Politics LGTBQIA+ community

[Ratts of Tobruk]

This is an excerpt of the disciplinary meeting for the teacher who dared play a five minute clip of Jordan Peterson for her class at Wilfrid Laurier University.

If you ever wanted an illustration of what an authoritarian regime looks like as it gains traction, look no further.

• She doesn't sound like a good teacher, if she thinks the options are to present something neutrally or else say 'everything he says is BS' - there are infinite options in between.
  
• "In a University all perspectives are valid" is also an incorrect statement.
  
• Her ideology does seem very strong, in terms of her referencing that it's not her job to shield people. Her job is, obviously, to educate. Not to bring in ideas simple because they are happening "out there" from a "real person". It was a grammar class.
• Is the full audio available?

It seems to me that environment facilitates ideas such as 'unconscious bias' training (or re-training, to be more accurate). This is pseudo-science and dangerous, but is becoming more commonplace in certain circles.

Can you be clearer here? What is a pseudo-science? 'Unconscious bias' is fairly well observed and tested (read Malcolm Gladwell's Blink for an easy-to-read explanation of these tests). Trying to 'un-train' people is therefore an interesting idea, and it makes more sense to stop training children in the first instance (i.e. reducing the heavy signalling of pink = girl and blue = boy, which sounds trivial except that sort of imagery easily feeds into the idea that women do X jobs and men do Y jobs).

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

Related to that are examples like the one given above with Bill C-16 in Canada, where the political push has gone too far IMO. The Charter of Human Rights in Ontario (or equivalently named document) arguably creates a compelled speech requirement on people to use the desired pronouns of a transgender person. Now, only a complete campaigner would deliberately mis-gender someone, but it's not the issue at all. The issue is that there's a massive, massive difference between coercing/forcing someone to say something and banning someone from saying something. As far as I can tell, the former has never been done in a modern western society until now.

Except it isn't being done 'now'. It's purely a hypothetical which won't happen. The idea that someone could say that use of gendered language is discriminatory in a free speech context is fantasy. Peterson's hypothetical of someone taking offence and taking him to court is preposterous as it has no need for the language to relate to gender neutral pronouns. If I am a man and someone calls me a woman I could do the same thing. There's no way a court finds that to be the interpretation.

The idea behind their Human Rights charter is (via Wiki) to make "it illegal to deny services, employment, accommodation and similar benefits to individuals based on their gender identity or gender expression within a federal regulated industry. A person who denies benefits because of the gender identity or gender expression of another person could be liable to provide monetary reimbursement. This prohibition would only apply to matters within federal jurisdiction."

 

[ShanDog]

• She doesn't sound like a good teacher, if she thinks the options are to present something neutrally or else say 'everything he says is BS' - there are infinite options in between.

• "In a University all perspectives are valid" is also an incorrect statement.

• Her ideology does seem very strong, in terms of her referencing that it's not her job to shield people. Her job is, obviously, to educate. Not to bring in ideas simple because they are happening "out there" from a "real person". It was a grammar class.

• Is the full audio available?

You are wrong about most of this. Teachers are meant to be neutral - I am literally in a masters class about teaching right now, and that was part of the topic of today's class. The context of "all perspectives are valid" is correct - a university is there to interrogate ideas and be exposed to new things. The culture and grammar class (i believe) is exactly the sort of class these things are discussed in. Too bad, so sad if someone finds something confronting. Everything learned is associated with some sort of discomfort.

The university has rightly apologised. It was terribly handled and they are wrong.

Can you be clearer here? What is a pseudo-science? 'Unconscious bias' is fairly well observed and tested (read Malcolm Gladwell's Blink for an easy-to-read explanation of these tests). Trying to 'un-train' people is therefore an interesting idea, and it makes more sense to stop training children in the first instance (i.e. reducing the heavy signalling of pink = girl and blue = boy, which sounds trivial except that sort of imagery easily feeds into the idea that women do X jobs and men do Y jobs).

The efficacy of the unconscious bias re-training is terrible and understudied in regards to long-term effects. There are studies out there discussing it, as well as many philosophical discussions against it.

Except it isn't being done 'now'. It's purely a hypothetical which won't happen. The idea that someone could say that use of gendered language is discriminatory in a free speech context is fantasy. Peterson's hypothetical of someone taking offence and taking him to court is preposterous as it has no need for the language to relate to gender neutral pronouns. If I am a man and someone calls me a woman I could do the same thing. There's no way a court finds that to be the interpretation.

The idea behind their Human Rights charter is (via Wiki) to make "it illegal to deny services, employment, accommodation and similar benefits to individuals based on their gender identity or gender expression within a federal regulated industry. A person who denies benefits because of the gender identity or gender expression of another person could be liable to provide monetary reimbursement. This prohibition would only apply to matters within federal jurisdiction."

What do you mean "It isn't being done now"? It is law now in Canada. The whole Laurier University hoo-ah was about a clip of Peterson discussing this stuff on TV prior to the law being introduced.

 

[Jpw22511]

Are you judging me, bigot?

lol coming from a nazi

 

[YEWNIT]

The physical act of sodomy repulses me.

Besides that I don’t have an issue with these people.

 

[King Brown]

Can you be clearer here? What is a pseudo-science? 'Unconscious bias' is fairly well observed and tested (read Malcolm Gladwell's Blink for an easy-to-read explanation of these tests).

The implicit association test is one of the psychological findings that badly fails replication. It cannot be replicated.

http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2017/01/psychologys-racism-measuring-tool-isnt-up-to-the-job.html

ShanDog is correct, it's been exposed as junk science.

 

[spinynorman]

Tedious people.

But good luck to them.

The physical act of sodomy repulses me.

Besides that I don’t have an issue with these people.

You just gonna keep going in the hope someone bites eventually?

 

[YEWNIT]

You just gonna keep going in the hope someone bites eventually?

Just calling it as I see it friend

Do you see sodomy as normal?

 

[ShanDog]

Just calling it as I see it friend

Do you see sodomy as normal?

Do you see flying through the air at 1000km/h in a metal tube as normal? What about being able to run 100m in less than 10 seconds? I mean, less than 1% of humans can do that, so it's categorically not normal. Does that disgust you?

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

The implicit association test is one of the psychological findings that badly fails replication. It cannot be replicated.

http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2017/01/psychologys-racism-measuring-tool-isnt-up-to-the-job.html

ShanDog is correct, it's been exposed as junk science.

That article criticises it as not being a good predictor of more important aspects in life - like how people are treated by a realtor. It does not say that the original test doesn't reveal how culturalised ideas can cause unconscious bias. Hence why the author can write that it "correlates far too weakly with any real-world outcomes to be used to predict individuals’ behavior — even the test’s creators have now admitted as such". i.e. The creators weren't saying it was going to be a big deal for predicting racism, just that it was indicative of an unconscious bias. The author of your article also claims Malcolm Gladwell says it was a big deal, but Gladwell is telling a very different story about snap judgements.

You are wrong about most of this. Teachers are meant to be neutral - I am literally in a masters class about teaching right now, and that was part of the topic of today's class.

No, I am not wrong. And if you are going to be a teacher you need to learn to not tell people they are wrong when you have no evidence for it. The commonly understood problem with the idea of being neutral is that everyone has their biases. The second problem is presenting ideological material neutrally, is not neutral. You are letting the ideology go out uncommented. Within whatever discussion occurs after that point, there will inevitably be a world of non-neutral things said. That is why you are also wrong to say I was wrong about:

The context of "all perspectives are valid" is correct - a university is there to interrogate ideas and be exposed to new things.

It is very hard to assess anyone's skill sets if you think "all perspectives are valid". You cannot be wrong in that scenario. Everyone passes, because their perspective is just as valid. This kind of hippy crap is step one on a many stepped pathway to learning how to analyse.

The culture and grammar class (i believe)

You believe? If it was a class about grammar as it interacts with culture there would be no issue. In that context it's hard to imagine many more relevant topics. I'm thinking it is far more likely that it was a grammar class.

is exactly the sort of class these things are discussed in. Too bad, so sad if someone finds something confronting. Everything learned is associated with some sort of discomfort.

The university has rightly apologised. It was terribly handled and they are wrong.

So you've gone from saying a teacher has to be neutral to saying "Too bad, so sad if someone finds something confronting"?

The efficacy of the unconscious bias re-training is terrible and understudied in regards to long-term effects. There are studies out there discussing it, as well as many philosophical discussions against it.

Are you attempting to pretend that this response is an academic one? I don't think you know what you're talking about.

What do you mean "It isn't being done now"? It is law now in Canada. The whole Laurier University hoo-ah was about a clip of Peterson discussing this stuff on TV prior to the law being introduced.

I mean exactly what I said. Just because some people who believe the hype about "PC culture" have told you it is happening doesn't mean it is happening. Hence the complete lack of evidence of it happening.

 

[YEWNIT]

D

Do you see flying through the air at 1000km/h in a metal tube as normal? What about being able to run 100m in less than 10 seconds? I mean, less than 1% of humans can do that, so it's categorically not normal. Does that disgust you?

Does the idea/image of one man inserting his penis into another mans anus sound anywhere comparable to flying or running fast. It’s physically obscene and repugnant too me on so many levels.

But as I have said, I do not hate the people committing these acts.

 

[King Brown]

That article criticises it as not being a good predictor of more important aspects in life - like how people are treated by a realtor. It does not say that the original test doesn't reveal how culturalised ideas can cause unconscious bias. Hence why the author can write that it "correlates far too weakly with any real-world outcomes to be used to predict individuals’ behavior — even the test’s creators have now admitted as such". i.e. The creators weren't saying it was going to be a big deal for predicting racism, just that it was indicative of an unconscious bias. The author of your article also claims Malcolm Gladwell says it was a big deal, but Gladwell is telling a very different story about snap judgements.

What part of “it doesn’t replicate” do you not understand?

Implicit prejudice research, which has been widely interpreted as showing the existence of pervasive racial prejudice, has never shown that, e.g., implicit association test scores supposedly reflecting prejudice (scores above 0) generally correspond to much discriminatory behavior (at least one study showed they correspond to egalitarian behavior). Or, put differently, some of the most famous and most influential effects in social psychology, especially effects obtained within the last 20 years, have been called into question by failed replication after failed replication, and by revelations of questionable methodological, statistical, and interpretive practices.​

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...st-published-social-psychology-findings-false

It is bogus science.

 

[ShanDog]

No, I am not wrong. And if you are going to be a teacher you need to learn to not tell people they are wrong when you have no evidence for it. The commonly understood problem with the idea of being neutral is that everyone has their biases. The second problem is presenting ideological material neutrally, is not neutral. You are letting the ideology go out uncommented. Within whatever discussion occurs after that point, there will inevitably be a world of non-neutral things said. That is why you are also wrong to say I was wrong about:

When was the last time you were at university, studied to be a teacher or had a job as a teacher? I'm doing it right now. There is more than one school of thought when it comes to teachers explaining their own beliefs and ideologies, but the bulk (in my experience) takes the position that teachers remain neutral, and only discuss their own beliefs if necessary for the discussion or directly asked after students have discussed it. There are numerous reasons why, but one of them is so that the students can feel free to openly discuss their beliefs without going against the teacher in front of everyone else, as well as fostering an inquiry model of learning rather than preaching to the students. So I'm pretty confident in my assessment of your opinion here: you're wrong, and I have evidence for it. Do you?

It is very hard to assess anyone's skill sets if you think "all perspectives are valid". You cannot be wrong in that scenario. Everyone passes, because their perspective is just as valid. This kind of hippy crap is step one on a many stepped pathway to learning how to analyse.

This has nothing to do with the conversation we are having or the classroom setting in a university. No skill sets are being analysed, but rather IDEAS are being discussed and debated. This is 100% in line with the role of university. Should I tear down the posters I saw today for a Marxism conference and 'The benefits of Socialism' seminar being advertised? I find those abhorrent, but I'm not going to have a tantrum and complain that I feel unsafe. Because adult. Because university.

You believe? If it was a class about grammar as it interacts with culture there would be no issue. In that context it's hard to imagine many more relevant topics. I'm thinking it is far more likely that it was a grammar class.

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada...ng-assistant-plays-clip-of-gender-debate.html

Shepherd said the lesson to her communications tutorial class was focusing on the complexities of grammar.

Shepherd said she was trying to demonstrate that the structure of a language can affect the society in which it is spoken in ways people might not anticipate. To illustrate her point, she said she mentioned that long-standing views on gender had probably been shaped by the gender-specific pronouns that are part of English’s fundamental grammatical structure.

Culture and grammar/language in a communications class.

So you've gone from saying a teacher has to be neutral to saying "Too bad, so sad if someone finds something confronting"?

A teacher being neutral about a topic and presenting all relevant material has nothing do with a student's feelings about the material. So I haven't gone from anything to anything. They are separate issues completely and I stand by both sentiments.

Are you attempting to pretend that this response is an academic one? I don't think you know what you're talking about.

Do you really want me to hit up the university library database and provide a literature review on the topic? Because I can't be bothered doing it again.

I mean exactly what I said. Just because some people who believe the hype about "PC culture" have told you it is happening doesn't mean it is happening. Hence the complete lack of evidence of it happening.

http://nationalpost.com/news/politi...-bill-c-16-and-gender-identity-discrimination

Good article about how C-16 was wrongly invoked by Wilfrid Laurier University staff members in the example we have been referencing, which makes it clear the changes aren't fully understood by everyone at the very least. Also note this paragraph:

The Ontario Human Rights Commission, which is separate from the tribunal and focuses on education, has a policy guideline saying that “refusing to refer to a person by their self-identified name and proper personal pronoun” could constitute gender-based harassment.

But the commission also says cases involving pronouns and free speech require a balancing act.

This is the issue at hand. It is only about gender pronouns in a notional way - the ACTUAL issue is the compelled speech that Bill C-16 is possibly forcing, i.e. exactly what I stated in the first post I made about this. It seems like a minority of people who think the Bill can be interpreted in this way, but we'll eventually find out when it's tested. If it does indeed compel speech, it's unprecedented in Western society as far as I understand it. This isn't a path any society should go down, and it's the reason some people take exception to it.

 

[ShanDog]

Does the idea/image of one man inserting his penis into another mans anus sound anywhere comparable to flying or running fast. It’s physically obscene and repugnant too me on so many levels.

You have a weak constitution then. Harden up.

But as I have said, I do not hate the people committing these acts.

Suuure you don't, because of course you have absolutely no issue but feel it necessary to repeatedly post about how you find the acting out of their sexuality "obscene and repugnant". You're a liar / in denial about how you feel about the people themselves, or you are a complete social hand grenade who doesn't realise how their posting makes them look.

If you're in a room full of people discussing gay rights and you stick your hand up to say 'I just want it to be known I find what they do disgusting. That's all', how does it not come across the way I just talked about? Because that's exactly what you did here.

 

[YEWNIT]

You have a weak constitution then. Harden up.

Suuure you don't, because of course you have absolutely no issue but feel it necessary to repeatedly post about how you find the acting out of their sexuality "obscene and repugnant". You're a liar / in denial about how you feel about the people themselves, or you are a complete social hand grenade who doesn't realise how their posting makes them look.

If you're in a room full of people discussing gay rights and you stick your hand up to say 'I just want it to be known I find what they do disgusting. That's all', how does it not come across the way I just talked about? Because that's exactly what you did here.

Brother you are wronnng. Wrrrong.

Simply stated i find the physical act of sodomy repellent, but I hold no opposition to gays on religious or any other ground...and I’m happy to say I voted yes.

But on biological measures alone, anyone not of the male homosexual community ought be physically offended by so much of a thought of the basic idea of a man putting his penis inside another mans anal orifice.

That part is simply and definitively irreconcilable.

 

[ShanDog]

But on biological measures alone, anyone not of the male homosexual community ought be physically offended by so much of a thought of the basic idea of a man putting his penis inside another mans anal orifice.

That part is simply and definitively irreconcilable.

Yes, let the hate flow through you.

 

[Leeda]

look treat it as something that not all of us know anything about or else that well not all of us want anything to do with.. and that
is okay..

trying to change things or else even trying to shovel s**t about what we know nothing about is also wrong.

damn this communication thing gets a little tiresome when some people just refuse to cooperate and/or drive everything
underground.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

What part of “it doesn’t replicate” do you not understand?

Implicit prejudice research, which has been widely interpreted as showing the existence of pervasive racial prejudice, has never shown that, e.g., implicit association test scores supposedly reflecting prejudice (scores above 0) generally correspond to much discriminatory behavior (at least one study showed they correspond to egalitarian behavior). Or, put differently, some of the most famous and most influential effects in social psychology, especially effects obtained within the last 20 years, have been called into question by failed replication after failed replication, and by revelations of questionable methodological, statistical, and interpretive practices.​

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...st-published-social-psychology-findings-false

It is bogus science.

You just repeated the same error. That comment is saying that getting a score of unconscious bias is not reflected in other behaviour. It is not saying that the test can't be replicated. You can go do the test yourself and you'll understand why it was clear that you were missing the point. The last sentence in your quote is surmising a bunch of examples, but you obviously know that given you chose what you would copy and paste.

When was the last time you were at university, studied to be a teacher or had a job as a teacher? I'm doing it right now. There is more than one school of thought when it comes to teachers explaining their own beliefs and ideologies, but the bulk (in my experience) takes the position that teachers remain neutral, and only discuss their own beliefs if necessary for the discussion or directly asked after students have discussed it.

So you acknowledge there isn't a single school of thought. What you are failing to grasp is that it would be impossible to teach something without a framework that comes with a bunch of decisions by the curriculum and/or the teacher. Most obviously, choosing which perspectives will be presented neutrally is not a neutral decision.

So I'm pretty confident in my assessment of your opinion here: you're wrong, and I have evidence for it. Do you?

If you have the evidence, you should've stated what it was. I am not wrong.

This has nothing to do with the conversation we are having or the classroom setting in a university. No skill sets are being analysed, but rather IDEAS are being discussed and debated. This is 100% in line with the role of university.

It absolutely related to the discussion. I don't know when the last time was that you went to University, but they have these things called assessments... Analysis goes hand in hand with "IDEAS...being discussed and debated" at a university. If you don't have the analysis then it may as well be a useless online debate where people call each other triggered snowflakes for having a debate at all.

Should I tear down the posters I saw today for a Marxism conference and 'The benefits of Socialism' seminar being advertised? I find those abhorrent, but I'm not going to have a tantrum and complain that I feel unsafe. Because adult. Because university.

Actually you don't sound very adult, and definitely don't sound very teacher, using phrases like "Because adult. Because university.". See previous comment regarding immature online debating versus actual useful debating.

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada...ng-assistant-plays-clip-of-gender-debate.html

Shepherd said the lesson to her communications tutorial class was focusing on the complexities of grammar.

Shepherd said she was trying to demonstrate that the structure of a language can affect the society in which it is spoken in ways people might not anticipate. To illustrate her point, she said she mentioned that long-standing views on gender had probably been shaped by the gender-specific pronouns that are part of English’s fundamental grammatical structure.

Culture and grammar/language in a communications class.

That is not proof that it was a "culture and grammar class". It was a grammar class and a Teacher's Assistant decided to talk about gender-specific pronouns. Having gender-non-specific pronouns would not effect the "structure of a language" in this case. It can effect all sorts of other things, but there's little reason to show a clip of that bloke in order to discuss the issue with using a plural like 'they' to describe a single gender-non-specific person. I say again, if her class was about how language effects culture, she would not have had an issue to answer.

Do you really want me to hit up the university library database and provide a literature review on the topic? Because I can't be bothered doing it again.

If you've done it before it actually makes it very easy to do it again. Just link to the last time you did it.

http://nationalpost.com/news/politi...-bill-c-16-and-gender-identity-discrimination

Good article about how C-16 was wrongly invoked by Wilfrid Laurier University staff members in the example we have been referencing, which makes it clear the changes aren't fully understood by everyone at the very least. Also note this paragraph:

The Ontario Human Rights Commission, which is separate from the tribunal and focuses on education, has a policy guideline saying that “refusing to refer to a person by their self-identified name and proper personal pronoun” could constitute gender-based harassment.

But the commission also says cases involving pronouns and free speech require a balancing act.

This is the issue at hand. It is only about gender pronouns in a notional way - the ACTUAL issue is the compelled speech that Bill C-16 is possibly forcing, i.e. exactly what I stated in the first post I made about this. It seems like a minority of people who think the Bill can be interpreted in this way, but we'll eventually find out when it's tested. If it does indeed compel speech, it's unprecedented in Western society as far as I understand it. This isn't a path any society should go down, and it's the reason some people take exception to it.

Thank you for posting that info that confirmed what I said about C-16 not being a threat to Jordan's free speech. I'm happy to similar agree with the academic info, or info on what her class was meant to be teaching if you have that evidence you said you checked in the past. It's worth noting that the author of that article misconstrues the meaning of the bloke 'disciplining' her. He isn't saying gendered pronouns or discussions about them are are potentially breaking C-16. He is saying that "it is discriminatory to be targeting someone due to their gender identity and gender expression”. That is their concern. That students felt targeted because a teacher's assistant started playing provocative material about gendered pronouns in a class where seemingly both students and her seniors thought it wasn't appropriate. Of course the author may be right in thinking that the Uni thought it was under threat from that law, but it could just as realistically be that the senior bloke in the audio wants her to know that her approach could lead to trouble in her life given gender was now covered by the law change.

 

[YEWNIT]

Yes, let the hate flow through you.

Where is the hate?

I depersonalise the act of sodomy if anything. I judge no man by his name of being unnatural or impure. It is the act that constitutes the offence.

I will say it yet again...the physical act of man to man (or man to women) anal intercourse is biologically inflammatory. The man wilfully covering his penis with faeces from another mans anus, whilst tearing it and irreversibly stretching it. If everyday people were confronted by the reality and nature of the physical toll taken and paid for receptive sodomy engaging homosexual males (and females), there heads would spin.

https://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/health/conditionsandtreatments/rectal-prolapse

People are having there anatomies destroyed and basic bodily function affected in ways many of us would be shocked by.

Bottom line ; It’s simply not a mating orifice. For either gender.

 

[King Brown]

You just repeated the same error. That comment is saying that getting a score of unconscious bias is not reflected in other behaviour. It is not saying that the test can't be replicated. You can go do the test yourself and you'll understand why it was clear that you were missing the point. The last sentence in your quote is surmising a bunch of examples, but you obviously know that given you chose what you would copy and paste.

You are scientifically illiterate.

If the IAT isn’t predictive of behaviour then it isn’t valid in any sense, the score it generates is meaningless.

 

[ShanDog]

You just repeated the same error. That comment is saying that getting a score of unconscious bias is not reflected in other behaviour. It is not saying that the test can't be replicated. You can go do the test yourself and you'll understand why it was clear that you were missing the point. The last sentence in your quote is surmising a bunch of examples, but you obviously know that given you chose what you would copy and paste.

So you acknowledge there isn't a single school of thought. What you are failing to grasp is that it would be impossible to teach something without a framework that comes with a bunch of decisions by the curriculum and/or the teacher. Most obviously, choosing which perspectives will be presented neutrally is not a neutral decision.

If you have the evidence, you should've stated what it was. I am not wrong.

It absolutely related to the discussion. I don't know when the last time was that you went to University, but they have these things called assessments... Analysis goes hand in hand with "IDEAS...being discussed and debated" at a university. If you don't have the analysis then it may as well be a useless online debate where people call each other triggered snowflakes for having a debate at all.

Actually you don't sound very adult, and definitely don't sound very teacher, using phrases like "Because adult. Because university.". See previous comment regarding immature online debating versus actual useful debating.

That is not proof that it was a "culture and grammar class". It was a grammar class and a Teacher's Assistant decided to talk about gender-specific pronouns. Having gender-non-specific pronouns would not effect the "structure of a language" in this case. It can effect all sorts of other things, but there's little reason to show a clip of that bloke in order to discuss the issue with using a plural like 'they' to describe a single gender-non-specific person. I say again, if her class was about how language effects culture, she would not have had an issue to answer.

If you've done it before it actually makes it very easy to do it again. Just link to the last time you did it.

Thank you for posting that info that confirmed what I said about C-16 not being a threat to Jordan's free speech. I'm happy to similar agree with the academic info, or info on what her class was meant to be teaching if you have that evidence you said you checked in the past. It's worth noting that the author of that article misconstrues the meaning of the bloke 'disciplining' her. He isn't saying gendered pronouns or discussions about them are are potentially breaking C-16. He is saying that "it is discriminatory to be targeting someone due to their gender identity and gender expression”. That is their concern. That students felt targeted because a teacher's assistant started playing provocative material about gendered pronouns in a class where seemingly both students and her seniors thought it wasn't appropriate. Of course the author may be right in thinking that the Uni thought it was under threat from that law, but it could just as realistically be that the senior bloke in the audio wants her to know that her approach could lead to trouble in her life given gender was now covered by the law change.

Have you ever studied at university?

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

You are scientifically illiterate.

If the IAT isn’t predictive of behaviour then it isn’t valid in any sense, the score it generates is meaningless.

Hahaha. You have an odd idea of 'science'. Funny how ShanDog too appears to have decided dismissing me as some version of 'tertiarily illiterate' is the only argument tactic left. And to save you time - yes, I know tertiarily isn't a word.

 

[King Brown]

Hahaha. You have an odd idea of 'science'.

I have a pretty straightforward idea of science, given I have studied it and pursued a STEM career. Where did you get your ideas about it from?

The IAT is no more 'scientific' than a Rorschach test.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

I have a pretty straightforward idea of science, given I have studied it and pursued a STEM career. Where did you get your ideas about it from?

The IAT is no more 'scientific' than a Rorschach test.

Good luck with your pursuit, but it is patently obvious that science can measure something without it having to be predictive of something else. The theory behind the test is that cultural influences lead people to more quickly link items that fit to stereotypes. That is replicable. The issue your articles talk about is that this bias isn't reflected in other behaviour. So even though someone might more quickly associate women with housework, they are consciously aware that women can have many jobs and act accordingly. Or you could look at those studies that say a person with a foreign sounding name has less chance of getting an interview in the west than someone with an Anglo sounding name. You could point to the interviews and say each person was treated fairly in the interview, but that doesn't alter the statistical analysis in the first instance.

 

[King Brown]

Good luck with your pursuit, but it is patently obvious that science can measure something without it having to be predictive of something else.

Yes, we can count the number of tea leaves or lines on our palm, but that isn't science. We can measure the shape of people's heads and make associations between certain cranial shapes and criminality.

It must give rise to second order consequences, it must say something else. If it can't do that, it isn't science. It's cargo cult science.

The theory behind the test is that cultural influences lead people to more quickly link items that fit to stereotypes. That is replicable.

Except it isn't, because a person can take the test many times and achieve wildly varying scores.

You are woefully ignorant on this topic, which is no surprise given you cited the pop-psych fraud Gladwell.