The Best Thing to Do About People Who Carefully Rely on Statistics When Analyzing Complex Social Issues? Fire Them.

What is the effect of violent protests (versus peaceful protests) on future elections? This would seem to be a compelling topic these days. As one example of many, would it affect voters to see a video of people breaking into a car dealership in Oakland, spray painting vehicles and then setting several vehicles on fire as part of a political protest related to the detestable homicide of George Floyd?

What if a person, citing relevant statistics by Princeton political scientist Omar Wasow, offers insights based on these statistics?  Apparently, the best response is to get that person fired because such a Tweet would allegedly be "racist."  That's what happened in the case of David Shor, as reported by Vox. The video posted above post-dates the firing of Shor, but I am posting it to illustrate.

Here is Shor's May 28, 2020 Tweet:

Now, two excerpts from the detailed article in Vox:

Mass demonstrations work, in other words, but looting and disorder are counterproductive. This was Shor’s sin: repeating Wasow’s findings that marching is good but looting and vandalism are counterproductive.

...

Shor did not say that protesting is harmful; he said that rioting is harmful. And he didn’t say that data should dictate how people feel. And while one data scientist’s tweet of one political science paper should not be the last word on social movement tactics, the reasonable response to Shor would be to counter with some other form of evidence. Instead, the dialogue followed a pattern in progressive circles that often involves making evidence-free assertions about how members of various groups feel.

My concern is that we have entered an era where many people and institutions exuberantly accept feelings as a the best way to understand the world, and that feelings are more compelling than careful analysis of facts, even when the factual analysis is based on statistics.  I am seeing ubiquitous examples where intelligent-seeming people declare that anecdotes are superior to careful analysis, both on the political left and right.

We seem to be entering a new Dark Age, where important conversations can no longer be had and where thoughtful people need to choose among these two options, where there are only these two options: A) Your need to express your thoughts freely in a nation created upon the assumption that people must talk with each other freely and B) Your need to not get fired from your job.

John McWhorter sees what might be a light at the end of the tunnel:

I hope McWhorter is correct.  I seem to be losing 1% of hope each day.

Continue ReadingThe Best Thing to Do About People Who Carefully Rely on Statistics When Analyzing Complex Social Issues? Fire Them.

A Black Police Officer in Portland discusses the behavior and attitudes of protesters.

Jakhary Jackson has been a Portland Police Officer for many years. In this video he shares his experiences getting to know the tactics and attitudes of the protesters. Not all protesters are the same.

Continue ReadingA Black Police Officer in Portland discusses the behavior and attitudes of protesters.

John McWhorter Explores the Language Prominent in Today’s Racial Reckoning

John McWhorter's Lexicon Valley has been one of my favorite podcasts for several years. His general topic is linguistics and McWhorter makes it all educational, humorous and even musical. This is McWhorter's side gig. For his day job, he is a professor of English at Columbia University.

In this particular episode, McWhorter takes a look the origin and meaning of some of the words and phrases we use to discuss today's racial reckoning, words and phrases such as "Black," "white," [capitalizations are intentional] "defund," "Black Lives Matter" and "Karen." If you haven't yet experienced Lexicon Valley, this episode is a timely one: "Defund Karen: On the insults, acronyms, and sloganeering of America’s racial reckoning."

Continue ReadingJohn McWhorter Explores the Language Prominent in Today’s Racial Reckoning

Harper’s Letter on Justice and Open Debate

We are now beginning to hear the other side of a much-needed debate advocating for the need for robust and open debate. Too many careers have already been threatened or ended by a misstep or two on an invisible ever-changing minefield containing far too many untethered and unsustainable ideas. And whatever happened to do unto others? Here is the final paragraph of the Harper's Letter signed by numerous artists, thinkers and writers who fear for the future. The document is titled: "A Letter on Justice and Open Debate":

This stifling atmosphere will ultimately harm the most vital causes of our time. The restriction of debate, whether by a repressive government or an intolerant society, invariably hurts those who lack power and makes everyone less capable of democratic participation. The way to defeat bad ideas is by exposure, argument, and persuasion, not by trying to silence or wish them away. We refuse any false choice between justice and freedom, which cannot exist without each other. As writers we need a culture that leaves us room for experimentation, risk taking, and even mistakes. We need to preserve the possibility of good-faith disagreement without dire professional consequences. If we won’t defend the very thing on which our work depends, we shouldn’t expect the public or the state to defend it for us.

Continue ReadingHarper’s Letter on Justice and Open Debate

Dishonest Zealots Attempt to Destroy the Career of Linguist Steven Pinker

Cognitive linguist Steven Pinker has had an illustrious career as a teacher and prolific author. His politics have often leaned to the left. None of this immunizes him from baseless attacks by hundreds of people who apparently don't see any value in Pinker's willingness to contribute his expertise to national conversations on critically relevant issues. They are unwilling to give fair readings to Pinker's statements. They also appear to be threatened by Pinker's use of germane statistics in order to shed light on complex claims involving police behavior and racism.

Here is the opening paragraph of a recent letter signed by almost 500 people, many of them grad students and undergrads, then sent to the Linguistic Society of America:

In reaction to this letter, Jerry Coyne, eminent Professor of Professor of Ecology & Evolution, concludes as follows at his website: "I’m really steamed when a group of misguided zealots tries to damage someone’s career, and does so dishonestly."

Linguist John McWhorter has also indicated his enthusiastic support of Steven Pinker:

Here is Jerry Coyne's full blog post, setting forth the numerous false accusations against Pinker coupled with the evidence clearly demonstrating that these accusations are false. Coyne's post is titled "The Purity Posse pursues Pinker."

I invite you to read both sides of this dispute.  I suspect you will be outraged at the way Pinker is being treated.  You might also wonder how it is that hundreds of people who claim to be highly knowledgeable in linguistics are such inept readers.  The phrase "social conflagration" might come to mind as you review the evidence.  The name Robespierre might periodically pop into your thought process.

Continue ReadingDishonest Zealots Attempt to Destroy the Career of Linguist Steven Pinker