Well put. An equivalent piece of childish gibberish is "your silence speaks volumes". No, it doesn't. It might mean I haven't thought about it, don't think I have opinions worth sharing, suspect the loaded way something has been phrased, or (increasingly these days) suspect the person of sheer bad faith. Or, I might not be able to squash my thought into 280 characters.
Precisely this. If I have a sense that whatever I say will be read in the worst way possible, regardless - I don’t see the point of engaging. Once, in the early days of the blogosphere, I thought I could have a rational discussion with most people. Oh sweet summer child that I was. Life is too short to engage in pointless stoushes.
I think we all went through that stage! Bad faith changes everything though. Once you realize that some folk are in this simply to project their ghastly personalities/pre-arranged childlike political views (I'm balanced between wanting to beat them over the head with their copy of Ayn Rand or throttle them with their Che Guevara T shirt) then it totally changes the game. And Mike Tyson was right: The level of disrespect people think they can get away because they are behind a screen is not helping.
Yes, I had a very similar experience. I should note that the Student Experience Survey which stung me so badly was one of the first online ones - I really do think it makes a difference - you don’t have to face the person as you say rude or nasty things to them.
It's leading to a blandness in delivery because (understandably) lectures pay more attention to 1 or 2 making a fuss than hundreds enjoying/getting lots out of it. I know that colleagues censor themselves and lots refuse to be recorded as clips can be decontexualised or similar
Yes. My kids were telling me that a prominent YouTube influencer told people he gained his popularity by saying nothing of any significance on issues. A related aspect is that lots of people seem to want to be liked (maybe related to online cultures, seeking “likes”). I’d rather be respected than liked. In fact, I’m pretty sure that some people don’t like me, but so what? They don’t have to like me. As long as I do my job properly and professionally, that’s the main thing.
I've watched prominent academics babble on happily about topics that I know for a fact they know little to nothing about for clicks. Its a pathetic spectacle. And once you go down that route it's hard to pull yourself back to reality.
SESs are the devil’s work. They do not improve teaching and they have been proven to operate in a discriminatory way: someone reading out content in a male voice did better than someone reading out *identical* content in a female voice, for example. I do peer reviews for colleagues to offset any prejudice that might operate.
I heartily agree. I am endlessly astonished by how easily others (and to my shame, how I) can express strong and confident views on matters of which I have no direct experience, no personal knowledge and where I rely on views of people who are apparently authoritative, of whom I have no personal knowledge. To quote the ever wise Elizabeth Bennet, “There is a very fine old saying, which everybody here is of course familiar with, ‘Keep your breath to cool your porridge,’ and I shall keep mine to swell my song.”
Of course, the more sinister aspect is how much this smacks of Soviet-style bullying. I can't help but think these people would love to be part of some agency that keeps troublesome people in line.
I think some people would definitely love to be part of such an agency which enforces the correct way of thinking, and to tell others off. I’ve had “struggle session” vibes about several incidents at the university over the past 8 years. So much so that I went and read about how they operated.
A belief test is when you set the other party a test that you know they can pass.
They pass it.
Then you set a slightly higher threshold for the other party.
If they fail, then you declare “they can’t be trusted !”
Imagine that the belief test is reversed to demonstrate lack of “integrity”? Set an unachievable threshold and condemn the other party for their behaviour.
The problem is that reasonable people try to reason with people who are simply not amenable to logic, facts, reason or anything that resembles a coherent argument.
Einstein is the subject of more false attributions than anyone else in history, at least in my opinion. One of the false attributions is that Einstein claimed that “the same level of thinking cannot be described to the solution of a problem as created the problem.“
The point is that people who rationalise a point of view which is fundamentally based in emotion are not susceptible to arguments based in facts, reason or logical positions.
You might as well discuss Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co with a cockroach. You can present your arguments as elegantly as you like. But the cockroach will survive whatever you throw at them, and there will be a conga line of people who will lineup to tell you that the cockroach is right and you are oppressing the cockroach.
The problem occurs when the Universities are full of people with whom one can’t argue. We need leadership to make it clear that ability to argue properly is pivotal. And if you can only bully people into submission: well, as I suggest at the end of this piece, you are not much of an academic.
Interesting to have this sort of 'testing' described in action in the professional sphere. My own experience was in the personal realm... i decided at one point that i was simply 'fed up' with listening to everyone around me pile on to whatever was the subject du jour and simply repeat and reinforce it. I decided to stay silent at these moments - and yes the silence was seen as 'suspect'. My silence, and the reactions to it, told me that some sort of social phenomenon was occurring .... I'm no psychologist or sociologist so i don't have words for it. I simply know that whatever it is/was - i don't want to be part of it.
I suspect a lot of us have had this experience in a whole bunch of spheres. So, if you want read more about the psychology of it, Robert Cialdini’s book ‘Influence’ describes it. When an issue is uncertain, people seek to pressure others into agreeing to make themselves more certain. We seek social confirmation of our views, and then say, “Oh, I must be right, everyone agrees with us, I don’t have to think about this.” And if someone stays silent, that means they’re effectively “doubting” us.
I ama aware that it is next to impossible to remove academics or students. That is another thing that is going to lead to the public refusing to fund them. Sadly I see no way universities can not be discredited because there is no method to reform them and the academic culture seems to be getting steadily more and more insane and out of touch with reality and the views of the majority of the electorate. Good luck in your efforts to save the baby
I think you are being too nice. Particularly in academia loyalty tests should be rejected such that the person/group attempting them is removed from academia. If they are students they should simply be told to reapply some where else. If they are staff they should be fired. If they have tenure then attempting to apply a loyalty test should be grounds for forfeiture of tenure.
Of course no university will follow my advice, and the result (not just of failing to do that, but that among other related things) is that academia is going to find that voters will decide to not fund it any more and employers and the like will see possession of a degree as an impediment to employment rather than a recommendation.
Well, there’s another issue which is how hard it is to sack an ongoing academic for conduct which would have you walked out the door anywhere else. My own uni has tried to fire people and failed on several occasions when it went to the FWC. And when they tried to expel students, there was a huge uproar, and on appeal the students were taken back.
I agree with you that the electorate will not have a bar of this if it keeps going. And I agree that this might destroy universities if they don’t change tack. Part of my mission is to ensure the baby doesn’t get thrown out of the bathtub, if universities are discredited, and to try to save what is good and useful. Of course I said this in a piece in the SMH in 2021, and I got absolutely piled on and called a fascist and stupid and all kinds of other things. Ho hum.
Wholeheartedly agree re what we can and can't control, academia and life is tough enough without me worrying over things that I can't control (and frankly that's probably a good thing). I frequently think about this
" Can any of you, however much you worry, add one single cubit to your span of life?" and " Be not therefore solicitous for tomorrow; for the morrow will be solicitous for itself. Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof." (Matthew 6:27 and 34). Although, depending on my mood, this also resonates, "I have seen all things that are done under the sun, and behold all is vanity, and vexation of spirit. The perverse are hard to be corrected, and the number of fools is infinite" (Ecclesiastes 1:14-15) 😂😂
The moment someone tries to pressure or bully me into agreement, it's over. I regret some things I've gone along with due to my own bad judgment, but I have an allergy to jumping on the bullying mob bandwagon to get along. I believe the tendency or most people to cave to pressure makes it imperative that the disruptors hold the line to eventually lead people back to sanity.
Well put. An equivalent piece of childish gibberish is "your silence speaks volumes". No, it doesn't. It might mean I haven't thought about it, don't think I have opinions worth sharing, suspect the loaded way something has been phrased, or (increasingly these days) suspect the person of sheer bad faith. Or, I might not be able to squash my thought into 280 characters.
Precisely this. If I have a sense that whatever I say will be read in the worst way possible, regardless - I don’t see the point of engaging. Once, in the early days of the blogosphere, I thought I could have a rational discussion with most people. Oh sweet summer child that I was. Life is too short to engage in pointless stoushes.
I think we all went through that stage! Bad faith changes everything though. Once you realize that some folk are in this simply to project their ghastly personalities/pre-arranged childlike political views (I'm balanced between wanting to beat them over the head with their copy of Ayn Rand or throttle them with their Che Guevara T shirt) then it totally changes the game. And Mike Tyson was right: The level of disrespect people think they can get away because they are behind a screen is not helping.
Yes, I had a very similar experience. I should note that the Student Experience Survey which stung me so badly was one of the first online ones - I really do think it makes a difference - you don’t have to face the person as you say rude or nasty things to them.
It's leading to a blandness in delivery because (understandably) lectures pay more attention to 1 or 2 making a fuss than hundreds enjoying/getting lots out of it. I know that colleagues censor themselves and lots refuse to be recorded as clips can be decontexualised or similar
Yes. My kids were telling me that a prominent YouTube influencer told people he gained his popularity by saying nothing of any significance on issues. A related aspect is that lots of people seem to want to be liked (maybe related to online cultures, seeking “likes”). I’d rather be respected than liked. In fact, I’m pretty sure that some people don’t like me, but so what? They don’t have to like me. As long as I do my job properly and professionally, that’s the main thing.
I've watched prominent academics babble on happily about topics that I know for a fact they know little to nothing about for clicks. Its a pathetic spectacle. And once you go down that route it's hard to pull yourself back to reality.
Yes, agree with all of that. And Student Experience Surveys are an abomination.
SESs are the devil’s work. They do not improve teaching and they have been proven to operate in a discriminatory way: someone reading out content in a male voice did better than someone reading out *identical* content in a female voice, for example. I do peer reviews for colleagues to offset any prejudice that might operate.
I heartily agree. I am endlessly astonished by how easily others (and to my shame, how I) can express strong and confident views on matters of which I have no direct experience, no personal knowledge and where I rely on views of people who are apparently authoritative, of whom I have no personal knowledge. To quote the ever wise Elizabeth Bennet, “There is a very fine old saying, which everybody here is of course familiar with, ‘Keep your breath to cool your porridge,’ and I shall keep mine to swell my song.”
Of course, the more sinister aspect is how much this smacks of Soviet-style bullying. I can't help but think these people would love to be part of some agency that keeps troublesome people in line.
I think some people would definitely love to be part of such an agency which enforces the correct way of thinking, and to tell others off. I’ve had “struggle session” vibes about several incidents at the university over the past 8 years. So much so that I went and read about how they operated.
A belief test is when you set the other party a test that you know they can pass.
They pass it.
Then you set a slightly higher threshold for the other party.
If they fail, then you declare “they can’t be trusted !”
Imagine that the belief test is reversed to demonstrate lack of “integrity”? Set an unachievable threshold and condemn the other party for their behaviour.
The trust threshold reversed.
Sadly I recognise these dynamics. So much of what passes for argument these days consists of this kind of thing.
The problem is that reasonable people try to reason with people who are simply not amenable to logic, facts, reason or anything that resembles a coherent argument.
Einstein is the subject of more false attributions than anyone else in history, at least in my opinion. One of the false attributions is that Einstein claimed that “the same level of thinking cannot be described to the solution of a problem as created the problem.“
The point is that people who rationalise a point of view which is fundamentally based in emotion are not susceptible to arguments based in facts, reason or logical positions.
You might as well discuss Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co with a cockroach. You can present your arguments as elegantly as you like. But the cockroach will survive whatever you throw at them, and there will be a conga line of people who will lineup to tell you that the cockroach is right and you are oppressing the cockroach.
The problem occurs when the Universities are full of people with whom one can’t argue. We need leadership to make it clear that ability to argue properly is pivotal. And if you can only bully people into submission: well, as I suggest at the end of this piece, you are not much of an academic.
Interesting to have this sort of 'testing' described in action in the professional sphere. My own experience was in the personal realm... i decided at one point that i was simply 'fed up' with listening to everyone around me pile on to whatever was the subject du jour and simply repeat and reinforce it. I decided to stay silent at these moments - and yes the silence was seen as 'suspect'. My silence, and the reactions to it, told me that some sort of social phenomenon was occurring .... I'm no psychologist or sociologist so i don't have words for it. I simply know that whatever it is/was - i don't want to be part of it.
I suspect a lot of us have had this experience in a whole bunch of spheres. So, if you want read more about the psychology of it, Robert Cialdini’s book ‘Influence’ describes it. When an issue is uncertain, people seek to pressure others into agreeing to make themselves more certain. We seek social confirmation of our views, and then say, “Oh, I must be right, everyone agrees with us, I don’t have to think about this.” And if someone stays silent, that means they’re effectively “doubting” us.
I ama aware that it is next to impossible to remove academics or students. That is another thing that is going to lead to the public refusing to fund them. Sadly I see no way universities can not be discredited because there is no method to reform them and the academic culture seems to be getting steadily more and more insane and out of touch with reality and the views of the majority of the electorate. Good luck in your efforts to save the baby
I think you are being too nice. Particularly in academia loyalty tests should be rejected such that the person/group attempting them is removed from academia. If they are students they should simply be told to reapply some where else. If they are staff they should be fired. If they have tenure then attempting to apply a loyalty test should be grounds for forfeiture of tenure.
Of course no university will follow my advice, and the result (not just of failing to do that, but that among other related things) is that academia is going to find that voters will decide to not fund it any more and employers and the like will see possession of a degree as an impediment to employment rather than a recommendation.
Well, there’s another issue which is how hard it is to sack an ongoing academic for conduct which would have you walked out the door anywhere else. My own uni has tried to fire people and failed on several occasions when it went to the FWC. And when they tried to expel students, there was a huge uproar, and on appeal the students were taken back.
I agree with you that the electorate will not have a bar of this if it keeps going. And I agree that this might destroy universities if they don’t change tack. Part of my mission is to ensure the baby doesn’t get thrown out of the bathtub, if universities are discredited, and to try to save what is good and useful. Of course I said this in a piece in the SMH in 2021, and I got absolutely piled on and called a fascist and stupid and all kinds of other things. Ho hum.
Wholeheartedly agree re what we can and can't control, academia and life is tough enough without me worrying over things that I can't control (and frankly that's probably a good thing). I frequently think about this
" Can any of you, however much you worry, add one single cubit to your span of life?" and " Be not therefore solicitous for tomorrow; for the morrow will be solicitous for itself. Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof." (Matthew 6:27 and 34). Although, depending on my mood, this also resonates, "I have seen all things that are done under the sun, and behold all is vanity, and vexation of spirit. The perverse are hard to be corrected, and the number of fools is infinite" (Ecclesiastes 1:14-15) 😂😂
Ecclesiastes is my favourite. “Vanity, vanity, all is vanity.” Must remind myself of this when I get piqued by a rejection of a journal or the like.
Same here. Definitely keeps me grounded.
The moment someone tries to pressure or bully me into agreement, it's over. I regret some things I've gone along with due to my own bad judgment, but I have an allergy to jumping on the bullying mob bandwagon to get along. I believe the tendency or most people to cave to pressure makes it imperative that the disruptors hold the line to eventually lead people back to sanity.
Precisely this. If someone pressures me, I tend to resist and become suspicious. Great minds think alike.
Mine is a good mind. You have a great mind!