Roberts rhetoric should be used in 1st year Psych to teach "Relational aggression"! (Or a remedial class for some of your colleagues who seem to have forgotten the concept!!)
I was infuriated for you when I first read what he wrote months ago. Keep up the good work and tks for being you!!
I am not a researcher.. heck, I am not even in the social sciences/psychology field. And I am not a native English speaker. But I understand the metaphor and see it as a good way to make the case for broader viewpoint diversity that should be the goal of all research.
The biggest tragedy of our times is not woke politicians or corporations or celebrities - it is the abdication of academics to their sacred responsibility to pursue the truth.
"The editorial actions that raised concerns include the EIC’s decisions to:
* accept an article criticizing the original article based on three reviews that were also critical of the original article and did not reflect a representative range of views on the topic of the original article;
* invite the three reviewers who reviewed the critique favorably to themselves submit commentaries on the critique;
* accept those commentaries without submitting them to peer review; and,
* inform the author of the original article that his invited reply would also not be sent out for peer review. The EIC then sent that reply to be reviewed by the author of the critical article to solicit further comments.
Together these behaviors represent a violation of proper editorial conduct and practices, which APS is committed to upholding regardless of the topic of the research."
If racism in academic publishing manifests itself as discrimination against work by [members of any outgroup], why not review papers for publication without regard to, or even knowledge of, who the authors are? Assuming the existence of an actual racist editor, the editor cannot discriminate against a disfavored group if the editor does not know a person from that group made the submission. Wouldn't blind submission ensure merit-based selection and lead to a better quality of science literature anyway?
If one is aware that the other party tries to “problematize” almost anything, as it is argued in the linked text, then a logical question is: if you get an opportunity to be in involved in a "debate" about sensitive racial issues will you think twice before using an animal analogy?
I mean if you know that the other party can't wait you do something wrong and you are aware of how they operate, will you be very careful about what you write? Will you ask yourself at any point whether an animal analogy can be misinterpreted and abused? Will you?
This is a sensible question to ask, but doesn't the question also set the expectation that one needs to walk on eggshells with social justice warriors because they are prone to abusing language and logic to denigrate (and socially harm) people they disagree with? Should Mr. Jussim be expected to refrain from using a metaphor that is clear and meaningful to him for entirely honest reasons just because he doesn't want a bad faith actor to attack him for it? What sort of precedent is that? Is this tip-toeing around identatarians the way we should conduct ourselves? Perhaps yes, if the primary concern is avoiding an attack on one's motives. A sad state of affairs that would not be so consequential if academia was even remotely diverse (in the meaningful sense).
"...but doesn't the question also set the expectation that one needs to walk on eggshells with social justice warriors because they are prone to abusing language and logic to denigrate (and socially harm) people they disagree with?"
Good point although I keep saying that one must think twice before using an animal analogy in a sensitive racial debate. An average person should know that black people (and many ethnic groups) have been seen as and treated like animals. It's a no-brainer. If you want to reflect on your own writing.
Furthermore, someone who willingly engages in a sensitive racial debate should have some knowledge about stereotypes attached to black people. You engage in such discussion because you feel you are competent and yet in your defense you state you have never heard or forgot about the "old" mule trope. Here is a certain mismatch in my view. Do you know enough about the topic you so eagerly and passionately debate about?
Anyway, as I said many times I have no idea what Jussim was or not thinking when he used the analogy. However, given his way of discussing on Twitter...
The main problem in this scandal or "scandal" is that there was no safety net. The editor invited a non-diverse group of reviewers. That was the first mistake. The second mistake was when the editor decided to "promote" these three peer-reviewers into "debaters" while failing to invite a new group of independent and diverse reviewers to review their submissions. Someone could have spotted the "controversial" analogy. I forgot... the third mistake was when the editor invited Hommel to be a "consultant" regarding Roberts' reply. The fourth mistake (and how I got involved) was Jussim's repeated writing on Twitter that there was nothing wrong with the process: "This is all appropriate review process (except the accusation that Fiedler shared a confidential review, but one would want much more info on that than the accusation--eg, was Hommel a reviewer?). " https://twitter.com/PsychRabble/status/1598728379691405317
Taken all this together... even if someone would accept that Roberts belongs to "social justice warriors... prone to abusing language and logic to denigrate (and socially harm) people they disagree with," the involved "debaters" have given him too many, I seriously mean too many, reasons to complain.
You have made several remarks about interacting with anonymous people. Why do you think you post as yourself (Igor, I presume) and most of the people talking about this debate who are at skeptical of the "diversity program" are posting anonymously. Has it dawned on you? You're very close to figuring it out, you know.
Why does Lee Jussim write as himself? How does he dare speak about topics from a perspective, no mater whether he uses an animal metaphor or not, that can get him in serious trouble? You'll have to ask him.
Now, what about the anonymous folks? What's going on there? Let's work it out.
Quoting Igor:
"I mean if you know that the other party can't wait you do something wrong and you are aware of how they operate, will you be very careful about what you write?"
Ding, ding, ding!
You figured it out all on your own. Anyone who wants to talk about this topic that in any way the deviates from the approved message, can either risk their reputation/livelihood, remain silent, or speak while anonymous.
So it takes a different kind of animal, if you will, to put his name next to ideas on diversity that are in any way contra-Roberts. What sort of person is willing to do that? Exactly the kind of person who isn't so cautious that they are going to spend hours agonizing over a metaphor, and whether it could be taken the wrong way or be misconstrued.
haha So Jussim is actually a hero (unlike you and several others) who bravely accepts to review Hommel paper and bravely uses the horse-mule analogy to further attack Roberts' paper instead of "only" reviewing Hommel's commentary... He is aware of the risks that an animal analogy can be used against him so he thinks hard whether something in that analogy can be easily misinterpreted (even by a researcher who grew up in ex-Yugoslavia), so he even googles mules + racism/black people, (to surprise of anyone able to use google) finds nothing and then bravely decides to publish his commentary and signs it. In your attempt to defend your own decision to discuss anonymously here, you are actually digging a grave for Jussim.
Just noticed (have it in my email) that another anonymous person replied to my question ("Will you? ") I had posted in the first post in this thread with "yes" and then after some thinking decided to delete it;-) Perhaps you should consider doing the same;-) I am not sure Jussim appreciates the way you defend him.
"So it takes a different kind of animal, if you will, to put his name next to ideas on diversity that are in any way contra-Roberts."
And that might be? Please help me if my bad English prevents me of understanding. What kind of animal? Brave? I hope you didn't mean stupid?
"Exactly the kind of person who isn't so cautious that they are going to spend hours agonizing over a metaphor"
Hours:))) It takes 15 seconds to google it. I mean if it crosses your mind that an animal analogy in a racial debate might be a little bit insensitive or misinterpreted by those who can't wait you write something wrong... So will you or will you not think whether your writing would be misinterpreted?
The mob rules because, I would bet, a lot of the rational, subtle thinkers are afraid to speak up--anyone with anything to lose really. Those who speak up call be tarred with the 'r' word. Otherwise in academia it's a small world. I personally cannot afford to say what I think or even hit the 'like' button on many things I agree with, much less sign a counter-letter. Some guy on Twitter found that most who spoke up against the first letter were white males...which means nothing because you can't count those who don't/can't speak up, and the fact that white males speak up doesn't imply they are wrong (same could be said about the other side). I am not a white male and I think what happened is disgraceful and it's absolutely ridiculous that Lee was labeled a racist. I'm still waiting for someone to say what exactly was racist in all of this...or is it just that Roberts said so and was upset, so it must be true?
In 2022/23, how powerful is the label "racist"? Is it instant social death as it once was, or weakened by it's overuse? How long until it is totally without sting?
Most individuals don't know the actual literal meaning of pedophile. It has zip to do with being sexually attracted to kids who can't legally consent to sex acts.
"People/Person/Writer/Artist/Actor/Student of color", "community/communities of color" & all the other terms like them are the updated terms of the old racist term "Colored". They're a sign of devolution. Not to mention using those terms perpetuate racism instead of lessening it.
When someone calls whoever a progressive they are saying that person is an elitist. When someone calls themself a progressive they're saying I'm an elitist.
What is the percentage of true believers in the sample of 1200 vs the percentage of pure opportunists? What does that say about the nature of academic discourse and the current pressures in the field? Who is applying the pressure and why?
The Elect are elect precisely because of their ability to divine racism from the flimsiest of evidence. In fact, the flimsier the evidence, the more elect the diviner!
Roberts is correct that your metaphor was not necessary, but it sure was a convenient opportunity for him to demonstrate his advanced powers. Of course, his response was also not necessary. But he should be given the benefit of the doubt. Maybe he just misread it and was not eager to see a racist trope when none was intended.
Reality does not matter... One would think that the 1200 academics presumably can pass reading comprehension test. Yet, they signed this petition based on a demonstrably false statement, that is, a lie, which can be revealed by just reading the "offensive" commentary. Unbelievable...
Heh. *I'm* on the left. Ran an Indivisible group in 2017. Its not even that they hate science, that goes too far. They hate anything that challenges their ideological dogmas, whether science, identifiable persons (such as me) or anything else.
As I was reading your article, I didn't connect the mule metaphor with the whole black population until I read where Roberts had made that connection. It appears to me that Roberts is the racist.
This is an underrated point. Almost no one alive is familiar with that trope, its been outdated for 3 generations. Roberts revived it in such a manner that the now almost 1400 academics who signed the open letter, and probably many many more, will not forget it for another generation.
We can think of the 'n' word in the same light. How many sub-literate racist non-blacks are left to use it? Very few, and the numbers shrink daily. But the word remains centrally positioned in our culture almost entirely because black popular culture refuses to let it go. It's too useful a weapon to allow to disappear into history.
Why is the video unavailable?
Roberts rhetoric should be used in 1st year Psych to teach "Relational aggression"! (Or a remedial class for some of your colleagues who seem to have forgotten the concept!!)
I was infuriated for you when I first read what he wrote months ago. Keep up the good work and tks for being you!!
I am not a researcher.. heck, I am not even in the social sciences/psychology field. And I am not a native English speaker. But I understand the metaphor and see it as a good way to make the case for broader viewpoint diversity that should be the goal of all research.
The biggest tragedy of our times is not woke politicians or corporations or celebrities - it is the abdication of academics to their sacred responsibility to pursue the truth.
Yep, that should have been clear to everyone.
"The editorial actions that raised concerns include the EIC’s decisions to:
* accept an article criticizing the original article based on three reviews that were also critical of the original article and did not reflect a representative range of views on the topic of the original article;
* invite the three reviewers who reviewed the critique favorably to themselves submit commentaries on the critique;
* accept those commentaries without submitting them to peer review; and,
* inform the author of the original article that his invited reply would also not be sent out for peer review. The EIC then sent that reply to be reviewed by the author of the critical article to solicit further comments.
Together these behaviors represent a violation of proper editorial conduct and practices, which APS is committed to upholding regardless of the topic of the research."
https://www.psychologicalscience.org/news/news-release/2022-december-editorial-statement.html
If racism in academic publishing manifests itself as discrimination against work by [members of any outgroup], why not review papers for publication without regard to, or even knowledge of, who the authors are? Assuming the existence of an actual racist editor, the editor cannot discriminate against a disfavored group if the editor does not know a person from that group made the submission. Wouldn't blind submission ensure merit-based selection and lead to a better quality of science literature anyway?
I can't comment on https://unsafescience.substack.com/p/is-everything-problematic
so I will do it here.
If one is aware that the other party tries to “problematize” almost anything, as it is argued in the linked text, then a logical question is: if you get an opportunity to be in involved in a "debate" about sensitive racial issues will you think twice before using an animal analogy?
I mean if you know that the other party can't wait you do something wrong and you are aware of how they operate, will you be very careful about what you write? Will you ask yourself at any point whether an animal analogy can be misinterpreted and abused? Will you?
This is a sensible question to ask, but doesn't the question also set the expectation that one needs to walk on eggshells with social justice warriors because they are prone to abusing language and logic to denigrate (and socially harm) people they disagree with? Should Mr. Jussim be expected to refrain from using a metaphor that is clear and meaningful to him for entirely honest reasons just because he doesn't want a bad faith actor to attack him for it? What sort of precedent is that? Is this tip-toeing around identatarians the way we should conduct ourselves? Perhaps yes, if the primary concern is avoiding an attack on one's motives. A sad state of affairs that would not be so consequential if academia was even remotely diverse (in the meaningful sense).
"...but doesn't the question also set the expectation that one needs to walk on eggshells with social justice warriors because they are prone to abusing language and logic to denigrate (and socially harm) people they disagree with?"
Good point although I keep saying that one must think twice before using an animal analogy in a sensitive racial debate. An average person should know that black people (and many ethnic groups) have been seen as and treated like animals. It's a no-brainer. If you want to reflect on your own writing.
Furthermore, someone who willingly engages in a sensitive racial debate should have some knowledge about stereotypes attached to black people. You engage in such discussion because you feel you are competent and yet in your defense you state you have never heard or forgot about the "old" mule trope. Here is a certain mismatch in my view. Do you know enough about the topic you so eagerly and passionately debate about?
Anyway, as I said many times I have no idea what Jussim was or not thinking when he used the analogy. However, given his way of discussing on Twitter...
The main problem in this scandal or "scandal" is that there was no safety net. The editor invited a non-diverse group of reviewers. That was the first mistake. The second mistake was when the editor decided to "promote" these three peer-reviewers into "debaters" while failing to invite a new group of independent and diverse reviewers to review their submissions. Someone could have spotted the "controversial" analogy. I forgot... the third mistake was when the editor invited Hommel to be a "consultant" regarding Roberts' reply. The fourth mistake (and how I got involved) was Jussim's repeated writing on Twitter that there was nothing wrong with the process: "This is all appropriate review process (except the accusation that Fiedler shared a confidential review, but one would want much more info on that than the accusation--eg, was Hommel a reviewer?). " https://twitter.com/PsychRabble/status/1598728379691405317
Taken all this together... even if someone would accept that Roberts belongs to "social justice warriors... prone to abusing language and logic to denigrate (and socially harm) people they disagree with," the involved "debaters" have given him too many, I seriously mean too many, reasons to complain.
Yes! You've got it exactly right.
You have made several remarks about interacting with anonymous people. Why do you think you post as yourself (Igor, I presume) and most of the people talking about this debate who are at skeptical of the "diversity program" are posting anonymously. Has it dawned on you? You're very close to figuring it out, you know.
Why does Lee Jussim write as himself? How does he dare speak about topics from a perspective, no mater whether he uses an animal metaphor or not, that can get him in serious trouble? You'll have to ask him.
Now, what about the anonymous folks? What's going on there? Let's work it out.
Quoting Igor:
"I mean if you know that the other party can't wait you do something wrong and you are aware of how they operate, will you be very careful about what you write?"
Ding, ding, ding!
You figured it out all on your own. Anyone who wants to talk about this topic that in any way the deviates from the approved message, can either risk their reputation/livelihood, remain silent, or speak while anonymous.
So it takes a different kind of animal, if you will, to put his name next to ideas on diversity that are in any way contra-Roberts. What sort of person is willing to do that? Exactly the kind of person who isn't so cautious that they are going to spend hours agonizing over a metaphor, and whether it could be taken the wrong way or be misconstrued.
haha So Jussim is actually a hero (unlike you and several others) who bravely accepts to review Hommel paper and bravely uses the horse-mule analogy to further attack Roberts' paper instead of "only" reviewing Hommel's commentary... He is aware of the risks that an animal analogy can be used against him so he thinks hard whether something in that analogy can be easily misinterpreted (even by a researcher who grew up in ex-Yugoslavia), so he even googles mules + racism/black people, (to surprise of anyone able to use google) finds nothing and then bravely decides to publish his commentary and signs it. In your attempt to defend your own decision to discuss anonymously here, you are actually digging a grave for Jussim.
Just noticed (have it in my email) that another anonymous person replied to my question ("Will you? ") I had posted in the first post in this thread with "yes" and then after some thinking decided to delete it;-) Perhaps you should consider doing the same;-) I am not sure Jussim appreciates the way you defend him.
So much confusion in your post. You appear to have entirely missed the point and I have to conclude it's a language barrier.
;-)
"So it takes a different kind of animal, if you will, to put his name next to ideas on diversity that are in any way contra-Roberts."
And that might be? Please help me if my bad English prevents me of understanding. What kind of animal? Brave? I hope you didn't mean stupid?
"Exactly the kind of person who isn't so cautious that they are going to spend hours agonizing over a metaphor"
Hours:))) It takes 15 seconds to google it. I mean if it crosses your mind that an animal analogy in a racial debate might be a little bit insensitive or misinterpreted by those who can't wait you write something wrong... So will you or will you not think whether your writing would be misinterpreted?
Brief commentary on this episode here, about midway through: https://alexanderriley.substack.com/p/your-weekly-woke-report
The mob rules because, I would bet, a lot of the rational, subtle thinkers are afraid to speak up--anyone with anything to lose really. Those who speak up call be tarred with the 'r' word. Otherwise in academia it's a small world. I personally cannot afford to say what I think or even hit the 'like' button on many things I agree with, much less sign a counter-letter. Some guy on Twitter found that most who spoke up against the first letter were white males...which means nothing because you can't count those who don't/can't speak up, and the fact that white males speak up doesn't imply they are wrong (same could be said about the other side). I am not a white male and I think what happened is disgraceful and it's absolutely ridiculous that Lee was labeled a racist. I'm still waiting for someone to say what exactly was racist in all of this...or is it just that Roberts said so and was upset, so it must be true?
In 2022/23, how powerful is the label "racist"? Is it instant social death as it once was, or weakened by it's overuse? How long until it is totally without sting?
Most individuals don't know the actual literal meaning of pedophile. It has zip to do with being sexually attracted to kids who can't legally consent to sex acts.
"People/Person/Writer/Artist/Actor/Student of color", "community/communities of color" & all the other terms like them are the updated terms of the old racist term "Colored". They're a sign of devolution. Not to mention using those terms perpetuate racism instead of lessening it.
They're racist terms masqueraded as progressive/non-racist terms
When someone calls whoever a progressive they are saying that person is an elitist. When someone calls themself a progressive they're saying I'm an elitist.
What is the percentage of true believers in the sample of 1200 vs the percentage of pure opportunists? What does that say about the nature of academic discourse and the current pressures in the field? Who is applying the pressure and why?
The Elect are elect precisely because of their ability to divine racism from the flimsiest of evidence. In fact, the flimsier the evidence, the more elect the diviner!
Roberts is correct that your metaphor was not necessary, but it sure was a convenient opportunity for him to demonstrate his advanced powers. Of course, his response was also not necessary. But he should be given the benefit of the doubt. Maybe he just misread it and was not eager to see a racist trope when none was intended.
Reality does not matter... One would think that the 1200 academics presumably can pass reading comprehension test. Yet, they signed this petition based on a demonstrably false statement, that is, a lie, which can be revealed by just reading the "offensive" commentary. Unbelievable...
Great writing on a profoundly important subject. I especially love "regressively progressive academics".
Though I'm a left-winger these academics as well as certain other individuals like them would absolutely hate me
Heh. *I'm* on the left. Ran an Indivisible group in 2017. Its not even that they hate science, that goes too far. They hate anything that challenges their ideological dogmas, whether science, identifiable persons (such as me) or anything else.
As I was reading your article, I didn't connect the mule metaphor with the whole black population until I read where Roberts had made that connection. It appears to me that Roberts is the racist.
This is an underrated point. Almost no one alive is familiar with that trope, its been outdated for 3 generations. Roberts revived it in such a manner that the now almost 1400 academics who signed the open letter, and probably many many more, will not forget it for another generation.
We can think of the 'n' word in the same light. How many sub-literate racist non-blacks are left to use it? Very few, and the numbers shrink daily. But the word remains centrally positioned in our culture almost entirely because black popular culture refuses to let it go. It's too useful a weapon to allow to disappear into history.