If folks where actually skeptical of the paper, you would think they would provide some evidence to back up their thought process, based on experiences from academia, or a study of crowd movement in relation to race that shows contrary evidence to the paper itself, instead of saying they can imagine the possibility of bias.
I mean I can picture an evil cabal of racists who purposefully show up in discussions like this to purposefully sow fear, uncertainty and doubt. Is that the level of HN discourse?
The ability to imagine something isn't evidence of it's existence, nor is it healthy skepticism.
So essentially, his assertion that academia is systemically bias, can only be proven through:
>Experience in academia
>Papers, which you can only get money to work on full time through academia
Seems convenient.
Looking at the paper itself it found evidence of both a gender bias (either ingroup/outgroup or against men) and a racial bias (either ingroup/outgroup or against blacks). It notably, did not censor any facts about this gender bias, and instead published them in full. In the discussion however, it discussed these two facts with overwhelming bias, treating the observed racial bias with the utmost seriousness while not discussing the observed gender bias at all.
I think there's grounds to be sceptical of anything academia says on politically charged topics.
WesternWind|2 years ago
I mean I can picture an evil cabal of racists who purposefully show up in discussions like this to purposefully sow fear, uncertainty and doubt. Is that the level of HN discourse?
The ability to imagine something isn't evidence of it's existence, nor is it healthy skepticism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skepticism
faeriechangling|2 years ago
>Experience in academia
>Papers, which you can only get money to work on full time through academia
Seems convenient.
Looking at the paper itself it found evidence of both a gender bias (either ingroup/outgroup or against men) and a racial bias (either ingroup/outgroup or against blacks). It notably, did not censor any facts about this gender bias, and instead published them in full. In the discussion however, it discussed these two facts with overwhelming bias, treating the observed racial bias with the utmost seriousness while not discussing the observed gender bias at all.
I think there's grounds to be sceptical of anything academia says on politically charged topics.
version_five|2 years ago
[deleted]
version_five|2 years ago