Great work. I am in software and I despise ethical commissions. Somehow in a 90% male industry they seem to be always managed by 90% females; often focusing on a sickening pathology of victim hood and empathitis.
I tried GPT-4 on the claim. If you ever have to get into a mud fight with these women, GPT-4 is fantastic to test your arguments, around topics of social justic she mimes a 25 year old anthropology or psychology student perfectly. The difference is that at least gpt always replies :-)
I've noticed, both here and in my own work situation, that whenever one of these new policies or sets of standards come along, the group responsible for it will often pre-emptively talk about 1) how much effort they spent working on it and 2) how many opportunities the general public and/or affected community had to give input.
In the first case they're making typical student mistake of assuming the quantity of work put into an endeavor (while making no mention of quality) is sufficient to indicate the product of that endeavor is well-thought-out. Of course, this student mistake is increasingly becoming "not a mistake" as some faculty are now adopting labor-based grading.
In the second case, they are hoping to establish that they already gave ample time for input, but now that time has passed. They're additionally counting on it that those who might not be on-board with this sort of stuff will self-select out of being on whatever committees might form to develop such a policy, and that's unfortunately a good bet.
Great work. I am in software and I despise ethical commissions. Somehow in a 90% male industry they seem to be always managed by 90% females; often focusing on a sickening pathology of victim hood and empathitis.
I tried GPT-4 on the claim. If you ever have to get into a mud fight with these women, GPT-4 is fantastic to test your arguments, around topics of social justic she mimes a 25 year old anthropology or psychology student perfectly. The difference is that at least gpt always replies :-)
It was to long to paste here, so see https://gist.github.com/pkriens/f3db7b2da361a41b52f97f7775d6de89
TFW you are arguing with a cult
When the imbeciles have all the power.. :(
Sad to see SRCD’s decline, so much history of academic excellence and rigor.
I've noticed, both here and in my own work situation, that whenever one of these new policies or sets of standards come along, the group responsible for it will often pre-emptively talk about 1) how much effort they spent working on it and 2) how many opportunities the general public and/or affected community had to give input.
In the first case they're making typical student mistake of assuming the quantity of work put into an endeavor (while making no mention of quality) is sufficient to indicate the product of that endeavor is well-thought-out. Of course, this student mistake is increasingly becoming "not a mistake" as some faculty are now adopting labor-based grading.
In the second case, they are hoping to establish that they already gave ample time for input, but now that time has passed. They're additionally counting on it that those who might not be on-board with this sort of stuff will self-select out of being on whatever committees might form to develop such a policy, and that's unfortunately a good bet.