I think you misunderstand what disruption means in this context? Disruption means pursuing the same market as some incumbents, with the express goal of serving that market better/faster/more efficiently.

The impulse is hostile to the incumbents, but (in principle) good for the market: the market is getting competition, and competition is one way to make things cheaper/better/etc.

Obviously what this looks like varies by market, but the principle is very different from how you're presenting it

One of the core tenets of capitalism is that one person's profits are another person's opportunity. If the latter can do the work/obtain the capital to break into the industry, they can capture some of those profits by offering competition at a lower price point.

I don't think the person you're bagging on is saying it's easy to do; but they are saying that if people feel strongly about changing something, perhaps they should try doing it themselves, instead of just complaining about it and wishing someone else (i.e. government) will fix it for them

You know what they say about glass houses and stones, right?

Yet, when you are handed evidence that this is objectively true, you move the goalposts.

You're clearly not arguing in good faith. As such, I'm done with this conversation

Turns out they were right, but instead of losing the attitude, they doubled down on the toxicity. When I admitted they were right, they doubled down again.

So yeah, pretty obnoxious, all told.

I feel like I've read something about the effects of reducing sulfur production already: https://www.climate.gov/news-features/feed/unintended-warmin...

You don't know what you doing know, after all.

I mean, noise cancelling works by producing more noise, not less; and there will be plenty of times when what's outside with destructively interfere with what you're listening to, or vice versa.

This may be hard to do in a city, but a good test is to go outside on a quiet night, wearing only on one ear, and then turn your head back and forth to alternate ears while trying to listen to specific distant sounds. It'll really highlight just how many things are still being filtered out.

Or it'll demonstrate how much more deaf you might be in one ear :P

Even watching someone else walk around a city with headphones/earbuds in is something that makes me uncomfortable by proxy. It's like someone deciding that walking around with beer goggles is a good idea

I mean, isn't that what we're supposed to do in science? Listen to the folks who have the expertise? Like sure, don't believe that they have the expertise or whatever, but ask for proof of the expertise, don't just handwave it away because you don't agree with the expert. Nothing that they've said has appeared to be inconsistent with their claim of expertise, however.

So... maybe trust the person with the experience? Or, if you have a contrasting experience, present that instead. But this is not what you're doing.

> What is their actual point? That we can say across the board that good research must have easy-to-control experimentation and guarantee novelty?

My read is something like this: Their point is that the scientific method (aka "science") is fundamentally about rigor. If some science doesn't have rigor, it's fair to question its quality, because without rigor, you can't trust any of the results. There's too much possibility for error. The social sciences are notorious for lacking rigor. It's part of the reason there's a repeatability crisis in the field.

> My point is that their stance is political too, because it says 'I don't care about this like how they care about this, so I think it should get cut'.

That's really not what they're saying at all. You keep trying to spin it that way, but I haven't seen that indication of that particular intent.

> Their position is not some innocent defense of empiricism, it's a political stance that says "these questions don't matter, I already know how the world works."

No! They're not saying "these questions don't matter", they're saying "the people doing the science to 'answer these questions' are doing it badly, because they know what good science looks like, and that ain't it."

You were clearly implying that the person you were responding to was saying it was some kind of conspiracy. I'm not buying this sudden retcon.

> We're talking about adults, right? In any event, it would be interesting to see some stats or hear some anecdotes on the matter.

Thats... literally what you were replying to in the aforementioned post! Here's the link again, in case you forgot: https://www.aei.org/articles/partisan-professors/ It's literally a lack of diversity, just like there used to be an equally stark lack of diversity in tech, etc.

I'm almost positive you're just trolling at this point.

Guess you're right, though

Personally, I think he was a bot.

No, I don't, and smugly insinuating I have some ulterior motive or whatever is, frankly, offensive.

I asked you a question because I didn't know what you meant, because you made a statement that was wildly ambiguous even with well-defined context.

> most people fall into one of the categories

One of... Which categories, exactly? This is why I'm asking. You keep making statements as if they're somehow inherently obvious, but... I can think of many different competing definitions of "race", so I'm trying to figure out which one you're using, or if you're even using one at all.

People commonly accept that God exists, too, all across the political spectrum. That doesn't mean he actually does exist, though. "Commonly accepted" does not mean "is true".

> It certainly can. That's a long way from a coordinated conspiracy. And there are layers of insulation like wanting talent regardless of personality and avoiding legal issues.

No one in this thread is claiming a "coordinated conspiracy", just years and years of ever increasing political bias amongst faculty at universities in the U.S.

C'mon, implicit bias training is supposed to teach you about how the negative impacts of persistent, low-grade bias accumulate over time, right?

> Like stealing their lunch or lighting them up in a reply-all or what are we talking about here? Note I'm not freaking out that you "just declared something as a fact".

Like not inviting them to conferences, social gatherings, networking opportunities, etc.

Again, decades of small bias add up. I mean, isn't that the entire thesis of things like "systemic racism"? Why would that not also be true in other areas?

Don't get me wrong, I believe theories like systemic racism have merit and are largely true. I just acknowledge that, if it's true that being black in America is an inherent disadvantage due to years of accumulated bias, it's probably also true that being conservative in academia is also an inherent disadvantage, due to the same mechanism.

All that being said, way to double down on the elitism!

This is such a wildly elitist take. There's nothing intrinsically progressive about education, and to just declare so as fact is an excellent example of the exact kind of hostility that keeps non-progressives from being at home in higher education.

> I think the surprise is that someone believes its indicative of a giant conspiracy to exile conservative professors.

Is it really surprising that people who disagree with someone's politics would let that bleed over into their assessment of that person's professional abilities?

We literally see this everywhere! People use a person's politics to discredit other aspects of their being all the time.

Conservative professors are a rare breed in academia because non-conservatives in academia make it a very hostile workplace environment.

Is it?

Care you define who makes up the "white race"? Or any other overly-broad category that typically gets bandied about as "race"?

From my perspective, as someone who is flexibly categorized as "white" or "latino", depending on whatever is most convenient for the categorizer, "race" is a remarkable fluid label. Most people can't even agree on what "race" folks of mixed ethnic heritage actually are.

Race is a social construct. There's nothing intrinsic or immutable about any social construct.

Uhhh... Not voting at all doesn't count as "Not Trump". It counts as "I don't care," which implicitly means "whatever everyone else thinks".

This is such a dumb thing to try to play semantic games about. A majority of voters elected the clown, and the population of non-voters is complicit in that.