Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin - This Week in Stupid (28⧸08⧸2016)

All Episodes

Previous Next

Aug. 28, 2016 - Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin

31:02

This Week in Stupid (28⧸08⧸2016)

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello everyone, welcome to this week in Stupid for the 28th of August 2016.
	So this week we start with an update.
	Researchers overturn a landmark study on the replicability of psychological science.
	Now this is in response to the study that was done where they found I think it was somewhere between 30 and 50% of psychology studies couldn't be replicated, except a team of scientists have gone through and analysed the attempts at replication and found significant flaws with them.
	I'd like to thank world-famous feminist scientist Christy Winters for bringing this to my attention on Twitter, over and over and over and over and over again, to the point where a cynic might say that she's trying to score points.
	But I know better than that because what this is is intellectually honest academic rigor.
	These tweets were all sent over the course of one day and she did ask me repeatedly to tag her in any kind of response I make to her because she really wants to see it.
	And believe me, I am more than willing to tweet Christy Winters to let her know that I've made this update because she's right it is important that people know that there is a problem with this study.
	However, again, a cynic might say, well, she's asking you to tweet her so she can then accuse you of harassment on Twitter.
	Which is of course how she would characterize her behaviour towards me if it was being returned in kind.
	But I happen to know that Christy is a genuine academic with rock solid credentials, a good heart, pure intentions, and it's not like she would ever, ever make false accusations of harassment by me to her on Twitter.
	And again, I know a cynic would say, look, that's exactly what she did a month ago.
	But look, just would just look, she's a good girl, she didn't do nothing.
	Alright?
	She is a good girl.
	Look, I'm not going to impugn her honour.
	I wouldn't even impugn her honour.
	I would never think to insult her like that or anything in any way, shape or form that might in some way denigrate her position as an academic down to her being a petty little girl.
	Okay?
	I'm never going to do that.
	So this review was done by four scientists who found infidelities in the methodology of the replica studies.
	First, they introduced statistical error into the data, which led to the OSC to significantly underestimate how many of their replications should have failed by chance alone.
	When this error was taken into account, the number of failures in the data is no greater than one would expect if all 100 of the original findings had been true.
	Second, they discovered that the low fidelity studies were four times more likely to fail than the high fidelity studies, suggesting that when replicators strayed from the original methods, they caused their own studies to fail.
	And finally, the OSC used a low-powered design, and when the scientists applied this design to a published data set that was known to have high replication rate, it too showed a low replication rate, suggesting that the OSC's design was designed from the start to underestimate the replicability of psychological science.
	What they did is create an idiosyncratic, arbitrary list of sampling rules that excluded the majority of psychology subfields from the sample, that excluded entire classes of studies whose methods are probably among the best in science from the sample, and so on.
	They then proceeded to violate all of their own rules.
	Worse yet, they actually showed some replicators to have a choice about which studies they would try to replicate.
	If they had used these same methods to sample people instead of studies, no reputable scientific journal would have published their findings.
	So the first thing we realized is that no matter what they found, good news or bad news, they never had a chance of estimating the reproducibility of psychological science, which is what the very title of their paper claims they did.
	Now I am a barely literate plebeian who can't even tie up his own shoes, and even to me, this seems as if there was unbelievable issues with the original study.
	I mean, I had assumed when they said, we are replicating these studies, that they actually replicated these studies, but according to this article, they essentially didn't.
	They were far more generous than I think I would have been in their position.
	They say, let's be clear, no one involved in this study was trying to deceive anyone.
	They just made mistakes, as scientists sometimes do.
	Many of the OSC members are our friends, and the corresponding author, Brian Nosek, is actually a good friend who was both forthcoming and helpful to us as we wrote our critique.
	So there we have it.
	We don't know how many psychological studies are replicable, and scientists are just people who can occasionally make mistakes, except for Dr. Winters, who is a paragon of intellectual virtue and has never been wrong on anything ever.
	Since we're on the subject of academia, it seems prudent to talk about the University of Chicago, which is striking back against campus political correctness.
	So John Ellison, the Dean of Students, wrote to members of the class of 2020 who arrive next month, Our commitments to academic freedom means that we do not support so-called trigger warnings.
	We do not cancel invited speakers because their topics might prove controversial, and we do not condone the creation of intellectual safe spaces, where individuals can retreat from ideas and perspectives at odds with their own.
	Now that I've picked my drawer up off the floor, I'd just like to congratulate John for being the remaining sane person in an American university.
	This is so on point, it's like he watches my channel.
	Seriously though, that's magnificent.
	Thank you very much.
	And I would really strongly hope that other universities take this same advice.
	There should not be censorship based on opinion.
	There should not be option for students to opt out of some of their course because they simply do not like some of the topics.
	And they should be able to handle their own emotions.
	It is not up to the class or the teacher to handle their emotions for them.
	If you're a regular viewer of my channel, you'll already be aware of the cancer that has metastasized inside Western universities and is currently killing them.
	To which this statement is a response.
	And if you're thinking that that's hyperbolic, go and look at Mizzou's enrolment figures.
	So I'm not going to go into it now.
	I'll probably create a playlist for it and put a link in the description if you're interested in seeing this in detail firsthand for yourself.
	It's horrifying.
	The Chicago letter echoed policies that were already in place there and at a number of other universities, calling for the, quote, freedom to espouse and explore a wide range of ideas.
	But its stark wording, coming from one of the nation's leading universities, in a routine correspondence that usually contains nothing more contentious than a dining hall schedule, felt to people on all sides like a statement.
	And that's because it is.
	It has become necessary to tell the students going to this university that the university is not going to mollycoddle them.
	Other universities have made similar statements, but the message from Chicago is, quote, clearer and more direct than I've seen, said the president of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Education, which is an organization otherwise known as FHIR, who I highly recommend.
	They do fantastic work.
	If you want to find them on Twitter, you can just look for at FHIR, I think it is, and you'll find them.
	They're very, very good, and you should definitely follow them if you want to know what's going on.
	The president of Wesleyan University said the Chicago letter was at least in part a publicity stunt, which of course it was, but also you do need to make this kind of point, especially in this current political environment.
	Gosh, is there any doubt, he asked, and a way of not coddling students, but coddling donors.
	And given, again, how we've seen the enrolments drop in the universities that are in fact the worst for this sort of thing, I'm actually not surprised.
	I'm surprised that he thinks pointing that out is an astute observation.
	But the University of Chicago have insisted that there are no hidden motives behind the letter.
	They say that professors remain free at their discretion to use trigger warnings, but they are of course not mandatory, which is the problem for the people demanding safe spaces and trigger warnings.
	What I find most interesting about this Washington Post article though, is how they picked up on this.
	While conservatives often frame campus free speech as a left versus right issue, the dispute is often from within the left.
	Historically, the left has been much more protective of academic freedom than the right, particularly in the university context, says Joffrey R. Stone, a University of Chicago law professor who specializes in free speech issues.
	Conservatives suddenly became the champions of free speech, which I find a bit ironic, but the left is divided.
	Well, I mean, I don't want to be cynical, but it is also a little self-serving.
	This is actually an argument I've had with the alt-right recently, where they say, we tend to be more pro-free speech, and I think that you tend to be more pro-free speech, because currently, you're not the ones who get to decide who has free speech.
	We'll see how you are when the pendulum has swung back and you're the ones who get to make that decision.
	Anyway, people who are currently against free speech have, of course, many problems with this, as is exemplified by Vox.com.
	University of Chicago's anti-safe spaces letter isn't about academic freedom, it's about power.
	Okay?
	So?
	Everything about social justice is about power.
	Everything about trigger warnings and safe spaces and all these demands are about power.
	As if you're just such fucking hypocrites.
	My god, they're just reasserting their power.
	What are you doing?
	We're trying to assert our power over them.
	So what's wrong with them reasserting their power?
	It means we don't get to control them!
	You fucking hypocrites, I just don't even get it.
	I just don't even get how you think.
	And this is written by a professor, by the way, right?
	This is written by a lecturer.
	A letter from the University of Chicago's Dean of Students to incoming students has been making the rounds on social media the past few days.
	Its purpose, I guess, was to let those students know they're in for a real education.
	More of a full-on broadside than a welcome letter.
	Is it a full-on broadside, or is it just a statement of intent?
	I mean, do you think that's characterising this accurately?
	I mean, you're not suggesting that this is actually an attack on the students, are you?
	The Dean let the incoming students know the university is totally committed to academic freedom and freedom of expression from its faculty and students.
	Yes, that's a very good thing.
	You should be in favour of that.
	You rely on it to peddle this kind of nonsense.
	What this means in practice is that we do not condone the creation of intellectual safe spaces.
	Or do you mean creating a home here?
	Where individuals can retreat from ideas and perspectives at odds with their own.
	And if you've watched students at other campuses, the dean warns, don't get any crazy ideas about protesting invited speakers.
	We do not cancel invited speakers because their topics might prove controversial.
	And for the love of Milton Friedman, just call them right-wingers.
	Just call them right-wingers.
	You know you want to.
	If you do that, if you label them as right-wingers, in your mind, we know you have devalued the right-wingers.
	We know you will say, well, their opinions simply don't matter, because they're right-wing.
	But please, continue being as honest as Dr. Winters.
	Our commitment to academic freedom means we do not support so-called trigger warnings.
	Caps, we are a mighty race of intellectual warriors.
	Oh, sorry, I thought I was reading something by a professor.
	I didn't realise I was reading something by a 12-year-old.
	And that's coming from someone with the sense of humor of a 15-year-old.
	I've been teaching on the college level for 18 years, and I also direct my university's teaching and learning centre.
	So I've been following the debate over trigger warnings, safe spaces, and the purported scourge of political correctness.
	I like the way you say political correctness.
	I mean, all of this in inverted commas, as if these things are things that have been made up by those evil right-wingers, and don't really exist.
	It's all part of Hillary Clinton's vast right-wing conspiracy, isn't it?
	Despite the apocalyptic tone that often accompanies such screeds against supposedly coddled students.
	Supposedly.
	Supposedly, it's not about creating an intellectual space, it's about creating a home here.
	That was screened at a dean by a student to put him in his place, and you're saying these aren't coddled students.
	They're just supposedly coddled.
	Jesus.
	I mean, the fact that that statement had to be made by the University of Chicago is why we know that these people are obviously being coddled.
	They wouldn't need to say it if it wasn't something that was obviously happening.
	But the issues involved strike me as far more complicated than the overheated rhetoric suggests.
	Hang on, hang on down.
	Overheated rhetoric.
	Let me think.
	What did I just read that sounded like overheated rhetoric?
	what was it I mean it was oh god I just it was it was literally just seconds ago Hang on, let me just go back a minute and check.
	Caps, we are a mighty race of intellectual warriors.
	Yeah, I think that might have been it.
	I think that might have been the overheated rhetoric that you're talking about.
	I mean, it is you who wrote it, but I mean, at least we can see that there is some overheated rhetoric coming from somewhere here.
	I'm dismayed by how diatribes like the Chicago Letter approach students in adversarial terms, implying that they don't know how to make choices or approach material when it comes to their learning.
	What?
	You're asking for fucking safe spaces and trigger warnings.
	You're asking to be omitted from certain parts of courses, such as, I mean, the classic example is law students opting out of learning about rape laws.
	Are you serious?
	I mean, does this be- is this a parody article?
	Have Vox become a comedy site?
	Because to be honest, they're way better than Cracked these days.
	This is actually hilarious.
	I know I've been going on with this subject quite well now, but this article is just such a regressive tour de force of just intellectual blindness that I just can't stop, right?
	I mean, look at this.
	Students ought to be challenged and even made uncomfortable in order to learn in deep and meaningful ways.
	You don't want that.
	You want them to not be made uncomfortable.
	That's what you want.
	And of course, collegiate education is where students must encounter perspectives different from their own, except when they want to shout them down, which you were in favour of, and getting speakers unlisted if people happen to not like their opinions.
	But I mean, that's what you're arguing for.
	No one who genuinely believes in higher education genuinely believes in higher education.
	What do you mean genuinely believes in it?
	It's not faith, is it?
	It's not.
	They're not going to dispute any of that.
	And that's what this dean and the anti-trigger warnings no safe spaces crowd are counting on. that the surface veneer of reasonableness in these admonitions for the class of 2020 will obscure the rotten pedagogy and logical fallacies that infest this entire screed.
	I'm not going to tell you what they are though.
	I'm just going to say that they're there and you can just take my word for it.
	After all, I'm an academic.
	Even the timing of this missive raises questions.
	Why go full blast against this purported scourge of wimpy, touchy-feely educational malpractice right up front?
	Is there a safe spaces petition percolating in the ranks of the first years?
	Well if you'd taken the time to Google it my friend, you'd have found that there are a few.
	They're not particularly popular though, so they're not especially noteworthy.
	Other dean in the university worried that people might lose respect for the almighty maroon if they didn't stake out the tough guy intellectual turf from the beginning.
	I think it's actually that they're worried that people might lose respect for the almighty maroon if they don't act in a way that is respectable.
	And being a giant bunch of fucking crybabies isn't very respectable.
	Just so you know.
	Did they sit around and ask themselves what Milton Friedman would have done?
	Oh my god.
	It's because they're evil right-wingers, isn't it?
	It's because they're evil right-wingers and they probably eat left-wing babies.
	So this episode is probably going to be longer than usual as well, but like I said, I really didn't want to have to go on about this, but this article is just, it's so unbelievable.
	I mean, I'll just skip to the end, and you can see exactly what I'm talking about.
	I mean, I've demonstrated multiple times, but this is just unbelievable.
	Unbelievable.
	Have a bunch of hypothetical situations.
	If I'm teaching historical material that describes war crimes like mass rape, shouldn't I disclose to my students what awaits them in these texts?
	If I have a student suffering from trauma due to a press sexual assault, isn't a timely caution the empathetic and humane thing for me to do?
	And what does it cost?
	A student may choose an alternate text I provide, but the material isn't savagely ripped from my course to satiate the PC police.
	Thanks.
	Okay, I mean, maybe, if, myth, if, if, if, maybe, may, may, may.
	From the very next paragraph, we should challenge ourselves to quit fixating on caricatures and hypotheticals and instead acknowledge that the actual landscape of teaching and learning in all is messiness and complexity.
	You just...
	Why?
	Why would...
	Why can't you stop the hypotheticals?
	You're the one who bases your entire argument on, yeah, but what if one of my students is an X or a Y?
	Or what if they're slightly afraid or upset?
	Is that okay?
	What if?
	What about it?
	Oh my god, I don't like the fact that I'm dealing with war crimes or rape or whatever.
	Okay.
	Get over it.
	Go to counselling.
	Remember that your professors aren't your mum and dad.
	Stop externalising your personal problems onto other people.
	It's not their fucking problem.
	It's your problem.
	Go and deal with it.
	Okay, so since I am actually gunning for the worst episode of This Week in Stupid I have ever made, I'm now going to talk about something that didn't even happen this week.
	Although I will say it does pertain to something that did, and I again need to set the context.
	I'm just so shit at my job.
	I'm so sorry.
	So radical cleric Anjem Chowdhury was found guilty of inviting Islamic State support.
	One of the UK's most notorious radical clerics has been convicted of inviting others to support the so-called Islamic State, it can now be reported, last week.
	Police said Chowdhury49 had stayed just within the law for years, but was arrested in 2014 after pledging allegiance to the militant group.
	I mean, I don't think he was actually tried with treason, but I mean, isn't that something that could actually apply to him if he does that, just out of interest?
	Many people tried for serious terror offences were influenced by his lectures and speeches, police said.
	Chowdhury was convicted alongside Continent Mohammed Mizanur Rahman.
	Counter-terrorism chiefs have spent almost 20 years trying to bring Chowdhury, a father of five, to trial, blaming him and the prescribed organizations which he helped to run for radicalizing young men and women.
	Both were charged with one offence of inviting support for Islamic State, which is contrary to section 12 of the Terrorism Act of 2000 between 29th of June 2014 and 6th of March 2015.
	The verdict on the two defendants was delivered on the 28th of July, but can only be reported now following the conclusion of a separate trial at the Old Bailey of another group of men for a similar offence.
	The trial heard how the men decided in summer 2014 that the group then known as ISIS had formed a calipha or Islamic State, what we would probably call a caliphate, and demanded the obedience and support of Muslims.
	They then invited others to support the Islamic State through speeches and announced their own oath of allegiance to its leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi or something.
	The oath of allegiance was a turning point, which meant they could be put on trial, the Met police said.
	So that's the background to all of this, but I thought it was really worth looking at some of the more detailed information that we have about Chowdhury and his actions and associates, because I think it will punctuate a few of the things that I've been saying about this situation that I think are generally being left out of the discourse.
	So the BBC put up this article, How Anjum Chowdhury's Mouth Was Finally Shut, and it has some absolutely fascinating information about Chowdhury's life, motivations and history.
	It's honestly this is so useful for us to see as a case study into cult behaviour and the sort of redemptive story of a Muslim who has come to the West, enjoyed and indulged in the sinful lifestyle of the West, as according to Islam, and repented by becoming a radical.
	They say that the evidence shows that Chowdhury is one of the most dangerous men in Britain.
	Not a bomb maker, not a facilitator, but an ideologue, a thinker, who encouraged others not to stop and think for themselves before they turned to violence to implement their shared worldview.
	Chowdhury's mindset is really simple.
	There are two worlds, the world of belief, meaning Muslims, and the world of disbelief, everyone else.
	Assuming for a moment that the world neatly divides in such camps, these worlds are incompatible because the way of life of one threatens the existence of the other.
	In his head, there can be no compromise, no meeting of minds.
	Liberal democracy, personal freedom, the rule of law mandated by the people is all an affront to the will of Allah.
	And the solution to all of this, a single Islamic State, under Sharia, for the whole world, for all areas of life.
	Adam Dean was one of the early recruits to the network that Chowdhury helped to forge.
	He says, What attracted me was the simplicity, that I was a Muslim, I should represent these ideas, and I belonged inside an Islamic State, and everything else was wrong and evil.
	This was extremely comforting as a young man immersed in a world where I was seeing complexity and not knowing who was right and wrong.
	It's a type of outlook that is completely splitting the world in a cosmic battle of good and evil.
	And on the side of good is everyone who agrees with what he says.
	That polarization creates a type of mindset towards non-Muslims.
	Then you can start rationalizing acts of violence.
	I never heard Anjem overtly condoning acts of violence and terrorism, says Adam Dean, who now works in counter-extremism for the Quilliam Foundation think tank.
	But there was an attitude and atmosphere that would tacitly approve of it, and at one point it became policy to not condemn acts like 9-11 because it would be seen as supporting the kaffar, the disbelievers, and the infidels.
	So there was a tacit approval behind closed doors.
	At this point, anyone who watched my cult analysis video of Arthur Diekman's work is undoubtedly screaming at the screen.
	Compliance of the group, devaluing the outsider, and avoiding dissent.
	Three characteristics.
	The only thing left is dependence on the leader.
	Dance stepbrother Rob Leach, a filmmaker, spent years trying to get inside of Chowdhury's head.
	The reason why he is so influential is because of his charisma.
	He is incredibly charming and he is clever, and he knows how to manipulate people.
	If you are a young guy who meets him for the first time, quite often you're overawed by him.
	He knows exactly what you want and what your needs are.
	A lot of these guys have things missing from their lives, and he provides them.
	Andy Chowdhury is a cult leader, and I don't mean that because he is a religious leader.
	Religious leaders do not have to be cult leaders, but religious leaders can be cult leaders, and they're always cult leaders of a relatively small group of people, because cults are always relatively small.
	Probably due to the amount of control the cult leader needs to exert over the individual members of the group to keep them and maintain them.
	And after doing my Why Do Bad Muslims Commit to Terrorist Acts video, which YouTube has demonetized because why wouldn't they?
	Unsurprisingly, Chowdhury drank and partied his way through part of his student days, but then found God.
	And I have no doubt that he now feels great remorse for being such a sinner.
	And I really do think that in his opinion, in Chowdhury's opinion, his extremism is his path to redemption.
	And finally we get to the thing that happened this week to tie it all in a neat little bow that will then probably explode.
	Political correctness is allowing Islamist extremism to flourish in British prisons, a report warns.
	What a fucking surprise.
	Political correctness in prisons is allowing extremism to flourish because guards are too afraid of confronting Muslims, a report has found.
	Okay, this whole video I've been quite light-hearted and I found the things I'm talking about rather amusing, and this is now where this ends.
	A review into Islamist extremism in the British justice system has found that cultural sensitivity towards Muslim prisoners is preventing staff from challenging unacceptable extremist behaviour and views.
	Well I can already feel my blood boiling, but how about you tell me in the comments why you think that the authorities were failing to challenge Islamist extremism in prison?
	The report by a former prison governor warns that supervising staff are being pressured to leave prayer rooms during collective worship.
	Islamist prisoners are also attempting to prevent searches by claiming dress is religious and are also getting access to extremist literature that is available in chaplaincy libraries or from individual prisoners.
	Right, so there are currently convicted gangs of Muslims in British prisons radicalizing to become terrorist cells.
	And this is being allowed to go on.
	Why?
	The report concludes that extremists are exploiting staff fears of being labelled racist.
	Enhance my calm.
	I am going to enhance my motherfucking calm.
	Dear British authorities, is there nothing that you pusillanimous cunts consider to be worse than racism?
	Or not even actual racism, just the fear of being labeled racist?
	Is there nothing worse than this?
	You spineless pieces of shit, you are condemning people to death out of your own cowardice when these psychotic terrorists get out of jail.
	People will die because you are fucking weak.
	Oh, and just in case, and just in case you were in any doubt.
	The report also warned that charismatic Islamist extremist prisoners are acting as self-styled emirs and exerting a controlling and radicalizing influence on the wider Muslim prison population.
	Translation.
	They are creating terrorist cults in prison because the prison staff are afraid of words.
	Enhance my fucking calm.
	But I suppose maybe we shouldn't be so angry.
	At least the Justice Secretary has already announced that the most dangerous extremists will be locked up in isolated high security prisons within prisons to prevent them from radicalizing other inmates.
	On Monday, she will also announce that governors and prison officers will be given new training to prevent influential extremist prisoners from exerting control and radicalizing others.
	Well, that's very important.
	But could they also have training to literally just stand there and have hundreds of people, let's get 100 people together, and have every single one of these people just scream the word racist at them all day.
	Every day for like a week.
	Just wherever they go.
	Racist, racist, you're a racist, you're a racist, you're a dirty racist, racist, racist, racist.
	So by the end of that week, the word will literally have no fucking effect on them and they can actually grow their balls to take action against this.
	I'm so, so very, very fucking sick of hearing about how people are afraid of being called racist.
	And because they're afraid of being called racist, they will let Muslim extremists infiltrate schools.
	They'll let them molest young girls en masse.
	And they will let them radicalize other young Muslims who have been convicted for crimes in prison because they're so afraid of having their little fifis hurt.
	I mean, they must understand at this point that if there is any other plausible explanation as to why someone might be taking action against a black person or a Muslim or whatever, then it is obviously not racism.
	I know that you're radicalizing people and you're encouraging them to be terrorists and all this sort of thing, but I might be doing this because you're a different skin colour to me.
	And I'm so not sure that people might think this that I better not take any action at all.
	I just can't believe it.
	I just can't believe it.
	It's not racist to arrest Muslims if they do something wrong.
	It's not racist to arrest black people if they do something wrong.
	In fact, it is the very opposite of racist.
	It's not wrong to prevent them from causing more crimes.
	It's not wrong because you would do exactly the same to a white person.
	You would do that to white people if there were white radicals in these prisons like IRA members or something.
	And they were literally, and this is the problem with Guantanamo Bay and stuff.
	It puts them all in the same place so they can network, they can coordinate, and when they get out, they can cause a hell of a lot more trouble than they would have done a lot more easily.
	And if this was happening to white people, with white people like the IRA or something, you would crack down on this without a second fucking thought.
	And it's because maybe you secretly are racists that you look at them and go, well, Jesus Christ, look at those brown people.

▲