discoveryinstitute--2020-09-26--Did the Smart Machines Destroy the Aliens Who Invented Them?

Recently science and science fiction writer Matt Williams has been writing a series at Universe Today on why the extraterrestrial intelligences never show up ( the Fermi Paradox or Great Filter ) .
Last week , we looked at the hypothesis that we are living in an ET ’ s simulation ( In their world , we don ’ t really exist . )
This week , let ’ s look at the Berserker hypothesis , the fifth in Williams ’ s series ( counting down ) : The hypothesis suggests that we haven ’ t heard from alien civilizations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by their own killer robots .
Well , if robotics ran amok… The word “ Berserker ” originates in battles in early Europe .
Warriors who behaved almost mechanically when slaughtering enemy soldiers sometimes underwent an initiation beforehand in which they would wear a bear ’ s skin ( = the bear ’ s shirt or ber-serk ) in order to leverage the ferocity of that animal .
They terrified friend and foe alike with their unreflective ferocity .
Of course , machine warriors would be , for many reasons , much more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of pitiless machine warriors gained traction from the 17-book Berserker series ( 1967 through 2005 ) by American science fiction and fantasy author Fred Saberhagen ( 1930–2007 ) .
Some of the later books were co-written with other authors .
Long ago , in a distant part of the galaxy , two alien races met—and fought a war of mutual extinction .
The sole legacy of that war was the weapon that ended it : the death machines , the BERSERKERS .
Guided by self-aware computers more intelligent than any human , these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ death through the galaxy—until they arrived at the outskirts of the fledgling Empire of Man .
These are the stories of the frail creatures who must meet this monstrous and implacable enemy—and who , by fighting it to a standstill , become the saviors of all living things .
So that brings us back to the Berserker Hypothesis as to why we don ’ t see space aliens , with a twist : The machines that killed them all may be coming for us .
That ’ s why Oxford philosopher Nick Bostrom @ @ @ @ @ @ @ essay that we don ’ t find any aliens : To constitute an effective Great Filter , we hypothesize a terminal global cataclysm : an existential catastrophe .
An existential risk is one where an adverse outcome would annihilate Earth originating intelligent life or permanently and drastically curtail its potential for future development .
We can identify a number of potential existential risks : nuclear war fought with stockpiles much greater than those that exist today ( maybe resulting from future arms races ) ; a genetically engineered superbug ; environmental disaster ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ committed with powerful future weapons , perhaps based on advanced forms of nanotechnology ; superintelligent general artificial intelligence with destructive goals ; high energy physics experiments ; a permanent global Brave New World like totalitarian regime protected from revolution by new surveillance and mind control technologies… Perhaps the most likely type of existential risks that could constitute a Great Filter are those that arise from technological discovery .
It is not farfetched to suppose that there might be some possible technology which is such that ( a ) virtually all sufficiently advanced civilizations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its discovery leads almost universally to existential disaster Cambridge physicist Adrian Kent has gone further .
In 2011 , he suggested that risks like swift mass destruction are why extraterrestrial civilizations are hiding from each other , never mind from us .
And that is why we don ’ t see anybody out there : It is often suggested that extraterrestial life sufficiently advanced to be capable of interstellar travel or communication must be rare , since otherwise we would have seen evidence of it by now .
This in turn is sometimes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of life evolving at all in our universe .
A couple of other possibilities seem worth considering .
One is that life capable of evidencing itself on interstellar scales has evolved in many places but that evolutionary selection , acting on a cosmic scale , tends to extinguish species which conspicuously advertise themselves and their habitats .
The other is that — whatever the true situation — intelligent species might reasonably worry about the possible dangers of self-advertisement and hence incline towards discretion .
These possibilities are discussed here , and some counter-arguments @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Indeed , as Bostrom notes , extinction by technology might be more likely than extinction by natural disaster .
Highly advanced civilizations may be able to control nature more easily than they can control their technology .
The lethal machines , would , of course , need to be self-replicating .
Isaac Arthur looks at that concept ( the von Neumann machine ) here : The Berserker concept became a board game ( 1982 ) .
No surprise that most of us would be much happier to see the hypothesis demonstrated in art @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may also enjoy : Seven reasons ( so far ) why the aliens never show up .
Some experts think they became AI , some that they were killed by their AI , and others say they never existed .
Who ’ s most likely right ?
Science fiction writer Matt Williams delves into seven hypotheses into which scientists and science fiction writers have put a lot of thought .
Are the Aliens We Never Find Obeying Star Trek ’ s Prime Directive ?
The Directive is , don ’ t interfere in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if you have good intentions .
Assuming the aliens exist , perhaps it ’ s just as well , on the whole , if they do want to leave us alone .
They could want to “ fix ” us instead… How can we be sure we are not just an ET ’ s simulation ?
A number of books and films are based on the idea .
Should we believe it ?
We make a faith-based decision that logic and evidence together are reasonable guides to what is true .
Logical possibility @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

Recently science and science fiction writer Matt Williams has been writing a series at Universe Today on why the extraterrestrial intelligences never show up (the Fermi Paradox or Great Filter).
Last week, we looked at the hypothesis that we are living in an ET’s simulation (In their world, we don’t really exist.)
This week, let’s look at the Berserker hypothesis, the fifth in Williams’s series (counting down): The hypothesis suggests that we haven’t heard from alien civilizations because they’ve been wiped out by their own killer robots. Well, if robotics ran amok…
The word “Berserker” originates in battles in early Europe. Warriors who behaved almost mechanically when slaughtering enemy soldiers sometimes underwent an initiation beforehand in which they would wear a bear’s skin (= the bear’s shirt or ber-serk) in order to leverage the ferocity of that animal. They terrified friend and foe alike with their unreflective ferocity.
Of course, machine warriors would be, for many reasons, much more convenient for these purposes. The concept of pitiless machine warriors gained traction from the 17-book Berserker series (1967 through 2005) by American science fiction and fantasy author Fred Saberhagen (1930–2007). Some of the later books were co-written with other authors.
Here’s Amazon’s summary of the series’ theme:
Long ago, in a distant part of the galaxy, two alien races met—and fought a war of mutual extinction. The sole legacy of that war was the weapon that ended it: the death machines, the BERSERKERS. Guided by self-aware computers more intelligent than any human, these world-sized battle craft carved a swath of death through the galaxy—until they arrived at the outskirts of the fledgling Empire of Man. These are the stories of the frail creatures who must meet this monstrous and implacable enemy—and who, by fighting it to a standstill, become the saviors of all living things.
So that brings us back to the Berserker Hypothesis as to why we don’t see space aliens, with a twist: The machines that killed them all may be coming for us. That’s why Oxford philosopher Nick Bostrom expressed the hope in an influential 2008 essay that we don’t find any aliens:
To constitute an effective Great Filter, we hypothesize a terminal global cataclysm: an existential catastrophe. An existential risk is one where an adverse outcome would annihilate Earth originating intelligent life or permanently and drastically curtail its potential for future development. We can identify a number of potential existential risks: nuclear war fought with stockpiles much greater than those that exist today (maybe resulting from future arms races); a genetically engineered superbug; environmental disaster; asteroid impact; wars or terrorists act committed with powerful future weapons, perhaps based on advanced forms of nanotechnology; superintelligent general artificial intelligence with destructive goals; high energy physics experiments; a permanent global Brave New World like totalitarian regime protected from revolution by new surveillance and mind control technologies… Perhaps the most likely type of existential risks that could constitute a Great Filter are those that arise from technological discovery. It is not farfetched to suppose that there might be some possible technology which is such that (a) virtually all sufficiently advanced civilizations eventually discover it and (b) its discovery leads almost universally to existential disaster Nick Bostrom, “Where Are They?” at MIT Technology Review (May/June issue (2008): pp. 72–77)
Cambridge physicist Adrian Kent has gone further. In 2011, he suggested that risks like swift mass destruction are why extraterrestrial civilizations are hiding from each other, never mind from us. And that is why we don’t see anybody out there:
It is often suggested that extraterrestial life sufficiently advanced to be capable of interstellar travel or communication must be rare, since otherwise we would have seen evidence of it by now. This in turn is sometimes taken as indirect evidence for the improbability of life evolving at all in our universe. A couple of other possibilities seem worth considering. One is that life capable of evidencing itself on interstellar scales has evolved in many places but that evolutionary selection, acting on a cosmic scale, tends to extinguish species which conspicuously advertise themselves and their habitats. The other is that — whatever the true situation — intelligent species might reasonably worry about the possible dangers of self-advertisement and hence incline towards discretion. These possibilities are discussed here, and some counter-arguments and complicating factors are also considered. Adrian Kent, “Too Damn Quiet?” at arXiv.org
Indeed, as Bostrom notes, extinction by technology might be more likely than extinction by natural disaster. Highly advanced civilizations may be able to control nature more easily than they can control their technology.
The lethal machines, would, of course, need to be self-replicating. Isaac Arthur looks at that concept (the von Neumann machine) here:
The Berserker concept became a board game (1982). No surprise that most of us would be much happier to see the hypothesis demonstrated in art and games than in life.
You may also enjoy:
Seven reasons (so far) why the aliens never show up. Some experts think they became AI, some that they were killed by their AI, and others say they never existed. Who’s most likely right? Science fiction writer Matt Williams delves into seven hypotheses into which scientists and science fiction writers have put a lot of thought.
Are the Aliens We Never Find Obeying Star Trek’s Prime Directive? The Directive is, don’t interfere in the evolution of alien societies, even if you have good intentions. Assuming the aliens exist, perhaps it’s just as well, on the whole, if they do want to leave us alone. They could want to “fix” us instead…
and
How can we be sure we are not just an ET’s simulation? A number of books and films are based on the idea. Should we believe it? We make a faith-based decision that logic and evidence together are reasonable guides to what is true. Logical possibility alone does not make an idea true.


discoveryinstitute--2020-10-05--Liberalism and its Discontents with Professor Patrick Deneen

In this webinar , Center on Wealth & Poverty Director Christopher Rufo will speak with Professor Patrick Deneen about his @ @ @ @ @ Failed , the civil unrest sweeping the nation , and the upcoming election .
Patrick @ @ @ @ @ Political Science at the University of Notre Dame and has written four books , including @ @ @ @ @ , Democratic Faith , Conserving America ?
, and most recently , Why Liberalism Failed @

In this webinar, Center on Wealth & Poverty Director Christopher Rufo will speak with Professor Patrick Deneen about his most recent book Why Liberalism Failed, the civil unrest sweeping the nation, and the upcoming election.
Patrick J. Deneen is Professor of Political Science at the University of Notre Dame and has written four books, including The Odyssey of Political Theory, Democratic Faith, Conserving America?, and most recently, Why Liberalism Failed.


discoveryinstitute--2020-10-04--Christopher Rufo in the Wall Street Journal: The Truth About Critical Race Theory

Moderator Chris Wallace asked President Trump during last week ’ s debate why he “ directed federal agencies to end @ @ @ @ @ privilege or critical race theory.
” Mr. Trump answered : “ I ended it because @ @ @ @ @ Participants “ were asked to do things that were absolutely insane , ” he explained @ @ @ @ @ people to hate our country.
” My reporting on critical race theory in the federal @ @ @ @ @ the president ’ s executive order , so I can say with confidence that these @ @ @ @ @ do with developing “ racial sensitivity.
” As I document in detailed reports for City @ @ @ @ @ Post , critical race theory training sessions in public agencies have pushed a deeply ideological @ @ @ @ @ to a racial essence , segregating them , and judging them by their group identity @ @ @ @ @ behavior and merit .

Moderator Chris Wallace asked President Trump during last week’s debate why he “directed federal agencies to end racial-sensitivity training that addresses white privilege or critical race theory.” Mr. Trump answered: “I ended it because it’s racist.” Participants “were asked to do things that were absolutely insane,” he explained. “They were teaching people to hate our country.”
“Nobody’s doing that,” Joe Biden replied. He’s wrong.
My reporting on critical race theory in the federal government was the impetus for the president’s executive order, so I can say with confidence that these training sessions had nothing to do with developing “racial sensitivity.” As I document in detailed reports for City Journal and the New York Post, critical race theory training sessions in public agencies have pushed a deeply ideological agenda that includes reducing people to a racial essence, segregating them, and judging them by their group identity rather than individual character, behavior and merit.
The examples are instructive. At a series of events at the Treasury Department and federal financial agencies, diversity trainer Howard Ross taught employees that America was “built on the backs of people who were enslaved” and that all white Americans are complicit in a system of white supremacy “by automatic response to the ways we’re taught.”
In accompanying documents, Mr. Ross argues that whites share an inborn oppressive streak. “Whiteness,” employees are told, “includes white privilege and white supremacy.” Consequently, whites “struggle to own their racism.” He instructs managers to conduct “listening sessions” in which black employees can speak about their experience and be “seen in their pain,” while white employees are instructed to “sit in the discomfort” and not “fill the silence with your own thoughts and feelings.” Members of “the group you’re allying with,” Mr. Ross says, are not “obligated to like you, thank you, feel sorry for you, or forgive you.” For training like this, Mr. Ross and his firm have been paid $5 million over 15 years, according to federal disclosures.


discoveryinstitute--2020-10-07--The Fitness of Nature for Mankind

The Fitness of Nature for Mankind

Join renowned author and biologist Michael Denton as he explores the myriad of ways nature is fit not just for life , but for human life .
Denton is author of the new book The Miracle of the Cell ( 2020 ) as well as many other books such as Nature ’ s Destiny , Fire-Maker , The Wonder of Water , and Evolution : Still a Theory in Crisis .
You will never think of nature in the same way after you watch this presentation !
Michael Denton , giving a new expression to what he calls the “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , now enjoying a “ Reconquista ” thanks to modern science .
In charming and lyrical yet rigorous fashion , Denton reviews the design evidence detailed in his books , including the most recent , The Miracle of the Cell .
As Denton points out , the design of physics and chemistry must have been already in place at the Big Bang .
It is the very “ ground of being.
” It must reflect the planning of an intelligence that came before the first moments of our universe .
To this design @ @ @ @ @ @ @ divine.
” The design of physics and chemistry is necessarily divine .
If it comes before all known physical existence , what else would it be ?
The contrast with the design in biology is noteworthy .
Hypothetically , biological design might not be of a transcendent origin .
But the design Denton discusses here must be transcendent .
It seals the deal .

Join renowned author and biologist Michael Denton as he explores the myriad of ways nature is fit not just for life, but for human life. Denton is author of the new book The Miracle of the Cell (2020) as well as many other books such as Nature’s Destiny, Fire-Maker, The Wonder of Water, and Evolution: Still a Theory in Crisis. You will never think of nature in the same way after you watch this presentation!
Michael Denton, giving a new expression to what he calls the “medieval synthesis” of knowledge about life, now enjoying a “Reconquista” thanks to modern science. In charming and lyrical yet rigorous fashion, Denton reviews the design evidence detailed in his books, including the most recent, The Miracle of the Cell.
The whole world works together in the service of man. Francis Bacon
Denton revives this ancient insight with modern rigor.
As Denton points out, the design of physics and chemistry must have been already in place at the Big Bang. It is the very “ground of being.” It must reflect the planning of an intelligence that came before the first moments of our universe. To this design, Dr. Denton attaches the word “divine.” The design of physics and chemistry is necessarily divine. If it comes before all known physical existence, what else would it be? The contrast with the design in biology is noteworthy. Hypothetically, biological design might not be of a transcendent origin. But the design Denton discusses here must be transcendent. It seals the deal.


Lab Coat Tyranny

Public health authorities in California have unveiled a “ Blueprint for a Safer Economy ” that requires counties to meet new “ health equity metrics ” in order to emerge from the current Covid-19 lockdowns .
It ’ s a broad experiment in social justice .
Under the plan , counties must reduce “ disparities in levels of transmission ” in “ low-income , Black , Latino , [ and ] Pacific Islander ” communities before they can move forward with reopening .
In effect , local businesses must remain closed until local bureaucrats are satisfied that ill-defined racial quotas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the blueprint is that race-based coronavirus disparities are the result of “ systemic racism , ” despite zero evidence that the state ’ s coronavirus policies have been discriminatory .
The plan ignores potential differences in culture , behavior , and underlying health , resting instead on the premise that racism is the driving force behind every disparate outcome .
The blueprint also subverts the democratic process .
Unelected public health officials are restricting essential freedoms , including mobility , worship , and economic activity , without deliberation by the state legislature @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Unfortunately , the California blueprint is just part of a broader pattern of state governments using public health as a rationale for seizing power .
Throughout the pandemic , blue-state politicians have appealed to science as justification for long-term economic lockdowns , mask mandates , and other emergency measures , regardless of whether these policies have been sanctioned by state legislatures or voters .
Science becomes the highest authority ; citizens must obey .
Yet progressive leaders have been willing immediately to jettison science when it conflicts with their pre-existing political priorities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pilloried conservative lockdown protestors—declaring them a threat to public health—but then endorsed the much larger Black Lives Matter protests following the death of George Floyd in May .
In short , they created a policy of “ science for thee , but not for me.
” The disproportionate victims of any attempt to race-code the criteria for reopening in California will be the poor , the marginalized , and the nonwhite—the very people whom the equity policies are supposed to help .
If , that is , Los Angeles County fails to reopen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ health equity metrics , ” the Zoom class of intellectuals , public health officials , and progressive politicians will celebrate its own good intentions , even as bartenders , waitresses , taxi drivers , and small shopkeepers—many of them minorities—find themselves out of work .
The public should be on alert .
If the progressive-scientific establishment can simply dictate policy outside the democratic process by appealing to “ public health equity ” —a vague concept that can extend to almost every facet of human life—voters may soon find themselves at the mercy of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as author Rod Dreher has characterized it .
Citizens with a basic respect for freedom should resist this new encroachment .
It degrades science , language , and democracy all at once , and acknowledges no natural limit to its power .
Tyranny in a lab coat would still be tyranny .

Public health authorities in California have unveiled a “Blueprint for a Safer Economy” that requires counties to meet new “health equity metrics” in order to emerge from the current Covid-19 lockdowns. It’s a broad experiment in social justice. Under the plan, counties must reduce “disparities in levels of transmission” in “low-income, Black, Latino, [and] Pacific Islander” communities before they can move forward with reopening. In effect, local businesses must remain closed until local bureaucrats are satisfied that ill-defined racial quotas have been met.
The underlying assumption of the blueprint is that race-based coronavirus disparities are the result of “systemic racism,” despite zero evidence that the state’s coronavirus policies have been discriminatory. The plan ignores potential differences in culture, behavior, and underlying health, resting instead on the premise that racism is the driving force behind every disparate outcome. The blueprint also subverts the democratic process. Unelected public health officials are restricting essential freedoms, including mobility, worship, and economic activity, without deliberation by the state legislature or the possibility of review or appeal.


discoveryinstitute--2020-10-08--The Great Kindergarten Recession

The Great Kindergarten Recession

Based on the acute enrollment decline school districts around the country are reporting , researchers estimate that upwards of half a million kindergarten-age students failed to embark on their inaugural elementary school year this fall .
Parents by the masses opted to delay kindergarten for their five and six-year-old children due to the closing of school campuses and the lack of clear direction regarding school districts ’ reopening plans .
The consensus among parents is that online learning is not ideal for young children .
Their shorter attention span , lack of computer navigation ability , and limited reading skills @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are not suitable matches with online learning .
Hands-on learning and cooperative play elements with peers are foundational to these early learners .
But these age-appropriate learning approaches are void when face-to-face kindergarten is instead conducted via online modalities .
Public school districts that have chosen not to reopen their campuses , as other schools and essential businesses have done , are experiencing unintended consequences .
Fearing a loss of revenue , superintendents are going as far as to threaten parents — saying that if they don ’ t enroll their students for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t be well funded next year .
In a YouTube virtual school district meeting , Dr. Morcease Beasley , Superintendent of Clayton County Public Schools ( outside of Atlanta ) , said sarcastically to parents : “ I understand your legal right not to go to kindergarten.
” Dr. Beasley then proceeded into an extended monologue outlining his loss of funding if parents don ’ t enroll their students in kindergarten now : And remember this , if you enroll this year , I ’ m earning funding for your students for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get the money next year .
So , if we have a reduction in enrollment this year , that means we ’ ll have a reduction in funding next year when you ’ re ready to enroll .
And you want all these services , and funds have been reduced , and then you ’ ll send me a fired up email saying , ‘ Why am I not getting this and why am I not getting that ?
And why don ’ t we have teachers ?
Why don ’ t we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ll have to remind you it is because you chose not to enroll your children , which reduces the funding that I get the next year….I know we don ’ t prefer virtual learning .
We will get through virtual learning eventually , but until then , we need our students enrolled…because life is going to move on .
Instead of addressing the reduced enrollment challenge head-on , utilizing creative problem-solving as school district commander-in-chief , Dr. Beasley employs a scare tactic .
This was a tremendous missed opportunity to serve families of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ asked stakeholders why they had not enrolled their kindergarten student , he could have used that information to seek a collaborative solution with parents .
His approach is all too common in public schools , who often overlook the fact that parents are customers , supporting public school operations through their tax dollars .
Private schools provide a better model for how parents should be treated .
If private school parents opted not to enroll their kindergarten-age child because the school decided to forego offering in-person schooling , private school administrators and admission @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in an effort to regain their business .
If the health of the school ’ s budget for that year or future years were in jeopardy , the school would reassess their reopening plans and adjust as needed .
In short , private schools understand that effectively serving families is the reason they stay in business .
If private school parents were to face the lack of customer service , sarcasm , and focus on the school ’ s funding versus what best serves their students , as was overtly and dramatically communicated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their business elsewhere .
So , why can a public school superintendent get away with this ?
Primarily because of the monopoly public school districts have on the K-12 education market in situations where parents can not afford private education and other school choice avenues are not provided .
Also , school administrators ’ job security by tenure policies gives Dr. Beasley significant leeway to enact ineffective or even harmful practices with limited repercussions .
With a base salary over $ 300,000 annually , he would not retain his leadership position long in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tuition is out of reach for most families in America .
The lack of widespread school choice initiatives such as vouchers , education savings accounts , and charter schools , leave little option for families beyond their local district ’ s closed school .
Even if these families have access to another possible school , transportation to the school may be a barrier .
Because they have limited alternatives , and the thought of managing their five or six-year-old ’ s online school is overwhelming with their other daytime responsibilities , many parents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ children in kindergarten per the usual timetable .
Many may ask , what ’ s the rush to start school ?
What will it hurt to have one more year at home with siblings who are also home this year due to remote learning ?
Weighing the options , they see advantages for their child being older among their peers , including in the arenas of cognitive development , athletics , and social dynamics .
Parents seek to give their children any advantage in life they can .
Who can blame them ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to limit screen time with their children are given further pause by the thought of enrolling their five-year to be glued to a device for several additional hours a day .
In short , the value of online kindergarten is just not stacking up for many parents .
Public schools are drawing a line in the sand concerning reopening their campuses—insisting that it ’ s unsafe despite the overwhelming data showing COVID-19 having minimal effect on children under that age of 18 .
This is to their own detriment .
Not only will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public schools , but other factors such as major discrepancies between this year and next in classroom spacing and staffing needs will have to be addressed at the time they choose to reopen .
Furthermore , learning readiness variation will be a long-term challenge .
Students will begin kindergarten with greater disparities in preparedness .
This situation will be extended into first grade , as some students will bypass a year of foundational kindergarten learning and move right into first grade .
Still , another challenge will involve seven-year-olds in the same kindergarten @ @ @ @ @ @ @ negative consequences of having students of such differing size , and social-emotional developmental differences could be enormous .
Ultimately , the students are the ones who will suffer from in-person kindergarten not being offered to them on schedule .
School districts ought to seek the betterment of students rather than forcing families to enroll and “ get through virtual learning ” to keep their budgets out of the red .
Where have we gone wrong as a nation when providing high-quality education and what is best for our children — and the future @ @ @ @ @ @ @ paramount importance ?

Based on the acute enrollment decline school districts around the country are reporting, researchers estimate that upwards of half a million kindergarten-age students failed to embark on their inaugural elementary school year this fall. Parents by the masses opted to delay kindergarten for their five and six-year-old children due to the closing of school campuses and the lack of clear direction regarding school districts’ reopening plans.
The consensus among parents is that online learning is not ideal for young children. Their shorter attention span, lack of computer navigation ability, and limited reading skills (other than the rare exception) are not suitable matches with online learning. Hands-on learning and cooperative play elements with peers are foundational to these early learners. But these age-appropriate learning approaches are void when face-to-face kindergarten is instead conducted via online modalities.
Employing Scare Tactics
Public school districts that have chosen not to reopen their campuses, as other schools and essential businesses have done, are experiencing unintended consequences. Fearing a loss of revenue, superintendents are going as far as to threaten parents — saying that if they don’t enroll their students for kindergarten this year, their students won’t be well funded next year.
In a YouTube virtual school district meeting, Dr. Morcease J. Beasley, Superintendent of Clayton County Public Schools (outside of Atlanta), said sarcastically to parents: “I understand your legal right not to go to kindergarten.” Dr. Beasley then proceeded into an extended monologue outlining his loss of funding if parents don’t enroll their students in kindergarten now:
And remember this, if you enroll this year, I’m earning funding for your students for next year, and I’ll get the money next year. So, if we have a reduction in enrollment this year, that means we’ll have a reduction in funding next year when you’re ready to enroll. And you want all these services, and funds have been reduced, and then you’ll send me a fired up email saying, ‘Why am I not getting this and why am I not getting that? And why don’t we have teachers? Why don’t we have resources?’ And I’ll have to remind you it is because you chose not to enroll your children, which reduces the funding that I get the next year….I know we don’t prefer virtual learning. We will get through virtual learning eventually, but until then, we need our students enrolled…because life is going to move on. Dr. Morcease J. Beasley, Superintendent of Clayton County Public Schools
An Alternative Approach
Instead of addressing the reduced enrollment challenge head-on, utilizing creative problem-solving as school district commander-in-chief, Dr. Beasley employs a scare tactic. This was a tremendous missed opportunity to serve families of his district. If he had alternatively asked stakeholders why they had not enrolled their kindergarten student, he could have used that information to seek a collaborative solution with parents. His approach is all too common in public schools, who often overlook the fact that parents are customers, supporting public school operations through their tax dollars.
Private schools provide a better model for how parents should be treated. If private school parents opted not to enroll their kindergarten-age child because the school decided to forego offering in-person schooling, private school administrators and admission offices would reach out individually to families in an effort to regain their business. If the health of the school’s budget for that year or future years were in jeopardy, the school would reassess their reopening plans and adjust as needed. In short, private schools understand that effectively serving families is the reason they stay in business. If private school parents were to face the lack of customer service, sarcasm, and focus on the school’s funding versus what best serves their students, as was overtly and dramatically communicated by Dr. Beasley, they would take their business elsewhere.
So, why can a public school superintendent get away with this? Primarily because of the monopoly public school districts have on the K-12 education market in situations where parents cannot afford private education and other school choice avenues are not provided. Also, school administrators’ job security by tenure policies gives Dr. Beasley significant leeway to enact ineffective or even harmful practices with limited repercussions. With a base salary over $300,000 annually, he would not retain his leadership position long in the private school world.
What’s the Rush?
Private school tuition is out of reach for most families in America. The lack of widespread school choice initiatives such as vouchers, education savings accounts, and charter schools, leave little option for families beyond their local district’s closed school. Even if these families have access to another possible school, transportation to the school may be a barrier. Because they have limited alternatives, and the thought of managing their five or six-year-old’s online school is overwhelming with their other daytime responsibilities, many parents instead are choosing to delay starting their children in kindergarten per the usual timetable.
Many may ask, what’s the rush to start school? What will it hurt to have one more year of informal play-based learning with siblings who are also home this year due to remote learning? Weighing the options, they see advantages for their child being older among their peers, including in the arenas of cognitive development, athletics, and social dynamics. Parents seek to give their children any advantage in life they can. Who can blame them?
Furthermore, parents who are already fighting to limit screen time with their children are given further pause by the thought of enrolling their five-year to be glued to a device for several additional hours a day. In short, the value of online kindergarten is just not stacking up for many parents.
Additional Ramifications
Public schools are drawing a line in the sand concerning reopening their campuses — insisting that it’s unsafe despite the overwhelming data showing COVID-19 having minimal effect on children under that age of 18. This is to their own detriment. Not only will reduced funding be a significant issue for public schools, but other factors such as major discrepancies between this year and next in classroom spacing and staffing needs will have to be addressed at the time they choose to reopen.
Furthermore, learning readiness variation will be a long-term challenge. Students will begin kindergarten with greater disparities in preparedness. This situation will be extended into first grade, as some students will bypass a year of foundational kindergarten learning and move right into first grade. Still, another challenge will involve seven-year-olds in the same kindergarten class as five-year-old students — the unintended negative consequences of having students of such differing size, and social-emotional developmental differences could be enormous.
Ultimately, the students are the ones who will suffer from in-person kindergarten not being offered to them on schedule. School districts ought to seek the betterment of students rather than forcing families to enroll and “get through virtual learning” to keep their budgets out of the red. Where have we gone wrong as a nation when providing high-quality education and what is best for our children — and the future of our country — is not of paramount importance?


discoveryinstitute--2020-10-11--Corruption Watch: Biology Journal Blames the Innocent, Turns ID Scientists into Fall Guys

Adam Marcus at Retraction Watch has taken notice of the editorial disclaimer slapped on a pro-intelligent design research article in the Journal of Theoretical Biology .
He makes a helpful observation .
Editors at science journals , when they want to distance themselves from what they have published , commonly resort to “ technicalities ” — “ finding a technicality instead of engaging with the real issues — when they publish something embarrassing.
” That perfectly describes the editors ’ complaint about putting “ intelligent design ” in the keywords .
As Evolution News observes , of course ID belongs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an article about intelligent design , for goodness sake , about the fine-tuning in biology .
And it uses that language ( “ design ” and “ intelligent design ” ) explicitly .
To help Internet search engines find your work , why in the world would you NOT put ID in the keywords ?
Authors Even Put It in Italics I want to emphasize something else that ’ s obvious .
The authors of the article , Steinar Thorvaldsen and Ola Hössjer , are being turned into the fall guys here .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the restrained way of writing that ’ s characteristic of scientific journals , couldn ’ t be clearer in its objective but favorable treatment of what it also calls , in the final words of the final sentence , “ Design Science.
” Right , they even put it in italics for you , so you can ’ t miss the point .
Now the three co-Chief Editors — Denise Kirschner , Mark Chaplain , and Akira Sasaki — insinuate that they were somehow misled , by the addition of the keyword , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pro-ID , which they could have figured out from reading the paper .
The paper cites numerous ID proponents , ideas , and , again , uses the phrase “ intelligent design ” explicitly .
The editors now say , “ We believe that intelligent design is not in any way a suitable topic for the Journal of Theoretical Biology.
” Well , there are only two possibilities .
( a ) The editors believed ID was unsuitable for discussion at the time of accepting the paper .
In that case , they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ through an article openly arguing for intelligent design .
Or , ( b ) They believed that ID is suitable for discussion in a prominent science journal , and that ’ s why they considered and accepted the paper ( while subjecting to the normal peer-review , which goes without saying ) .
I ’ m not just giving the benefit of the doubt when I say I don ’ t believe that possibility ( a ) is credible .
Surely you can ’ t rise to sufficient prominence in your scientific field @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of you , Dr. Kirschner , Dr. Chaplain , and Dr. Sasaki , could read a paper , approve it , and not realize what it was about .
Or that the three of you could jointly publish a paper none of you had read .
Sorry .
No way .
That leaves us with possibility ( b ) .
The co-Chief Editors jointly understood that ID was under discussion in their journal , and they thought that was suitable .
So what happened , then ?
I ’ m no mind reader @ @ @ @ @ @ @ think of is that when word of the paper got out and Darwinists ganged up on them , the editors backed down .
I can understand that .
That ’ s what a lot of people would do when the bullies and censors come after you .
They had their reputations , their careers and livelihoods , at stake .
They folded .
It ’ s only human .
What ’ s reprehensible is turning the authors into the fall guys : blaming the whole thing on them , though they did nothing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wrote an article interesting and rigorous enough that , as John West points out , whatever anti-ID prejudices the editors had were overcome .
Talk about a disturbing look inside the sausage factory .
The disclaimer may not have been the editors ’ own choice .
Perhaps they were compelled by the publisher , Elsevier .
It doesn ’ t matter .
As Retraction Watch notes , hanging a disclaimer or retraction on technicalities is standard operating procedure for science journals .
I can ’ t speak to such cases in general , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ blaming the innocent when what you are really seeking to do is save your own skin — it is wrong , it is corrupt , and it is cowardly .
Whatever the strength of the article ’ s argument for intelligent design — and readers should judge that for themselves — the episode says as much about the corruption of professional science , how fear and dishonesty reign there .
It ’ s how the “ consensus ” is maintained .
For those who are always lecturing us about “ Follow the science @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” this episode should be an eye opener .

Adam Marcus at Retraction Watch has taken notice of the editorial disclaimer slapped on a pro-intelligent design research article in the Journal of Theoretical Biology. He makes a helpful observation. Editors at science journals, when they want to distance themselves from what they have published, commonly resort to “technicalities” — “finding a technicality instead of engaging with the real issues — when they publish something embarrassing.” That perfectly describes the editors’ complaint about putting “intelligent design” in the keywords.
As Evolution News observes, of course ID belongs in the keywords. It’s an article about intelligent design, for goodness sake, about the fine-tuning in biology. And it uses that language (“design” and “intelligent design”) explicitly. To help Internet search engines find your work, why in the world would you NOT put ID in the keywords?
Authors Even Put It in Italics
I want to emphasize something else that’s obvious. The authors of the article, Steinar Thorvaldsen and Ola Hössjer, are being turned into the fall guys here. They produced an article that, given the restrained way of writing that’s characteristic of scientific journals, couldn’t be clearer in its objective but favorable treatment of what it also calls, in the final words of the final sentence, “Design Science.” Right, they even put it in italics for you, so you can’t miss the point.
Now the three co-Chief Editors — Denise Kirschner, Mark Chaplain, and Akira Sasaki — insinuate that they were somehow misled, by the addition of the keyword, by the fact that the authors are pro-ID, which they could have figured out from reading the paper. The paper cites numerous ID proponents, ideas, and, again, uses the phrase “intelligent design” explicitly. The editors now say, “We believe that intelligent design is not in any way a suitable topic for the Journal of Theoretical Biology.”
Well, there are only two possibilities. (a) The editors believed ID was unsuitable for discussion at the time of accepting the paper. In that case, they are guilty of notable incompetence in allowing through an article openly arguing for intelligent design. Or, (b) They believed that ID is suitable for discussion in a prominent science journal, and that’s why they considered and accepted the paper (while subjecting to the normal peer-review, which goes without saying).
Editors Can’t Be That Inept
I’m not just giving the benefit of the doubt when I say I don’t believe that possibility (a) is credible. Surely you can’t rise to sufficient prominence in your scientific field while being so inept that the three of you, Dr. Kirschner, Dr. Chaplain, and Dr. Sasaki, could read a paper, approve it, and not realize what it was about. Or that the three of you could jointly publish a paper none of you had read. Sorry. No way.
That leaves us with possibility (b). The co-Chief Editors jointly understood that ID was under discussion in their journal, and they thought that was suitable. So what happened, then? I’m no mind reader, but the only explanation I can think of is that when word of the paper got out and Darwinists ganged up on them, the editors backed down. I can understand that. That’s what a lot of people would do when the bullies and censors come after you. They had their reputations, their careers and livelihoods, at stake. They folded. It’s only human.
What’s reprehensible is turning the authors into the fall guys: blaming the whole thing on them, though they did nothing wrong. On the contrary, they wrote an article interesting and rigorous enough that, as John West points out, whatever anti-ID prejudices the editors had were overcome.
Talk about a disturbing look inside the sausage factory. The disclaimer may not have been the editors’ own choice. Perhaps they were compelled by the publisher, Elsevier. It doesn’t matter. As Retraction Watch notes, hanging a disclaimer or retraction on technicalities is standard operating procedure for science journals. I can’t speak to such cases in general, but in this case — one of blaming the innocent when what you are really seeking to do is save your own skin — it is wrong, it is corrupt, and it is cowardly.
Whatever the strength of the article’s argument for intelligent design — and readers should judge that for themselves — the episode says as much about the corruption of professional science, how fear and dishonesty reign there. It’s how the “consensus” is maintained. For those who are always lecturing us about “Follow the science” and “Believe the scientists,” this episode should be an eye opener.


discoveryinstitute--2020-10-13--Revisiting the Simon-Ehrlich Wager 40 Years On

It is 1980 , and you are getting married .
Your parents decide to celebrate your nuptials by inviting 100 guests to a wedding reception .
The reception cost them $ 100 per person or $ 10,000 in total .
Fast forward to 2018 .
Now it is you who is throwing a wedding reception for your child .
The guest list has increased by 72 percent ( some of the old folk are no longer around , but the cousins have exploded in number ) .
That means that you are now catering to 172 people .
The price @ @ @ @ @ @ @ your disbelief and ignore inflation for now ) , and you expect to get a bill for $ 17,200 .
Instead , the bill comes to $ 4,816 , which is less than half of what your parents paid for you .
How is that possible , you ask the caterer ?
The caterer responds that for every one percent increase in attendance , the bill fell by one percent .
And so , while the number of guests rose by 72 percent , your bill declined by 72 percent .
Surely , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in real life , or do they ?
In fact , that ’ s exactly what has happened to the affordability of 50 basic commodities between 1980 and 2018 .
Over those 38 years , the world ’ s population rose from 4.458 billion to 7.631 billion or 71.2 percent .
Over the same time period , basic commodities , including energy , food , materials , and metals became 71.6 percent more affordable on average .
For every one percent increase in population , in other words , resources became slightly more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ differently , the time it took to earn enough money to buy one unit in that basket of 50 commodities in 1980 bought 3.62 units in 2018 .
The compounded growth rate of abundance came to 3.44 percent per annum .
That means that the affordability of our basket of commodities doubled every 20.49 years .
This relationship between population growth and resource abundance is deeply counterintuitive , yet it is no less true .
The facts surprised us , and they will surprise you too .
Generations of people throughout the world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is an inverse relationship between population growth and availability of resources , which is to say that as population grows , resources become more “ scarce.
” That was , historically speaking , true .
In the animal world , a sudden increase in the availability of resources , such as grass after unusually plentiful rain , leads to an animal population explosion .
The population explosion then leads to the exhaustion of resources .
Finally , the exhaustion of resources leads to population collapse .
If you take the Theory of Evolution @ @ @ @ @ @ @ human beings evolved from much humbler beginnings and were , as such , much more exposed to vicissitudes of fortune .
Over time , however , humans have developed sophisticated forms of cooperation that increase their wealth and chances of survival .
Consider , for example , trade and exchange .
As the British writer Matt Ridley observed in his 2010 book The Rational Optimist : How Prosperity Evolves , “ There is strikingly little use of barter in any other animal species .
There is sharing within families , and there is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and apes , but there are no cases in which one animal gives an unrelated animal one thing in exchange for a different thing.
” Trade is particularly important during famines .
A country struck by drought , for example , can purchase food from abroad .
This is not an option available to other animals .
But the most important difference between people and nonhuman animals is our superior intelligence and the use of that intelligence to invent and to innovate .
“ In a way , everything is technology , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ greatest economic historians Fernand Braudel ( 1902–1985 ) in his book Civilization and Capitalism .
“ Not only man ’ s most strenuous endeavors but also his patient and monotonous efforts to make a mark on the external world ; not only the rapid changes… but also the slow improvements in processes and tools , and those innumerable actions which may have no immediate innovative significance but which are the fruit of accumulated knowledge.
” And so , over many millennia of trial and error , we have accumulated a store of knowledge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ velocity—from scarcity to abundance—somewhere toward the end of the 18th century .
The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse ( war , famine , pestilence , and death ) have not completely disappeared—that would be a miracle , not progress .
But the world is incomparably richer than it was just two centuries ago .
If you don ’ t believe us , ponder for a moment the 768 types of breakfast cereal that you can buy at Walmart for just a few minutes of labor on a minimum wage .
We measure abundance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is the length of time that a person is required to work in order to earn enough money to buy something .
It is the money price divided by hourly income .
Money prices are expressed in dollars and cents , while Time Prices are expressed in hours and minutes .
For example , if a barrel of oil costs $ 75 and you earn $ 15 an hour , the Time Price will come to five hours .
If oil falls to $ 60 a barrel and your income increases to $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will decrease to three hours .
The money price falls by 20 percent , but because your hourly income rose by 33 percent , the Time Price will fall by 40 percent .
Time Prices make much more sense than money prices for at least three reasons .
First , Time Prices avoid the contention and subjectivity of commonly-used inflation adjustments .
Second , since innovation shows up in both lower prices and higher incomes ( more productive people are better-paid people ) , Time Prices more fully capture the effects of innovation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of currency fluctuations .
Instead of gauging the standards of living in India and the United States by comparing the purchasing power parity adjusted prices of a gallon of milk in Indian rupees and American dollars , Time Prices provide a universal and standardized way ( hours and minutes ) to measure changes in well-being .
Our research into Time Prices and resource abundance began when we looked at updating the famous wager between the late University of Maryland economist Julian Simon and the Stanford University biologist Paul Ehrlich .
The wager was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ metals : chromium , copper , nickel , tin , and tungsten , and lasted from October 1980 to October 1990 .
Ehrlich predicted that because of population growth , metals would become more expensive .
Simon argued that because of population growth , metals would become cheaper .
Ehrlich thought like a biologist , who did not seem particularly interested in economics .
“ Since natural resources are finite , increasing consumption obviously must ‘ inevitably lead to depletion and scarcity , ’ ” he wrote .
He continued : Simon , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an economist who understood the powers of incentives and the price mechanism to overcome resource shortages .
Instead of the quantity of resources , he looked at the prices of resources .
He saw resource scarcity as a temporary challenge that can be solved through greater efficiency , increased supply , development of substitutes , and so on .
The relationship between prices and innovation , he insisted , is dynamic .
Relative scarcity leads to higher prices , higher prices create incentives for innovations , and innovations lead to abundance .
Scarcity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ system .
The price system functions as long as the economy is based on property rights , the rule of law , and free exchange .
In relatively free economies , therefore , resources do not get depleted in the way that Ehrlich feared they would .
In fact , resources tend to become more abundant .
Simon , as is well known , won his bet with Ehrlich when the real ( which is to say inflation-adjusted ) price of the five metals fell by 36 percent between October 1980 and October @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been even more impressive had he used , as we do , Time Prices .
Those fell by 55 percent between 1980 and 1990 .
In fact , when we extended the Simon-Ehrlich wager over many decades and greatly expanded the number of commodities analyzed , we found a consistent trend toward greater availability of resources relative to the cost of human labor .
It is , consequently , heartening that , in recent years , scholars have started to write about the age of abundance , a state of affairs in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ significantly raise the basic standards of living for every man , woman , and child on the planet.
” Unfortunately , it will take much more than a single wager between two scholars — or , for that matter , this article — to rid the world of the old and very pernicious idea that population growth and resource depletion go hand in hand .
But , we have to start somewhere .
And so , as you listen to the purveyors of doom on the television and the radio , and read @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Twitter and in the newspapers , bear in mind that with every hungry mouth comes a pair of hands and a brain capable of thought , planning , and innovation .

Join Quillette for free to continue reading
This is not a paywall. Please sign up to our free email list to continue reading.


discoveryinstitute--2020-10-13--Liberalism and Its Discontents

Liberalism and Its Discontents

In this webinar , Center on Wealth & Poverty Director Christopher Rufo speaks with Professor Patrick Deneen about his most @ @ @ @ @ , the civil unrest sweeping the nation , and the upcoming election .
Patrick J.
@ @ @ @ @ Science at the University of Notre Dame and has written four books , including The @ @ @ @ @ Democratic Faith , Conserving America ?
, and most recently , Why Liberalism Failed .

In this webinar, Center on Wealth & Poverty Director Christopher Rufo speaks with Professor Patrick Deneen about his most recent book Why Liberalism Failed, the civil unrest sweeping the nation, and the upcoming election.
Patrick J. Deneen is Professor of Political Science at the University of Notre Dame and has written four books, including The Odyssey of Political Theory, Democratic Faith, Conserving America?, and most recently, Why Liberalism Failed.


The Decline Effect

A prominent 17th century Englishman with the odd English name of Sir Kenelm Digby ( 1603–1665 , pictured ) was a founding member of the Royal Society , established in 1660 to support and promote science .
Yet he wrote a book that went through 29 editions , recommending that wounds be treated with a “ Powder of Sympathy ” : take six or eight ounces of Roman vitriol [ copper sulphate ] , beat it very small in a mortar , sift it through a fine sieve when the sun enters Leo , keep it in the heat of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The oddest thing about this potion is not that it must be made when the sun enters Leo but that the salve was not to be applied to the wound but to the weapon that caused the wound .
Explicitly , the person who had been cut by a knife should rub the powder on the knife .
When the Powder of Sympathy was applied to weapons , wounds did sometimes heal — not because of the powder , but because of the body ’ s natural recuperative abilities — which gave credence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Unfortunately , much present-day medical research is similarly flawed .
For example , some healthy patients are misdiagnosed as sick and , when they are given a worthless treatment for a nonexistent illness , observers conclude that the treatment worked .
A second problem is that some people who are actually ill improve as their bodies fight off what ails them , with the result that worthless treatments may again be given credit when no credit is due .
These misinterpretations are examples of the fallacy known as post hoc ergo propter hoc @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of this ” .
The fact that one event happens shortly before another doesn ’ t mean that the first event caused the second event to happen .
For example , ancient Egyptians noticed that the annual flooding of the Nile was regularly preceded by the sight of Sirius — the brightest star visible from earth — appearing to rise in the eastern horizon just before sunrise .
Sirius did not cause the flooding but it was a useful predictor because there was an underlying time connection between the two events : Every @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mid-July and heavy rains , beginning in May in the Ethiopian Highlands , also caused the flooding of the Nile to begin in late July .
Was Donald Trump “ cured ” of COVID-19 because of remdesivir , dexamethasone , famotidine , a Regeneron antibody cocktail , or a double cheeseburger ?
It would be a post-hoc fallacy to credit any of these , or anything else that Trump did or had done to him , for the cure .
The gold standard for medical research is a randomized trial in which subjects @ @ @ @ @ @ @ receives the medication and a control group that does not .
However , even the gold standard is not guaranteed to give the correct answer .
Because the separation into treatment and control groups is random , it may happen by chance that the treatment group includes a disproportionate number of patients who are less severely ill or who are more likely to recover by themselves — leading to a misleading conclusion that a treatment under study works .
Such disappointments are magnified by the reality that the number of worthless treatments that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the number of genuinely useful treatments .
To see what difference that reality makes , let ’ s assume a simple situation where 1 ) the medical treatments either work or don ’ t work and 2 ) a randomized trial will correctly identify 99 percent of all effective treatments as effective and 99 percent of all ineffective treatments as ineffective .
Bayes ’ rule implies that if only 1 out of every 100 tested treatments is genuinely useful , the probability that a treatment that is certified effective actually works is 50-50 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suppose that only 1 out of every 1,000 tested treatments is actually effective .
If so , then 91 percent of all certified-effective treatments are worthless .
Adding to the noise is the temptation to data mine — to ransack data looking for encouraging correlations .
This is how one study came to the erroneous conclusion that the chances of pancreatic cancer could be reduced by avoiding coffee and another flawed study concluded that people could be cured of some diseases by distant healing .
Given the prevalence of random variation , post-hoc @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is no surprise that many “ proven ” treatments are disappointing when they are released to the general public .
The pattern is so common in medical research that it has a name — the “ decline effect.
” Another reason why benefits may be exaggerated is that medical trials focus on patients who are known to have a specific illness .
Outside the trials and inside doctors ’ offices , treatments are often prescribed for patients who have different illnesses , a combination of illnesses , or have the symptoms but not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are widely viewed as a miracle drug and they are often very effective .
However , some doctors seem to prescribe antibiotics reflexively despite possible side effects that include allergic reactions , vomiting , or diarrhea .
For childhood ear infections , the American Academy of Pediatrics now recommends that , instead of prescribing antibiotics , parents and doctors wait and watch to see if the body can fight the infection off unaided .
More generally , The ICU Book , the best-selling and widely respected guidebook for intensive care units , advises @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is try not to use them , and the second rule is try not to use too many of them.
” The decline effect is likely to be even more pervasive when artificial intelligence ( AI ) algorithms are involved because computers are so good at finding correlations and so bad at judging whether the discovered patterns make sense .
Thus , algorithms are likely to give flawed recommendations based on fleeting coincidences .
A team of physicians and biostatisticians at the Mayo Clinic and Harvard has just reported the results of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ AI-based clinical decision support ( CDS ) to improve glycemic control in patients with diabetes .
When asked to rate the success of the AI-based CDS system in improving users ’ ability to identify the correct intervention for individual patients on a scale of 0 ( not helpful at all ) to 100 ( extremely helpful ) , the median score was 11 .
Only 14 percent of the users said that they would recommend the AI-based CDS to another clinic .
The most common complaints were that the suggested interventions were too @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not sufficiently tailored to each patient , the suggested interventions were inappropriate or not useful , and the system inaccurately classified standard-risk patients as high-risk ( a high false-positive rate ) .
IBM ’ s Watson has been a particularly notable disappointment in medical AI in that , so far , it has overpromised and underdelivered .
Winning at Jeopardy and diagnosing cancer are very different tasks .
Walmart is now planning a major expansion into health care , based on Clover Health , which boasts that its Clover Assistant technology “ gives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of your overall health and sends them care recommendations that are personalized for you , right when you ’ re in the appointment , ” using “ data , clinical guidelines , and machine learning to surface the most urgent patient needs.
” That sounds a lot more like advertising copy written by a marketing executive than reliable advice written by doctors .
If IBM ’ s Watson struggles with diagnoses and treatments , Walmart shoppers may want to be wary of the bargain healthcare aisle .
There have been many great successes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drug combination that has transformed HIV from a death sentence to a chronic condition , the benefit of statins , the effectiveness of antibiotics , and the treatment of diabetes with insulin .
There have also been many successes in identifying the causes of diseases : asbestos can lead to mesothelioma , benzene can cause cancer , and smoking is associated with cancer .
Even though medical research has enjoyed such wonderful successes as these , blind faith is not warranted .
Researchers should bear in mind the reasons for the decline effect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decline effect when deciding on treatments .
You may also find of interest : Why was IBM Watson a flop in medicine ?
Robert J .
Marks and Gary Smith discuss how the AI couldn ’ t identify which information in the tsunami of medical literature actually mattered .
Can AI combat misleading medical research ?
No , because AI doesn ’ t address the “ Texas Sharpshooter Fallacies ” that produce the bad data .
( Gary Smith )

A prominent 17th century Englishman with the odd English name of Sir Kenelm Digby (1603–1665, pictured) was a founding member of the Royal Society, established in 1660 to support and promote science. Yet he wrote a book that went through 29 editions, recommending that wounds be treated with a “Powder of Sympathy”: take six or eight ounces of Roman vitriol [copper sulphate], beat it very small in a mortar, sift it through a fine sieve when the sun enters Leo, keep it in the heat of the sun and dry by night. The oddest thing about this potion is not that it must be made when the sun enters Leo but that the salve was not to be applied to the wound but to the weapon that caused the wound. Explicitly, the person who had been cut by a knife should rub the powder on the knife.
When the Powder of Sympathy was applied to weapons, wounds did sometimes heal — not because of the powder, but because of the body’s natural recuperative abilities — which gave credence to the power of the Powder.
Unfortunately, much present-day medical research is similarly flawed. For example, some healthy patients are misdiagnosed as sick and, when they are given a worthless treatment for a nonexistent illness, observers conclude that the treatment worked. A second problem is that some people who are actually ill improve as their bodies fight off what ails them, with the result that worthless treatments may again be given credit when no credit is due.
These misinterpretations are examples of the fallacy known as post hoc ergo propter hoc: “after this, therefore because of this”. The fact that one event happens shortly before another doesn’t mean that the first event caused the second event to happen. For example, ancient Egyptians noticed that the annual flooding of the Nile was regularly preceded by the sight of Sirius — the brightest star visible from earth — appearing to rise in the eastern horizon just before sunrise. Sirius did not cause the flooding but it was a useful predictor because there was an underlying time connection between the two events: Every year, Sirius rose before dawn in mid-July and heavy rains, beginning in May in the Ethiopian Highlands, also caused the flooding of the Nile to begin in late July.
Was Donald Trump “cured” of COVID-19 because of remdesivir, dexamethasone, famotidine, a Regeneron antibody cocktail, or a double cheeseburger? It would be a post-hoc fallacy to credit any of these, or anything else that Trump did or had done to him, for the cure.
The gold standard for medical research is a randomized trial in which subjects are separated into a treatment group that receives the medication and a control group that does not. However, even the gold standard is not guaranteed to give the correct answer. Because the separation into treatment and control groups is random, it may happen by chance that the treatment group includes a disproportionate number of patients who are less severely ill or who are more likely to recover by themselves — leading to a misleading conclusion that a treatment under study works.
Such disappointments are magnified by the reality that the number of worthless treatments that might be tried is far larger than the number of genuinely useful treatments. To see what difference that reality makes, let’s assume a simple situation where 1) the medical treatments either work or don’t work and 2) a randomized trial will correctly identify 99 percent of all effective treatments as effective and 99 percent of all ineffective treatments as ineffective. Bayes’ rule implies that if only 1 out of every 100 tested treatments is genuinely useful, the probability that a treatment that is certified effective actually works is 50-50. For a more pessimistic outcome, suppose that only 1 out of every 1,000 tested treatments is actually effective. If so, then 91 percent of all certified-effective treatments are worthless.
Adding to the noise is the temptation to data mine — to ransack data looking for encouraging correlations. This is how one study came to the erroneous conclusion that the chances of pancreatic cancer could be reduced by avoiding coffee and another flawed study concluded that people could be cured of some diseases by distant healing.
Given the prevalence of random variation, post-hoc fallacies, and data mining, it is no surprise that many “proven” treatments are disappointing when they are released to the general public. The pattern is so common in medical research that it has a name — the “decline effect.”
Another reason why benefits may be exaggerated is that medical trials focus on patients who are known to have a specific illness. Outside the trials and inside doctors’ offices, treatments are often prescribed for patients who have different illnesses, a combination of illnesses, or have the symptoms but not the illness. For example, antibiotics are widely viewed as a miracle drug and they are often very effective. However, some doctors seem to prescribe antibiotics reflexively despite possible side effects that include allergic reactions, vomiting, or diarrhea.
For childhood ear infections, the American Academy of Pediatrics now recommends that, instead of prescribing antibiotics, parents and doctors wait and watch to see if the body can fight the infection off unaided. More generally, The ICU Book, the best-selling and widely respected guidebook for intensive care units, advises: “The first rule of antibiotics is try not to use them, and the second rule is try not to use too many of them.”
The decline effect is likely to be even more pervasive when artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms are involved because computers are so good at finding correlations and so bad at judging whether the discovered patterns make sense. Thus, algorithms are likely to give flawed recommendations based on fleeting coincidences.
A team of physicians and biostatisticians at the Mayo Clinic and Harvard has just reported the results of a survey of clinical staff who were using AI-based clinical decision support (CDS) to improve glycemic control in patients with diabetes. When asked to rate the success of the AI-based CDS system in improving users’ ability to identify the correct intervention for individual patients on a scale of 0 (not helpful at all) to 100 (extremely helpful), the median score was 11. Only 14 percent of the users said that they would recommend the AI-based CDS to another clinic.
The most common complaints were that the suggested interventions were too similar for different patients and therefore were not sufficiently tailored to each patient, the suggested interventions were inappropriate or not useful, and the system inaccurately classified standard-risk patients as high-risk (a high false-positive rate).
IBM’s Watson has been a particularly notable disappointment in medical AI in that, so far, it has overpromised and underdelivered. Winning at Jeopardy and diagnosing cancer are very different tasks.
Walmart is now planning a major expansion into health care, based on Clover Health, which boasts that its Clover Assistant technology “gives your primary care doctor a complete view of your overall health and sends them care recommendations that are personalized for you, right when you’re in the appointment,” using “data, clinical guidelines, and machine learning to surface the most urgent patient needs.” That sounds a lot more like advertising copy written by a marketing executive than reliable advice written by doctors. If IBM’s Watson struggles with diagnoses and treatments, Walmart shoppers may want to be wary of the bargain healthcare aisle.
There have been many great successes in medical science: the HIV triple drug combination that has transformed HIV from a death sentence to a chronic condition, the benefit of statins, the effectiveness of antibiotics, and the treatment of diabetes with insulin. There have also been many successes in identifying the causes of diseases: asbestos can lead to mesothelioma, benzene can cause cancer, and smoking is associated with cancer.
Even though medical research has enjoyed such wonderful successes as these, blind faith is not warranted. Researchers should bear in mind the reasons for the decline effect and doctors and patients should anticipate the decline effect when deciding on treatments.
You may also find of interest:
Why was IBM Watson a flop in medicine? Robert J. Marks and Gary Smith discuss how the AI couldn’t identify which information in the tsunami of medical literature actually mattered.
and
Can AI combat misleading medical research? No, because AI doesn’t address the “Texas Sharpshooter Fallacies” that produce the bad data. (Gary Smith)


discoveryinstitute--2020-10-14--Ideology in Science is Destroying Trust

Ideology in Science is Destroying Trust

Science should never be tainted by ideology .
After all , science isn ’ t supposed to be about political beliefs but is a powerful method for learning about and understanding the physical universe .
Science ’ s tools are decidedly empirical , i.e.
, observation , measurement , experimentation , falsification , and the like .
To be effective , science must be pursued objectively .
The point is to determine what is—not what one wants to be—real .
Which is why I am so alarmed that highly respected science and medical journals are becoming so political .
For @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s most respected scientific publications—recently published a stridently ideological column advocating granting “ rights ” to nature .
The “ nature rights ” movement is a leftwing and anti-free market ideological faction within environmentalism It ’ s goal is to grant flora , fauna , ecosystems—even geological features—human-type rights , “ to exist , persist , evolve , and regenerate its vital cycles in evolution.
” What are the scientific bases for granting “ rights ” to nature ?
There aren ’ t any .
“ This claim is not grounded in scientific @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Then , why in the world would a prominent science journal grant its imprimatur to such a clearly ideological agenda ?
To lend its prestige to a radical cause , in short , politics .
We increasingly see the same anti-science cancer infecting Nature , perhaps the world ’ s most prestigious science journal .
Most recently , it published an ideologically predicated attack on President Donald Trump , written by its Washington DC reporter Jeff Tollefson .
Part of the jeremiad involves science funding questions , certainly a legitimate issue for a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ complaints involved disagreements over ideology and politics .
For example , Tollefson attacked the president ’ s immigration policies .
Of course , Trump ’ s unforgivable sin was pulling out of the Paris Climate Accord : “ Most nations have vowed to press forward even without the United States , and the European Union has already helped to fill the leadership void by pressing nations to bolster their efforts , which China did on 22 September when it announced that it aims to be carbon neutral by 2060.
” Never mind that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s most successful countries at reducing greenhouse-gas emissions because of our bounteous use of natural gas—thanks to fracking , it should be noted , a prime target of the nature rights movement .
That ’ s real science .
Lauding China for making pie in the sky promises 40 years from now , on the other hand , is laughable .
Nature cast aside all pretense of objectivity with a just-released editorial promising “ to publish more primary research in political science and related fields.
” Wait !
Political science is one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of academic advocacy , which , not coincidentally , has grown stridently leftwing in past decades .
It is also subjective and almost definitionally ideological in its techniques , approaches , and conclusions .
That would appear to be the point .
“ Science and research inform and shape a spectrum of public policies , from environmental protection to data ethics , ” the editorialists write .
For example , they can “ commit institutions to work harder to protect equality , diversity and inclusion , and to give more space to voices @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well be laudable social goals .
But they are hardly scientific matters .
Even the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg became political fodder for the journal .
What does the death of a Supreme Court justice have to do with science ?
Beyond the editors sharing Ginsburg ’ s “ commitment to social progress , ” not that much The New England Journal of Medicine is even more egregious in its progressive political advocacy .
Over the years , the NEJM has supported inserting doctors into the gun-control side of the Second Amendment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ patients about the dangers of climate change , and opposed religious freedom medical conscience rights for doctors , as just a few of examples .
Most recently , an editorial advocating defeating President Trump in the election because of COVID is so anti-Trump it went so far as to laud China ’ s response to the pandemic !
“ China , faced with the first outbreak , chose strict quarantine and isolation after an initial delay .
These measures were severe but effective , essentially eliminating transmission at the point where the outbreak @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a reported 3 per million , as compared with more than 500 per million in the United States.
” Are you kidding me ?
China caused the pandemic !
The government lied blatantly about the infectious nature of the disease and prevented outside researchers from making direct observations .
It arrested whistle-blowing doctors who tried to warn the world of what was coming .
Its “ strict quarantine ” measures included dragging people off the streets and locking infected people in their apartments .
Can you imagine the screaming if Trump had tried @ @ @ @ @ @ @ editorial against Trump dealt primarily with a medical issue .
Not so a recent article attacking the natural gas industry—ostensibly as an effective means of fighting climate change—arguing that “ new residential or commercial gas hookups not be permitted , new gas appliances be removed from the market , further gas exploration on federal lands be banned , and all new or planned construction of gas infrastructure be halted.
” Good grief .
“ Okay , ” you might concede .
“ Professional journals are editorially politically progressive .
But they also publish @ @ @ @ @ @ @ why not ignore the politics and focus solely on the actual science ?
” That is a nice thought .
But the toxin of political bias has a potentially deleterious impact on the objective science published within the pages of these journals .
Think about it .
Who decides the articles that are worthy of being published ?
The editors .
Who decides which “ peers ” will perform the peer reviewing ?
The editors .
Why should we trust the same editors who are so blatantly political about a wide array of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and ideologically neutral when it comes to highlighting “ the science ” when such articles often have a material impact on policy ?
And that is a big problem .
We are an increasingly ideologically divided society .
When the scientific enterprise becomes political , when the sector ’ s most respected public organs promote partisan dogma as part of their perceived mission , trust in science itself becomes a casualty .

Center on Human Exceptionalism
The mission of Discovery Institute’s Center on Human Exceptionalism is to affirm and uphold the intrinsic nature of human dignity, liberty, and equality. In resistance to a growing movement against unique human personhood, we aim to revitalize a commitment to the traditional Western view of human rights and human responsibilities — summed up by the term “human exceptionalism.” Read more


discoveryinstitute--2020-10-13--Why Independents will Decide the November 3rd Election

Leadership always starts with vision .
Whether or not a debate format and schedule gets back on track , President Trump needs to focus effective communication to independent voters on key domestic policy issues in the home stretch of the campaign .
Because independents are leery of socialism , Trump can lead on his free market economic success record , in contrast to Biden and the Sanders-AOC left-wing coalition that will control him—who are all in on the Green New Deal that empowers government to socialize the economy .
Americans have short memories when it comes to politics , so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Trump was elected in 2016 as an outsider to fix corruption and bring greater efficiency and accountability to Washington .
The contrast could hardly be greater between Trump , who has kept his campaign promises and delivered results , and Biden , whose 47-years in Washington show few accomplishments—although five members of the Biden family have gotten wealthy through political favor that apparently came from Joe ’ s privileged positions of power as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and then as Vice President under Barack Obama .
Regarding the scope @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would have ever thought the United States could find itself on a slippery slope to becoming a banana republic in which political power is determined by coups rather than elections ?
But that is what the leadership of the Democratic Party attempted to do to Trump and the American people .
Had they been successful , nearly half of the American voters would have been illegally disenfranchised .
Arguably , the greatest injustice and worst crime against our country is a coup that subverts its constitutional government elected by the people .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by public figures in the Obama-Biden administration makes the Nixon-era Watergate scandal look like Romper Room .
Corruption is on the 2020 ballot as it was in 2016 , and Americans would be taking a wrong turn at a critical time if the Democratic Party gets rewarded for its gross law-breaking .
This point alone should tip the scale in Trump ’ s favor with independent voters .
If this crime goes unadjudicated and unpunished America will suffer more abuse of power and decline in the future .
Cleaning that up would likely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ administration .
Reelection is vital and necessary for the Trump DOJ to bring lawbreakers to justice and deliver on his pledge to drain the swamp .
The second law enforcement issue on the ballot this November is restoring law , order and civilization to Democratic-controlled cities in America .
The Covid-19 shutdowns combined with a few bad judgments by police responding to volatile situations under extreme conditions provided the perfect conditions for Marxist subversives to light the match under Antifa and Black Lives Matter to carry out pre-planned riots across the country , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tearing down historic national monuments .
President Trump should stress that a top reelection priority is restoring local law and order and protecting American heritage .
That is a position in which Trump has a profound advantage given his overwhelming support from law enforcement across the country .
The first Presidential debate revealed that Joe Biden has no endorsements from any police organizations , while his running-mate Kamala Harris supported the Minneapolis Freedom Fund that bailed out protestors and dangerous criminals and she has repeatedly expressed support for defunding the police .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stress on the road to November 3rd is his leadership initiatives to defeat Covid-19 .
Trump ’ s record is both clear and strong , having banned incoming flights from China well before Joe Biden would have .
Shortly thereafter he mobilized corporate heads to shift manufacturing lines to produce personal protective equipment and ventilators , which was followed by ordering U.S .
Naval hospital super ships to New York and Los Angeles .
Meanwhile , the Coronavirus Treatment Acceleration Program was established in late March , and Operation Warpspeed was rolled out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cut through red tape , resulting in an unprecedented 350 drug and vaccine development programs .
The unprecedented speed of initiating these programs would simply not have happened under leadership by politicians like Joe Biden who lack a business sense of urgency .
The President ’ s remarkably rapid recovery after contracting Covid-19 made possible by Regeneron ’ s new lab-created monocolonal antibody treatments facilitated by the Coronavirus Treatment Acceleration Program is source of encouragement and optimism .
In every appearance up until the election , Trump can now show his colors as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his commitment to making these life-saving drugs available to all .
Being persuasive on the facts of these domestic policy issues is the key to winning the independent vote , and that ’ s what will assure a Trump second term .

Leadership always starts with vision. Whether or not a debate format and schedule gets back on track, President Donald Trump needs to focus effective communication to independent voters on key domestic policy issues in the home stretch of the campaign.
Because independents are leery of socialism, Trump can lead on his free market success record, in contrast to Biden and the Sanders-AOC left-wing coalition that will control him — who are all in on the Green New Deal that empowers government to socialize the economy.
Americans have short memories when it comes to politics, so it’s important to remind voters that Trump was elected in 2016 as an outsider to fix corruption and bring greater efficiency and accountability to Washington. The contrast could hardly be greater between Trump, who has kept his campaign promises and delivered results, and Biden, whose 47-years in Washington show few accomplishments — although five members of the Biden family have gotten wealthy through political favor that apparently came from Joe’s privileged positions of power as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and then as Vice President under Barack Obama.
Regarding the scope of corruption in high places, who would have ever thought the United States could find itself on a slippery slope to becoming a banana republic in which political power is determined by coups rather than elections? But that is what the leadership of the Democratic Party attempted to do to Trump and the American people. Had they been successful, nearly half of the American voters would have been illegally disenfranchised.
Arguably, the greatest injustice and worst crime against our country is a coup that subverts its constitutional government elected by the people. In fact, that crime against America orchestrated by public figures in the Obama-Biden administration makes the Nixon-era Watergate scandal look like Romper Room. Corruption is on the 2020 ballot as it was in 2016, and Americans would be taking a wrong turn at a critical time if the Democratic Party gets rewarded for its gross law-breaking. This point alone should tip the scale in Trump’s favor with independent voters.
If this crime goes unadjudicated and unpunished America will suffer more abuse of power and decline in the future. Cleaning that up would likely be the greatest legacy of the Trump administration. Reelection is vital and necessary for the Trump DOJ to bring lawbreakers to justice and deliver on his pledge to drain the swamp.
Sign up for free: Gazette Opinion Receive updates from our editorial staff, guest columnists, and letters from Gazette readers. Sent to your inbox 12:00 PM. Sign Up View all of our newsletters. Success! Thank you for subscribing to our newsletter. View all of our newsletters.
The second law enforcement issue on the ballot this November is restoring law, order and civilization to Democratic-controlled cities in America. The COVID-19 shutdowns combined with a few bad judgments by police responding to volatile situations under extreme conditions provided the perfect conditions for Marxist subversives to light the match under Antifa and Black Lives Matter to carry out pre-planned riots across the country, wreaking massive property destruction, looting and tearing down historic national monuments.
President Trump should stress that a top reelection priority is restoring local law and order and protecting American heritage. That is a position in which Trump has a profound advantage given his overwhelming support from law enforcement across the country. The first presidential debate revealed that Joe Biden has no endorsements from any police organizations, while his running-mate Kamala Harris supported the Minneapolis Freedom Fund that bailed out protesters and dangerous criminals and she has repeatedly expressed support for defunding the police.
The key remaining issue for President Trump to stress on the road to Nov. 3 is his leadership initiatives to defeat COVID-19. Trump’s record is both clear and strong, having banned incoming flights from China well before Joe Biden would have. Shortly thereafter he mobilized corporate heads to shift manufacturing lines to produce personal protective equipment and ventilators, which was followed by ordering U.S. Naval hospital super ships to New York and Los Angeles.
Meanwhile, the Coronavirus Treatment Acceleration Program was established in late March, and Operation Warpspeed was rolled out a month later, both of which cut through red tape, resulting in an unprecedented 350 drug and vaccine development programs. The unprecedented speed of initiating these programs would simply not have happened under leadership by politicians like Biden who lack a business sense of urgency.
Being persuasive on the facts of these domestic policy issues is the key to winning the independent vote, and that’s what could assure a Trump second term.
Scott Powell is senior fellow at the Discovery Institute. Reach him at [email protected].


discoveryinstitute--2020-10-19--State-enforced Racial Segregation — by Progressives

State-sanctioned racial segregation ended with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 but has recently returned in an unlikely place : government agencies in Seattle .
According to new whistleblower documents I ’ ve reviewed , at least three public agencies in the region have implemented race-segregated diversity trainings .
At the King County Library System , a private consulting firm called Racial Equity Consultants recently held racially segregated “ listening sessions ” to root out “ institutional privileges and systemic inequities.
” Apparently , there is widespread “ institutional racism ” in the libraries , and employees who reject that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” When reached by e-mail , the firm said it wasn ’ t authorized to comment .
At the federal Veterans Administration Puget Sound facility , the local leadership has launched a series of racially segregated “ caucuses ” for “ individuals who identify as white ” and those who identify as “ African-American or black ” or as “ people of color.
” According to whistleblower e-mails , the organizer , Dr. Jesse Markman , convened the racially segregated sessions , calling them “ an environment for sharing and discussion , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dr. Markman referred me to the VA ’ s public-affairs office , which didn ’ t provide comment .
Finally , at the King County Prosecutor ’ s Office , the chief prosecutor , Dan Satterberg , and senior staff have recently required employees to sign an “ equity and social justice ” pledge and assigned “ continued training for white employees , ” who must “ do the work ” to “ learn the true history of racism in our country.
” White employees are encouraged to participate in racially segregated “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as agency-wide “ cultural-competency ” training that teaches them to how to adopt “ a new non-oppressive and non-exploitive attitude.
” According to a leaked memo I ’ ve reviewed , Satterberg recently wrote a letter to staff suggesting that the “ privileged , white , male cohort ” in his office should “ shut up and listen.
” The prosecutor ’ s office confirmed the authenticity of the equity pledge and staff-wide memo but didn ’ t offer further comment .
Oh , the irony : Seattle ’ s white elites are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the name of social justice .
In all three of these institutions , white executives have explicitly implemented these policies , arguing , in one case , that holding segregated training sessions mitigates “ any potential harming of staff of color that might arise from a cross-racial conversation.
” The VA ’ s Dr. Markman explained to his colleagues : “ It can be challenging for people of color to feel a burden to educate others on how to be better , when at the same time being told or expected to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ behind these policies — that white leaders must shield minority employees from open dialogue — is deeply patronizing and can itself cause racial division in the workplace .
According to multiple sources within King County government , segregated training sessions have created suspicion and distrust among colleagues .
“ I was truly disgusted , ” one library employee told me .
The trainers told white employees “ we stole the land from indigenous people , [ and ] we are responsible for committing genocide.
” Another employee at the prosecutor ’ s office @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ firing squad.
” This employee fears that any dissent would lead to immediate retaliation .
These training sessions aren ’ t only offensive , but possibly illegal .
As US Civil Rights Commissioner Peter Kirsanow has argued , racially segregated training sessions violate the 1964 act , which prohibits employers from segregating employees based on “ race , color , religion , sex or national origin.
” The Department of Justice is already investigating the City of Seattle ’ s segregated diversity trainings .
It should expand its investigation to include the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ County Prosecutor ’ s Office and the VA ’ s Puget Sound system .
Segregation in the name of social justice is still segregation — and has no place in our public institutions .
Seattle , home to leading critical race theorists like Robin DiAngelo , has long been on the vanguard of race-based progressivism .
These crackpot concepts have escaped the academy and been entrenched in bureaucracies .
Federal officials would be wise to put a stop to them — before segregation is once more normalized .

State-sanctioned racial segregation ended with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 but has recently returned in an unlikely place: government agencies in Seattle. According to new whistleblower documents I’ve reviewed, at least three public agencies in the region have implemented race-segregated diversity trainings.
At the King County Library System, a private consulting firm called Racial Equity Consultants recently held racially segregated “listening sessions” to root out “institutional privileges and systemic inequities.” Apparently, there is widespread “institutional racism” in the libraries, and employees who reject that premise are accused of “internalized racism.” When reached by e-mail, the firm said it wasn’t authorized to comment.