« first day (3 days earlier)      last day (18 days later) » 

Jack Gifford
Jack Gifford
18:44
From literally the first paragraph in the Worldbuilding "How do I write a good answer":
"What is the question asking for? Make sure your answer provides that – or at least a viable alternative. Your answer can say “don’t do that,” but it should also say “try this instead.” Any answer that fully addresses at least part of the question is helpful and can get the asker going in the right direction..."
Granted, a different SE, but the point applies here about frame challenges. You failed on the "try this instead", therefore your rant about marxists should have been a very angry comment instead.
Also, I cannot find the WB Meta question you're talking about - a search for "Frame Challenges" returns one question with a significant lead in votes and views on the others, the highest voted answer to which states "I almost entirely agree with you here except for the part about "A frame challenge need not offer an alternative solution." I feel like a frame challenge must by its very nature offer an alternative answer, otherwise, it belongs in comments."
Not to mention, claiming that your VERY politically-charged statements are "self-evident" shows you have zero awareness. I still don't care if they're true or not - its unimaginable that you could believe that your statements are universal truths with widespread support in this day and age. Based off of that, I'm almost starting to think you're just a troll trying to get a rise out of people. I cannot possibly believe that even the most hardcore right-wing advocate could claim that.
 
1 hour later…
TheDemonLord
TheDemonLord
20:06
@JackGifford - would the line "Go out, interview, work hard, take your mistakes on the chin and learn from them - and you'll do just fine." Not count as 'Try this instead'? - Therefore - I have fulfilled the requirements of a Frame Challenge, as you articulated them - However, a Frame Challenge, as you'll note from the WB SE (where, due to the nature of that SE, they are more common) - includes that a Frame Challenge need not offer an alternative solution.
@JackGifford - If you make a series of claims and based on those claims, people take action and based on that action the problem you were seeking to address gets worse - Is it not Self-Evident that the Claims being made are false? I'll grant you that if you have a blind faith in the current radical leftwing ideology (which is, essentially, marxist in nature and poisonous) - then maybe not - but at that point, you are already lost.
As for 'Even the most hardcore Right-Wing Advocate could claim that' - I'm picking you've not met any Hardcore Right Wing advocates. For example - Belieive it or not, I'm not actually a traditional Right Winger - on the Economic front, I'm very Right Wing, but on all other issues, I'm fiercely Libertarian. I want the least amount of Government necerssary - So on issues like Gay Marriage - I don't want the Government interferring in my relationships.
On Drug laws - I don't want the Government regulating what I can and cannot put into my Body. On Free Speech laws (which used to be a Left-Wing ideal) - I don't want the Government regulating what I can and cannot say. The list goes on.
 
3 hours later…
Nick Ulle
Nick Ulle
22:43
@TheDemonLord Whose initial belief? Can you point us to a specific person, group of specific people, or (even better) paper asserting this as anything more than a hypothesis before data was collected? What you've written sounds vague and conspiratorial.
Nick Ulle
Nick Ulle
22:54
@TheDemonLord Further, what do you propose as a scientific method?
TheDemonLord
TheDemonLord
23:14
@NickUlle - So if you look at say the Mono-Myth or Hero's Journey - that took legends/folktales from across culture and then extracted the common elements out of them - That is a form of Statistical analysis. You could also look at the Big-5 Personality traits model, that was also derived in the same manner. Unconcscious bias, conversely was theorized first and then the Statistics were gathered to support it.
If you look at the paper that started it all: Implicit Social Cognition: Attitudes, Self-Esteem, and Stereotypes - You'll note very little in the way of Statistical analysis to derive the concept of Implicit Bias - in fact the specific line that created the concept says: "Consciousness raising. Research on the role of attention in
weakening the effects of implicit cognition (reviewed above)
supports consciousness raising as a strategy for avoiding unintended discrimination. That is, when a decision maker is aware
Now - we have a pretty large amount of Data that shows Consciousness raising has at best no impact on this and at worst - if you teach people to look at other people as their race and gender - people will treat each other as their race and gender (which suffice to say, never ends well)
That should, in-of-itself, be enough to rebut the whole concept - but well, Academics and Consultants have a nice Gravy Train to ride, so.... As for the Scientific Method - One should devise an experiment that simultaneously seeks to prove and disprove a Hypothesis - and suffice to say I think a lot of the work in this area has done a dishonest job at both.

« first day (3 days earlier)      last day (18 days later) »