General > General Technical Chat

Diversity, Equity and Inclusion

<< < (10/76) > >>

Zero999:
I think much of the shift to the left in the west, comes from the fear of the right, from what happened in Germany. Unfortunately extreme left-wing policies have caused far more death and destruction, but it didn't happen in the west, so we've become complacent.

Many left wing goals are good in theory: giving money to the poor, not discriminating against minorities and those who have been historically marginalized. This is also why many who disagree with left wing organisations are labeled as bad. You think Black Lives Matter are bad, that must mean you hate black people, you hate Stone wall, a pro-LGBT charity, then that must mean you hate gay and trans people.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Feature creep sets in. The original goal of an organisation might've been to combat discrimination against a minority, yet once that has been achieved, even to the point of said group getting legal protection, they need to remain relevant as they have bills to pay, so they push harder. Now rather than simply fighting against discrimination, they push for equal outcome. It's a slippery slope.

emece67:

--- Quote ---5) This is an electronics forum, so try to stay on-topic. We understand that threads drift off-topic, but try not to start deliberately and grossly off-topic stuff.
There are a couple of pet topics that always get out of control on forums, namely, religion, politics, gun and conspiracy theories. They are not welcome here.
Those who come here to mostly only contribute non-electronics related material are not welcome. There are forums for that stuff, this is not one of them.
--- End quote ---

Nominal Animal:

--- Quote from: paulca on August 18, 2022, 09:41:41 am ---On Peterson.
--- End quote ---
Anyone with an academic background can easily find out for themselves what this Jordan Peterson person has been doing for the last two or three decades in the field of psychology.

The key reason he is vilified by certain people, is that in 2007, Peterson was one of the authors of a highly respected and widely cited article, Between facets and domains: 10 aspects of the Big Five, which showed that based on purely numerical analysis of 481 personality assessments, the Big Five personality traits have internal structure (that can be an useful tool in using these traits for clinical purposes), but more importantly, that they may have a biological basis.

In other words, that "personality" and "gender-associated personality facets" may not be just a purely social construct, and instead may have a significant biological basis.  This is why he is the enemy of those who believe everything is just a social construct.

(The Big Five is in psychology a very important tool in psychological assessment.  Sure, being squishy human stuff, it has its flaws and valid counterarguments against, definitely, but it is the best tool in its class that we currently have.  As an analytical/scientific/rational type, I personally had to delve into this stuff when repeated burnout and recurrent depression took me down.  There is a lot of fluff in psychology, but a surprising amount of robust statistics-based stuff too.)

While the number of citations is not really something anyone should use as a metric, the articles that do refer to this does help understand the context and value of said work.  See pibmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov for the list of articles that cite that one.  Take a glance for yourself.  After all, this is not just someones opinion, this is peer-reviewed work; and we still haven't found anything better for furthering our understanding than that.

I do not "follow" him (as in watch his videos on Youtube – except when there is a discussion among people that have differing views), but I have read and listened enough to know he is not "alt-right": what he is suggesting, is just advice based on human psychology (and his clinical psychology experience in practical psychotherapy) to those who need help with life management and personal growth.  Telling young men and women to clean up their own act before they try and go out to change the world is not "alt-right", it is just practical, functional advice based on human psychology.  Telling them that being responsible for oneself and others carrying the heaviest social burden you can seems to be one of the most fulfilling ways to live, is not "radical" – or anything anyone should object to, because statistically it does work.  Not for everyone, but for so many it is worth giving as advice.  I did really like it when I saw him telling how therapy is not about "fixing" people, but to make them stronger, mentally strong enough to overcome their problems, because that's how I see it too. He himself is a flawed person, and freely admits it too.  If he didn't, I would really dislike him.  Even his biblical series and similar talks are about how one can treat them as the distilled understanding/realizations across tens if not hundreds of generations, in the form of archetypes.

All very straighforward, and in a normal society, uncontroversial stuff: it draws young people, especially young men, back from the edges and fringes from society, instead of pushing them further out.  Apparently, a lot of people really don't like that.  I wonder why?


--- Quote from: emece67 on August 18, 2022, 10:48:35 am ---
--- Quote ---5) This is an electronics forum, so try to stay on-topic.
--- End quote ---

--- End quote ---
This affects our workplace and livelihood.  Thing-oriented people (like engineers and scientists, as opposed to more human/social-oriented people) have the greatest difficulties dealing with this stuff.  If we cannot discuss this here, among other engineers, scientists and hobbyists with similar mindsets, we cannot discuss this anywhere anymore.

I know I definitely cannot discuss any of this in public.  Even in an University cafeteria, you risk getting dunked by water or other beverage by a politically and socially conscious activist students, just because they overheard you mention a name in a tone they didn't like.

There used to be a time when universities were the bastions of new thought, thought experiments, and working over even unpleasant concepts, but no more.

EEVblog:
Worth mentioning the UTS engineering thing as it's very on-topic.
https://web.archive.org/web/20200308074440/https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/excruciatingly-generous-uts-atar-discount-for-women-so-patronising-20190831-p52mpr.html

tszaboo:
If you think that we can just walk away from the issue, and let it blow over, than you are in for a surprise.
There is something called ESG credit score: https://esg.moodys.io/esg-credit It's a scoring system, where the S social and G Governance score is given based on your company's willingness to subscribe to these radical left ideas. I gave you a Moodys link, where they clearly state that they are incorporating this score into your company's credit rating. Black Rock and other huge institutions follow this.
What does this mean? If your company is not compliant, doesn't want equity over equality, doesn't want to implement CRT, or deals with other companies with low ESG score, you will not get funded. You will not get the necessary credits to expand, to grow, or to avoid a bankruptcy. As time goes on, there will be less and less companies surviving on the long term, who are not radical leftist.
Every single time, the radical left was left unchecked, millions of people died who disagreed, or were in the way.
So we cannot be complacent and leave them to just bark on their own turf. They are coming to your independent companies, and your movies and your social media posts and then they just cancel you. In their book it is not enough to not have an opinion about this. Why do you think companies are organizing brainwashing sessions about social justice?

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
Go to full version
Powered by SMFPacks Advanced Attachments Uploader Mod