Florida GOP Wants To Take On ‘Cancel Culture’ By Secretly Recording Professors

Checkmate.

 

Jordan Peterson is in the hard sciences?

Does the dude even know basic calculus? I heard him once say he doesn't trust climate models. I wonder if he has the tool sets to be a informed skeptic of them?

Scholarly work on communism? He's an economist also? I honestly did not know the field of psychology was so involved in such broad fields from climate science to economics. That's actually pretty impressive.

Also even in engineering, which many conservatives tout as the most conservative representive field the ratio of liberal to conservative proffesors is still 2:1.

Something about the intellectually curious not being attracted to conservatism.

 

From my experience, those with even basic bachelor's degree in my circle of friends and loose affiliations are far less prone to spreading false information on facebook while those without one are considerably more likely.

I think it has to do with people with degrees are far more patient in reading long form articles and are just a tad bit more intellectually curious rather than just spamming stuff that fit their preconceived biases.

So I don't think a logic class is necessary to avoid misinformation. Just being used to reading and writing a lot seems sufficient in avoiding "fake news".

 

No. Who said that?

I wouldn't say he has any connection to climate science. He is a clinical psychologist.

I think he has an interest in history. I haven't followed what papers or anything he has published in the area, I only know that he has said he has studied it extensively.

I read 1.6 to 1, but yes, academia is heavily liberal.

Or something about people who lean right economically not being attracted to academia.

 

What does this mean?

Are you saying the median salary for a proffesor is too low for a conservative? Doesn't the median GOP voter have a lower income than the median proffesor income? I mean that goes for the median income of a Democrat voter also. I just don't see how the income of a proffesor would be not desirable for the vast majority of Americans including conservatives? The median Individual income is 36 grand. I'm sure the median GOP voter salary is roughly near that and the median income of a proffesor is much higher than that.

So it seems to me that conservatism disproportionately does not attract the intellectually curious.

And on Peterson, you claimed he did "scholarly work" on communism which implies to me at least peer reviewed work from someone's subject matter expertise. His "curiousty" in the field of economics seems entirely motivated by messaging the preconcieved beliefs of people who consume his content to maximize his earnings rather than sincere intellectual curiousty. The couple of times he actually attempted to debate people who are actual subject matter experts in the field of economics like Richard Wolff it showed how much of his "knowledge" is "pop culture economics" based in memes rather than a sincere understanding of theory. And I wouldn't care about Jordan Peterson's lack of tool sets to be critical of climate models if he didn't make claims about his lack of trust of them especially when he has a cult like following of millions who so believe he's a subject matter expert in all things he touches.

 

Reading and writing a lot helps but there really seems to be a lack of understanding basic logic. Much of the misinformation out there can be simply addressed with Occam's Razor and understanding of inductive and deductive reasoning. Also it seems like a lot of arguments use "it's impossible to disprove a negative" not to counter but to support the argument. While most people laugh at the Ancient Aliens, "We can't say for sure it's aliens, but it's aliens.." A lot of arguments out there follow that formula. Just consider the last election. We see politicians and pundits saying "we can't say for sure the election was stolen, but a lot of people didn't feel confident in the election so we need to make major changes to our election laws.". That's pretty much "we can't say for sure the election was stolen, but it was stolen."

It's almost the absence of evidence becomes the justification.

 

It means the median income for people with a PhD is higher in many other fields than it is in academia. You can't compare the salary of someone with a PhD to a ditch digger, they have wildly different qualifications. You can make a lot more working for a drug company than teaching O.Chem.

According to google scholar, he has published a number of papers related to the psychology and political ideologies in various permutations. I have not read them, but I know he has a particular interest in the Soviet Union, so I would be surprised if he did not address communism at all in said articles. Your inference was not my intended implication however, only to say that he has studied it fairly extensively. I have no idea what formal publication he has done on communism specifically.

 

What do you know about academia? Are you a subject matter about this field? Are you a professor? Oh no? Oh I guess you can't have thoughts and opinions on them and discuss these things.

 

very nice analysis of what the law does and does not do:

Does a New Florida Law Require State Universities to Monitor Faculty and Student Beliefs? (Updated)
Why is straight reporting on educational reform measures so difficult.

https://reason.com/volokh/2021/06/2...ities-to-monitor-faculty-and-student-beliefs/

excerpt:

"Florida Gov signs law requiring students, faculty be asked to declare their political beliefs," blares a headline from The Hill. A story on the same legislation in the Tampa Bay Times has the header: "State university faculty, students to be surveyed on beliefs," with the subhed: "Gov. Ron DeSantis suggested that budget cuts could be looming if universities and colleges are found to be "indoctrinating" students." Will Stancil warned the law represents "a government-led crackdown on college thoughtcrime." It all sounds scary, but is this what the law does?

As always when talking about statutes, it helps to read the bill. Here is the text. The relevant provisions read as follows:

(b) The State Board of Education shall require each Florida College System institution to conduct an annual assessment of the intellectual freedom and viewpoint diversity at that institution. The State Board of Education shall select or create an objective, nonpartisan, and statistically valid survey to be used by each institution which considers the extent to which competing ideas and perspectives are presented and members of the college community, including students, faculty, and staff, feel free to express their beliefs and viewpoints on campus and in the classroom. The State Board of Education shall annually compile and publish the assessments by September 1 of each year, beginning on September 1, 2022. The State Board of Education may adopt rules to implement this paragraph.

(c) The State Board of Education may not shield students, faculty, or staff at Florida College System institutions from free speech protected under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, Art. I of the State Constitution, or s. 1004.097.​

The bill also provides these definitions:

1. "Intellectual freedom and viewpoint diversity" means the exposure of students, faculty, and staff to, and the encouragement of their exploration of, a variety of ideological and political perspectives.

2. "Shield" means to limit students', faculty members', or staff members' access to, or observation of, ideas and opinions that they may find uncomfortable, unwelcome, disagreeable, or offensive.​

Parallel provisions apply to the Board of Governors of state universities.

As the above text makes clear, the required survey is not a survey of the political beliefs of students and faculty. Rather, the survey is to measure "the extent to which competing ideas and perspectives are presented," and the extent to which "members of the college community, including students, faculty, and staff, feel free to express their beliefs and viewpoints on campus and in the classroom." It does not ask student, faculty and staff what their viewpoints are, but whether they feel free to express their viewpoints, whatever they may be. It is a survey about the academic environment, not the political beliefs of members of the academic community.
​

more at the link

 

example of some (exaggerated) reporting on the law:

https://www.theroot.com/gov-ron-desantis-signs-florida-mandate-to-survey-colle-1847175738

 

There is the letter of the statute and the practical application of it if it's implemented. The practical application of it will do what the Hill headline claims. All this is going to do is peg proffesors as "communist" or something along those lines and allow disgruntled students an avenue to take down proffesors because they got graded poorly as revenge. It seems like a policy that would be implemented during the McCarthy red scare era.