|diversity в науке
||[июн. 15, 2018|05:49 pm]
Nature, один из двух самых престижных научных журналов в мире, опубликовал редакторскую колонку о пользе многообразия (diversity) научных сотрудников:
Science benefits from diversity
Согласно этой колонке, лаборатории, факультеты, университеты и финансирующие организации должны работать над увеличением репрезентативности в науке разных гендерных, расовых и этнических меньшинств. Это не только моральная их обязанность - это также важно для улучшения качества научных исследований.
"Более репрезентантивная рабочая сила с большей вероятностью будет исследовать вопросы и проблемы, которые выходят за пределы интересов узкого слоя человечества, который сейчас обслуживает значительная часть науки (особенно биомедицины)", уверены редакторы Nature.
Читатели: согласны ли вы с тем, что этническое, гендерное итд. разнообразие ученых приносит пользу науке, и что добиваться репрезентативного участия разных групп населения в науке - долг и обязанность каждого ученого?
P.S. Я настаиваю на вежливом и уважительном общении в комментариях, и буду банить за хамство, ругань, немотивированные наезды на других комментаторов, итп.
I would never ask anybody to ban anybody in THEIR blog. I would love to hear Avva's reaction to your ridiculous statements such as в среднем и таланта, и мотивации у них гораздо меньше.
this is obnoxious, partly because there are no talent-meters and motivation-gauges, i.e. this is pure misogyny, hiding as quasi-science.
people like you do more harm than ebanko with whom you are conversing - he is so obviously coo-coo, one can only pity him, and you "sound reasonable" but spew the same toxic crappola.
Actually, it's you who's spitting crappola. I'm just talking about my intuitions and how they correspond to known facts (IQ distribution). What's so obnoxious about that?
I clearly separate intuition from fact, so your attempt to label it as quasi-science is a straw man fallacy. Question is are you doing it on purpose or is it the furious feminist in you taking liberties with your mind?
Edited at 2018-06-16 17:48 (UTC)
I am not a feminist. they hate me for a good reason. I am a post-feminist.
quasi-science was in reference to your trying to base your "intuition" - do you also do aromatherapy, reading stones, augury perhaps? - on IQ discrepancy. that is indeed shameful and pseudo-scientific.
indeed, diversification is after all possibly needed, because of people like you.
and you - with your views and your "intuition" - should not be allowed to work with women or near women.
your anonymity here in LJ helps you. if this was on FB with your own name on it - you would be fired. and I would applaud.
What's so wrong about relating intuition to fact? I say that it corresponds pretty well, but a fact is still a fact and intuition is still an intuition. It seems you just don't like me having that intuition and are scared/intimidated that I will inform my actions based on it. But having an intuition and informing one's actions are two different things, so no harm has been done at this point other than me talking about how I feel. Your claim that that is a basis for firing me thus doesn't have any grounds, neither in law nor in moral. Furthermore, the only reasonable explanation why you made that claim is that what we have witnessed was your frantic attempt to silence me, make me afraid to use my brain's pattern matching machine properly - by comparing it to logic and fact in order to improve my understanding of reality.
And this is why I consider you a paranoid totalitarian hypocrite who puts her ego and emotion above motivation to learn about reality. There is no place for you in science or around students. If your boss saw this conversation, he would probably hurry to say how he supports your fair fight, and that is the problem with you, post-feminist hypocrites: you are poisoning the science and education system. This is why the world needs more people like me who are not afraid to think for themselves in spite of massive brainwashing going on in society and then expose your hypocrisy online. Of course, this would be much harder and way more dangerous without the power of anonymity on the Internet.
Edited at 2018-06-17 08:00 (UTC)
FOUR EDITS of the same run-on comment with s lot of puffing and no sense. INTUITION.
you "may consider" anything you want, you pathetic nincompoop. I don't give a shit about your "considerations". now go play with your sad little penis. my "intuition" tells me that you are at your best doing that. the world needs more misogynist masturbators, aha,
> if this was on FB with your own name on it
Do you really believe in this, among other kinds of pinky ponies?
VI in Facebook is quite common.