Dare you to reply!

[StuDocNet4dummies]

Oh uh, another person who just hook line and sinker eats and believes in "microaggressions," "implicit bias," and "systemic racism." Sorry, but those beliefs are from your religious/worldview beliefs and not reality.

Edit: This forum has discussed this ad nauseum. Please take a perusal.

I thought this was an open minded forum for debate on all topics from all sides.... but you're saying it's not okay to believe in Santa, Jesus, and microagressions in this pantheon of free thought?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[StuDocNet4dummies]

I think it's microagressive to improperly conjugate verbs. Forum is singular, hence a forum doesn't.

Thanks. Nothing more important on a forum than proper English and sentence construction. Will add Grammerly to my browser immediately.

 

[Ray D. Ayshun]

Thanks. Nothing more important on a forum than proper English and sentence construction. Will add Grammerly to my browser immediately.

We're here to help...

 

[OTN]

I thought this was an open minded forum for debate on all topics from all sides.... but you're saying it's not okay to believe in Santa, Jesus, and microagressions in this pantheon of free thought?

This is very much an open forum for debate. You're free to believe in whatever you want, be it microagressions or Santa Claus. Others are free to criticize those ideas. That's how free speech and debate works.

 

[StuDocNet4dummies]

We're here to help...

I feel loved... <3

 

[Ray D. Ayshun]

I thought this was an open minded forum for debate on all topics from all sides.... but you're saying it's not okay to believe in Santa, Jesus, and microagressions in this pantheon of free thought?

Are you saying we should think of microaggressions in the same manner as we think of Santa?

 

[TheWallnerus]

Thanks. Nothing more important on a forum than proper English and sentence construction. Will add Grammerly to my browser immediately.

* Grammarly

 

[StuDocNet4dummies]

This is very much an open forum for debate. You're free to believe in whatever you want, be it microagressions or Santa Claus. Others are free to criticize those ideas. That's how free speech and debate works.

Sweet.

Microaggressions are real and not experienced by most of the "alphas" in the forum due to their position in life. Or due to their lack of concern about microaggressions (due to their position in life). Feel free to not believe in them however.

There's no such thing as little rad onc. It was created by a group that feels marginalized by the majority. They feel like the presumed majority sees them as inherently inferior, and hence the small remarks they make, or the lack of sensitivity they portray to the unique needs and concerns of the marginalized group, make them feel undervalued. These are not microaggressions however, but very small aggressions.

Feels good to share that. Thanks for the forum. Hope the verbiage was correct. I can't afford Grammerly at this time.

 

[StuDocNet4dummies]

* Grammarly

This is a microaggression.

 

[TheWallnerus]

I agree with you on a lot of stuff ROMG, but you're wrong on this and we have plenty of historical evidence to support that.

So you never knew about the Tulsa Race Massacre. Why not?

When it comes to teaching history in our schools, we still have a lot to learn.

www.pressherald.com

Policing in black & white

Police departments are eager for ways to reduce racial disparities.

www.apa.org

Redlining's legacy: Maps are gone, but the problem hasn't disappeared

Mike Bloomberg claims the practice ultimately triggered the 2008 housing crash — but where does the term come from?

www.cbsnews.com

In oncology, there is no cure (for all intents and purposes, usually) for systemic disease.

Will there be for systemic racism?

 

[RadOncMegatron]

I thought this was an open minded forum for debate on all topics from all sides.... but you're saying it's not okay to believe in Santa, Jesus, and microagressions in this pantheon of free thought?

Sorry, yes I am open to hear from you and yes free expression rules. There is some fun trolling here, but I suppose on a serious note, what I really meant to say was "microaggressions" will not simply be granted a free pass here. Please define what you mean and defend. I've previously posted the original article by Dr. Derald Wing Sue and rebuttals, to show this is nothing more than Prof. Sue's theory.

If you want a good discussion I am happy to have open and free debate.

 

[RadOncMegatron]

I agree with you on a lot of stuff ROMG, but you're wrong on this and we have plenty of historical evidence to support that.

So you never knew about the Tulsa Race Massacre. Why not?

When it comes to teaching history in our schools, we still have a lot to learn.

www.pressherald.com

Policing in black & white

Police departments are eager for ways to reduce racial disparities.

www.apa.org

Redlining's legacy: Maps are gone, but the problem hasn't disappeared

Mike Bloomberg claims the practice ultimately triggered the 2008 housing crash — but where does the term come from?

www.cbsnews.com

@medgator, yes, I should be clear. I for sure believe in the past there was systemic racism in the past and that there effects are still with us. I suppose what I meant is a disagree with the notion that systemic racism is everywhere. I also would like it defined by our new friend here @StuDocNet4dummies . I bet you and I probably agree on the definition of systemic racism and it's impact to within 1 SD at least.

Edit: I said "microaggressions in the past" - I meant there was "systemic racism in the past. "

 

[medgator]

In oncology, there is no cure (for all intents and purposes, usually) for systemic disease.

Will there be for systemic racism?

IO is definitely creating a lot of stalemate situations though...

 

[StuDocNet4dummies]

In oncology, there is no cure (for all intents and purposes, usually) for systemic disease.

Will there be for systemic racism?

Do you believe in systemic disease? If so, you may research therapies in spite of the pessimism for cure.

 

[StuDocNet4dummies]

@medgator, yes, I should be clear. I for sure believe in the past there was systemic racism in the past and that there effects are still with us. I suppose what I meant is a disagree with the notion that systemic racism is everywhere. I also would like it defined by our new friend here @StuDocNet4dummies . I bet you and I probably agree on the definition of systemic racism and it's impact to within 1 SD at least.

Edit: I said "microaggressions in the past" - I meant there was "systemic racism in the past. "

Systemic racism is a fuzzy topic. If you're a person of color and tell me you don't think it exists, well that's a good and valuable point of view. If you're a member of society that isn't on the receiving end of "systemic racism" then I find it hard to believe you can fairly comment. I'm not gay (afaik) so I don't feel very confident telling gay people what their life is like. I'm not a woman, so I can't tell you what it's like to have that experience. Seems like there is ample statistical evidence to suggest the playing field isn't level (cancer outcomes, vaccination rates, etc). Of course, feel free to disbelieve it and the outcome of elections, etc. That's your constitutional right... but it's arrogant to say you don't believe in something that is outside your realm of experience.

 

[TheWallnerus]

Do you believe in systemic disease? If so, you may research therapies in spite of the pessimism for cure.

Research therapies... or send to hospice, "therapeutic futility" and what not. The most common way in which systemic disease ends is via death, and that may have to come to pass for this society if the racism truly is systemic. Put quite literally, everyone alive today will have to die and new people make up the next society for systemic racism to be gone. If on the other hand our issue would be more accurately called localized racism, there is a great chance for cure. Systemic racism is pessimistic, defeatist language. Of course, maybe you tell some localized disease patients they have systemic, incurable disease because otherwise they'd just sit there and decline all treatment. But that's paternalism.

 

[StuDocNet4dummies]

Research therapies... or send to hospice, "therapeutic futility" and what not. The most common way in which systemic disease ends is via death, and that may have to come to pass for this society if the racism truly is systemic. Put quite literally, everyone alive today will have to die and new people make up the next society for systemic racism to be gone. If on the other hand our issue would be more accurately called localized racism, there is a great chance for cure. Systemic racism is pessimistic, defeatist language. Of course, maybe you tell some localized disease patients they have systemic, incurable disease because otherwise they'd just sit there and decline all treatment. But that's paternalism.

Or, the manifestation of local disease is a function of a systemic error that predisposes to malignancy. You have an EGFR mutation and a localized lung tumor. Sure, treat the local problem, but reflect on the fact that this is a field effect with effective systemic therapies. The systemic agents may not change the underlying mutation, but prevent subsequent tumors from arising.

 

[RadOncMegatron]

Systemic racism is a fuzzy topic. If you're a person of color and tell me you don't think it exists, well that's a good and valuable point of view. If you're a member of society that isn't on the receiving end of "systemic racism" then I find it hard to believe you can fairly comment. I'm not gay (afaik) so I don't feel very confident telling gay people what their life is like. I'm not a woman, so I can't tell you what it's like to have that experience. Seems like there is ample statistical evidence to suggest the playing field isn't level (cancer outcomes, vaccination rates, etc). Of course, feel free to disbelieve it and the outcome of elections, etc. That's your constitutional right... but it's arrogant to say you don't believe in something that is outside your realm of experience.

If you are saying life is harder, in general, and is not as fair, in general, for minorities (yes I am one FWIW) yes I agree. If you are disadvantaged are things harder for you - yes. If you are poor and living in the rough neighborhood - yes. Is it incredibly difficult and should there be compassion and extra care given to those children, yes, yes, and yes (I have and continue to do so in my personal life). The problem is that you call this "systemic racism" and I do not. If we are talking about the same thing and just deciding to call it different labels like fSRS, SRT, fSRT, then let's call it a day. I don't think we disagree.

However, if you think systemic racism effects the personal patient - physician encounter such that black people can only receive the best care from black physicians then NO as Dr. Winkfield explictly suggests. If you think a MD (Harvard) / Phd (Oxford) regularly publishing in the NEJM and saying you are hampered by the patriarchy / misogyny like Dr. Jagsi suggest then NO.

 

[Ray D. Ayshun]

Systemic racism is a fuzzy topic. If you're a person of color and tell me you don't think it exists, well that's a good and valuable point of view. If you're a member of society that isn't on the receiving end of "systemic racism" then I find it hard to believe you can fairly comment. I'm not gay (afaik) so I don't feel very confident telling gay people what their life is like. I'm not a woman, so I can't tell you what it's like to have that experience. Seems like there is ample statistical evidence to suggest the playing field isn't level (cancer outcomes, vaccination rates, etc). Of course, feel free to disbelieve it and the outcome of elections, etc. That's your constitutional right... but it's arrogant to say you don't believe in something that is outside your realm of experience.

At what point do we think the playing field being uneven is the result of current systemic racism vs past systemic racism? Do we have to wait until the playing field is even, or is there some time after the end of systemic racism where the playing field is still uneven as a consequence of a long history of systemic racism? My impression of applying to radonc now is that there's systemic racism/racial preferences in order to make up for systemic racism.

 

[Lamount]

I am not completely sold on the idea that pure equity is a good thing. Different cultures value different customs, different sports, and different professions etc... so it makes sense that not every group is reflective of a perfect racial/cultural/religious/gender distribution.

However, there are certain outcomes that one can assume are universally desired (e.g. living longer, living above the poverty line, living in safe neighborhoods etc...). When there is extreme inequity with respect to THESE measures, when you know it isn't be choice that there is a maldistribution, there must be a 'systemic' bias. That doesn't mean that everyone who isn't negatively affected is to blame for those who are (at least not in my opinion), and it doesn't mean that the whole system needs to be torn down (at least not in my opinion). What it DOES mean is that there is work to be done.

Regarding microaggressions... I try my best not to offend, but also try my best to get offended. At a few points in my life, I have experienced some really ugly bigotry vis a vis religion, and have also encountered a lot of well-intentioned people who say something 'offensive' without realizing it (i.e. a microaggression). I don't fault people for confronting others over microaggressions... but when someone's heart is in the right place, I have trouble bringing myself to say something -I never liked getting offended, so I choose not to unless absolutely necessary.

Is implicit bias really a thing? I don't know. The idea is certainly plausible, but whether your score on a computer test reflects anything tangible is up in the air from my point of view. @Chartreuse Wombat I would propose that an absolute belief in the IAT is no less defensible than an absolute disbelief.

 

[Chartreuse Wombat]

I am not completely sold on the idea that pure equity is a good thing. Different cultures value different customs, different sports, and different professions etc... so it makes sense that not every group is reflective of a perfect racial/cultural/religious/gender distribution.

However, there are certain outcomes that one can assume are universally desired (e.g. living longer, living above the poverty line, living in safe neighborhoods etc...). When there is extreme inequity with respect to THESE measures, when you know it isn't be choice that there is a maldistribution, there must be a 'systemic' bias. That doesn't mean that everyone who isn't negatively affected is to blame for those who are (at least not in my opinion), and it doesn't mean that the whole system needs to be torn down (at least not in my opinion). What it DOES mean is that there is work to be done.

Regarding microaggressions... I try my best not to offend, but also try my best to get offended. At a few points in my life, I have experienced some really ugly bigotry vis a vis religion, and have also encountered a lot of well-intentioned people who say something 'offensive' without realizing it (i.e. a microaggression). I don't fault people for confronting others over microaggressions... but when someone's heart is in the right place, I have trouble bringing myself to say something -I never liked getting offended, so I choose not to unless absolutely necessary.

Is implicit bias really a thing? I don't know. The idea is certainly plausible, but whether your score on a computer test reflects anything tangible is up in the air from my point of view. @Chartreuse Wombat I would propose that an absolute belief in the IAT is no less defensible than an absolute disbelief.

@Lamount I am saying that IAT is hogwash because the inventors of this test admit that it should not be used as a measure of bias within individuals. Many institutions (mine included) are considering requiring all faculty to complete this bogus test. The psychometrics are so poor and the evidence to date suggests that completing IAT does nothing to improve racism and it some cases makes it worse.

FWIW I oppose racism, bigotry, homophobia. My point is that the IAT is garbage and should not be required.

 

[RadOncMegatron]

I am not completely sold on the idea that pure equity is a good thing. Different cultures value different customs, different sports, and different professions etc... so it makes sense that not every group is reflective of a perfect racial/cultural/religious/gender distribution.

However, there are certain outcomes that one can assume are universally desired (e.g. living longer, living above the poverty line, living in safe neighborhoods etc...). When there is extreme inequity with respect to THESE measures, when you know it isn't be choice that there is a maldistribution, there must be a 'systemic' bias. That doesn't mean that everyone who isn't negatively affected is to blame for those who are (at least not in my opinion), and it doesn't mean that the whole system needs to be torn down (at least not in my opinion). What it DOES mean is that there is work to be done.

Regarding microaggressions... I try my best not to offend, but also try my best to get offended. At a few points in my life, I have experienced some really ugly bigotry vis a vis religion, and have also encountered a lot of well-intentioned people who say something 'offensive' without realizing it (i.e. a microaggression). I don't fault people for confronting others over microaggressions... but when someone's heart is in the right place, I have trouble bringing myself to say something -I never liked getting offended, so I choose not to unless absolutely necessary.

Is implicit bias really a thing? I don't know. The idea is certainly plausible, but whether your score on a computer test reflects anything tangible is up in the air from my point of view. @Chartreuse Wombat I would propose that an absolute belief in the IAT is no less defensible than an absolute disbelief.

There's really not a whole lot to disagree on, but...

Dr. Sue and his followers takes this and run far left (sorry for the pun) however and brings this into the clinic (well to counseling clinic , but this verbiage is being co-opted by oncologists)

https://www.cpedv.org/sites/main/files/file-attachments/how_to_be_an_effective_ally-lessons_learned_microaggressions.pdf

"The Manifestation of Racial Microaggressions in Counseling/Therapy

Microaggressions become meaningful in the context ofclinical practice, as relational dynamics and the human condition are central aspects of this field. The often unintentional and unconscious nature of microaggressions (Dilemma 2: Invisibility) poses the biggest challenge to the majority of White mental health professionals, who believe that they are just, unbiased, and nonracist"

This is not a scientific paper in any sense. Just philosophical musings, but it's treated as God revealed reality.

No good can come from this and it is not something we can sweep under the rug given all the ASCO 2021 rahrah #imsuchagoodpersonequity studies. There is even a "Duma Lab" for this stuff. Soon enough, we will have patients asking for doctors based on race and we must fight this to the end. I also haven't seen much, but it makes sense from all this work that white people should see white doctors and be better served by them if black people should see black doctors and be better served by them.



I'm sure you are all aware, but this has even led to this psychiatry lecture entitled "“The Psychopathic Problem of the White Mind" at Yale's School of Medicine

 

[Chartreuse Wombat]

Criticisms of IAT from the left

Psychology’s Favorite Tool for Measuring Racism Isn’t Up to the Job

Almost two decades after its introduction, the implicit association test has failed to deliver on its lofty promises.

www.thecut.com

Criticisms of IAT from the right

Are We All Unconscious Racists?

The implicit-bias idea burst onto the academic scene in 1998 with the rollout of a psychological instrument called the implicit association test (IAT).

www.city-journal.org

 

[communitydoc13]

Soon enough, we will have patients asking for doctors based on race and we must fight this to the end.

Where I am this has always happened. The patients ask for white doctors (rarely explicitly but very true). Red county clinic here.

Not a fan of IAT but also not gonna claim victimhood if I have to fill out a diversity training module.

Pretty sure we're getting trolled on our "little radonc" narrative here.

 

[StuDocNet4dummies]

At what point do we think the playing field being uneven is the result of current systemic racism vs past systemic racism? Do we have to wait until the playing field is even, or is there some time after the end of systemic racism where the playing field is still uneven as a consequence of a long history of systemic racism? My impression of applying to radonc now is that there's systemic racism/racial preferences in order to make up for systemic racism.

This goes back to what works (or doesn't) with affirmative action. It was so long ago that a woman physician was an oddity and patients presumed she was the nurse, or the consequence of affirmative action. However, due to a variety of things (not well versed, but including Title IX, affirmative action, STEM investment, etc), > 50% of medical students are women. You don't see a woman in a long coat and presume she's a nurse, usually. I think many of the women colleagues I have in medicine are smarter than me. So, norms changed and the only obvious thing I could see that resulted in that was participation/representation.

If we presume that intelligence isn't related to gender or skin color, and you see the field is predominantly white and male, you are obviously missing out on talent. That's exaggerated as the spots for residency expand. If a field wants the most suited, brightest candidates they should mostly reflect the demographics of med schools (assuming you agree that intelligence isn't color/gender related).

Right now applying to radonc requires a pulse and diploma, so you don't see affirmative action playing out in residency. There's an effort to recruit in order to improve the specialty (see above), but it's not interfering with other people's residency match much.

 

[StuDocNet4dummies]

Soon enough, we will have patients asking for doctors based on race and we must fight this to the end.

Why? My wife prefers to see a woman gynecologist. For my general health stuff, including the prostate exam, I prefer a man. I have had patients prefer other docs over me b/c of personality. I don't think the man GP I see is better, or my wife's female gyn is better...I just feel more comfortable with them and seems like that's a reasonable choice.

 

[Chartreuse Wombat]

Where I am this has always happened. The patients ask for white doctors (rarely explicitly but very true). Red county clinic here.

Not a fan of IAT but also not gonna claim victimhood if I have to fill out a diversity training module.

Pretty sure we're getting trolled on our "little radonc" narrative here.

"Not a fan of IAT but also not gonna claim victimhood if I have to fill out a diversity training module."

That is the attitude they expect...

I practice evidence-based medicine-show me something that works

 

[RadOncMegatron]

Why? My wife prefers to see a woman gynecologist. For my general health stuff, including the prostate exam, I prefer a man. I have had patients prefer other docs over me b/c of personality. I don't think the man GP I see is better, or my wife's female gyn is better...I just feel more comfortable with them and seems like that's a reasonable choice.

Well I understand what you are saying but feel it is different with race. So you are ok with white people asking for a white doctor? Conservatives asking for a conservative doctor? Straight people asking for a straight doctor? Asian people asking for an Asian doctor?

Why? My wife prefers to see a woman gynecologist. For my general health stuff, including the prostate exam, I prefer a man. I have had patients prefer other docs over me b/c of personality. I don't think the man GP I see is better, or my wife's female gyn is better...I just feel more comfortable with them and seems like that's a reasonable choice.

Obviously there is some personal preference, which is reasonable, but I think we all see the trouble when we can pick based on race.

White people can ask for white doctors? Asians can ask for Asian doctors? Conservative doctors can ask for conservative doctors? Straight people can ask for straight doctors? Men can ask only for men?

I think that is not a good road to walk down.

 

[Lamount]

@Lamount I am saying that IAT is hogwash because the inventors of this test admit that it should not be used as a measure of bias within individuals. Many institutions (mine included) are considering requiring all faculty to complete this bogus test. The psychometrics are so poor and the evidence to date suggests that completing IAT does nothing to improve racism and it some cases makes it worse.

FWIW I oppose racism, bigotry, homophobia. My point is that the IAT is garbage and should not be required.

Agree that it shouldn’t be required. Frankly, I didn’t know that anyone was claiming the test, itself, was therapeutic… and I certainly wouldn’t assume you or anyone else is racist for questioning the IAT. Personally I don’t know what to make of the test. It’s detecting SOMETHING… It’s just not clear to me that the thing it’s detecting consistently translates into negative behavior, and if does, what the remedy may be. It’s “hypothesis generating”

 

[Chartreuse Wombat]

Agree that it shouldn’t be required. Frankly, I didn’t know that anyone was claiming the test, itself, was therapeutic… and I certainly wouldn’t assume you or anyone else is racist for questioning the IAT. Personally I don’t know what to make of the test. It’s detecting SOMETHING… It’s just not clear to me that the thing it’s detecting consistently translates into negative behavior, and if does, what the remedy may be. It’s “hypothesis generating”

Not to belabor the point but it is arguable that IAT is in fact measuring something. Reification (as defined by SJ Gould) is a powerful fallacy.

Reification (fallacy) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

None of this is to say that horrible misdeeds have occurred as a result of racism (e.g. Tulsa Race massacre., Wilmington Race Riot of 1898)

 

[RadOncMegatron]

Agree that it shouldn’t be required. Frankly, I didn’t know that anyone was claiming the test, itself, was therapeutic… and I certainly wouldn’t assume you or anyone else is racist for questioning the IAT. Personally I don’t know what to make of the test. It’s detecting SOMETHING… It’s just not clear to me that the thing it’s detecting consistently translates into negative behavior, and if does, what the remedy may be. It’s “hypothesis generating”

I think it is fair to say implicit bias may exist, but the IAT is not the tool that can detect it, let alone quantify it.

 

[RadOncMegatron]

Not to belabor the point but it is arguable that IAT is in fact measuring something. Reification (as defined by SJ Gould) is a powerful fallacy.

Reification (fallacy) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

None of this is to say that horrible misdeeds have occurred as a result of racism (e.g. Tulsa Race massacre., Wilmington Race Riot of 1898)

Totally agree about reification.

But as far as Tulsa and Wilimington - those are not instances of implicit bias those are EXPLICIT biases which are readily detectable and detestable.

I am sure you agree. Implicit biases are things in our subconscious we cannot by definition truly be aware of and I think (not you @Chartreuse Wombat ) there are a lot people conflating real racism and bias with the concept of implicit bias.

 

[Lamount]

If we presume that intelligence isn't related to gender or skin color, and you see the field is predominantly white and male, you are obviously missing out on talent. That's exaggerated as the spots for residency expand. If a field wants the most suited, brightest candidates they should mostly reflect the demographics of med schools (assuming you agree that intelligence isn't color/gender related).

I am not sure I agree 100%. While equity of opportunity is important, equity of outcome is only meaningful when everyone equally agrees on how desirable the outcome is. I grew up in a culturally Jewish household. My family didn’t emphasize me joining the football team, unlike some of my non-Jewish friends’ parents who placed a high priority on this. There are definitely Jews in America who play football, but it’s certainly not a recurring theme in our culture. If 1/40 Jewish children (reflective of the fact that about 2.5% of Americans are Jewish) in a given city don’t get a spot on their varsity football team, does this reflect systemic bias? I would argue that it does not. I would argue it more reflects a cultural preference.

Similarly, certain professions are regarded differently across different cultures… so why would expect these cultures to all be proportionately represented?

That being said, I fully support giving additional assistance for underrepresented minorities who WANT to go into medicine and/or rad onc. I just wouldn’t assume there is something wrong if the numbers never achieve perfect equity.

 

[Ray D. Ayshun]

If we presume that intelligence isn't related to gender or skin color, and you see the field is predominantly white and male, you are obviously missing out on talent. That's exaggerated as the spots for residency expand. If a field wants the most suited, brightest candidates they should mostly reflect the demographics of med schools (assuming you agree that intelligence isn't color/gender related).

Right now applying to radonc requires a pulse and diploma, so you don't see affirmative action playing out in residency. There's an effort to recruit in order to improve the specialty (see above), but it's not interfering with other people's residency match much.

Re the first statement. It's not intelligence we judge for residency match, it's more objective measures (except see below). Something like board scores, standardized tests, etc, are I think related to skin color, as opportunities early on in life are related to skin color inasmuch as their contingent upon the socioeconomic status of a race in general. The question I asked earlier is, even if there still is a disparity in opportunities wrt race, which is a product of a long history of systemic racism, does it necessarily mean systemic racism still exists? I would say no, not necessarily, but there certainly are racists.

Regarding your second assertion, I have no idea what it's like to match now, but I do know what it's like to match during "peak radonc." There were overt preferences for inferior candidates based strictly on their gender or skin color, when in fact, they probably had an easier path to that point in life than I. I got on with my life, but I tire of hearing about microaggressions.

 

[RickyScott]

Not to belabor the point but it is arguable that IAT is in fact measuring something. Reification (as defined by SJ Gould) is a powerful fallacy.

Reification (fallacy) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

None of this is to say that horrible misdeeds have occurred as a result of racism (e.g. Tulsa Race massacre., Wilmington Race Riot of 1898)

Totally agree. Critical race theory is not falsifiable, just a woke assertion. I cant disprove that I am not racist. Proponents will just assert that inner racism always remains hidden from me.

 

[communitydoc13]

Critical race theory is not falsifiable

The whole of humanities is not falsifiable. Doesn't mean it's not valid or valuable. Hard for me to believe that Continental Rationalism and British Empiricism didn't beget damn good scientific theorists and experimentalists respectively.

The constitution is not falsifiable.

So is consciousness.

I practice evidence-based medicine-show me something that works

Integration.

 

[Lamount]

The whole of humanities is not falsifiable. Doesn't mean it's not valid or valuable. Hard for me to believe that Continental Rationalism and British Empiricism didn't beget damn good scientific theorists and experimentalists respectively.

The constitution is not falsifiable.

So is consciousness.

Critical Race Theory reduces the whole of existence into a one-dimensional number line of racist and anti-racist. While this may be a useful exercise as a means of considering alternative perspectives, this form of reductionism should never reasonably be considered to be a comprehensive means of describing society. Where CRT goes off the rales is the argument that one's failure to agree with its premises is grounds for condemnation.

You are correct that most of humanities (and the constitution) are non-falsifiable... CRT is worse than non-falsifiable. The hypothesis doesn't just harmlessly depend on amorphous opinion-oriented assumptions as most philosophies do , but it actively condemns the non-believer merely for not be convinced.

Here is my new "theory":
I am smarter than you (not you, personally)... and if you say otherwise, that is only proves how intellectually inferior you are.

 

[RickyScott]

The whole of humanities is not falsifiable. Doesn't mean it's not valid or valuable. Hard for me to believe that Continental Rationalism and British Empiricism didn't beget damn good scientific theorists and experimentalists respectively.

The constitution is not falsifiable.

So is consciousness.


Integration.

Shouldn’t something that terms itself a “theory” be falsifiable? “Theory” implies a “rigor” that is clearly not met here, confers a fake quasi legitimacy, beyond assertion- “yeah, well that’s just like your opinion, man” (Btw consciousnes - that I am conscious is falsifiable fo me- everyone else may be a philosophical Zombie)

 

[communitydoc13]

Critical Race Theory reduces the whole of existence into a one-dimensional number line of racist and anti-racist

Is this true? Does someone who thinks that critical race theory is one of many interesting approaches to social philosophy also going to necessarily reduce all things to race? Or are they going to contextualize history and other intellectual traditions through the lens of race? Is teaching how white supremacy was codified in the constitution and reinforced through the judiciary CRC? Is considering the correlations between things like federalism (State's rights), forms of representation (a very undemocratic senate), immigration law, what territories became states, legal review of land treaties, and public response to welfare programs with attitudes towards race teaching bad history? Probably not.

I don't know where you all live (I like it that way) or work. I don't live in a liberal enclave and I could not land an academic job near home. So I concede that the woke stuff may really be tyrannical is some workplaces or living places. But where I am, people run for school board so that our kids aren't taught the above truths and people scream oppression by liberals while they are doing damn well and paying close to zero taxes on their small business.

To me, a great example of where CRC as a tool could be cool is examining attitudes towards gun laws. See Reagan's position on this in CA with the emergence of the Black Panthers.

Shouldn’t something that terms itself a “theory” be falsifiable?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that.... (bunch of enlightenment stuff follows that I buy into 100%). Not falsifiable. The philosophy department should have both the classical liberal and the critical theorist. I have heard that Catholic colleges may actually do this better than others nowadays?

 

[metallica81788]

Regarding your second assertion, I have no idea what it's like to match now, but I do know what it's like to match during "peak radonc." There were overt preferences for inferior candidates based strictly on their gender or skin color, when in fact, they probably had an easier path to that point in life than I.

This was definitely true during my match experience as well. My program basically prioritized it over most other things.

 

[RadOncMegatron]

Is this true? Does someone who thinks that critical race theory is one of many interesting approaches to social philosophy also going to necessarily reduce all things to race? Or are they going to contextualize history and other intellectual traditions through the lens of race? Is teaching how white supremacy was codified in the constitution and reinforced through the judiciary CRC? Is considering the correlations between things like federalism (State's rights), forms of representation (a very undemocratic senate), immigration law, what territories became states, legal review of land treaties, and public response to welfare programs with attitudes towards race teaching bad history? Probably not.

I don't know where you all live (I like it that way) or work. I don't live in a liberal enclave and I could not land an academic job near home. So I concede that the woke stuff may really be tyrannical is some workplaces or living places. But where I am, people run for school board so that our kids aren't taught the above truths and people scream oppression by liberals while they are doing damn well and paying close to zero taxes on their small business.

To me, a great example of where CRC as a tool could be cool is examining attitudes towards gun laws. See Reagan's position on this in CA with the emergence of the Black Panthers.


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that.... (bunch of enlightenment stuff follows that I buy into 100%). Not falsifiable. The philosophy department should have both the classical liberal and the critical theorist. I have heard that Catholic colleges may actually do this better than others nowadays?

Critical race theory does have some good insights. I have even read Kimberle Crenshaw's actual paper Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence Against Women of Color.

Now, does it make sense that black women, due to intersectionality may have different oppression than women in general and black men? Sure thing. Not a bad idea in my opinion.

And what you said here makes sense and you are making a fair discussion, however, this thing has gone way overboard and cannot be questioned. I feel the well now has been poisoned and that it is hard to see the good when so much bad has come from CRT. I could say, although there is some very deep insights, those are always served in a way that is not palatable to most people to CRT's detriment.

There is literally a physician who stated in a grand rounds talk at Yale (same link as above) who said the following:

• This is the cost of talking to white people at all. The cost of your own life, as they suck you dry. There are no good apples out there. White people make my blood boil. (Time stamp: 6:45)
• I had fantasies of unloading a revolver into the head of any white person that got in my way, burying their body, and wiping my bloody hands as I walked away relatively guiltless with a bounce in my step. Like I did the world a ****ing favor. (Time stamp: 7:17)

How did it get so far?

 

[communitydoc13]

There is literally a physician who stated in a grand rounds talk at Yale (same link as above) who said the following:

All I can say is damn. Way over the top. I'm so divorced from this world.

I did look up the speaker. She didn't look like I expected. (My intrinsic bias!!) Clearly seeking attention by any means necessary. Not sure she would be considered a serious academic.

NY Post with decent article on it. Quotes the guy below. Who is serious. You may remember him from the Yale Sombrero incident a few years back.

Nicholas Christakis - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Ray D. Ayshun]

All I can say is damn. Way over the top. I'm so divorced from this world.

I did look up the speaker. She didn't look like I expected. (My intrinsic bias!!) Clearly seeking attention by any means necessary. Not sure she would be considered a serious academic.

NY Post with decent article on it. Quotes the guy below. Who is serious. You may remember him from the Yale Sombrero incident a few years back.

Nicholas Christakis - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Didn't know much about that, but this was a paragraph from a story about it before resignations, etc.

"Here’s one of the ways that white men at Yale are most privileged of all: When a white male student at an elite college says that he feels disempowered, the first impulse of the campus left is to show him the extent of his power and privilege. When any other students say they feel disempowered, the campus left’s impulse is to validate their statements. This does a huge disservice to everyone except white male students. It’s baffling that so few campus activists seem to realize this drawback of emphasizing victim status even if college administrators sometimes treat it as currency."

Sums up some of my feelings about the direction we're headed intellectually. There's this fallacy that we're trying to move to a post racial society. I think we're moving in the wrong direction.

 

[Lamount]

Is considering the correlations between things like federalism (State's rights), forms of representation (a very undemocratic senate), immigration law, what territories became states, legal review of land treaties, and public response to welfare programs with attitudes towards race teaching bad history?

It's not bad telling of history per se... just not a comprehensive one. As I mentioned CRT is a useful tool to consider an alternative perspective. However, in considering how every part of past and present is related to race... it neglects all of the ways in which it isn't. Thus, I would put it in Howard Zinn's basket (though Zinn is a little more thoughtful). It should be learned along side a telling of American history that highlights the amazing feat of creating a constitutional democracy -i.e. CRT/Zinn are only part of a complete picture.

I also think it is a lazy 'theory'. Rather than trying to convince dissenters, it simply insults them and forgets about them. It demands supplication... which is more than enough to dissuade me.

 

[StuDocNet4dummies]

Regarding your second assertion, I have no idea what it's like to match now, but I do know what it's like to match during "peak radonc." There were overt preferences for inferior candidates based strictly on their gender or skin color, when in fact, they probably had an easier path to that point in life than I. I got on with my life, but I tire of hearing about microaggressions.

The contention is what is "inferior". RadOnc doesn't require a genius. It's more about personality fit than brain bandwidth. My friends that do surgery say "your specialty is the worst...everyone dies". If you can't deal with that, it's not a good fit.

Re: hearing about microagressions... IMO you live with the times you're in, and have to adapt to the norms of the present. This discussion was about some kid in med school debating the meaning of systemic racism. That kid is dangerously stupid. No matter what you think or believe, you have to be aware of your environment and have some sense of self preservation to act accordingly. If you lack that intelligence, no matter what you believe, you're dangerous IMO, and I don't want you as a doctor. I have some colleagues that are, frankly, racist and homophobic in their personal lives, but they know to put that **** aside when dealing with patients and at work. This kid lacks that and should find a new gig. In Alabama he could run for public office.

 

[OTN]

The contention is what is "inferior". RadOnc doesn't require a genius. It's more about personality fit than brain bandwidth. My friends that do surgery say "your specialty is the worst...everyone dies". If you can't deal with that, it's not a good fit.

Re: hearing about microagressions... IMO you live with the times you're in, and have to adapt to the norms of the present. This discussion was about some kid in med school debating the meaning of systemic racism. That kid is dangerously stupid. No matter what you think or believe, you have to be aware of your environment and have some sense of self preservation to act accordingly. If you lack that intelligence, no matter what you believe, you're dangerous IMO, and I don't want you as a doctor. I have some colleagues that are, frankly, racist and homophobic in their personal lives, but they know to put that **** aside when dealing with patients and at work. This kid lacks that and should find a new gig. In Alabama he could run for public office.

It's seriously chilling to see someone calmly and rationally call someone "dangerously stupid" for daring to question Woke Religion. What ever happened to bravery? Courage?

 

[StuDocNet4dummies]

It's seriously chilling to see someone calmly and rationally call someone "dangerously stupid" for daring to question Woke Religion. What ever happened to bravery? Courage?

Feel free to have those in your private life or in appropriately placed politics. How courageous and brave is it to wear a BLM teeshirt in a Proud Boys rally? Your personal beliefs should be housed in some sense of situational and societal context or I think you're like that guy in those Zombie movies who thinks running around yelling is his god given right. Enjoy the consequences of your right.

And OTN, based on the courage of your beliefs and the bravery of conviction, meet with your hospital admins and declare that you are done with Woke Religion, and done with all associated training. Then come back and report on the consequences of your bravery.

 

[Mandelin Rain]

Are you comparing a medical school lecture to a Proud Boys rally? That seems... eh... unreasonable.

 

[Mandelin Rain]

Feel free to have those in your private life or in appropriately placed politics. How courageous and brave is it to wear a BLM teeshirt in a Proud Boys rally? Your personal beliefs should be housed in some sense of situational and societal context or I think you're like that guy in those Zombie movies who thinks running around yelling is his god given right. Enjoy the consequences of your right.

The natural conclusion of your line of thinking is that MLK deserved to be murdered. Should have just kept his mouth shut and opinions to himself, in your apparent world view. After all, he was in the Jim Crow south. Why raise a fuss? Obviously, a "dangerously stupid" person.

 

[Ray D. Ayshun]

The contention is what is "inferior". RadOnc doesn't require a genius. It's more about personality fit than brain bandwidth. My friends that do surgery say "your specialty is the worst...everyone dies". If you can't deal with that, it's not a good fit.

Re: hearing about microagressions... IMO you live with the times you're in, and have to adapt to the norms of the present. This discussion was about some kid in med school debating the meaning of systemic racism. That kid is dangerously stupid. No matter what you think or believe, you have to be aware of your environment and have some sense of self preservation to act accordingly. If you lack that intelligence, no matter what you believe, you're dangerous IMO, and I don't want you as a doctor. I have some colleagues that are, frankly, racist and homophobic in their personal lives, but they know to put that **** aside when dealing with patients and at work. This kid lacks that and should find a new gig. In Alabama he could run for public office.

I shouldn't have used "inferior" given subjectivity, but inferior wrt classic objective measures like board scores, which are still discussed in back rooms. In any case, the most relevant word of my sentence was "overt," as in there was a clear, verbalized preference for a more diverse "looking" class and willingness to overlook a number of flaws, some of them subjective, some of which you referenced. It felt like being born white was a character flaw.