What exactly about this paper is “woke”? In a lot of ways it’s an extremely dated narrative about immigration. I guess anything short of hysterical xenophobia is “woke”?
First APSR Editorial Board Effects Coming to Fruition
-
What exactly about this paper is “woke”? In a lot of ways it’s an extremely dated narrative about immigration. I guess anything short of hysterical xenophobia is “woke”?
The idea that people are anti-immigration because they hold bigoted views, and if you only prime or enlighten them, they will change their minds is incredibly woke.
-
The article risks being borderline relevant which would scandalize the entire American Politics subfield. They have decades of irrelevance to protect.
You. Totally. Missed. Trump.Your logic still doesn't make sense, and now you are just doubling down on something that's incoherent.
-
The article risks being borderline relevant which would scandalize the entire American Politics subfield. They have decades of irrelevance to protect.
You. Totally. Missed. Trump.Your logic still doesn't make sense, and now you are just doubling down on something that's incoherent.
Here's the point Einstein. Nothing you have claimed about American politics, based on decades of "science" explains or predicts anything that has happened in the past few years.
Here's how to use your scientific prowess: invent a time machine, go back many years, and try to get a clue.
Otherwise (gasp) many of you will remain unemployed job candidates. Which you are.
-
The people I have met in the American Politics subfield are generally nice people and they have a lot of opinions about politics.
Nobody could have been expected to anticipate developments in American politics over the past 25 years. It isn't like we have some magic science that explains, predicts, and understands American politics.
-
Here's the point Einstein. Nothing you have claimed about American politics, based on decades of "science" explains or predicts anything that has happened in the past few years.
I don't get it. That's not the point of science or social science. The point is to build theories and knowledge about the world around us, starting from a point of neutrality with regards to what things 'ought to be.' Then you use the scientific method, to the best of your ability, to either add evidence to existing theories, or knock them down, depending on what you find.
The point isn't to predict the future?
What the new APSR editorial board is doing is the near *opposite* of social science. They have come in with prepositions of what research in political science should be, and are actively searching for, and publishing, research that conforms to those viewpoints. It's dogmatic, not scientific.
-
The idea that people are anti-immigration because they hold bigoted views, and if you only prime or enlighten them, they will change their minds is incredibly woke.
Not really. Priming effects suggest that the anti-immigrant views are not deeply engrained and that ordinary people - including those with right leaning views - are capable of empathizing with immigrants’ experiences. A lot of SJW types think this wouldn’t happen because the bigots are irredeemable.
It sounds like you just lump everything that is more liberal than your own worldview into the woke category.
-
A lot of SJW types think this wouldn’t happen because the bigots are irredeemable.
Based on what? One of the key tenets of the CRTistas is that humans are malleable and re-education can fundamentally alter their thinking and behavior - this is the key logic behind race bias training and the like.
-
The people I have met in the American Politics subfield are generally nice people and they have a lot of opinions about politics.
Nobody could have been expected to anticipate developments in American politics over the past 25 years. It isn't like we have some magic science that explains, predicts, and understands American politics.True but the mainstream American Politics subfield should still have the right to control the APSR and stifle alternative viewpoints. The quant American fundamental lack of scientific progress should in no way be held against them.
-
Here's the point Einstein. Nothing you have claimed about American politics, based on decades of "science" explains or predicts anything that has happened in the past few years.
I don't get it.
I agree. That should be the title of your next article about American politics.
-
I don't get it. That's not the point of science or social science. The point is to build theories and knowledge about the world around us, starting from a point of neutrality with regards to what things 'ought to be.' Then you use the scientific method, to the best of your ability, to either add evidence to existing theories, or knock them down, depending on what you find.
The point isn't to predict the future?Exactly. Everybody is all "you should be producing results that matter" but that's not the point of science.