[flagged]
I mean I can picture an evil cabal of racists who purposefully show up in discussions like this to purposefully sow fear, uncertainty and doubt. Is that the level of HN discourse?
The ability to imagine something isn't evidence of it's existence, nor is it healthy skepticism.
>Experience in academia
>Papers, which you can only get money to work on full time through academia
Seems convenient.
Looking at the paper itself it found evidence of both a gender bias (either ingroup/outgroup or against men) and a racial bias (either ingroup/outgroup or against blacks). It notably, did not censor any facts about this gender bias, and instead published them in full. In the discussion however, it discussed these two facts with overwhelming bias, treating the observed racial bias with the utmost seriousness while not discussing the observed gender bias at all.
I think there's grounds to be sceptical of anything academia says on politically charged topics.
As a scientist, if you find "Black people good, white people bad" --> publication + promotion
You find "White people good, black people bad" --> you lose your job
Completely orthogonal to the morality of it, it creates something called publication bias (or the file drawer problem) in the social sciences. It's a huge issue.
>"White people good, black people bad" --> you lose your job
It is totally believable that the bias problem you're referring to exists, but your description is provocative, dramatized, oversimplified, and carries a smug tone, and I wish it wasn't any of those things.
I think when you live it every day it gets exhausting.
And of course, ignore Asians at all costs. Or if the study is about overrepresentation, invent a new, "Asian + white" category, and hide disaggregated numbers.