To be honest, you're not answering a lot of the questions.
That's not a criticism. That was the point of the post. That a lot of people read a question, and allow emotion to get the better of them. (I would argue that nearly all people do this.)
Just as a for instance, you answered "no" to 3. This was based on, again, according to you, "admittance rates of blacks vs asians". But if you read the question, it was about discrimination in "academia". Point being, you had your preconceived narrative, which would be confirmed if you took "academia" to mean undergraduate admissions. And people who answer "yes" have their preconceived narrative, which would be confirmed if you took "academia" to mean, say, hiring into academia from a pool of people who already received a PhD. (Even those receiving a PhD from the same department in the same school.)
The question as posed, is not answerable in an objective manner without qualifications. But you gave an answer, which will be taken as an answer without qualifications. Which evokes claims of bias and on and on and on. For instance, will you sit on a hiring panel for your department after such an answer? And, at root, the trouble is only due to the question being an unfocused question, calibrated to evoke an emotional reaction and an almost instinctual deviation from scientific rigor. Not really due to the biases or baser instincts of people offering an answer of yes or no to said question.
My recommendation:
We should stop with all the sensitivity training, and instead have yearly reinforcement training on the principles of scientific rigor. Training where we work through just these sorts of exercises so that people can see how easily they can be moved away from the scientific method if they're not paying attention.
That's not a criticism. That was the point of the post. That a lot of people read a question, and allow emotion to get the better of them. (I would argue that nearly all people do this.)
Just as a for instance, you answered "no" to 3. This was based on, again, according to you, "admittance rates of blacks vs asians". But if you read the question, it was about discrimination in "academia". Point being, you had your preconceived narrative, which would be confirmed if you took "academia" to mean undergraduate admissions. And people who answer "yes" have their preconceived narrative, which would be confirmed if you took "academia" to mean, say, hiring into academia from a pool of people who already received a PhD. (Even those receiving a PhD from the same department in the same school.)
The question as posed, is not answerable in an objective manner without qualifications. But you gave an answer, which will be taken as an answer without qualifications. Which evokes claims of bias and on and on and on. For instance, will you sit on a hiring panel for your department after such an answer? And, at root, the trouble is only due to the question being an unfocused question, calibrated to evoke an emotional reaction and an almost instinctual deviation from scientific rigor. Not really due to the biases or baser instincts of people offering an answer of yes or no to said question.
My recommendation:
We should stop with all the sensitivity training, and instead have yearly reinforcement training on the principles of scientific rigor. Training where we work through just these sorts of exercises so that people can see how easily they can be moved away from the scientific method if they're not paying attention.