Return To The Planet Of The Bedlamites
Jillian Kay Melchior shares an eye-widening guide to the Clown Quarter’s academic standards, and the unhappy personalities it attracts:
The three academics call themselves “left-leaning liberals.” Yet they’re dismayed by what they describe as a “grievance studies” takeover of academia, especially its encroachment into the sciences… Beginning in August 2017, the trio wrote 20 hoax papers, submitting them to peer-reviewed journals under a variety of pseudonyms… Journals accepted seven hoax papers. Four have been published…
One hoax paper, submitted to Hypatia [a journal of feminist philosophy], proposed a teaching method centred on “experiential reparations.” It suggested that professors rate students’ levels of oppression based on race, gender, class and other identity categories. Students deemed “privileged” would be kept from commenting in class, interrupted when they did speak, and “invited” to “sit on the floor” or “to wear (light) chains around their shoulders, wrists or ankles for the duration of the course.”
Students who complained would be told that this “educational tool” helps them confront “privileged fragility.” Hypatia’s two unnamed peer reviewers did not object that the proposed teaching method was abusive. “I like this project very much,” one commented. One wondered how to make privileged students “feel genuinely uncomfortable in ways that are humbling and productive,” but not “so uncomfortable (shame) that they resist with renewed vigour.”
In the world of intersectional grievance hustling, citing dog-humping incidents as evidence of “rape culture” constitutes “very good work” and “excellent scholarship.” We also learn that an aversion to transsexuality can be “challenged” with “receptive penetrative sex toy use.” Oh, and it turns out that you can impress a peer-reviewed feminist social work journal with chapters of Hitler’s Mein Kampf.
And yes, there is a video by the hoaxers, explaining their motives and unexpected success, embedded below the fold.
Further background and responses can be found over at Quillette, including this rather telling observation by Nathan Cofnas:
The flagship feminist philosophy journal, Hypatia, accepted a paper arguing that social justice advocates should be allowed to make fun of others, but no one should be permitted to make fun of them. The same journal invited resubmission of a paper arguing that “privileged students shouldn’t be allowed to speak in class at all and should just listen and learn in silence,” and that they would benefit from “experiential reparations” that include “sitting on the floor, wearing chains, or intentionally being spoken over.”
The reviewers complained that this hoax paper took an overly compassionate stance toward the “privileged” students who would be subjected to this humiliation, and recommended that they be subjected to harsher treatment. Is asking people of a certain race to sit on the floor in chains better than asking them to wear a yellow star? What exactly is this leading to?
A good question. What might such people do, given real power?
Via Andy Ngo. Previously.
In a world where every member of the field is expected to march in lockstep with the group, singing from the same hymnal, there is no skepticism, no serious investigation of methods and findings, and therefore no reason to do good work.
Yep, and having been a peer reviewer, there is a reason some of us started calling it Pal Review.
A few weeks ago David posted a link from footage of the domesticated foxes of the Belyaev experiment. I have found a book about it, How to Tame A Fox, by Lee Alan Duyatkin. Enjoy! 🦊
Critical reviews of The Last Jedi are a Russian/Rightwing conspiracy.
Wow. Whodathunk basic storytelling was so limited!!!
I have found a book about it, How to Tame A Fox, by Lee Alan Duyatkin. Enjoy!
. . . . once one tracks down a source, and don’t forget to use one of the links at the upper right of this page . . .
. . . people: “>https://t.co/fFGSxJToi5.
. . . Something seems a bit mangled with that link, but there are initial alternatives to begin with, where what may be the paper does seem available.
The value of peer-reviewed journals lay in the belief that different groups of scientists would have different opinions and perspectives, and would therefore be skeptical of whatever novel hypotheses came in for review.
I beg to differ, but only slightly. It’s all about incentives; at one time it was possible to make quite a name for yourself (and thus, your grant-dispensing institution) by blowing gawping holes in other people’s scientific work. This had the side effect of improving scholarship, but ultimately it was really about getting rich and famous (or at least keeping the grant money rolling in). This is no longer the case. I’m not sure if it was the rise of open-access journals, as R. Sherman mentions; or possibly the explosion of the humanities and soft sciences. After all, it’s particularly hard to disprove gobbledygook the way you can a poor paper in the hard sciences. Either way, demonstrating the utter fatuousness of poorly-written studies is now the domain of Nazis On The Internet rather than statisticians and ambitious tenure-seeking profs.
We certainly can’t rely on professionalism or shame as motivators.
Helicopters. I keep telling you people.
All right, all right, I’ll stop. But you’re correct about the funding, and we’re back to incentives again. This stuff happens because it’s possible to make a comfortable living doing it, and that’s true because there’s a whole lot of money and easy credit flowing about in Western society. This:
We long ago reached “Shut down all the Arts and Humanities and Social Science departments” stage
…also known as the Japanese Model, is the only thing that’s going to do it and that’s only going to happen if enough politicians realize they can get rich and famous by instituting such a policy. I’m not convinced there’s enough of the electorate willing to demand such a radical course correction.
Alan Sokal approves.
@Hector Dummond:
Perhaps this is a good time to mention my University satire?
How does one satire a university these days? The parable about bringing coals to Newcastle comes to mind.
I am not surprised in the slightest, if their reworking substituted “Jews” for “Patriarchy” or “cis-white-male” or whatever the latest approved hate group is today.
It’s not even necessary to rework Hitler’s speeches.
Last year, one wag at a rally protesting Trump got up and gave one of Hitler’s speeches, waiting to see how long it was before/if anyone noticed.
None did, and, of course, he was cheered with great applause.
Open access journals aren’t the problem. Publishing a paper isn’t the motherlode — you need citations of your paper. And journals are ranked, so an unknown paper mill doesn’t score much, at all.
You need a book from a high rated publisher if you really want to score.
Moreover, an academic wanting a proper scholar who does not read the actual output of a short-listed applicant is an utter moron. Just looking at a publication list is not due diligence.
I read in a few areas of academe. Actually opening journals and read them, not taking other people’s words for it. Specialist journals remain high standard, for the most part.
I read history journals, and they have yet to suffer from any of these issues in the areas I read (although obviously a tiny subset). I imagine there are areas, say suffrage history, where’s it bad, but in my areas they’re uniformly good.
Education journals are a bit different. There’s good work, mixed with bad work, and then some pomo nonsense.
Most of the bad work is poor experimental design and terrible statistical analysis. Pomo loons aren’t wasting their time doing the hard work of even a poor experiment, so their work is easily spotted. They’re the ones arguing without any real evidence, good or bad.
You can definitely reach great heights in the field of academic education spouting politically correct nonsense — Jo Boaler for example. She takes other people’s research and bends it to fit. But there’s plenty of fight against that movement (it helps that the facts tend strongly to support traditionalists).
Architecture has always been full of pretentious knob-ends spouting art-wank. Perhaps there was a time before I read them when they made hard sense, but I doubt pomo has made much difference.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/journals-publish-hoaxers-absurd-gender-studies-q7f60l7v6
From the Quillette piece linked above, this, by Jonathan Anomaly:
Sounds about right. And we’ve seen how those would-be dragon-slayers behave. Many, many times.
…also known as the Japanese Model, is the only thing that’s going to do it and that’s only going to happen if enough politicians realize they can get rich and famous by instituting such a policy.
Exactly, the great Milton Friedman was there ahead of you. Sort of.
However, as long as the Left owns the media, creating the political climate of opinion necessary is out of the question.
“Morten Bay, PhD…. Critical reviews of The Last Jedi are a Russian/Rightwing conspiracy.”
He must be up for tenure review, or promotion.
“Morten Bay, PhD…. Critical reviews of The Last Jedi are a Russian/Rightwing conspiracy.”
Judging by the half hour of it that I had to sit through recently, the film seems sufficiently bad to irritate and disappoint large numbers of people without any nefarious third-party involvement.
Well, we could look at the Soviet Union for what happens when the intelligentsia takes power, and see its full ugliness.
Well, the European and American Left are not planning on actual death camps, but they are fully on board with every punishment short of that–prison, fines, forced psychiatric treatment, loss of jobs, harassment, terror and mob violence. And of course if a Deeply Caring Progressive were to murder a conservative that would be excusable as a natural reaction to evil. And so we see that this is what the “moderate left” really is.
“Morten Bay, PhD…. Critical reviews of The Last Jedi are a Russian/Rightwing conspiracy.”
So Mark Hamill is a Russian spy? Because I recall that he expressed reservations about TLJ until he was re-educated.
Well, the European and American Left are not planning on actual death camps,…
From their point of view, neither were the Soviets. The deaths in the Gulag were collateral damage. A core tennet of the Left is not being held responsible for outcomes. Leftists believe that they are only accountable for their intentions. The camps in the Soviet Union were intended to rehabilitate non-believers through physical labour. The fact that humans can’t survive on 400 clories a day while performing intense physical tasks was inconsequential to the soviet ideologues.
Make sure to invest in the stock of bulldozer manufacturers anywhere the extreme left is in power.
Make sure to invest in the stock of bulldozer manufacturers anywhere the extreme left is in power.
Terrible advice! Everybody knows that the enemies of the State shall be ‘encouraged’ to dig their own graves. Also, bulldozers make Mother Gaia weep.
Objectivity is oppressive.
https://twitter.com/clairlemon/status/1047744182641602560
Objectivity is oppressive.
Or at least somehow unfair.
Mr Mudde construes the exposure of dogmatism and incompetence as a “right wing attack,” even when the three people he rails against describe themselves as left-leaning liberals. I see he also uses “white” as a self-explanatory pejorative. Naturally, he’s an educator and also a Guardian columnist. I keep hoping that I’ll one day be surprised. Alas, not today.
Objectivity is oppressive
So…science should be biased and in service of a prejudged end?
That’s the “science” of witch doctors using chicken entrails to explain the universe.
That’s the “science” of witch doctors using chicken entrails to explain the universe.
Or in this case, political science.
Well, the European and American Left are not planning on actual death camps…
They might not have updated their existing plans in a while, at least not that I know of, but given the pathologies on daily display, I suspect they’re simply holding firm on the existing ones as already optimal.
… the exposure of dogmatism and incompetence as a “right wing attack,”…
Who says comedy is dead ?
Chester Draws “Most of the bad work is poor experimental design and terrible statistical analysis.”
Right from the start, in my first Freshman year physics class, the professor emphasized the importance of good experimental design and statically analysis.
David | October 03, 2018 at 19:36
This reminds me of a hoax by James Randi. He coached some people to fake paranormal talents. He also insisted that if anyone asked them if they were hoaxers, they were to admit it immediately. Nobody did. Finally these hoaxers revealed themselves.
Here we go. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Alpha
“Part of Randi’s instructions to these men was to tell the truth if they were ever asked whether they were faking the results; they were never asked this question directly. The researchers assumed that the participants would have no qualms about lying in their answer to a straightforward question if they were also lying about their abilities.”