Archive for February, 2014

An Inconvenient Bias

Posted in Politics on February 27th, 2014

Eye of the ObserverBias is natural and inherent in just about anything and everything. It’s natural; as natural of a law as the General Law of Relativity and quite related to it in point of odd fact. In anything approaching science, however, it is inconvenient at best…if one actually wants accurate results. This is because observer bias can color and cloud the results.

It needs to be noted and remembered, however, that those who conduct such research or contract others to conduct it on their behalf are only inconvenienced by such bias if and when they desire truthful, accurate, and objective results. This is far from the norm, especially when the government with its many and diverse perceived vested interests is performing or paying for the research in question.

A Case In Point

The FCC’s recently suspended – not cancelled – hunt for “station bias” and for television news teams not meeting the “Critical Information Needs” of specially protected demographics was based upon methodology and metrics developed for them under contract by Social Solutions International, which is a “minority owned” firm enjoying the pecuniary advantages of their 8(a) status.

In and of itself, SSi’s 8(a) status is just barely the appearance of bias. What is telling is their self-identification and mission statement.

About Us

Social Solutions is a research and evaluation firm dedicated to the creation of positive change for underserved populations. Our work touches those in our community and in countries worldwide. We are a mission-driven organization that believes that superior science can improve the world.

Company Overview

Social Solutions International, Inc. (Social Solutions) is a Hispanic and woman owned 8(a) and Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB). Social Solutions emphasis is on quality research and evaluation, development of evidence-based education materials, and cultural adaptation and translation.

Mission Statement

Social Solutions International, Inc. is a research and evaluation firm dedicated to the creation of social and health solutions to improve the welfare of underserved populations worldwide.

It is ludicrous at best to even entertain the thought that a company describing itself as a “Small Disadvantaged Business” which is “mission-driven” to “improve the welfare of underserved populations” is capable of- much less willing to deliver objective testing methodologies in any context involving what they consider underserved populations.

The only plausible reason why the FCC would have awarded them the contract was that the FCC didn’t want to be inconvenienced by objectivity. No, instead they were seeking agenda-driven junk science because there was a specific result that they wanted from the study.

And that, my fellow Americans, could be a very inconvenient bias for we, the People.

Related Reading:

Everyday Bias: Identifying and Navigating Unconscious Judgments in Our Daily Lives
The Hormone Myth: How Junk Science, Gender Politics, and Lies about PMS Keep Women Down
The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion

Liberal Education

Posted in Society on February 27th, 2014

Sandra Korn - A traitor to all that is right and goodSome people question the value of modern, Liberal education. We call those people intelligent, patriotic Americans. This is because, academics aside, there is nothing of value in Liberal education and much that actively seeks to devalue America.

Worse, the higher one goes in education the lower one seems to sink into treason and evil.

Harvard is a perfect example of this. Academically, it’s a very fine university. What it teaches its students beyond academics is another and more horrific story altogether. Take what the once august institution taught one of its students, Sandra Korn, to believe and then allowed it to be published in the The Harvard Crimson as evidence of this.

In its oft-cited Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure, the American Association of University Professors declares that “Teachers are entitled to full freedom in research and in the publication of the results.” In principle, this policy seems sound: It would not do for academics to have their research restricted by the political whims of the moment.

 Yet the liberal obsession with “academic freedom” seems a bit misplaced to me. After all, no one ever has “full freedom” in research and publication. Which research proposals receive funding and what papers are accepted for publication are always contingent on political priorities. The words used to articulate a research question can have implications for its outcome. No academic question is ever “free” from political realities. If our university community opposes racism, sexism, and heterosexism, why should we put up with research that counters our goals simply in the name of “academic freedom”?

Instead, I would like to propose a more rigorous standard: one of “academic justice.” When an academic community observes research promoting or justifying oppression, it should ensure that this research does not continue.

Yes, that’s right. The Harvard bint was academic and scientific freedom curtailed in favor pandering to the desires and agendas of certain special interest groups and those among the student body who enable them. It’s what she’s been taught is justice, which must, in what passes for her mind, trump freedom every single time.

Related Reading:

Society: The Basics (13th Edition)
The Hunters of Vermin
How I Stayed Catholic at Harvard: Forty Tips for Faithful College Students
Injustice: Gods Among Us Year Three: The Complete Collection
The Harvard Business Review Manager's Handbook: The 17 Skills Leaders Need to Stand Out (HBR Handbooks)

Selective Tolerance

Posted in Politics on February 26th, 2014

Liberals and Progressives wrap themselves in the mantle of tolerance but they’re expression of tolerance is highly selective and doesn’t extend to Americans who disagree with them.

Liberals' tolerance doesn't extend to normal Americans, who mostly happen to be White and Christian
She’s a Perfectly Tolerant Liberal, Isn’t She?

Oh they just love to cry that they’re only “intolerant of intolerance” but this is a sham, a dog-whistle for attacking anyone who holds to anything approaching normative American cultural values and who are among the normative, i.e., demographically dominant culture, White Christians with a reasonably Conservative sociopolitical outlook.

Conversely, their tolerance almost completely covers the actions and beliefs of non-Whites and non-Christians. Those groups can believe, say, and do just about anything they want without the Liberals and Progressives attacking them, e.g., the average Black and Muslim views on homosexuality and genders roles and equality.

Related Reading:

Melodious and Progressive Studies, Book 1, for Clarinet (B448)
Christianity: A Global History
When Republicans Were Progressive
Christianity: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions)
Strictly No Elephants