FWIS3

A video about where the alt-right came from, by a guy who used to be involved with the movement (and is now kind of a leftist).

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=a_yfnQPaD_E

Gives some good perspective on how this stuff ropes people in IMO, without using academic jargon.

(And no the Jan referenced in one of the captions is definitely not me, sorry folks )

What I found interesting was that there was at least a plausible explanation of how the most privileged, entitled, domineering sub group of people in the history of the universe could possibly feel oppressed. I'm not saying I agree that they are oppressed as a whole, but it at least opened my eyes a bit as to how a white christian male could feel the deck is stacked against him.

Yep. When you're indoctrinated to think the Universe owes you stuff, and reality actually sucks, it's easy to see it as having your birthright stolen instead of the systematic problems (e.g. concentration of wealth, automation destroying jobs) that the suckage actually consists of.

This doesn't absolve people who think that way of moral responsibility though. Thinking life owes you more than other people is still some fundamentally selfish shit.

Cyborg Girl wrote:Yep. When you're indoctrinated to think the Universe owes you stuff, and reality actually sucks, it's easy to see it as having your birthright stolen instead of the systematic problems (e.g. concentration of wealth, automation destroying jobs) that the suckage actually consists of.

This doesn't absolve people who think that way of moral responsibility though. Thinking life owes you more than other people is still some fundamentally selfish shit.

Wow. Everything you just wrote sounds exactly like what I've been hearing from so-called oppressed minorities for the last couple of years. How about we stop sticking people in groups? What is so fucking hard about that? I thought that's what we'd been fighting for in western society for, I don't know, ever?!

@SFC

You might be interested in this article, by a philosopher and cultural theorist who has spent a while studying concepts like "Western Civilization" and their historical origins. It's long but extremely worth it.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/ ... th-lecture

I read it. We'll have to agree to disagree because you won't want to read what I think.

SciFi Chick wrote:

Cyborg Girl wrote:Yep. When you're indoctrinated to think the Universe owes you stuff, and reality actually sucks, it's easy to see it as having your birthright stolen instead of the systematic problems (e.g. concentration of wealth, automation destroying jobs) that the suckage actually consists of.

This doesn't absolve people who think that way of moral responsibility though. Thinking life owes you more than other people is still some fundamentally selfish shit.

Wow. Everything you just wrote sounds exactly like what I've been hearing from so-called oppressed minorities for the last couple of years. How about we stop sticking people in groups? What is so fucking hard about that? I thought that's what we'd been fighting for in western society for, I don't know, ever?!

(note, did not have time to watch original video yet)

My understanding to answer about "how about not sticking people in groups" is while you make it sound like it's not hard, turns out it is very, very hard for people to do this, even if we tell them so. We all have implicit biases. Here's a series of online tests from Harvard where you can see what your own are. And I think even the people with the best intentions to "treat everyone equally" can really affect lives, so it's disingenuous to not be aware of this.

Second, and this may be a nitpick, but I think it's important to note that we are pretty good at confusing equality with equity in society and getting confused about why people get frustrated. This comic illustrates what I mean. This is also very hard to do properly.

Anyway, if someone wants a summer fiction read that goes into the 101 version of these issues in modern society, I just finished and really enjoyed Small Great Things by Jodi Picoult. (Yeah, yeah, I have a tradition of reading her stuff in summers- but I was pleasantly surprised about the depth in this one and the respect she tried to convey for all her characters' identities.) Just throwing that out there.

To me, that comic illustrates socialism and Marxism which is where I think the concept of equity comes from. I know exactly the difference between equality and equity. I support one. I do not support the other. If the tall guy wants to give his box to the little guy, that's kind of him. Being forced to do it at the point of a gun is not.

We all have different ideas about what's fair. I think basing it on race is wrong headed. Basing it on economic privilege? That's closer to the mark.

That's my short answer. We can do a whole thread on this if you'd like to explore it.

I will check out the Harvard thing and get back to that portion of your response.

Also conflating disingenuous with ignorance is rather unfair. This assumption that so many people out there know the right thing and just pretend they don't, rather than having honest disagreements is a very cynical outlook.

Trying to do the tests. I didn't realize Harvard had a branch in Canada?

SciFi Chick wrote:Trying to do the tests. I didn't realize Harvard had a branch in Canada?

Pretty sure that's where I get directed to on this side of the border for whatever reason is all.

SciFi Chick wrote:To me, that comic illustrates socialism and Marxism which is where I think the concept of equity comes from. I know exactly the difference between equality and equity. I support one. I do not support the other. If the tall guy wants to give his box to the little guy, that's kind of him. Being forced to do it at the point of a gun is not.

We all have different ideas about what's fair. I think basing it on race is wrong headed. Basing it on economic privilege? That's closer to the mark.

That's my short answer. We can do a whole thread on this if you'd like to explore it.

I will check out the Harvard thing and get back to that portion of your response.

Also conflating disingenuous with ignorance is rather unfair. This assumption that so many people out there know the right thing and just pretend they don't, rather than having honest disagreements is a very cynical outlook.

You can start a thread about the above if you want, but wanted to address the last paragraph really quickly. I chose the word disingenuous because I'm not sure that everything I outlined can be attributed to ignorance. Willful ignorance, maybe. But right now, there's tons of people out there able to vocalize their frustrations with the current systems in our society and how these systems treat them, and tons of data as well. At some point a person unwilling to listen crosses the line from one to the other, though of course we can argue about where exactly that might be.

To use an example from my field of what I mean: astronomy has, for decades, required the Physics GRE for grad school admissions. It's a 100 question multiple choice test on literally everything in physics, which frankly had no relevance to what I studied in undergrad or what I do as a researcher. But hey, it's really nice if we can just get a test score for everyone and base cutoffs on that, so most departments required it. However, it appears the Physics GRE has no real bearing on success as a researcher in astronomy (there's research on this I can link if you like). Further, it turns out the test seriously favors men over women, and minorities do so terribly on it most would be automatically disqualified by hard cutoffs from applications before a human ever looked at their application for grad school. (Here's a plot of the general GRE with the same result.) (Note, I'm not going to comment on Asian test takers for the purposes of this, because it's also well-documented that students from China in particular blatantly cheat when taking this exam.)

So, in light of that evidence, it goes as no surprise to me that many major departments are phasing out the Physics GRE requirement, because it fucking sucks (mainly thanks to tireless research and campaigning for awareness by a few of said minorities who made it). But there are just as many departments that still require the Physics GRE, and argue that we shouldn't get rid of it because it's a useful metric to measure future student success! "All of our faculty did well on the Physics GRE!" is a pretty common thing to hear, because survivor bias and selection bias happens even amongst scientists who are supposed to be the most objective out of us. (You know I can rant a long time about THAT perception!) So, by this point, I'm gonna say people who still insist on the Physics GRE for admissions are being pretty disingenuous in its effect on the dearth of minorities we see in astronomy.

Now obviously this is a pretty well-defined issue that in the grand scheme of life does not affect too many people. But my point here in taking a well-defined barrier in my own field is that we have a lot of these in general society as well that tend to explode debate (like differences in incarceration/ sentencing rates, or incidents of black men and children getting shot). It's pretty clear everyone is not being treated equally if you look at the statistics, but plenty of people insist otherwise, and I think that's disingenuous and not just ignorant.

I hope that clears up what I meant.

That does clear up what you meant. And I agree with you.

Not to get bogged down in your one example, but it begs the question why? Are more minorities going to schools that don't teach physics as well? Does this mean we should get rid of it, because they really are good at Astronomy and it's not needed? That seems like a good argument. But what about people going to graduate school to study Physics? Is this a good predictor of how they will do in Physics? Is there some reason that minorities might struggle with standardized tests? Or is the test itself really biased?

I find this stuff fascinating, but I definitely want to see more metrics used in determining who would be a good student, because we all know standardized testing is not reliable. I mean Ocasio Cortez has a degree in Economics and she struggles with basic math!

What I don't like is automatically barring someone from an opportunity based on skin color. I don't care how many white men got privilege in the past. Punishing the men of today does not correct the problem. I think we have to find better ways of measuring merit, because, as you've pointed out, it's not always so straightforward. It's like basing whether or not someone can get a loan strictly on credit rating by just looking at the number without looking at the why.

SciFi Chick wrote:Not to get bogged down in your one example, but it begs the question why? Are more minorities going to schools that don't teach physics as well? Does this mean we should get rid of it, because they really are good at Astronomy and it's not needed? That seems like a good argument. But what about people going to graduate school to study Physics? Is this a good predictor of how they will do in Physics? Is there some reason that minorities might struggle with standardized tests? Or is the test itself really biased?

I find this stuff fascinating, but I definitely want to see more metrics used in determining who would be a good student, because we all know standardized testing is not reliable. I mean Ocasio Cortez has a degree in Economics and she struggles with basic math!

There are a number of reasons why minorities often do poorly on standardized testing such as the GRE and others. In many cases it's defined by socio-economic factors and that can include caucasian children too. In many studies, socio-economic status is a good predictor of success on things like the GRE and in college or even trade school. There are several reasons why this is true. One is that children who live on the edge of being evicted and who have food insecurity rarely have great academic success.

There are also studies that show that cultural and social status bias can impact the ability of people to take standardized testing. If you don't understand the references you can only guess at the answers.

In those schools where they are struggling to deal with hunger, homelessness, drug addiction, single parents, and lack of access to the technology they are less likely to have things like physics programs. High School students who have never been exposed to physics except in passing are not very likely to do well on a physics GRE. Unless they are able to get the extra tutoring to learn higher level math. And schools facing budget issues, lack of teachers, and etc are less likely to have tutoring programs.

Students who lack access to tutoring, career counseling, technology, and stable socio-economic situations are, more than likely, also being told not to aspire to be physics majors or astronomers. They are being told they are lucky if they are smart enough to get a job at the local Piggly Wiggly.

SciFi Chick wrote: I mean Ocasio Cortez has a degree in Economics and she struggles with basic math!

I don't know if she can do basic arithmetic. But I do know that left wing economists tend to think Inflation is not a big problem because they fantasize that the increase in economic activity brought by inflation (as in everyone buying everything in sight because money loses its value) compensates the problems it causes. So, I would not be surprised that if they actually did the grunt work on figuring out how they can pay for everything they promise, it was full of "Magic Asterisks" ala Paul Ryan.

SciFiFisher wrote:There are a number of reasons why minorities often do poorly on standardized testing such as the GRE and others. In many cases it's defined by socio-economic factors and that can include caucasian children too. In many studies, socio-economic status is a good predictor of success on things like the GRE and in college or even trade school. There are several reasons why this is true. One is that children who live on the edge of being evicted and who have food insecurity rarely have great academic success.

There are also studies that show that cultural and social status bias can impact the ability of people to take standardized testing. If you don't understand the references you can only guess at the answers.

In those schools where they are struggling to deal with hunger, homelessness, drug addiction, single parents, and lack of access to the technology they are less likely to have things like physics programs. High School students who have never been exposed to physics except in passing are not very likely to do well on a physics GRE. Unless they are able to get the extra tutoring to learn higher level math. And schools facing budget issues, lack of teachers, and etc are less likely to have tutoring programs.

Students who lack access to tutoring, career counseling, technology, and stable socio-economic situations are, more than likely, also being told not to aspire to be physics majors or astronomers. They are being told they are lucky if they are smart enough to get a job at the local Piggly Wiggly.

I know all that. But that's children. The GRE happens toward the end of or after you finish your undergraduate degree in college. Not a child anymore, and it seems like the gap should be closed by that point.

Sigma_Orionis wrote:

SciFi Chick wrote: I mean Ocasio Cortez has a degree in Economics and she struggles with basic math!

I don't know if she can do basic arithmetic. But I do know that left wing economists tend to think Inflation is not a big problem because they fantasize that the increase in economic activity brought by inflation (as in everyone buying everything in sight because money loses its value) compensates the problems it causes. So, I would not be surprised that if they actually did the grunt work on figuring out how they can pay for everything they promise, it was full of "Magic Asterisks" ala Paul Ryan.

Maybe she's just nervous, but when people are gunning for you, basic mistakes like this do you no favors.

SciFi Chick wrote:I know all that. But that's children. The GRE happens toward the end of or after you finish your undergraduate degree in college. Not a child anymore, and it seems like the gap should be closed by that point.

I guess I don't know why it wouldn't get wider.

SciFi Chick wrote:

Sigma_Orionis wrote:

SciFi Chick wrote: I mean Ocasio Cortez has a degree in Economics and she struggles with basic math!

I don't know if she can do basic arithmetic. But I do know that left wing economists tend to think Inflation is not a big problem because they fantasize that the increase in economic activity brought by inflation (as in everyone buying everything in sight because money loses its value) compensates the problems it causes. So, I would not be surprised that if they actually did the grunt work on figuring out how they can pay for everything they promise, it was full of "Magic Asterisks" ala Paul Ryan.

Maybe she's just nervous, but when people are gunning for you, basic mistakes like this do you no favors.

Well yeah, 40% of 325 Million is not 200 Million. I find it more interesting that both Polifact and the Washington Post Fact Checker caught her with at least a pretty big whopper. Particularly, because she's making "honesty" a central part of her campaign.

And just to clarify my original comment. When I mean "inflation" I mean something like 10% annual inflation, not that pokey 2.5% you gringos got right now.

Thumper wrote:

SciFi Chick wrote:I know all that. But that's children. The GRE happens toward the end of or after you finish your undergraduate degree in college. Not a child anymore, and it seems like the gap should be closed by that point.

I guess I don't know why it wouldn't get wider.

Why would it get wider? We have tons of programs in place to help minorities and poor people to get into university, and then we work hard to catch them up from what they missed out on in high school. Yes, many drop out anyway, especially if they go to a school that is too demanding without enough out reach. But of the ones that make it through, why would the gap get wider?

Take two people, one grows up in a middle class suburb, in a stable household with enough disposable income to provide her everything she needs. She's got two parents, and a supportive peer group. She goes to one of the most expensive, highest quality prep schools in the area. They have an extensive college counseling program, along with prep classes to help with standardized testing, essay writing, interviewing, etc. After she gets a scholarship to a top notch university, she continues to be supported by her parents, counselors, peer groups, advisers, and alumnus from both her high school and university. After doing very well in undergrad, she's encouraged to apply for grad school, by any or all of the above. Having learned all the many academic skills since lower school, she's primed and ready for grad school, a decent career, and basically anything that we judge to be a successful life.

On the other side of the tracks, a girl grows up in poverty. They've moved several times after being evicted or fleeing domestic violence. Maybe she has a stable parent, but not two, there's substance abuse, and mental health issues in the family. There were those three years she lived with her grandma when her mom couldn't take care of her (maybe she was even incarcerated). She's never been to the same school for more than one school year, some years it was two or three. She spends more time worrying about whether she'll be sleeping in a safe house with some heat rather than these new algebra concepts. Though the teachers care, she's in the poorest district in the county, with virtually no resources, and gigantic class sizes. The teachers consider it a success if they can just get the kids through the day without major fights, or overdoses. The ones that are still in class by the time they are seniors, get diplomas, a pat on the back and good wishes to hopefully land a job at the convenience mart or grocery store.

Somehow our girl was encouraged by her grandma to "break the cycle, don't get pregnant, get out of this $hithole neighborhood, and do something with her life." She works very hard, gets that diploma and somehow manages to get accepted into community college. She must work two jobs to pay for that and take care of her grandma. Many of the concepts covered in her classes are totally foreign to her as she was never exposed to them in middle or high school. She takes advantage of labs, and tutoring services and manages to keep up with her coursework with mostly C's. She manages to graduate, barely, but had to take out several loans to get it done. She continues to work to pay rent and start to pay off the loans.

The two girls are both 23 now, I don't see that gap closing anytime soon.

SciFi Chick wrote:

SciFiFisher wrote:There are a number of reasons why minorities often do poorly on standardized testing such as the GRE and others. In many cases it's defined by socio-economic factors and that can include caucasian children too. In many studies, socio-economic status is a good predictor of success on things like the GRE and in college or even trade school. There are several reasons why this is true. One is that children who live on the edge of being evicted and who have food insecurity rarely have great academic success.

There are also studies that show that cultural and social status bias can impact the ability of people to take standardized testing. If you don't understand the references you can only guess at the answers.

In those schools where they are struggling to deal with hunger, homelessness, drug addiction, single parents, and lack of access to the technology they are less likely to have things like physics programs. High School students who have never been exposed to physics except in passing are not very likely to do well on a physics GRE. Unless they are able to get the extra tutoring to learn higher level math. And schools facing budget issues, lack of teachers, and etc are less likely to have tutoring programs.

Students who lack access to tutoring, career counseling, technology, and stable socio-economic situations are, more than likely, also being told not to aspire to be physics majors or astronomers. They are being told they are lucky if they are smart enough to get a job at the local Piggly Wiggly.

I know all that. But that's children. The GRE happens toward the end of or after you finish your undergraduate degree in college. Not a child anymore, and it seems like the gap should be closed by that point.

This article about the achievement gap and testing bias partly explains it

Thumper wrote:Take two people, one grows up in a middle class suburb, in a stable household with enough disposable income to provide her everything she needs. She's got two parents, and a supportive peer group. She goes to one of the most expensive, highest quality prep schools in the area. They have an extensive college counseling program, along with prep classes to help with standardized testing, essay writing, interviewing, etc. After she gets a scholarship to a top notch university, she continues to be supported by her parents, counselors, peer groups, advisers, and alumnus from both her high school and university. After doing very well in undergrad, she's encouraged to apply for grad school, by any or all of the above. Having learned all the many academic skills since lower school, she's primed and ready for grad school, a decent career, and basically anything that we judge to be a successful life.

On the other side of the tracks, a girl grows up in poverty. They've moved several times after being evicted or fleeing domestic violence. Maybe she has a stable parent, but not two, there's substance abuse, and mental health issues in the family. There were those three years she lived with her grandma when her mom couldn't take care of her (maybe she was even incarcerated). She's never been to the same school for more than one school year, some years it was two or three. She spends more time worrying about whether she'll be sleeping in a safe house with some heat rather than these new algebra concepts. Though the teachers care, she's in the poorest district in the county, with virtually no resources, and gigantic class sizes. The teachers consider it a success if they can just get the kids through the day without major fights, or overdoses. The ones that are still in class by the time they are seniors, get diplomas, a pat on the back and good wishes to hopefully land a job at the convenience mart or grocery store.

Somehow our girl was encouraged by her grandma to "break the cycle, don't get pregnant, get out of this $hithole neighborhood, and do something with her life." She works very hard, gets that diploma and somehow manages to get accepted into community college. She must work two jobs to pay for that and take care of her grandma. Many of the concepts covered in her classes are totally foreign to her as she was never exposed to them in middle or high school. She takes advantage of labs, and tutoring services and manages to keep up with her coursework with mostly C's. She manages to graduate, barely, but had to take out several loans to get it done. She continues to work to pay rent and start to pay off the loans.

The two girls are both 23 now, I don't see that gap closing anytime soon.

That is a great example of socio-economic gaps, and I agree that it's a huge problem, but it doesn't actually answer what I was asking - which is why minorities and women, no matter their background, consistently fair worse on tests like the GRE for Physics. And it turns out it's not just Astronomers complaining about it. So are physicists.

This article begins exploring some of the issues. Apparently, women, in general, don't do as well on high pressure timed tests. Naturally, there are exceptions. But if doing well on high pressure timed tests has no bearing on whether one would do well in the program, I'm all for getting rid of it.

I think the same way about the ridiculous hours they make residents work, and the only answer that seems to be given is, "We had to do it. So do you."

And then there's crap like this. I'd hate to think anything like that is going on here. Implicit bias is bad enough without adding in explicit bias and outright fraud.

SciFi Chick wrote:

Thumper wrote:

SciFi Chick wrote:I know all that. But that's children. The GRE happens toward the end of or after you finish your undergraduate degree in college. Not a child anymore, and it seems like the gap should be closed by that point.

I guess I don't know why it wouldn't get wider.

Why would it get wider? We have tons of programs in place to help minorities and poor people to get into university, and then we work hard to catch them up from what they missed out on in high school. Yes, many drop out anyway, especially if they go to a school that is too demanding without enough out reach. But of the ones that make it through, why would the gap get wider?

It gets tricky. There are lots of factors at play. And we can all point to people who seem to defy the odds.

But.... factors like early childhood development play a role. I am not talking about head start per se. I am talking about the development of key parts of the brain. The first 6 years are critical. Some experts say that if we miss out on key milestones in those first 6 years we never make them up.

Socio-economic status plays a huge role. A poor broke kid at age twelve is more than likely a poor broke adult at age 23 while trying to get the grades to get into a graduate school.

Networking plays a bigger role than some people realize. Does anyone really think that GW Bush would have wound up in an Ivy League school if his daddy and mother did not know the right people? It's not just the money that gives you these opportunities. It's the people the money and the position allows you to know and be friends with.

The gap gets wider because the number of people who can actually overcome the odds will always remain small. The gap gets wider because the programs intended to narrow it are often ineffective. The gap gets wider because we are probably trying to address the wrong problems.

SciFi Chick wrote:That is a great example of socio-economic gaps, and I agree that it's a huge problem, but it doesn't actually answer what I was asking .

Well, it sort of did. You said the gaps would be closing by the time people were applying to grad school. I pondered that I thought they would remain wide possibly getting wider. I gave an example of two people (two real people, I'm sure there are thousands of other real examples.) Fisher gave more thought out objective reasons, but I did answer your question.

It did answer one aspect, but I'm already aware of that aspect, having lived it, so it just felt like you weren't answering my question, because I was thinking of the other aspects. Too many people want to take tests like this and just assume that it means women and minorities aren't as well equipped as white men. I don't buy that, any more than I buy the idea that women can physically, as a general rule, do anything a man can. It's very difficult to tell when something is biased and when it's straight forward.

I wasn't accusing you, btw. I just meant that my questions about this subject aren't fully answered, and I'm starting to suspect they won't be any time soon.