It's not clear what is propaganda about the linked article. Perhaps in the interest of academic freedom other Berkeley researchers are OK with it or actually agree with it.
It is a long and complex article almost 10 years old so the research behind it older. Perhaps DEI efforts over the last decade have reduced some of the inequalities? Another question is if a faculty appointment at Berkeley is now a black mark in some circles? Which circles? Sounds like a FauxNews talking point driven more by politics than objectivity.
According to the AI, repository of all human knowledge:
Yes, women were clearly discriminated against in STEM historically.
Today, outright exclusion is rare in most Western institutions.
Remaining disparities are driven more by:
Field preferences
Attrition
Work-life constraints
Cultural factors
Accumulated small disadvantages
Evidence for systematic, universal anti-female bias in modern STEM hiring is weak and highly field-dependent.
That's what the Ai says. One more point: anyone in academics more than 15 mins is aware of sexual harassment ending the careers of female researchers..
You are missing the point. It is not that "Anything the AI says is right so therefore we can uncritically rely on AI's to do a great job evaluating, interpreting or summarizing stuff." Also, no AI was used in this essay, at all. In the prior article, however, the point was also not "Anything the AI says is right so therefore we can uncritically rely on AI's to do a great job evaluating, interpreting or summarizing stuff."
No.
The point was that, in fact, the AI (Claude) did an excellent job of evaluating whether the microaggression review paper submitted to it suffered from the same flaws as indicated in my earlier critique of microaggression research. This is by *objective standards that anyone can see for themselves.*
1. One of my criteria was that microaggression scholarship routinely interprets correlational research as causal. The illegitimacy of doing so is at the level of Undergrad Intro Stats, as I described here:
2. So, when Claude evaluated the article, did it *correctly* identify the article making the same illegitimate claims? Yes, indeed. It was not correct "because Claude said so"; It was correct because it was objectively correct, as anyone can see for themselves by reading those articles, which are linked and documented in the post.
3. But the present article involves no AI. So, what makes an article propaganda masquerading as science? It is definitely not "the researchers believe what they wrote" or "others might agree with them." No, those are not objective, scientific standards. By that standard, Trump won the 2020 election because he "believes" he did.
We have articulated a priori standards for distinguishing propaganda from science here:
Test 0: Does the study vindicate a political narrative?
Meeting this standard is necessary (because it can't be political propaganda unless it is ... political) but it is not sufficient (because what the study claims may be valid).
Test 1: Does it misrepresent or misinterpret results, either their own or others'?
Riley's article clearly meets this standard, by citing an article that found nonexistent biases against women in hiring as evidence of biases against women in hiring.
Test 2: Did they systematically ignore contradictory evidence?
Riley's article clearly meets this standard, by citing only articles providing evidence of biases against women and ignoring the vast lit showing otherwise.
Test 3: Did they leap to conclusions based on weak data?
Riley's article did this as well, treating "implicit bias" as if claims that were common 20 years ago can be taken at face value, even though nearly all of them have been relentlessly walked back. However, I did not address this in the essay, so even though this is also the kind of thing anyone can see for themselves, I am content to put it aside for now.
Riley's article is propaganda because it: 1. Advanced a left-affirming conclusion ("oh look how oppressed women in academia are"); 2. Is based on unjustified misrepresentations and interpretations of the evidence they cited; and 3. Their citations were systematically biased in favor of bias and ignored contradictory evidence.
It is not biased because some AI says so. In fact, we never submitted Riley's article to an AI.
It is also not propaganda because *I* say so. It is propaganda by objective standards used to distinguish propaganda masquerading as science from science.
Your AI is of course right that long ago there were biases against women, and not just in academia (a tribute to the fact that, often, though not always and rarely perfectly, left to their own devices, AI's are pretty good at summarizing large literatures and large bodies of evidence).
But Riley's article was not a review of biases against women in 1840 or 1920 or 1970. No it wasn't. Long ago biases against women does nothing to vindicate Riley's article that claims that there are *currently* biases against women as of the date it was written. This would be like accusing Harvard of admissions biased against Jews in 2020 because it had quotas limiting Jews up till about 1970 (well, not counting the whole Fair Admissions thing, which revealed massive discrimination against White and Asian students, which clearly included Jews -- the type of thing much of academia was in denial about for decades, and said denial being a great example of how extremist dogmas, including but not restricted to social justice dogmas, rot the mind, but I digress) .
If you want to argue the standards we articulated are unjustified? Go for it.
"No, Lee, misrepresenting results and facts to advance a political/politicized conclusion is perfectly fine and has no resemblance to propaganda." Trump will enjoy watching such an attempt to refute the standards we articulated.
"No, Lee, in science, it is perfectly fine and not anything at all like propaganda to systematically ignore evidence that contradicts a narrative advancing a political/politicized conclusion."
But unless you go down that route, Riley's paper is propaganda by objective standards that anyone can see for themselves.
You won't be getting an invite to the next party...I mean professional...conference with articles like this! Of course, the majority will be thankful for your kicking over the ant hill to reveal the dung beneath the surface!
There's a sinister irony in late-stage capitalism being hyped by capitalist funded Jacobins on the public fisc agitating for the revolution. Somewhere out there Joseph Schumpeter is having a laugh.
Often the difference is "when the grant runs out do you go away?" Also, you can fire permanent professors, so not quite as I understand tenure positions to work in the USA.
Christian Smith described the crusading sociologist in his excellent book, "The Sacred Project Of American Sociology":
"American sociology’s sacred project is a secular salvation story developed out of the modern traditions of Enlightenment, liberalism, Marxism, reformist progressivism, pragmatism, therapeutic culture, sexual liberation, civil rights, feminism, and so on.
...sociology’s sacred, spiritual project parallels that of (especially Protestant) Christianity in its structure of beliefs, interests, and expectations. It would not be wrong to say that sociology’s project represents essentially a secularized version of the Christian gospel and worldview. Both are teleological, seeing history as going somewhere of ultimate importance. Both look toward an eventual dramatic transformation of the world in a way that is also importantly linked to smaller transformations in the lives of converted believers here and now. Both view the basic problem as a kind of bondage to some form of “evil,” from which humans need to be set free....
Last but not least, both are committed to spreading “good news,” as they see it, among those who are lost in darkness...."
Berkeley sociologists (like so many profs at our most upscale institutions) are a moral priesthood disguised as scholars and are not pursuing truth and facts but are trying to battle evil and save souls. They are moral entrepreneurs in the American lineage, tent preachers and televangelists for our progressive aristocracy and their children, the 700 Club produced by NPR. There's no point debating them because priests don't debate their sacred beliefs. Mainline Protestantism died but was reborn in Humanities academia, where all our newest moral shepherds and aspiring prophets reside. It seems like we will never be rid of meddlesome priests, they come in all guises and iterations, from shaman to diviner to sociologist.
Here's hoping you get some solace from this, even though its relegated to footnote 3:
"This footnote is my attempt to pre-bunk comments dunking on sociology as “nothing but” propaganda. That goes way too far. There is some excellent social science being conducted by sociologists."
While on the topic ... if the inspiration moves you, you have a standing invitation to do a guest post on pretty much anything you like.
2. Holy sh*t, its way higher than I thought, at least if you make some minimal assumptions about raises over the last 10 years (being that number is from 2017).
I mean, cost of living is high in that area, but ... for what he's done? JFC.
Oh, and while closing tabs, I discovered that I had Riley's propaganda paper on sex bias still open. Before closing it, and upon further review, I discovered that the first three authors (lion's share of the responsibility for the paper) and about half or more of the other authors, are at Berkeley.
It would be great if all those Nobel Prize recipients did something to prevent so many of their colleagues from engaging in the type of propaganda masquerading as scholarship that Berkeley's activist wing is known for.
Bonus: Published in "Neuron" -- emblematic of the fact that the political corruption is deep and wide, rather than restricted to "studies" or social science departments, faculty, or journals. Of course one paper does not demonstrate this -- but, then, I both publish and post about this all the time -- so it is way more than one paper.
To be sure, though, I am NOT claiming that it is any better at Rutgers. I avoid wooden stake essays (those that attempt to drive a stake through the heart of the vampires sucking the blood out of the validity and credibilty of the sociial sciences through everything from bad methods to semi-sophisticated propaganda) targeting my colleagues in psychology here. The interpersonal friction is not worth it. And I know enough folks in other social science departments that I would probably be very reluctant to do one on their work, either.
Anyway, to make it easy to find that stuff, I think I will add a new section to Unsafe Science: Wooden Stake Essays, those that debunk some piece of propaganda masquerading as serious science. Coming soon!
Ok, that is not a removable sin. But ... heh. Your comments miss the point. Berkeley is a well-known hotbed for leftist activism masquerading as scholarship. This is not mutually exclusive with them also having some excellent scholars.
But there are no Nobel Prizes in Sociology, or any of the social sciences, except Econ (which is both the least politically skewed of the social sciences and probably the least distorted in its scholarship, which is probably not a coincidence).
Excluding the Peace prize, the rest are in the natural/life sciences. I have no reason to think the natural/life sciences at Berkeley produce propaganda scholarship, but, then I do not know those literatures like I do the social science lit. Regardless, and even though I am not deleting the comment, the natural/life sciences were not the topic of the post...
It's not clear what is propaganda about the linked article. Perhaps in the interest of academic freedom other Berkeley researchers are OK with it or actually agree with it.
It is a long and complex article almost 10 years old so the research behind it older. Perhaps DEI efforts over the last decade have reduced some of the inequalities? Another question is if a faculty appointment at Berkeley is now a black mark in some circles? Which circles? Sounds like a FauxNews talking point driven more by politics than objectivity.
According to the AI, repository of all human knowledge:
Yes, women were clearly discriminated against in STEM historically.
Today, outright exclusion is rare in most Western institutions.
Remaining disparities are driven more by:
Field preferences
Attrition
Work-life constraints
Cultural factors
Accumulated small disadvantages
Evidence for systematic, universal anti-female bias in modern STEM hiring is weak and highly field-dependent.
That's what the Ai says. One more point: anyone in academics more than 15 mins is aware of sexual harassment ending the careers of female researchers..
You are missing the point. It is not that "Anything the AI says is right so therefore we can uncritically rely on AI's to do a great job evaluating, interpreting or summarizing stuff." Also, no AI was used in this essay, at all. In the prior article, however, the point was also not "Anything the AI says is right so therefore we can uncritically rely on AI's to do a great job evaluating, interpreting or summarizing stuff."
No.
The point was that, in fact, the AI (Claude) did an excellent job of evaluating whether the microaggression review paper submitted to it suffered from the same flaws as indicated in my earlier critique of microaggression research. This is by *objective standards that anyone can see for themselves.*
1. One of my criteria was that microaggression scholarship routinely interprets correlational research as causal. The illegitimacy of doing so is at the level of Undergrad Intro Stats, as I described here:
https://unsafescience.substack.com/p/peer-review-of-microaggression-scholarship
2. So, when Claude evaluated the article, did it *correctly* identify the article making the same illegitimate claims? Yes, indeed. It was not correct "because Claude said so"; It was correct because it was objectively correct, as anyone can see for themselves by reading those articles, which are linked and documented in the post.
3. But the present article involves no AI. So, what makes an article propaganda masquerading as science? It is definitely not "the researchers believe what they wrote" or "others might agree with them." No, those are not objective, scientific standards. By that standard, Trump won the 2020 election because he "believes" he did.
We have articulated a priori standards for distinguishing propaganda from science here:
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/14757257231195347
In brief:
Test 0: Does the study vindicate a political narrative?
Meeting this standard is necessary (because it can't be political propaganda unless it is ... political) but it is not sufficient (because what the study claims may be valid).
Test 1: Does it misrepresent or misinterpret results, either their own or others'?
Riley's article clearly meets this standard, by citing an article that found nonexistent biases against women in hiring as evidence of biases against women in hiring.
Test 2: Did they systematically ignore contradictory evidence?
Riley's article clearly meets this standard, by citing only articles providing evidence of biases against women and ignoring the vast lit showing otherwise.
Test 3: Did they leap to conclusions based on weak data?
Riley's article did this as well, treating "implicit bias" as if claims that were common 20 years ago can be taken at face value, even though nearly all of them have been relentlessly walked back. However, I did not address this in the essay, so even though this is also the kind of thing anyone can see for themselves, I am content to put it aside for now.
Riley's article is propaganda because it: 1. Advanced a left-affirming conclusion ("oh look how oppressed women in academia are"); 2. Is based on unjustified misrepresentations and interpretations of the evidence they cited; and 3. Their citations were systematically biased in favor of bias and ignored contradictory evidence.
It is not biased because some AI says so. In fact, we never submitted Riley's article to an AI.
It is also not propaganda because *I* say so. It is propaganda by objective standards used to distinguish propaganda masquerading as science from science.
Your AI is of course right that long ago there were biases against women, and not just in academia (a tribute to the fact that, often, though not always and rarely perfectly, left to their own devices, AI's are pretty good at summarizing large literatures and large bodies of evidence).
But Riley's article was not a review of biases against women in 1840 or 1920 or 1970. No it wasn't. Long ago biases against women does nothing to vindicate Riley's article that claims that there are *currently* biases against women as of the date it was written. This would be like accusing Harvard of admissions biased against Jews in 2020 because it had quotas limiting Jews up till about 1970 (well, not counting the whole Fair Admissions thing, which revealed massive discrimination against White and Asian students, which clearly included Jews -- the type of thing much of academia was in denial about for decades, and said denial being a great example of how extremist dogmas, including but not restricted to social justice dogmas, rot the mind, but I digress) .
If you want to argue the standards we articulated are unjustified? Go for it.
"No, Lee, misrepresenting results and facts to advance a political/politicized conclusion is perfectly fine and has no resemblance to propaganda." Trump will enjoy watching such an attempt to refute the standards we articulated.
"No, Lee, in science, it is perfectly fine and not anything at all like propaganda to systematically ignore evidence that contradicts a narrative advancing a political/politicized conclusion."
But unless you go down that route, Riley's paper is propaganda by objective standards that anyone can see for themselves.
You won't be getting an invite to the next party...I mean professional...conference with articles like this! Of course, the majority will be thankful for your kicking over the ant hill to reveal the dung beneath the surface!
There's a sinister irony in late-stage capitalism being hyped by capitalist funded Jacobins on the public fisc agitating for the revolution. Somewhere out there Joseph Schumpeter is having a laugh.
The Danish Professorship ranks are complicated. Overview here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_ranks_in_Denmark
Often the difference is "when the grant runs out do you go away?" Also, you can fire permanent professors, so not quite as I understand tenure positions to work in the USA.
Christian Smith described the crusading sociologist in his excellent book, "The Sacred Project Of American Sociology":
"American sociology’s sacred project is a secular salvation story developed out of the modern traditions of Enlightenment, liberalism, Marxism, reformist progressivism, pragmatism, therapeutic culture, sexual liberation, civil rights, feminism, and so on.
...sociology’s sacred, spiritual project parallels that of (especially Protestant) Christianity in its structure of beliefs, interests, and expectations. It would not be wrong to say that sociology’s project represents essentially a secularized version of the Christian gospel and worldview. Both are teleological, seeing history as going somewhere of ultimate importance. Both look toward an eventual dramatic transformation of the world in a way that is also importantly linked to smaller transformations in the lives of converted believers here and now. Both view the basic problem as a kind of bondage to some form of “evil,” from which humans need to be set free....
Last but not least, both are committed to spreading “good news,” as they see it, among those who are lost in darkness...."
Berkeley sociologists (like so many profs at our most upscale institutions) are a moral priesthood disguised as scholars and are not pursuing truth and facts but are trying to battle evil and save souls. They are moral entrepreneurs in the American lineage, tent preachers and televangelists for our progressive aristocracy and their children, the 700 Club produced by NPR. There's no point debating them because priests don't debate their sacred beliefs. Mainline Protestantism died but was reborn in Humanities academia, where all our newest moral shepherds and aspiring prophets reside. It seems like we will never be rid of meddlesome priests, they come in all guises and iterations, from shaman to diviner to sociologist.
"As it turns out, he is a sociologist. And, I should have guessed." Sigh. Facepalm.
Here's hoping you get some solace from this, even though its relegated to footnote 3:
"This footnote is my attempt to pre-bunk comments dunking on sociology as “nothing but” propaganda. That goes way too far. There is some excellent social science being conducted by sociologists."
While on the topic ... if the inspiration moves you, you have a standing invitation to do a guest post on pretty much anything you like.
https://ucannualwage.ucop.edu/wage/ more recent: 197
https://govsalaries.com/riley-dylan-14223465
1. Thanks!
2. Holy sh*t, its way higher than I thought, at least if you make some minimal assumptions about raises over the last 10 years (being that number is from 2017).
I mean, cost of living is high in that area, but ... for what he's done? JFC.
Latest: https://govsalaries.com/dylan-riley-205594323
Berkeley has 107 Nobel Laureates and Rutgers has 3.
Reminder: Comments irrelevant to the post will be taken down. But I'll bite. How is that relevant?
the part that says "wait for it... Berkeley."
Oh, and while closing tabs, I discovered that I had Riley's propaganda paper on sex bias still open. Before closing it, and upon further review, I discovered that the first three authors (lion's share of the responsibility for the paper) and about half or more of the other authors, are at Berkeley.
https://www.cell.com/action/showPdf?pii=S0896-6273%2821%2900417-7
It would be great if all those Nobel Prize recipients did something to prevent so many of their colleagues from engaging in the type of propaganda masquerading as scholarship that Berkeley's activist wing is known for.
Bonus: Published in "Neuron" -- emblematic of the fact that the political corruption is deep and wide, rather than restricted to "studies" or social science departments, faculty, or journals. Of course one paper does not demonstrate this -- but, then, I both publish and post about this all the time -- so it is way more than one paper.
To be sure, though, I am NOT claiming that it is any better at Rutgers. I avoid wooden stake essays (those that attempt to drive a stake through the heart of the vampires sucking the blood out of the validity and credibilty of the sociial sciences through everything from bad methods to semi-sophisticated propaganda) targeting my colleagues in psychology here. The interpersonal friction is not worth it. And I know enough folks in other social science departments that I would probably be very reluctant to do one on their work, either.
Anyway, to make it easy to find that stuff, I think I will add a new section to Unsafe Science: Wooden Stake Essays, those that debunk some piece of propaganda masquerading as serious science. Coming soon!
Ok, that is not a removable sin. But ... heh. Your comments miss the point. Berkeley is a well-known hotbed for leftist activism masquerading as scholarship. This is not mutually exclusive with them also having some excellent scholars.
But there are no Nobel Prizes in Sociology, or any of the social sciences, except Econ (which is both the least politically skewed of the social sciences and probably the least distorted in its scholarship, which is probably not a coincidence).
Excluding the Peace prize, the rest are in the natural/life sciences. I have no reason to think the natural/life sciences at Berkeley produce propaganda scholarship, but, then I do not know those literatures like I do the social science lit. Regardless, and even though I am not deleting the comment, the natural/life sciences were not the topic of the post...
No, but here are two options:
1. Find someone you know who writes publicly and well. Ask them.
2. Ask an AI to help with your writing. They can be very helpful.
Good luck.