So apparently in the wake of Charlottesville a campaign has formed to identify and dox the people who marched in support of white nationalism. No way this could end badly!
I’m sure white nationalists and their sympathizers we see spending all day posting on parts of 4chan and reddit have neither the time nor inclination to respond in kind. And if they do I’m sure they’ll restrict themselves to simply publishing the identities of those in antifa movements or anti-racist marches. No way they will expose gay people in the closet living in repressive regimes or name individuals anonymously sharing their experiences of sexual assault/violence. Surely they would never stoop so low as to reveal the identities of women who live in religiously conservative communities or work for conservative religious employers who seek advice about dealing with the emotional aftermath of an abortion.
Also, I’m sure that giving those who might be sympathetic enough to go to a march but not really committed a really good reason to hold a grudge and making sure they can’t hold a normal job will help them see the error of their ways. No way it will turn them into hardened extremists.
And certainly the groups who form to dox these white supremacists will understand that nazis are a special case and, after receiving a bunch of praise, will just pack up rather than going after another group they see as having unacceptable views or if they do it will surely be one you also see as unacceptable.
And, of course, all these vigilantes will exercise great care and verify that every last person they dox is really a white supremacist. No way they will accidentally mistake some passerby or blogger covering the event. I mean this is totally different than the situation will real life crimes like rape or murder where we think vigilantism poses far too great a risk of getting things wrong.
Yup, no reason to worry about this at all. Lets get those nazi bastards.
Personally, I think the proposal to ‘change’ the p-value for significant results from .05 to .005 is a mistake. The only sense in which this proposal has any real bite is if journals and hiring committees respond by treating research that doesn’t meet p < .005 as less important but all that does is make the incentives for the kind of behavior causing all the problems much stronger.
I’d much rather have a well designed (ideally pre-registered) trial at p < .05 than a p < .005 result that is cherry picked as a result of after the fact choice of analysis. Rather than making the distinction between well designed appropriate methodology and dangerous potentially misleading methodology more apparent this further obscures it and tells any scientist who was standing on principle they need to stop hoping their better methodology will be appreciated and do something to compete on p-value with papers published using problematic data analysis.
In particular, I think this kind of proposal doesn’t take sufficient account of the economics and incentives of researchers. Yes, p < .005 studies would be more convincing but they also cost more (both in $ and time) so by telling fledgling researchers they need p < .005 you force them to put all their eggs in one basket making dubious data analysis choices that much more tempting when their study fails to meet the threshold.
What we need is more results blind publication processes (in which journals publish the results based merely on a description of the experimental process without knowledge of what the results found). That would both help combat many of these biases and truly evaluate researchers on their ability not their luck. Ideally such studies would be pre-accepted before results were actually analyzed. Of course there still needs to be a place for merely suggestive work that invites further research but it should be regarded as such without any particular importance assigned to p-value.
However, as these are only my brief immediate thoughts I’m quite open to potential counterarguments.
Why do we put up with this kind of shit (preventing college athletes from even monetizing their own youtube videos)? I mean no one really believes that this is deeply important to preserve some weird value of “amatuerness” in sports do they? Even if you thought that why not let the athletes themselves vote on whether being amatuer is worth the loss of revenue?
If you think they are too young and immature go ask former college athletes to make the call. Of course they won’t because this is all about making money off them.
Sigh, it just pisses me off that we can fight so much about issues of political controversy on campuses but in places where its clear as day that colleges are doing the wrong thing and both the right and left should support fixing somehow gets a pass. Yes this is just a contentless rant but sometimes it happens.
If it really is true, as MIT suggests, that the gender ratio in their department is convincing a substantial percentage of women to enter MechE who otherwise would have avoided a STEM field its a big deal. However, upon reflection there are some aspects that are troubling.
First, as the article suggests, they engage in fairly extensive recruitment and some degree of affirmative action for female students in STEM fields. This calls into question the existence of any such effect as for all we know MIT is just recruiting women interested in MechE away from other schools. Indeed, even just considering the benefit MIT is suggesting (women are more attracted to programs with a reasonable gender balance) one should expect MIT’s efforts here to be worsening the gender balance at other schools like caltech
But if you really believe that gender imbalance both makes life worse for female students and repeals them from the field it seems downright irresponsible to attrach female MechE majors from other schools (without a better understanding of how these effects work). If, as seems quite plausible, the discomfort (and willingness to drop out/not major) is most extreme when the percentage of women is the least (e.g. superlinear as percent goes to 0), then this could be a substantial net harm as the gains from greater gender equality at MIT are more than offset by the decreased gender equality at other schools. It all depends on the specific numbers but its concerning that people seem convinced this is a good thing without even having an intuition about the size and direction of this cross school interaction.
Before anyone applauds these results we really need some good studies checking that MIT’s efforts really are bringing more women into MechE. I hope they are but I fear that they may be doing the exact opposite. If I had to guess I’d bet that any positive effect of gender balance is offset by the fact that MIT is harder/more competitive than the other schools who would otherwise get many of the women MIT recruits and I expect the harder/more competitive a science class the more likely people (of either gender) are to drop out to a less quantitative subject (but that’s just speculation).
Also, I’d like to know what people whether MITs affirmative action efforts create a situation in which men tend to noticeably outperform women. As much as I hated the huge gender ratio at caltech I very much appreciated the fact that they were obviously equals. Now, like everything else, what I appreciated isn’t what matters but it does seem like we should at the very least have a pretty firm grip on what kind of effects on subsequent attitudes affirmative action has before we praise the policy. Even if, this effect doesn’t appear at MIT right now (e.g. they most just steal girls from caltech and cmu) it might if more schools try to implement such a policy.
I find it pretty crazy when MIT is congratulating itself when they don’t seem to have any grip (or at least are hiding it) on what they are trying to achieve or whether their policies achieve it.
Now, of course, most social programs will depend greatly on priors and I’d be happy with a short little explanation about why they think the net benefit of achieving gender balance in their departments is worth the effect it has on other schools. Are they suggesting their policy would and could universalize and benefits would be seen from that? Some words about why would be nice. Also some words about why they have the intuition any blowback is worth the cost. As it is it kinda makes one feel like you are being scammed with a meaningless advertising statistic.
I think its quite possible MIT’s policy is net beneficial but I’ve yet to see any cogent account of why I should think that so if you have one I’d love to hear it.
As an aside I’d add that while I don’t think there is any inherint moral value in making sure men and women are equally represented in every discipline, only in making sure they are equally welcome and have equal access, but I do think there would be substantial societal gains to increasing the number of women in STEM fields. Not only would this make scientists happier (and less socially isolated and less likely to accidentally harass) but merely making it clear that quantitative, systematic thing oriented reasoning isn’t anti-female.