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…
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
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