I checked my old blog for references to DEI and Woke. No references to DEI more than two years ago but multiple negative references to "woke" going back more than four years. References to "affirmative action" and "diversity," earlier euphemisms for racial preferences, go back more than seventeen years. So I don't think my concern with t…
I checked my old blog for references to DEI and Woke. No references to DEI more than two years ago but multiple negative references to "woke" going back more than four years. References to "affirmative action" and "diversity," earlier euphemisms for racial preferences, go back more than seventeen years. So I don't think my concern with these issues is due to Rufo.
Are you arguing that support for DEI is not, as Albatross described it, a position that rose very rapidly to orthodoxy? That it doesn't have significant effects? That it did rise fast but the reason was new and convincing arguments for it? I'm not sure what substance of my argument you are disagreeing with.
DEI effects are assertions. No one has ever done any work to demonstrate a material impact on the economy. My general intuition of a white male having to go to BU versus Columbia is of insignificant importance to the economy. It mostly hits on our animal fairness/justice instincts.
Yes, I am claiming this is a contrived issue with very little effect on the "economy". It is in a class of things like, "whatever happened to MS-13" right wing issues.
So you are not disagreeing with anything either I or Albatross wrote. The post wasn't about DEI, it was about preference falsification and its collapse.
You just want to record your disagreement with his, and my, opposition to DEI.
Aside from the effect on college admissions, do you think the existence of an orthodoxy in college employment, requiring that one hold certain political views in order to be hired as a professor, might have undesirable effects, in particular make it harder to discover errors in the current orthodoxy?
It seems you are describing more than preference falsification in you are characterizing aggregate preferences, what is weakly believed, what is true/false, and which ones can be falsified... Your characterization is wholly different than mine. I see very little importance in the world of affirmative action, DEI, or woke. I consider those issues trivial.
I don't think political views are that important for professordom. I don't think they are that important to firms as well. In your abstract version of errors and orthodoxy; I want all this demonstrated first. The claims on DEI and woke; your side is making the extreme claims with almost no evidence and mostly sounds like "I just don't like it".
Bryan Caplan just made some post about DEI has been working because firms have the "slack" to implement bad policy. There's been a litany of posts attacking him with some argumentation that he would use liberally when it fits stuff he likes: which border on EMH the market has spoken, the easiest explanation is it is efficient, you aren't smarter than firms or the market
I checked my old blog for references to DEI and Woke. No references to DEI more than two years ago but multiple negative references to "woke" going back more than four years. References to "affirmative action" and "diversity," earlier euphemisms for racial preferences, go back more than seventeen years. So I don't think my concern with these issues is due to Rufo.
Are you arguing that support for DEI is not, as Albatross described it, a position that rose very rapidly to orthodoxy? That it doesn't have significant effects? That it did rise fast but the reason was new and convincing arguments for it? I'm not sure what substance of my argument you are disagreeing with.
DEI effects are assertions. No one has ever done any work to demonstrate a material impact on the economy. My general intuition of a white male having to go to BU versus Columbia is of insignificant importance to the economy. It mostly hits on our animal fairness/justice instincts.
Yes, I am claiming this is a contrived issue with very little effect on the "economy". It is in a class of things like, "whatever happened to MS-13" right wing issues.
So you are not disagreeing with anything either I or Albatross wrote. The post wasn't about DEI, it was about preference falsification and its collapse.
You just want to record your disagreement with his, and my, opposition to DEI.
Aside from the effect on college admissions, do you think the existence of an orthodoxy in college employment, requiring that one hold certain political views in order to be hired as a professor, might have undesirable effects, in particular make it harder to discover errors in the current orthodoxy?
It seems you are describing more than preference falsification in you are characterizing aggregate preferences, what is weakly believed, what is true/false, and which ones can be falsified... Your characterization is wholly different than mine. I see very little importance in the world of affirmative action, DEI, or woke. I consider those issues trivial.
I don't think political views are that important for professordom. I don't think they are that important to firms as well. In your abstract version of errors and orthodoxy; I want all this demonstrated first. The claims on DEI and woke; your side is making the extreme claims with almost no evidence and mostly sounds like "I just don't like it".
Bryan Caplan just made some post about DEI has been working because firms have the "slack" to implement bad policy. There's been a litany of posts attacking him with some argumentation that he would use liberally when it fits stuff he likes: which border on EMH the market has spoken, the easiest explanation is it is efficient, you aren't smarter than firms or the market