the explanation!
Well I didn’t say it is impossible for normal nice people to understand this way of thinking. It’s just disorienting the first time you encounter it if you aren’t a Democrat who is possessed by Satan.
That said, I’m a terrible person.
Answer: Those places are FILLED with micro aggressions!!! It’s “horrible” and “dangerous” for people of color to be subjected to such extreme conditions.
Likely due to resentment from those who were hired based strictly on their ability to do a job having to work with less qualified people hired due to their ethnicity.
"May be" is weasel language for asserting a conclusion without evidence; it's unassailable.
Because if research later demonstrates the opposite? Well, we DID say "may be."
Meanwhile, the claim hangs there....
SEE ALSO: "journalism"
Precisely.
I don't know what he just said Lynne but if you liked, I liked it.
HA
I like it!
INCONCEIVABLE!!! :-)
Adam Grant showed his true colors during COVID and during the BLM riots, so he has NO credibility here.
What went on with that? I am unfamiliar.
This is one example he posted on LinkedIn after the BLM riots and George Floyd--if you’re citing Ibram X Kendi and Robin DiAngelo, then GTFO.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-white-people-stay-silent-racism-adam-grant?utm_source=share&utm_medium=guest_mobile_web&utm_campaign=copy
And this from someone who insists he has "no ideological stance" and "only looks at the data." As soon as I read that I thought, yeah, riiiiight.
I've always wanted to hear the SPECIFIC PROOF that the George Floyd killing was Racially motivated. We have white people harming and killing other white people for a wide variety of motives and reasons. We have a black people killing other black people for a wide variety of motives and reasons. We have whites killing blacks . We have blacks killing whites. While police kill other white people. Black police kill black people. SOME people kill other people simply based on race. SO- again what were the specific factors, evidence that Floyd was killed BECAUSE the cop was Racist?
Anyone?
There was not a single shred of evidence presented at Derek Chauvin's trial that the killing was racially motivated, or that Chauvin had a history of racism, because it didn't exist. One of the four officers involved was black, one was Asian. Floyd had fentanyl in his system and was resisting arrest. He also had a history of swallowing drugs and saying "I can't breathe" when he was pulled over by cops. Chauvin used excessive force to subdue him. That's it. All of that mayhem and destruction over that.
I almost DON'T want to hear this- I cannot believe that we are considered a "civilized" society and how little it takes for so many people to lose their rational minds and behave this way- Corp and Social Media certainly are responsible for igniting this powder keg. Covid lock downs of course didn't help. I do recall a pod by Sam Harris now that I'm recalling some things and I was extremely impressed with his explanation of how there was no indication to prove the action was racially motivated.
Not sure what happened to Sam since then..
Thanks for that link. Always good to know the backstory. Not biased at all, is he?
Wow! And this hypocrite said at the very first of today's article that he was completely unbiased.
What a liar.
Whenever they lead with that I'm suspicious. it's the woke equivalent of "I have Black friends."
Oh my, and who knows what types of questions were asked to derive that "empirical" data he alludes to. Psychology, sociology, and even anthropology are really compromised fields......