It's hard to make heads or tails out of the results without seeing the data.
For example, Fig. 2b shows "16% difference" in the fraction of students who thought the admissions officer should issue a public apology. Is that 58-42? Or 20-4? The difference is important.
For example, Fig. 2a shows a "% difference b/t treatment and control" of 35 for (e.g.) "how many microaggressions did the applicant experience?". Does that mean that on average people in the treatment group conjured 35% more microaggressions? Or that 35% more people conjured microaggressions? I presume it's the former because I see "t-test" in the footnote. But is the difference because more people were "seeing" microaggressions or was it that the ones who did "see" microaggressions saw more?
That they had written articles about the study but then canceled them just before publication?
Or that they had made some commitment to publish articles about it but decided not to?
Or that there was an expectation that they would publish articles about them because they had historically published articles about "similar" studies (i.e., similar in the sense of "hard-hitting, uncomfortable research on hot-button issues")?
“The New York Times, which has cited NCRI’s work in nearly 20 previous articles, suddenly demanded that this particular research undergo peer review”. Why wouldn’t you welcome peer review to bolster this study and your argument?
"The New York Times, which has cited NCRI’s work in nearly 20 previous articles, suddenly demanded that this particular research undergo peer review—a requirement that had never been imposed on the institute’s earlier findings, even on similarly sensitive topics like extremism or online hate. At Bloomberg, the story was quashed outright by an editor known for public support of DEI initiatives."
Did we get a link as to why this was shelved? The explanation from the Bloomberg editor, or the peer review? I'd be curious about their reasoning and if it's well-meaning-yet-flawed, or full of shite.
There’s a feature that allows you to listen to the article. Click on the link below. When the article comes up, to listen, click on this symbol ⧁, right above the title.
Although the goals of DEI are laudable, the way it is practiced and implemented simply doesn’t work. It actually amplifies division and hostility between groups. In many US states, diversity is increasing to the point where DEI is no longer necessary. I’m in Texas, and we would have a diverse group of students without even having to try.
As to trust in Bloomberg and NYT, they lost my trust years ago. And they keep doing things to be sure I don't regret my decision to mentally label them as cheap propaganda.
I think maybe thou dost protest a wee bit too much. The NCRI study wasn't withdrawn. It was published. And 2 out of how many major outlets held it up? And only one of those actually spiked it. And for the life of me I do not see why you would oppose the NYT's referral for peer review. If it comes back from peer review with solid acceptance, that makes the study arguments and conclusions even stronger. Isn't that the desired result? BTW, major new media outlets spike or turn down research stories all the time. As for the research itself, it seems like it's based on some big assumptions regarding the meaning of the outcomes. Of course the DEI training is likely to increase study subject sensitivity to claims of racism. That's the reason for DEI. But we don't live under Jim Crow racism anymore. We can debate the magnitude of racism in America, but insofar as it exists, it is going to exist in subtle forms, subject to much interpretation. I am a DEI skeptic. Personally I think DEI and its big spokespersons (Kendi et al) have got it all wrong. I am just not sure this study and the NYT's treatment of it amount to quite the big deal you seem to think they do. Still, I welcome this info. If it isn't the barrage that blows a whole in DEI's defenses, it's still a worthy contribution to the debate.
Yes, I agree. The study seems to show that DEI training does EXACTLY what it's supposed to do, ie "increases awareness" of various inequities and manifestations of opression and potential prejudice at work. The assumption is that those inequities exist and people don't condemn them because they consider them normal and acceptable. I'd assume this effect (sensitising to potential discrimination) is an explicit aim of Kendi etc. One can (and imo should) argue with the aim, of course.
Although it was both NYT and Bloomberg, I actually mostly agree with your analysis (relevant side note: I often post guest posts without endorsing every claim in them). In this case, I am not at all sure that it is fair to characterize either NYT or Bloomberg as "suppressing" the story.
I assume DEI persists so stubbornly—at least in corporate spaces—because companies keep convincing themselves (with ample encouragement from consultants conveniently armed with pricey diversity programs) that there's a compelling "business case" for diversity. Yet, the evidence shows, at best, a tepid link between demographic diversity and performance. Worse, these justifications are not only scientifically questionable but also morally fraught—and likely counterproductive (just like the programs themselves, as you so aptly demonstrate with this work).
Heh. So you have no AUTHENTIC scientific, ANTI-RACIST expertise at all. Hey, its (supposedly) a free country (even though it's the granddaddy of all white-supremacist-based nation-states on the globe). I agree --- "That's why used car dealers think they know vax's cause autism." Like you, they believe they know what anti-racism is, and how it's related to science. I have absolutely no idea why you apparently believe that I want to know more about you (to the extent and/or degree that I would search). If you knew anything at all about anti-racism, and how it's related to the scientific method --- we wouldn't even be having this conversation. Indeed, the likes of you have absolutely nothing to teach me --- relative to so-called "instructions" concerning authentic research, as it relates to ANTI-RACISM (nothing at all) --- zilch.
There’s a feature that allows you to listen to the article. Click on the link below. When the article comes up, to listen, click on this symbol ⧁, right above the title.
Maybe. We have been in touch with a reporter at The Times of London. IDK if they *will* run a story on it, but we will see. If they do, and if I remember, I will come back here with the link.
You're in great company; Kendi also called it pseudo-science. Please do post your scientific bona fides here, say, your vita, or google scholar page, so everyone can judge for themselves your own scientific expertise. Else you are just ax-grinding.
As I pointed out, it's NOT necessary to be a scientist to recognize BOGUS, so-called research. I'd also like to see your credentials, or else YOU are just ax-grinding.
Heh. So you have no scientific expertise at all. Hey, its a free country! That's why used car dealers think they know vax's cause autism. Like you, they believe they know science.
You can find out more about me very easily. In fact, if you knew anything at all about how science worked, it would be so easy, I would not have to provide instructions.
Heh. So you have no AUTHENTIC scientific, ANTI-RACIST expertise at all. Hey, its (supposedly) a free country (even though it's the granddaddy of all white-supremacist-based nation-states on the globe). I agree --- "That's why used car dealers think they know vax's cause autism." Like you, they believe they know what anti-racism is, and how it's related to science. I have absolutely no idea why you apparently believe that I want to know more about you (to the extent and/or degree that I would search). If you knew anything at all about anti-racism, and how it's related to the scientific method --- we wouldn't even be having this conversation. Indeed, the likes of you have absolutely nothing to teach me --- relative to so-called "instructions" concerning authentic research, as it relates to ANTI-RACISM (nothing at all) --- zilch.
Dr Jussim, your paper seems to refer to figures that are out of order or aren’t in the paper. Perhaps the Appendix might be from a previous version of the paper?
Thanks for flagging this, I sincerely appreciate it. We've since found several other minor errors or omissions (nothing that changes the overall patterns, but I would have preferred NCRI to have waited to be sure it was more polished, but so be it) and will upload an improved report over the next week or two.
It's hard to make heads or tails out of the results without seeing the data.
For example, Fig. 2b shows "16% difference" in the fraction of students who thought the admissions officer should issue a public apology. Is that 58-42? Or 20-4? The difference is important.
For example, Fig. 2a shows a "% difference b/t treatment and control" of 35 for (e.g.) "how many microaggressions did the applicant experience?". Does that mean that on average people in the treatment group conjured 35% more microaggressions? Or that 35% more people conjured microaggressions? I presume it's the former because I see "t-test" in the footnote. But is the difference because more people were "seeing" microaggressions or was it that the ones who did "see" microaggressions saw more?
Are the data available anywhere?
What does "editorial reversals" mean?
That they had written articles about the study but then canceled them just before publication?
Or that they had made some commitment to publish articles about it but decided not to?
Or that there was an expectation that they would publish articles about them because they had historically published articles about "similar" studies (i.e., similar in the sense of "hard-hitting, uncomfortable research on hot-button issues")?
“The New York Times, which has cited NCRI’s work in nearly 20 previous articles, suddenly demanded that this particular research undergo peer review”. Why wouldn’t you welcome peer review to bolster this study and your argument?
"The New York Times, which has cited NCRI’s work in nearly 20 previous articles, suddenly demanded that this particular research undergo peer review—a requirement that had never been imposed on the institute’s earlier findings, even on similarly sensitive topics like extremism or online hate. At Bloomberg, the story was quashed outright by an editor known for public support of DEI initiatives."
Did we get a link as to why this was shelved? The explanation from the Bloomberg editor, or the peer review? I'd be curious about their reasoning and if it's well-meaning-yet-flawed, or full of shite.
I did a deep dive into the study itself, including the supplemental material: https://borncurious.blog/p/the-study-on-dei-causing-hostile
Like a lot of psych studies, there are multiple issues. Of course, this is preaching to the choir at Unsafe Science.
There’s a feature that allows you to listen to the article. Click on the link below. When the article comes up, to listen, click on this symbol ⧁, right above the title.
https://medium.com/@howardjeagle/research-b551399e889a
Although the goals of DEI are laudable, the way it is practiced and implemented simply doesn’t work. It actually amplifies division and hostility between groups. In many US states, diversity is increasing to the point where DEI is no longer necessary. I’m in Texas, and we would have a diverse group of students without even having to try.
Thank you for writing this.
As to trust in Bloomberg and NYT, they lost my trust years ago. And they keep doing things to be sure I don't regret my decision to mentally label them as cheap propaganda.
I linked to this excellent post in a post of my own which goes some way to explaining why the study was ignored.
https://www.lorenzofromoz.net/p/modelling-coordination-in-an-activist
I think maybe thou dost protest a wee bit too much. The NCRI study wasn't withdrawn. It was published. And 2 out of how many major outlets held it up? And only one of those actually spiked it. And for the life of me I do not see why you would oppose the NYT's referral for peer review. If it comes back from peer review with solid acceptance, that makes the study arguments and conclusions even stronger. Isn't that the desired result? BTW, major new media outlets spike or turn down research stories all the time. As for the research itself, it seems like it's based on some big assumptions regarding the meaning of the outcomes. Of course the DEI training is likely to increase study subject sensitivity to claims of racism. That's the reason for DEI. But we don't live under Jim Crow racism anymore. We can debate the magnitude of racism in America, but insofar as it exists, it is going to exist in subtle forms, subject to much interpretation. I am a DEI skeptic. Personally I think DEI and its big spokespersons (Kendi et al) have got it all wrong. I am just not sure this study and the NYT's treatment of it amount to quite the big deal you seem to think they do. Still, I welcome this info. If it isn't the barrage that blows a whole in DEI's defenses, it's still a worthy contribution to the debate.
Yes, I agree. The study seems to show that DEI training does EXACTLY what it's supposed to do, ie "increases awareness" of various inequities and manifestations of opression and potential prejudice at work. The assumption is that those inequities exist and people don't condemn them because they consider them normal and acceptable. I'd assume this effect (sensitising to potential discrimination) is an explicit aim of Kendi etc. One can (and imo should) argue with the aim, of course.
Although it was both NYT and Bloomberg, I actually mostly agree with your analysis (relevant side note: I often post guest posts without endorsing every claim in them). In this case, I am not at all sure that it is fair to characterize either NYT or Bloomberg as "suppressing" the story.
And thanks for the compliments on the studies!
I assume DEI persists so stubbornly—at least in corporate spaces—because companies keep convincing themselves (with ample encouragement from consultants conveniently armed with pricey diversity programs) that there's a compelling "business case" for diversity. Yet, the evidence shows, at best, a tepid link between demographic diversity and performance. Worse, these justifications are not only scientifically questionable but also morally fraught—and likely counterproductive (just like the programs themselves, as you so aptly demonstrate with this work).
Eric Hoffman, "All causes start as a movement, become a business, and then degenerate into a racket". In this case a multi-billion-dollar industry
Heh. So you have no AUTHENTIC scientific, ANTI-RACIST expertise at all. Hey, its (supposedly) a free country (even though it's the granddaddy of all white-supremacist-based nation-states on the globe). I agree --- "That's why used car dealers think they know vax's cause autism." Like you, they believe they know what anti-racism is, and how it's related to science. I have absolutely no idea why you apparently believe that I want to know more about you (to the extent and/or degree that I would search). If you knew anything at all about anti-racism, and how it's related to the scientific method --- we wouldn't even be having this conversation. Indeed, the likes of you have absolutely nothing to teach me --- relative to so-called "instructions" concerning authentic research, as it relates to ANTI-RACISM (nothing at all) --- zilch.
Dear Dr. Jussim & All,
I have something to add:
There’s a feature that allows you to listen to the article. Click on the link below. When the article comes up, to listen, click on this symbol ⧁, right above the title.
https://medium.com/@howardjeagle/research-b551399e889a
When something does not get published in the NYT the whole European msm will ignore it. As news is only true when the NYT writes about it.
Maybe. We have been in touch with a reporter at The Times of London. IDK if they *will* run a story on it, but we will see. If they do, and if I remember, I will come back here with the link.
Here it is:
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/society/article/diversity-training-blamed-for-false-claims-of-racism-90bb97qnb
Did a damn good job, too.
And we should applaud them for declining to publish pseudo "science."
troll blocked
You're in great company; Kendi also called it pseudo-science. Please do post your scientific bona fides here, say, your vita, or google scholar page, so everyone can judge for themselves your own scientific expertise. Else you are just ax-grinding.
As I pointed out, it's NOT necessary to be a scientist to recognize BOGUS, so-called research. I'd also like to see your credentials, or else YOU are just ax-grinding.
https://medium.com/@howardjeagle
https://www.minorityreporter.net/search?q=Howard+REagle
https://www.minorityreporter.net/search?q=Howard+REagle&type=blogs&page=2
https://www.minorityreporter.net/search?q=Howard+REagle&type=blogs&page=3
https://www.minorityreporter.net/search?q=Howard+REagle&type=blogs&page=4
https://www.minorityreporter.net/search?q=Howard+REagle&type=blogs&page=5
https://www.minorityreporter.net/search?q=Howard+REagle&type=blogs&page=6
Heh. So you have no scientific expertise at all. Hey, its a free country! That's why used car dealers think they know vax's cause autism. Like you, they believe they know science.
You can find out more about me very easily. In fact, if you knew anything at all about how science worked, it would be so easy, I would not have to provide instructions.
Heh. So you have no AUTHENTIC scientific, ANTI-RACIST expertise at all. Hey, its (supposedly) a free country (even though it's the granddaddy of all white-supremacist-based nation-states on the globe). I agree --- "That's why used car dealers think they know vax's cause autism." Like you, they believe they know what anti-racism is, and how it's related to science. I have absolutely no idea why you apparently believe that I want to know more about you (to the extent and/or degree that I would search). If you knew anything at all about anti-racism, and how it's related to the scientific method --- we wouldn't even be having this conversation. Indeed, the likes of you have absolutely nothing to teach me --- relative to so-called "instructions" concerning authentic research, as it relates to ANTI-RACISM (nothing at all) --- zilch.
Dr Jussim, your paper seems to refer to figures that are out of order or aren’t in the paper. Perhaps the Appendix might be from a previous version of the paper?
https://x.com/CuroRelics/status/1861450054525194325
Thanks for flagging this, I sincerely appreciate it. We've since found several other minor errors or omissions (nothing that changes the overall patterns, but I would have preferred NCRI to have waited to be sure it was more polished, but so be it) and will upload an improved report over the next week or two.