Dare you to reply!

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Members don't see this ad.
Mandelin Rain said:
I truly appreciate the heroic efforts of those purporting to crusade against racial discrimination in this world and have decided that targeting diversity initiatives in radiation oncology residencies is the best way to do so.

Keep up the good work.
Click to expand...
It’s a dishonest discussion tactic to imply that this is the only type of racial discrimination those who disagree with you find objectionable. There isn’t any honest benefit to misrepresenting others so blatantly
 
sb247 said:
It’s a dishonest discussion tactic to imply that this is the only type of racial discrimination those who disagree with you find objectionable. There isn’t any honest benefit to misrepresenting others so blatantly
Click to expand...
I think you'd be a good time to hang out with. Grab a beer and all that. Maybe next ASTRO?
 
When someone starts with the proposition that giving preference to traditionally (and currently) disenfranchised groups to level the playing field is "pretty close to the worst one can do"... there isn't really much room for discussion. Better to go straight to jokes.
 
RadOncMegatron said:
What about our Jewish friends? They are ORMs. What to do about their advantage... I'm sure you are aware this is a very ugly question and a perennial one that will always come up. It's all fun to trash on white people and Asians, but you must reckon with the ugly history of anti-semitism. Why should Jewish people pay a price for being Jewish? My goodness, if Pinnix or KO were to show their cards and give minus points for being Jewish... Told ya, this gets UGLY fast... Otherwise you'd have to adopt my proposal and take away slots only from non-Jewish white people.
Click to expand...
Hispanic Jews actually are URM like Dosoretz, and Lewinsky
 
I agree with Mandelin Rain on these issues. Systemic racism starts the day people are born and harms people over and over and over again while unfairly benefiting others. White men in particular are repeatedly assumed to be more intelligent (even if not), and assumed to be better leaders than the URM standing next to them, or the female standing next to them, and it literally starts at age 5, and through overt measures and micro aggression they are encouraged, supported, and given opportunities that others have been flat out denied or overlooked, starting literally from TV shows that portray white men as intelligent leaders to the games played (like female toys being house cleaning crap- have you seen a blue toy broom with dinosaurs imprinted on it? Because I haven’t, but how many ****ing pink toy brooms have you seen?) to access to “advanced” classes that start in 3rd grade! You literally teach people from early development to go into a certain life track because of widespread societal and systemic racism and bigotry. I’ve seen women go into early education because they saw 7 million images of females loving children but they shouldn’t have become teachers to 5 years olds because in reality they were never into children that much, they were into some dumb sexist image shoved into their faces repeatedly by society.

Affirmative action may not be perfect but it’s supposed to help mitigate the 18-25+ years of bigotry and sexism people experience. Female attendings still get called nurse by patients and are more likely to be treated poorly by referring physicians and experience micro aggression from staff where the male physicians needs are considered more important (I have seen this happen in residency onwards). A male nurse is paid more and goes up the leadership command much more quickly. So do male therapists. A lot of hospital CEOs actually started out in fields that were “predominantly female” but how many CEOs are females? Few to none. How many chairpersons of academic or private hospitals female?

Part of the push in diversity for fields is for the future anyway. It’s not for you or me. It’s a long range goal.

If a 5 year old black child goes to the hospital and sees a decent number of black doctors- that child learns that he too can be a doctor (and preferably of any specialty). If the black child just sees white and Asian doctor, he may learn while not being able to vocalize it, that it’s not a job accessible to him, so he might not even try. If a girl sees female scientists and physicists, they may as a child pursue games, toys that would help them in 20 years on some exam. It also teaches the teachers of these kids to support them during the education process and give them access to an education that improves critical thinking skills, which helps on some exam, that more and more and more people are saying is irrelavant anyway. I don’t think step 1 or 2 was more relevant than ABR exams.

Thinking about just yourself in this situation is short sighted.

While I understand some frustration about “wealthy” African blacks- they a.) still experience enormous racism even if they are wealthy and b) they still contribute to the black “image” which should be one that black people can do anything white people can do. I do agree with giving even greater priority to LES URM but the problem is proving low income background can be hard, esp once you’re not a minor.

Having said all of this, with the exception of a select few, our field has become irrelevant for medical students. I do believe they are throwing away immense flexibility to frankly not being able to find a job at all by entering this field. Irrelevant is the best word for this. It is an irrelevant occupation. Radiation oncology is no longer a serious occupation for medical students. It hurts terribly to say this but our leadership over the past 10-15 years through lack of foresight and thinking about only themselves, their laziness and their egos, made their own specialty irrelevant.

the catch-22 here is that we harm URMs and females at this point by trying to attract them for them BUT we perpetuate an unfortunate cycle if we don’t attract them. My heart tells me that because I care about the immediate welfare of the current med students(be they black, white, brown, female, male), we educate them very clearly on what our job prospects are now, how this affects their life, does it match their personal and professional life goals, and while we can’t predict the job market in 10 years, we can in 5 years.

Finally once out of residency, private practices and community hospitals don’t care or even have a policy for affirmative action. Therefore, it will be these candidates who are least likely to get good jobs or a job at all.
Tough spot to be in for both them and our field.
 
It is definitely a white people’s world. Everyone else must know their place, it seems to me. I think bringing in URM into rad onc is absolutely immoral. They have better options. It is our loss and their gain.
 
Last edited:
hbosch said:
I agree with Mandelin Rain on these issues. Systemic racism starts the day people are born and harms people over and over and over again while unfairly benefiting others. White men in particular are repeatedly assumed to be more intelligent (even if not), and assumed to be better leaders than the URM standing next to them, or the female standing next to them, and it literally starts at age 5, and through overt measures and micro aggression they are encouraged, supported, and given opportunities that others have been flat out denied or overlooked, starting literally from TV shows that portray white men as intelligent leaders to the games played (like female toys being house cleaning crap- have you seen a blue toy broom with dinosaurs imprinted on it? Because I haven’t, but how many ****ing pink toy brooms have you seen?) to access to “advanced” classes that start in 3rd grade! You literally teach people from early development to go into a certain life track because of widespread societal and systemic racism and bigotry. I’ve seen women go into early education because they saw 7 million images of females loving children but they shouldn’t have become teachers to 5 years olds because in reality they were never into children that much, they were into some dumb sexist image shoved into their faces repeatedly by society.

Affirmative action may not be perfect but it’s supposed to help mitigate the 18-25+ years of bigotry and sexism people experience. Female attendings still get called nurse by patients and are more likely to be treated poorly by referring physicians and experience micro aggression from staff where the male physicians needs are considered more important (I have seen this happen in residency onwards). A male nurse is paid more and goes up the leadership command much more quickly. So do male therapists. A lot of hospital CEOs actually started out in fields that were “predominantly female” but how many CEOs are females? Few to none. How many chairpersons of academic or private hospitals female?

Part of the push in diversity for fields is for the future anyway. It’s not for you or me. It’s a long range goal.

If a 5 year old black child goes to the hospital and sees a decent number of black doctors- that child learns that he too can be a doctor (and preferably of any specialty). If the black child just sees white and Asian doctor, he may learn while not being able to vocalize it, that it’s not a job accessible to him, so he might not even try. If a girl sees female scientists and physicists, they may as a child pursue games, toys that would help them in 20 years on some exam. It also teaches the teachers of these kids to support them during the education process and give them access to an education that improves critical thinking skills, which helps on some exam, that more and more and more people are saying is irrelavant anyway. I don’t think step 1 or 2 was more relevant than ABR exams.

Thinking about just yourself in this situation is short sighted.

While I understand some frustration about “wealthy” African blacks- they a.) still experience enormous racism even if they are wealthy and b) they still contribute to the black “image” which should be one that black people can do anything white people can do. I do agree with giving even greater priority to LES URM but the problem is proving low income background can be hard, esp once you’re not a minor.

Having said all of this, with the exception of a select few, our field has become irrelevant for medical students. I do believe they are throwing away immense flexibility to frankly not being able to find a job at all by entering this field. Irrelevant is the best word for this. It is an irrelevant occupation. Radiation oncology is no longer a serious occupation for medical students. It hurts terribly to say this but our leadership over the past 10-15 years through lack of foresight and thinking about only themselves, their laziness and their egos, made their own specialty irrelevant.

the catch-22 here is that we harm URMs and females at this point by trying to attract them for them BUT we perpetuate an unfortunate cycle if we don’t attract them. My heart tells me that because I care about the immediate welfare of the current med students(be they black, white, brown, female, male), we educate them very clearly on what our job prospects are now, how this affects their life, does it match their personal and professional life goals, and while we can’t predict the job market in 10 years, we can in 5 years.

Finally once out of residency, private practices and community hospitals don’t care or even have a policy for affirmative action. Therefore, it will be these candidates who are least likely to get good jobs or a job at all.
Tough spot to be in for both them and our field.
Click to expand...
Why does a hospital group need an affirmative action policy? Why would it not be appropriate to simply have a policy about non-discrimination?
 
thecarbonionangle said:
what field are you in?
Click to expand...
I find that irrelevant to the question. How is it a negative for a hospital/group to be open about encouraging everyone to apply and evaluating their qualifications without regard to their demographics a bad thing? Why would they still require an affirmative action policy?
 
sb247 said:
I find that irrelevant to the question. How is it a negative for a hospital/group to be open about encouraging everyone to apply and evaluating their qualifications without regard to their demographics a bad thing? Why would they still require an affirmative action policy?
Click to expand...

i just think looking at your post history you seem to lurk mostly political issues. There’s other places to have these conversations. are you a rad onc?

let me guess, urologist!?
 
thecarbonionangle said:
hang in there you’ll be alright. I’ll be praying for you. I Iove urologists
Click to expand...
C30B5017-8BC0-4439-AF10-DA21C2E38A90.gif
 
hbosch said:
I agree with Mandelin Rain on these issues. Systemic racism starts the day people are born and harms people over and over and over again while unfairly benefiting others. White men in particular are repeatedly assumed to be more intelligent (even if not), and assumed to be better leaders than the URM standing next to them, or the female standing next to them, and it literally starts at age 5, and through overt measures and micro aggression they are encouraged, supported, and given opportunities that others have been flat out denied or overlooked, starting literally from TV shows that portray white men as intelligent leaders to the games played (like female toys being house cleaning crap- have you seen a blue toy broom with dinosaurs imprinted on it? Because I haven’t, but how many ****ing pink toy brooms have you seen?) to access to “advanced” classes that start in 3rd grade! You literally teach people from early development to go into a certain life track because of widespread societal and systemic racism and bigotry. I’ve seen women go into early education because they saw 7 million images of females loving children but they shouldn’t have become teachers to 5 years olds because in reality they were never into children that much, they were into some dumb sexist image shoved into their faces repeatedly by society.

Affirmative action may not be perfect but it’s supposed to help mitigate the 18-25+ years of bigotry and sexism people experience. Female attendings still get called nurse by patients and are more likely to be treated poorly by referring physicians and experience micro aggression from staff where the male physicians needs are considered more important (I have seen this happen in residency onwards). A male nurse is paid more and goes up the leadership command much more quickly. So do male therapists. A lot of hospital CEOs actually started out in fields that were “predominantly female” but how many CEOs are females? Few to none. How many chairpersons of academic or private hospitals female?

Part of the push in diversity for fields is for the future anyway. It’s not for you or me. It’s a long range goal.

If a 5 year old black child goes to the hospital and sees a decent number of black doctors- that child learns that he too can be a doctor (and preferably of any specialty). If the black child just sees white and Asian doctor, he may learn while not being able to vocalize it, that it’s not a job accessible to him, so he might not even try. If a girl sees female scientists and physicists, they may as a child pursue games, toys that would help them in 20 years on some exam. It also teaches the teachers of these kids to support them during the education process and give them access to an education that improves critical thinking skills, which helps on some exam, that more and more and more people are saying is irrelavant anyway. I don’t think step 1 or 2 was more relevant than ABR exams.

Thinking about just yourself in this situation is short sighted.

While I understand some frustration about “wealthy” African blacks- they a.) still experience enormous racism even if they are wealthy and b) they still contribute to the black “image” which should be one that black people can do anything white people can do. I do agree with giving even greater priority to LES URM but the problem is proving low income background can be hard, esp once you’re not a minor.

Having said all of this, with the exception of a select few, our field has become irrelevant for medical students. I do believe they are throwing away immense flexibility to frankly not being able to find a job at all by entering this field. Irrelevant is the best word for this. It is an irrelevant occupation. Radiation oncology is no longer a serious occupation for medical students. It hurts terribly to say this but our leadership over the past 10-15 years through lack of foresight and thinking about only themselves, their laziness and their egos, made their own specialty irrelevant.

the catch-22 here is that we harm URMs and females at this point by trying to attract them for them BUT we perpetuate an unfortunate cycle if we don’t attract them. My heart tells me that because I care about the immediate welfare of the current med students(be they black, white, brown, female, male), we educate them very clearly on what our job prospects are now, how this affects their life, does it match their personal and professional life goals, and while we can’t predict the job market in 10 years, we can in 5 years.

Finally once out of residency, private practices and community hospitals don’t care or even have a policy for affirmative action. Therefore, it will be these candidates who are least likely to get good jobs or a job at all.
Tough spot to be in for both them and our field.
Click to expand...

Microaggressions are not a validated concept it is merely a hypothesis from Prof. Derald Wing Sue. See paper here from APA PsycNet

Here is a rebuttal showing it has absolutely no scientific basis SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals

It is like the implicit association test, just mere conjecturing. For us folks who want data to back up large claims then this does not pass the test.

Anyway, again:beat: tell us HOW you will rectify this injustice. Easy to want and point out lack of diversity, but how to achieve it is very unclear. I don’t think anyone denies that it is not a fair playing field and certain people have inherent advantages, but the solutions proposed will not fix these issues. It’d be nice for some others who advocate these issues address one of my main points. White people have caused these problems why should recent Asian immigrants and Jews pay the price for their sins? The only work around I can see, which I oppose, is to take only white spots.
 
You’re right microagression is just a fancy term for unintentional actual bigotry. It’s supposed to save the person participating in it some face. So, overt aggression then. A staff member telling a female doctor that a male doctor’s schedule is more important than the female doctor’s schedule (saw this blatantly happen in 3 different places to 3 different people and in some cases the male doctors was more junior to the female). A referring assuming that the white man who failed the same board certification several times in a row is smarter than the URM doctor or the female doctors when in many forms and ways he is not. Patients assuming the same thing. The practice being happy to give large leeway’s to this man. Then these are overt aggressions I guess. Then it’s just blatant bigotry, sexism and racism. The same practice, referring physicians would NEVER wake up one day and say “oh yes, I am doing that. I am a bigot/racist/sexist.” Whatever term you want to use, it exists.
 
hbosch said:
You’re right microagression is just a fancy term for unintentional actual bigotry. It’s supposed to save the person participating in it some face. So, overt aggression then. A staff member telling a female doctor that a male doctor’s schedule is more important than the female doctor’s schedule (saw this blatantly happen in 3 different places to 3 different people and in some cases the male doctors was more junior to the female). A referring assuming that the white man who failed the same board certification several times in a row is smarter than the URM doctor or the female doctors when in many forms and ways he is not. Patients assuming the same thing. The practice being happy to give large leeway’s to this man. Then these are overt aggressions I guess. Then it’s just blatant bigotry, sexism and racism. The same practice, referring physicians would NEVER wake up one day and say “oh yes, I am doing that. I am a bigot/racist/sexist.” Whatever term you want to use, it exists.
Click to expand...
And this not necessarily a conservative vs liberal issue. I have seen plenty of people who are die hard Democrats do this over and over and over again. They would go into shock if someone called them out as racist/sexist/bigoted. Somehow they think being not a Republican makes them automatically not a bigot.
 
hbosch said:
You’re right microagression is just a fancy term for unintentional actual bigotry. It’s supposed to save the person participating in it some face. So, overt aggression then. A staff member telling a female doctor that a male doctor’s schedule is more important than the female doctor’s schedule (saw this blatantly happen in 3 different places to 3 different people and in some cases the male doctors was more junior to the female). A referring assuming that the white man who failed the same board certification several times in a row is smarter than the URM doctor or the female doctors when in many forms and ways he is not. Patients assuming the same thing. The practice being happy to give large leeway’s to this man. Then these are overt aggressions I guess. Then it’s just blatant bigotry, sexism and racism. The same practice, referring physicians would NEVER wake up one day and say “oh yes, I am doing that. I am a bigot/racist/sexist.” Whatever term you want to use, it exists.
Click to expand...

So you agree then that because most academics are liberal and that the political divide is so intense, there‘s lots of microaggressions against conservatives? See, this does not end well. If we all have microaggressions deep down inside/implicit bias, you agree that URMs microaggress non-URMs and female attendings microaggress male residents. So a non-URM resident under a URM should be wary of bias and male residents should be “on guard” for being treated unfairly with a female attending? If not why not? Love to know how why certain political affiliations, races, and genders are exempt...
 
hbosch said:
And this not necessarily a conservative vs liberal issue. I have seen plenty of people who are die hard Democrats do this over and over and over again. They would go into shock if someone called them out as racist/sexist/bigoted. Somehow they think being not a Republican makes them automatically not a bigot.
Click to expand...
The last election proved that
 
hbosch said:
You’re right microagression is just a fancy term for unintentional actual bigotry. It’s supposed to save the person participating in it some face. So, overt aggression then. A staff member telling a female doctor that a male doctor’s schedule is more important than the female doctor’s schedule (saw this blatantly happen in 3 different places to 3 different people and in some cases the male doctors was more junior to the female). A referring assuming that the white man who failed the same board certification several times in a row is smarter than the URM doctor or the female doctors when in many forms and ways he is not. Patients assuming the same thing. The practice being happy to give large leeway’s to this man. Then these are overt aggressions I guess. Then it’s just blatant bigotry, sexism and racism. The same practice, referring physicians would NEVER wake up one day and say “oh yes, I am doing that. I am a bigot/racist/sexist.” Whatever term you want to use, it exists.
Click to expand...
If those things happened the way you described I would agree that “microaggressions” is the wrong term and either racial/gender discrimination/stereoptyping would be more appropriate. People shouldn’t be acting like that
 
RadOncMegatron said:
So you agree then that because most academics are liberal and that the political divide is so intense, there‘s lots of microaggressions against conservatives? See, this does not end well. If we all have microaggressions deep down inside/implicit bias, you agree that URMs microaggress non-URMs and female attendings microaggress male residents. So a non-URM resident under a URM should be wary of bias and male residents should be “on guard” for being treated unfairly with a female attending? If not why not? Love to know how why certain political affiliations, races, and genders are exempt...
Click to expand...

You’re stuck on the term microagression and losing the large picture that since certain groups dominant this field and society, they have the power and their “aggressions” harm the minority disproportionately more. I never said that sexist females and racist blacks don’t exist. All you’re doing is turning this discussion into a rabbit hole that’s not constructive. For centuries certain groups have been prioritied by all of society, and the people not a part of that group have to fight against it constantly.

the truth is if bigotry and racism didn’t exist, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

And I do disagree with over representation. I personally think ob Gyn and urology should both be 50/50 female/male. We should try to attract men to gynecology and females to urology/rad Onc. I’m not saying we should force men into gyn. Just make an effort to convince them to go into the field. and make an effort to convince men to become nurses. Don’t worry. If we get to the point where rad Onc is all women and URM I would actually say, what about the white men and Asians. Where are they? Come join us!

I’m not saying women should look at a man and think oh you’re dumb. I’m saying at large society is built on both women and men thinking men are more capable or URMs less capable. To deny this is denying reality. And to deny that this happens from birth and affects the person’s education lifelong and career arc is also denying reality.

finally, as I have stated before, nobody should go into this field. Why accumulate debt, work hard as a resident and then not find a job in a place you want to live, or a job at all. This message is as much for whites and Asians as anyone else.
 
hbosch said:
You’re stuck on the term microagression and losing the large picture that since certain groups dominant this field and society, they have the power and their “aggressions” harm the minority disproportionately more. I never said that sexist females and racist blacks don’t exist. All you’re doing is turning this discussion into a rabbit hole that’s not constructive. For centuries certain groups have been prioritied by all of society, and the people not a part of that group have to fight against it constantly.

the truth is if bigotry and racism didn’t exist, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

And I do disagree with over representation. I personally think ob Gyn and urology should both be 50/50 female/male. We should try to attract men to gynecology and females to urology/rad Onc. I’m not saying we should force men into gyn. Just make an effort to convince them to go into the field. and make an effort to convince men to become nurses. Don’t worry. If we get to the point where rad Onc is all women and URM I would actually say, what about the white men and Asians. Where are they? Come join us!

I’m not saying women should look at a man and think oh you’re dumb. I’m saying at large society is built on both women and men thinking men are more capable or URMs less capable. To deny this is denying reality. And to deny that this happens from birth and affects the person’s education lifelong and career arc is also denying reality.

finally, as I have stated before, nobody should go into this field. Why accumulate debt, work hard as a resident and then not find a job in a place you want to live, or a job at all. This message is as much for whites and Asians as anyone else.
Click to expand...

Well, not sure how much we disagree, actually. Very fair reply and consistent too IMO. So if we agree pretty much all around then where is the diagreement? Look at Dr. Pinnix ASTRO letter one more time

Again, the problems you point out and issues with society we don't have too much differences (edit: major difference is I don't think fields have to be 50/50 and have equally balance as natural interests are likely different). Dr. Pinnix however is calling for "A Call to Action." She cites problematic unverified literature including IAT, microaggressions, and the physicians spending less time with black patients that has already been discussed. She says it's time to "move past talking about diversity and inclusion and instead commit to a strategic plan that will result in substantive change." Dr. Pinnix is now PD at MDACC and if her words are taken at face value, the next crop of applicants will be subject to her diversity and inclusion criteria. No more pointing out issues and thinking about how to solve these problems, but it appears she will use DIE (diversity, inclusion, equity) criteria in the next 6 months. So the question is now, as I have been saying, WHAT ARE THE CRITERIA?!?! @w00tz has given his/her criteria and we are all asking for Dr. Pinnix ACTUAL REAL LIFE CRITERIA. Regardless if nobody should come in the field or not, MDACC please show us your scoring system and rationale behind such measures. They did it for TTB for esophageal proton treatment, let's see it for new residents. So in the next 6 mo let's see how many points you lose for being white, Asian, or Jewish. Don't be shy SHOW US! Harvard showed us by discriminating against Asians and scoring them lower in subjective "personality" rankings. The SAT showed us by giving an extra score based on zip code (or something close to that) and giving a score based on average income. Like I said, no more theory, show us the praxis!

 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: OTN
I have a hard time with a field that has prided itself in knowing the data more than all other onc providers just going a long with the IAT like it’s a randomized trial level of infallible truth and something that has great value. It is highly questionable for actually doing anything productive.

Things often “feel” useful or right (dose escalation in stage 3 lung), but maybe they aren’t really.


osf.io

A Meta-Analysis of Procedures to Change Implicit Measures

Using a novel technique known as network meta-analysis, we synthesized evidence from 492 studies (87,418 participants) to investigate the effectiveness of procedures in changing implicit measures, which we define as response biases on implicit tasks. We also evaluated these procedures’ effects...
osf.io

From one Pitt Professor



“But then we’ve learned that people aren’t really unaware of whatever it is that the IAT measures. So, whatever it is that the IAT measures isn’t really unconscious. And we’ve learned that the IAT predicts very little proportion of variance. In particular, only a tiny proportion of biased behavior correlates with IAT scores. We have also learned that your IAT score today will be quite different from your IAT score tomorrow. And it is now clear that there is precious little, perhaps no, evidence that whatever it is that the IAT measures causes biased behavior. So, we have a measure of attitude that is not reliable, does not predict behavior well, may not measure anything causally relevant, and does not give us access to the unconscious causes of human behavior. It would be irresponsible to put much stock in it and to build theoretical castles on such quicksand.”
 
Last edited:
BobbyHeenan said:
I have a hard time with a field that has prided itself in knowing the data more than all other onc providers just going a long with the IAT like it’s a randomized trial level of infallible truth and something that has great value. It is highly questionable for actually doing anything productive.

Things often “feel” useful or right (dose escalation in stage 3 lung), but maybe they aren’t really.


osf.io

A Meta-Analysis of Procedures to Change Implicit Measures

Using a novel technique known as network meta-analysis, we synthesized evidence from 492 studies (87,418 participants) to investigate the effectiveness of procedures in changing implicit measures, which we define as response biases on implicit tasks. We also evaluated these procedures’ effects...
osf.io

From one Pitt Professor



“But then we’ve learned that people aren’t really unaware of whatever it is that the IAT measures. So, whatever it is that the IAT measures isn’t really unconscious. And we’ve learned that the IAT predicts very little proportion of variance. In particular, only a tiny proportion of biased behavior correlates with IAT scores. We have also learned that your IAT score today will be quite different from your IAT score tomorrow. And it is now clear that there is precious little, perhaps no, evidence that whatever it is that the IAT measures causes biased behavior. So, we have a measure of attitude that is not reliable, does not predict behavior well, may not measure anything causally relevant, and does not give us access to the unconscious causes of human behavior. It would be irresponsible to put much stock in it and to build theoretical castles on such quicksand.”
Click to expand...

Great article and well said.
 
Anecdotally, white males among radonc residents
Is much less than in the general population. When I trained, there were only 2 among the residents and attendings in my department.
 
It's pretty rich watching the liberal white women get called out for using the struggles of others as means to signal their virtue on social media platforms and advance their careers in academia.

It's more than a little paternalistic to suggest that it is the white liberals and their means of spreading the message that will save the URMs from the evil racist conservatives in the red states by doing things such as posting black squares and paying lip service with statements from their businesses in ways that allow them to increase profits and their social standing.

This is where phrases such as "the soft bigotry of low expectations" originate from. Thank you woke white liberal females for your immense contributions in stirring the pot for your own personal gain as you use others to climb the ladder.

The L@@k-@t-me!!! virtue signalling in the form of insincere self-shaming from these actually shameless individuals is so transparent.
 
KHE88 said:
It's pretty rich watching the liberal white women get called out for using the struggles of others as means to signal their virtue on social media platforms and advance their careers in academia.

It's more than a little paternalistic to suggest that it is the white liberals and their means of spreading the message that will save the URMs from the evil racist conservatives in the red states by doing things such as posting black squares and paying lip service with statements from their businesses in ways that allow them to increase profits and their social standing.

This is where phrases such as "the soft bigotry of low expectations" originate from. Thank you woke white liberal females for your immense contributions in stirring the pot for your own personal gain as you use others to climb the ladder.

The L@@k-@t-me!!! virtue signalling in the form of insincere self-shaming from these actually shameless individuals is so transparent.
Click to expand...

Exactly, see the bottom of my picture with Dr. James' 2nd tweet. She notes 'Progressive White woman racism is the worst of all in my opinion. Theirs is the sneering, arrogant certitude that “I’m not the problem”. Theirs is the “you can be liberated but only after I get mine” type of racism. '

I agree with this sentiment here. If your really believe that as a white person you are truly racist, have gained your position via systemic oppression of other people, go sacrifice YOUR own elite academic job and YOUR own kid’s college spot, not someone else's. Dr. James is right about this "after I get mine" type of attitude. It's why many of us cringe at the Celebrity PSAs b/c they don't see their hypocrisy.
 
Last edited:
Lamount said:
We are in that eerie moment before the moderators delete 30+ posts
Click to expand...

Nah. Regardless of whether I agree with all opinions here or not, people have been mostly respectful (or at least toeing the line but staying on the green side) as I've caught up on the bulk of posts here.

I don't have a whole lot to add to this topic besides to say it's complex and multifaceted, but I encourage you all to continue the discussion if so inclined.
 
Things move fast... Keyword here is "MUST" in the concrete recommendations page. If Simul got kicked out of ROhubs for disagreeing with residency expansion, there will surely be more consequences for disagreeing with these authors. Thought policing via mandatory participation and training, "candidate statements for all leadership positions", annual reports, and creation of a DIE board. Did you hear MANDATORY TRAINING, CANDIDATE STATEMENTS FOR ALL LEADERS, ANNUAL REPORTING, & CREATION OF A DIE BOARD.



OBEY NOW.PNG


"Don't speak out or question."

 
I mean.... It's an opinion of 6 African American rad oncs, none of which are chairs. Karen winkfield, to me, is just the African American version of reshma jagsi, kinda can't take her super seriously just like i can't take RJ seriously anymore.

We all know first author (not familiar with her, but maybe is following the same path) and KW probably wrote most of it and they just added on African american rad oncs to give it credibility, not all that different from all other crap papers in crap journals (like advances of rad onc).

They can say kinda whatever they want. I don't really want mandatory diversity training on top of all the other crap modules I have to do on a yearly basis but if it makes folks feel better I'm not going to create a stink over an hour or two of my life. Will bitch about it over a beer with friends instead.
 
I am sympathetic to the cause of the authors...
However, I think they would be more effective if they presented more data and had fewer imperatives. If you truly want someone to change their mind... it has to be their idea.
 
sciencemajor2020 said:
With that same logic, doctors should be allowed to refuse treatment to those racists and make them go elsewhere... Racism is not a preference
Click to expand...
Pretty sure physicians can refuse patients who use racist language in their presence or clinic. I’ve fired a couple patients for similar.

Unless your claim is racism is genetic, it definitely is a preference. A preference for ignorance and hate, but a preference nonetheless.
 
Lamount said:
I am sympathetic to the cause of the authors...
However, I think they would be more effective if they presented more data and had fewer imperatives. If you truly want someone to change their mind... it has to be their idea.
Click to expand...
Similar sentiment here. If I had to do mandatory “diversity” training, would probably make me less sympathetic to the cause.
 
Lamount said:
I am sympathetic to the cause of the authors...
However, I think they would be more effective if they presented more data and had fewer imperatives. If you truly want someone to change their mind... it has to be their idea.
Click to expand...
Agree with your sentiment. I think the underlying problems and pain of the URM experience is real. I just disagree to the causes and solutions. It would be much better if these high powered academics 1) asked rather than compelled their adult colleagues 2) actual help those in need ie why don’t you have an internship for inner city high school students? Identify a high performing URM with potential bring them into the med school campus, tutor them, teach them rad onc (maybe even for credit), provide free SAT classes, give a project they can do to put in their CV helping them get into college (or even have a few spots with full ride to give out on the undergrad side) instead of making Ted Deweese take diversity training. It would be much better use of their academic time then the next retrospective review showing XRT is ineffective in some population.
 
Some of this letter I’m ok with. I do have point of contention though.


Does anyone want to cite where implicit bias training actually makes things better? Could we see that data? It’s no where in this letter and much of the data on it (including meta analysis posted previously in this thread) suggests it doesn’t help at all. It just signals you care.

The implicit association test is so weak there’s a well known “hack” to it.




It’s all a non falsifiable hypothesis - if you disagree with mandated implicit bias training it is evidence of your bias. None of this would ever pass as real science if we used the same standards on it that we do to turn a beam on a patient.

It’s unfortunate we can’t have a good faithdiscussion on this in the academic world. This thread has been in good faith I feel, but no one would dare express concerns on this paper in “the real world.”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

CurbYourExpectations
  • Poll Poll
Would you apply today?
2 3
Replies
103
Views
11K
TheWallnerus
TheWallnerus
CurbYourExpectations
  • Locked
Thank you all
Replies
8
Views
2K
evilbooyaa
evilbooyaa
CurbYourExpectations
  • Poll Poll
Do you support encroachment into the field?
Replies
46
Views
3K
medgator
M
DoctwoB
Which of you is irradiating Joel Embiid?
Replies
8
Views
2K
SneakyBooger
SneakyBooger
Anthodite
To rad oncs who acknowledge rt students, I love you
Replies
0
Views
868
Anthodite
Anthodite
Top