Hypocrisy

[StringJunky]

 

Acknowledging the truth about ourselves — that we see and think about the world through the lens of group affiliations — is the first step to making things better.

This is is a science forum, therefore, it is natural for us to see things that we discuss through the "lens" of the scientific method and expect participants here to do, or at least attempt, the same approach. "When in Rome...".

[Strange]

Related reading -- on systemic in-group/out-group bias:

 

 

Copyright infringement reported to moderators.

[Ten oz]

In my experience the mods on this site do a good job. There is a legit argument to be made that there ultimately should be some avenue to express opinions free from rules/standards/approval of mods whom themselves are only human and too are capably of error and bias. This is a challange I think all discussion on the internet is currently facing. With the rise of fake news (intentionally fake info meant to distract, confuse, and mislead) free speech has becomes more difficult to define. While free speech is something most people value it is also understood to have limits. I am not entitled to scream "fire" in a crowded theater or "bomb" on a plane as doing so endangers the safety of others. To various degrees fake information also endangers people. This challange of moderating speech while still allowing all opinions to be expressed is one twitter, facebook, instagram, yahoo, message boards, youtube, and etc, etc, etc are all faced with.

 

This a science site. Discussion here is meant to be evidence based. Obviously different people can see evidence differently and room should exist for different points of views but the mods do have responsibility to keep discuss from turning into the racist insult denial p0rn we see all across the internet on other sites. Honest thoughts shouldn't be censored. My advice to you Proximity1 is to ensure you acknowledge which statements you make are factual vs opinion. I have seldom seen posts censored where the poster distinguished their own feelings from facts. Typically it is when a poster implies something which is provably false or is posting as fact without the ability to back it with citation that they are censored.

Edited January 2, 2017 by Ten oz

[swansont]

Related reading -- on systemic in-group/out-group bias:

 

( Note: "→" indicates my own added emphasis)

 

_____________________

 

The New York Times

Sunday Review

 

Title : The Roots of Implicit Bias

 

 

yes, bias exists. Now what you need to do is show that bias was occurring in the case in question. Showing that someone was punished despite not breaking the rules, for example.

 

 

→ "When people made their decisions swiftly — in a few seconds or less — they were biased in their punishment decisions. Not only did they punish out-group members more harshly, they also treated members of their own group more leniently. The same pattern of bias emerged in a pair of follow-up experiments in which we distracted half of the punishers. (We increased their “cognitive load” by asking them to retain a string of seven letters and numbers in their memory.)

 

→ "But we also found that people could overcome these biased instincts if they engaged in rational deliberation. When people had the chance to reflect on their decision, they were largely unbiased, handing out equal punishments to in-group and out-group members.

Or show that these decisions were made quickly. You can't, of course, because you have no way of knowing this.

————

 

 

In my experience the mods on this site do a good job. There is a legit argument to be made that there ultimately should be some avenue to express opinions free from rules/standards/approval of mods whom themselves are only human and too are capably of error and bias.

 

And that avenue is to start up your own site. As P1 quoted, "We are not obligated to give you a platform to say whatever you want to."

[Ten oz]

 

And that avenue is to start up your own site. As P1 quoted, "We are not obligated to give you a platform to say whatever you want to."

The mods do a good job here. Nothing in my response was meant to imply otherwise. I was commenting on the challanges faced in general, broadly. However I personnally do not like the "start your own site" approach. Such can be applied to anything. Male store owners could refuse to serve females and just say females should open their own store to shop at. It isn't always practical and creates barriers that aren't always justified. Currently starting ones own blog is rather simply but that may not always be the case. While this site has no obligation to give anyone a platform it is a discussion forum and people will disagree and have differing views. Posters like Proximity1 and their complaints are a cost of doing business. So a process to manage that does need to exist and in my opinion "start your own site" is sort of a punt.

 

All that said this site is well managed and I do not feel censorship is a problem here.

[proximity1]

In my experience the mods on this site do a good job. There is a legit argument to be made that there ultimately should be some avenue to express opinions free from rules/standards/approval of mods whom themselves are only human and too are capably of error and bias. This is a challange I think all discussion on the internet is currently facing. ... I have seldom seen posts censored where the poster distinguished their own feelings from facts. Typically it is when a poster implies something which is provably false or is posting as fact without the ability to back it with citation that they are censored.

 

When a member writes a post in which he offers the view, (quote) "I find the people here are very close minded!", does that need a signpost indicating that it's the author's opinion? When writing in "The Lounge", where the site itself invites its members, (quote) "Discuss life, work, school, anything!," are posts supposed to be flagged by their authors, "my opinions on ..."?

Edited January 2, 2017 by proximity1

[Ophiolite]

As I wrote earlier, without examples, it's impossible to make any specific comments. There is typically some moderator commentary for locked threads.

Noted and acknowledged. I might add:

1. Typically is not as good as always.

2. Doing a good job for no material reward is not as good as doing a great job for no material reward.

3. It is possible to value the work of the mod/admin team and still wish it to be better.

4. Just because the OP is a prat, any actions in regard to his posts should attend to the perception of lurkers, not just the reaction of the prat.

5. It's the old saw, "Justice must not simply be done, but should be seen to be done."

6. As much as he is a prat, he isn't half as bad as tkadm30!

[proximity1]

 

 

yes, bias exists. Now what you need to do is show that bias was occurring in the case in question. Showing that someone was punished despite not breaking the rules, for example.

 

 

Or show that these decisions were made quickly. You can't, of course, because you have no way of knowing this.

————

 

 

All right. Take this post, for example. Since posts are time-stamped, we know just by reading the time-stamp that my post (to which you reply with the cited words, above) was posted as shown here: "proximity1, on 02 Jan 2017 - 1:43 PM, said"

 

Your comments followed at :

 

 

At most, one hour and twenty-nine minutes had elapsed. And I don't suppose that you read every post of mine within seconds of its appearance--but, sheesh, I couldn't swear in court that you don't. However, there are clearly occasions in which mere minutes separate a member's comment and some rebuke from a moderator.

[iNow]

Your point?

[Ten oz]

 

When a member writes a post in which he offers the view, (quote) "I find the people here are very close minded!", does that need a signpost indicating that it's the author's opinion? When writing in "The Lounge", where the site itself invites its members, (quote) "Discuss life, work, school, anything!," are posts supposed to be flagged by their authors, "my opinions on ..."?

No it doesn't. However such a remark insults the site broadly. To say you find people here close minded implies most or the majority. It would be better, in my opinion (imo), to qoute the specific comments you take issue with and address them directly. Key word in "discuss life, work, school, anything" is "discuss". Broad sweeping insults isn't a useful way to discuss things. if it were "comment on life, school, anything" than you'd be more on point. However the invitation is for discuss and not merely broad sweeping remarks.

Edited January 2, 2017 by Ten oz

[proximity1]

No it doesn't. However such a remark insults the site broadly. To say you find people here close minded implies most or the majority. It would be better, in my opinion (imo), to qoute the specific comments you take issue with and address them directly. Key word in "discuss life, work, school, anything" is "discuss". Broad sweeping insults isn't a useful way to discuss things. if it were "comment on life, school, anything" than you'd be more on point. However the invitation is for discuss and not merely broad sweeping remarks.

 

Would you be surprised if other members told you they see no cause to take offense--either personally or on behalf of others? I felt no offense and don't see any really good ground for it. Could you be simply taking offense and assuming that, since you feel offended, lots or most others must, too?

 

Shouldn't there be some dialogue before you conclude that the offense _you_ take was actually intended? In this case, the OP received only two replies--both of which I'd describe as gratuitously hostile and neither of which either invited dialog or sought clarification. The first hostile comment came only 19 minutes after the OP went up.

[iNow]

Again, if you're so unhappy here, why voluntarily choose to remain and participate?

[Strange]

What I found slightly offensive (to the concept of intelligent conversation) was that someone should describe the fact the rules were being enforced as "closed minded". It smacks of a rather arrogant attitude (as in, "how dare you apply those rules to me and my brilliant ideas").

 

Perhaps you are defending him so much because you think you should be above the rules as well ...

[Ten oz]

Would you be surprised if other members told you they see no cause to take offense--either personally or on behalf of others? I felt no offense and don't see any really good ground for it. Could you be simply taking offense and assuming that, since you feel offended, lots or most others must, too?

 

Shouldn't there be some dialogue before you conclude that the offense _you_ take was actually intended? In this case, the OP received only two replies--both of which I'd describe as gratuitously hostile and neither of which either invited dialog or sought clarification. The first hostile comment came only 19 minutes after the OP went up.

Where in my post did I say that I or anyone else was offended? I said the remark is an insult. Calling people closed minded certianly isn't a compliment. It is a negative comment which doesn't advance discussion as it wasn't directed at a specific poster or post but rather the site broadly. The degree to which anyone may or may not have been offended is irrelevant.

[DrKrettin]

Where in my post did I say that I or anyone else was offended? I said the remark is an insult. Calling people closed minded certianly isn't a compliment. It is a negative comment which doesn't advance discussion as it wasn't directed at a specific poster or post but rather the site broadly. The degree to which anyone may or may not have been offended is irrelevant.

 

Not only is it an insult, but it is a particularly laughable one given that scientifically-minded people are (generally) the most open-minded people on the planet.

[proximity1]

 

@38

 

"I found slightly offensive (to the concept of intelligent conversation) was that someone should describe the fact the rules were being enforced as "closed minded".

 

 

I didn't read his words that way at all. When someone complains about what can be variously called "closed-mindedness" {his words} or what others might've called "narrow-mindedness" or being "intolerant" or "too thin-skinned" then his comments obviously take the fact that there are rules being applied as a given feature of the situation and he's concerned with what they say and how they're interpreted and, above all, applied. Again, I'm flabbergasted to discover that his post was deemed an infringement of the rules as they are to be understood as operating in The Lounge and, now, apparently, the topic itself is so taboo that, even In addition to moving the thread, it was locked. As for which came first I neither know nor see how it matters very much per se.

 

@ 39 : "Where in my post did I say that I or anyone else was offended? I said the remark is an insult. Calling people closed minded certianly isn't a compliment."

 

When you described his terms {"closed-minded"} as being an "insult" rather than, say, describing something behaviorial as a flaw, a temporary fault, a correctable lapse-- yes, I inferred from your term 'insult'that you clearly had taken offense.

 

Have you never described a friend or family member as "closed-minded" without intending to give serious offense---rather as a descriptive statement as well as a judgment?

[Ten oz]

@38

 

"I found slightly offensive (to the concept of intelligent conversation) was that someone should describe the fact the rules were being enforced as "closed minded".

 

 

I didn't read his words that way at all. When someone complains about what can be variously called "closed-mindedness" {his words} or what others might've called "narrow-mindedness" or being "intolerant" or "too thin-skinned" then his comments obviously take the fact that there are rules being applied as a given feature of the situation and he's concerned with what they say and how they're interpreted and, above all, applied. Again, I'm flabbergasted to discover that his post was deemed an infringement of the rules as they are to be understood as operating in The Lounge and, now, apparently, the topic itself is so taboo that, even In addition to moving the thread, it was locked. As for which came first I neither know nor see how it matters very much per se.

And yet you have been free to discuss those comments. Perhaps the problem wasn't the specific words but rather the fact that they weren't meant to advance a discussion? Having a lounge which allows for members to discuss a broad range of topics freely isn't the same thing as hosting generalized insults. If I started a thread in the lounge and in the OP posted "Anyone who responds to this thread is stupid" I suspect the mods would lock it because such statements do not prompt discussion.

[proximity1]

 

@ 39 : "Where in my post did I say that I or anyone else was offended? I said the remark is an insult. Calling people closed minded certianly isn't a compliment."

 

___________________

 

When you described his terms {"closed-minded"} as being an "insult" rather than, say, describing something behaviorial as a flaw, a temporary fault, a correctable lapse-- yes, I inferred from your term 'insult'that you clearly had taken offense.

 

Have you never described a friend or family member as "closed-minded" without intending to give serious offense---rather as a descriptive statement as well as a judgment?

[Strange]

@38

 

"I found slightly offensive (to the concept of intelligent conversation) was that someone should describe the fact the rules were being enforced as "closed minded".

 

 

I didn't read his words that way at all. When someone complains about what can be variously called "closed-mindedness" {his words} or what others might've called "narrow-mindedness" or being "intolerant" or "too thin-skinned" then his comments obviously take the fact that there are rules being applied as a given feature of the situation and he's concerned with what they say and how they're interpreted and, above all, applied.

 

 

Then he is objectively wrong in his opinion. (Not all opinions are equally valid.) He was given an explicit instruction not to open another thread on the same subject. He did and it was instantly closed. That is not closed minded by any definition.

[proximity1]

 

 

@43. : "If I started a thread in the lounge and in the OP posted "Anyone who responds to this thread is stupid" I suspect the mods would lock it because such statements do not prompt discussion."

 

 

If someone actually did post such a thing, yes, I'd regard it as absurd {and funny} but harmless and quite easily ignored. But I don't think your example is even remotely fair or analogous to this case.

 

As for this thread's having survived to see 39+ posts, I assure you I'm at least as surprised as anyone could be. It's drawn the usual hostile comments with sarcasm and of the type " If you don't like it here, feel free to leave"

[Strange]

If you don't like it here, feel free to leave.

And, conversely, if you do like it here, then maybe stop wasting your energies defending crackpots who feel they are being victimised when people point out that they are posting incoherent drivel.

[iNow]

It's drawn the usual hostile comments with sarcasm and of the type " If you don't like it here, feel free to leave"

Your definitions of hostile and sarcastic need updating.

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

I have had to edit out the body of the NYT article posted by proximity1. This content is copyrighted and should not have been posted.

 

The New York Times has a generous offer to read a certain number of pages of their content per week online for free - so most members will be able to read the article if they search on the title. However, the NYT does not publish under any form of open commons licence - the content is copyrighted and reproduction is not acceptable. There is the concept of academic fair usage - but that cannot cover the wholesale cutting and pasting of the entire article; I have left the intro and final sentence to give a taster of the excellent article.

 

[proximity1]

Related reading -- on systemic in-group/out-group bias:

( Note: "→" indicates my own added emphasis)

_____________________

The New York Times

Sunday Review

Title : The Roots of Implicit Bias

Marion Fayolle (illustration not included here)

December 9, 2016

Gray Matter

By DANIEL A. YUDKIN and JAY VAN BAVEL

"During the first presidential debate, Hillary Clinton argued that “implicit bias is a problem for everyone, not just police.” Her comment moved to the forefront of public conversation an issue that scientists have been studying for decades: namely, that even well-meaning people frequently harbor hidden prejudices against members of other racial groups. Studies have shown that these subtle biases are widespread and associated with discrimination in legal, economic and organizational settings.

 

// Body of Article Snipped out by Moderator //

 

 

Acknowledging the truth about ourselves — that we see and think about the world through the lens of group affiliations — is the first step to making things better.

Daniel A. Yudkin is a graduate student, and Jay Van Bavel is an associate professor, in the psychology department at New York University.

★★★

LINK TO COMPLETE ARTICLE →

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/opinion/sunday/the-roots-of-implicit-bias.html

★★★

 

★★★

________________

________________

This post cc to:

Daniel Yudkin : dyudkin@gmail.com

and

Jay Van Bavel : jay.vanbavel@nyu.eduhttp://www.psych.nyu.edu/vanbavel/lab/index.html

 

!

Moderator Note

 

 

edited by Moderator - potential misuse of Copyrighted Material

 

[swansont]

The mods do a good job here. Nothing in my response was meant to imply otherwise. I was commenting on the challanges faced in general, broadly. However I personnally do not like the "start your own site" approach. Such can be applied to anything. Male store owners could refuse to serve females and just say females should open their own store to shop at. It isn't always practical and creates barriers that aren't always justified. Currently starting ones own blog is rather simply but that may not always be the case. While this site has no obligation to give anyone a platform it is a discussion forum and people will disagree and have differing views. Posters like Proximity1 and their complaints are a cost of doing business. So a process to manage that does need to exist and in my opinion "start your own site" is sort of a punt.

 

All that said this site is well managed and I do not feel censorship is a problem here.

That's not an apt analogy. Store owners can tell you they don't stock the product you want. You can shop elsewhere for it; they aren't obligated to sell you hiking boots when they're a bakery. And they are within their rights to ask you to leave if you are disruptive.

 

This is a science site (and we aim for civil discourse). That means some discussion is off the table.

All right. Take this post, for example. Since posts are time-stamped, we know just by reading the time-stamp that my post (to which you reply with the cited words, above) was posted as shown here: "proximity1, on 02 Jan 2017 - 1:43 PM, said"

 

Your comments followed at :

 

At most, one hour and twenty-nine minutes had elapsed. And I don't suppose that you read every post of mine within seconds of its appearance--but, sheesh, I couldn't swear in court that you don't. However, there are clearly occasions in which mere minutes separate a member's comment and some rebuke from a moderator.

 

And why would "mere minutes" be necessarily insufficient? If I can establish that e.g. the post is re-introducing a closed topic, no more consideration is necessary. I can identify and ban some spam in a matter of seconds. There's some of this where there's no nuance to worry about.

Shouldn't there be some dialogue before you conclude that the offense _you_ take was actually intended? In this case, the OP received only two replies--both of which I'd describe as gratuitously hostile and neither of which either invited dialog or sought clarification. The first hostile comment came only 19 minutes after the OP went up.

The poster was kvetching about a thread being locked. After the previous thread on that topic was locked, and being told not to re-introduce the topic. Exactly what dialog needs to be invited, or clarification sought?

 

Edit: Five threads on the topic had been locked.