Podcast Summary
Exploring Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in Science: The podcast episode will focus on the importance of diversity, equity, and inclusion in science and how they can be addressed in the scientific community.
The number 137, while being a prime number, is considered special in certain scientific circles due to its mysterious properties. However, the speaker expressed his skepticism towards its significance and instead, the podcast episode will focus on diversity, equity, and inclusion in science. The importance of these topics is a hotly debated issue, and the podcast aims to discuss how they can be addressed in the scientific community. Additionally, the speakers mentioned their new book, "Hunter Gatherer's Guide to the 21st Century," which is available in multiple languages and formats, and encouraged listeners to engage with them through their website and social media channels. They also invited questions during the live stream, which would be answered towards the end of the episode. The speakers emphasized the importance of supporting the channel through subscriptions, likes, shares, and financial contributions, and mentioned a private Q&A session on Patreon and a Discord server for further engagement.
Sponsors promoting healthy living on The Dark Horse podcast: The Dark Horse podcast supports sponsors that align with their values and promote healthy living, including Seed's probiotic, Vivobarefoot's natural shoes, and Public Goods' everyday essentials.
The Dark Horse podcast not only provides thought-provoking discussions but also supports sponsors that align with their values and promote healthy living. Seed, their first sponsor, offers a high-quality probiotic called DS01 daily symbiotic, which is essential for maintaining a healthy gut and overall wellness, even for those who eat nutritious foods. Seed's probiotic is designed to survive the GI tract and provides benefits within 24 to 48 hours. The second sponsor, Vivobarefoot, creates shoes that allow the feet to function naturally, promoting foot health and strength. Their shoes are designed to mimic barefoot walking and are made from sustainable materials. By wearing Vivobarefoot shoes, people report increased foot strength and overall comfort. Lastly, Public Goods, the third sponsor, offers everyday essentials with carefully sourced, high-quality, and affordable ingredients. Their products are ethically sourced and free of harmful additives, making it easier for individuals to live healthier and more sustainable lives. By supporting these sponsors, Dark Horse not only delivers valuable content but also encourages healthy habits and sustainable practices.
Simplified shopping for premium essentials with Public Goods: Public Goods offers a streamlined shopping experience for high-quality essentials with a subscription service, a discount for first-time buyers, and a commitment to free exchange of ideas, despite potential labeling inconsistencies and concerns about science politicization.
Public Goods offers a simplified shopping experience for premium essentials with a beautiful, streamlined aesthetic. Their subscription service is efficient and easy to use, making it an "everything store." Additionally, they are confident in the quality of their products and offer a $15 discount for first-time buyers. Regarding the topic of equity, diversity, and inclusion, it was noted that the labels on products may not always match their contents, and the importance of upholding free and uncensored exchange of ideas was emphasized. The speaker also shared their concern about the politicization of science and censorship, drawing parallels to living under a totalitarian regime. The article "The Peril of Politicizing Science" by Anna Krylov, which was discussed in detail in a previous episode, is recommended for further insight on this issue.
Debate over academic freedom and inclusivity in science: The debate over academic freedom and inclusivity in science is complex, with differing perspectives on scientists' role in society and the potential impact of their words and actions. Some argue for academic freedom, while others prioritize inclusivity. The importance of open dialogue and nuanced understanding is crucial.
The debate surrounding academic freedom and inclusivity in the scientific community is complex and nuanced, with differing perspectives on the role of scientists in society and the potential impact of their words and actions. The University of Southern California's recognition of Anna Krylov as Communicator of the Year in Natural Sciences and Mathematics for speaking out against the politicization of science was celebrated as a brave act. However, a response piece published in the same journal challenged Krylov's stance and questioned the value of academic freedom versus inclusivity. The authors argued that scientists have a responsibility to consider the impact of their words and actions on the human sphere and create a welcoming environment for underrepresented groups. However, critics argue that this approach can create a false representation of the issue and even make the problem worse. The straw man argument that scientists who resist diversity, equity, and inclusion measures don't care about creating a hostile work environment is not only inaccurate but the inverse of the truth. The ongoing debate highlights the need for open dialogue and a nuanced understanding of the complex interplay between academic freedom and inclusivity.
Awards can silence dissenting voices: Awards, meant to recognize truth-tellers, can also be used to silence them. Illegitimate power structures may retaliate against those who challenge their narratives.
Awards, while intended to recognize and embolden those who speak truth to power, can also be used as a tool for silencing dissenting voices. Spite, the acceptance of a cost to inflict a cost, can drive those engaged in illegitimate revolutions to punish those who challenge their narrative. The potential for awards to spark conversation and promote understanding is significant, but the danger lies in the possibility of inflicting retaliation. The trajectory of silencing voices may be inevitable, but the specifics can be challenged. This was evident in the case of Doctor. Krylov, who, despite receiving an award for her courageous stand, faced backlash and criticism. The importance of fostering open dialogue and challenging illegitimate power structures cannot be overstated.
Rethinking institutional values and acknowledging past mistakes: Institutions and individuals should engage in open, transparent discussions and actions that align with evolving values, including reevaluating past decisions and considering the implications of the names and actions they honor.
Institutions and individuals need to thoughtfully consider the values and biases reflected in the names and actions they honor or uphold. The discussion highlighted the unnamed buildings at the University of California, Berkeley, which were renamed following a transparent process acknowledging both the individuals' contributions and their flaws. This is not "canceling," but rather recalibrating institutional values. However, the term "recalibrating" may also be compromised due to its potential weaponization. The conversation also touched upon the importance of scientific integrity and the potential for censorship in academic publishing. While some journals may not intentionally censor new science or scientific disagreements, editorial decisions can still appear as censorship in certain contexts. The example of the McCullough and Rose paper, which was headed for publication but then retracted, illustrates this concern. In essence, it is crucial for institutions and individuals to engage in open, transparent, and thoughtful discussions and actions that align with evolving values and aspirations. This includes reevaluating past decisions and considering the implications of the names and actions we choose to honor.
The debate over scientific censorship and diversity in academia: While merit should determine hiring and publication, systemic biases and lack of representation call for affirmative action to increase diversity in academia. Addressing root causes and creating opportunities for all is crucial.
The debate around scientific censorship and the role of diversity in academia continues to be a contentious issue. While some argue that there is no censorship and that merit should be the sole determinant of hiring and publication, others point to a lack of representation and systemic biases that need to be addressed. The discussion also touched upon the relevance of George Orwell's work, particularly his warnings about the manipulation of language and reality. The authors expressed concern over the decreasing number of black faculty in US colleges and universities and the need for affirmative action to increase diversity. However, they also emphasized the importance of addressing the root causes of underrepresentation in education and creating opportunities for all. The conversation also highlighted the challenges and complexities of navigating these issues in academia, with some expressing skepticism and others advocating for change.
Economically disadvantaged families less likely to encourage science careers due to perceived lack of opportunities: Despite limited opportunities and financial security concerns, it's crucial to encourage diverse students to pursue science careers based on merit and potential for discovery, rather than moral judgments.
Families from economically disadvantaged backgrounds are less likely to encourage their children to pursue careers in academia, particularly in the sciences, due to perceived lack of opportunities and financial security. This trend is not new, but it becomes more pronounced when academic environments become more focused on moral judgments and less on merit and potential for discovery. The academic sciences offer limited opportunities for advancement, and the number of PhDs produced far outweighs the available jobs. Conversely, fields like medicine, nursing, and technology offer more stable financial futures and a clearer path to success. The conversation highlights the need for a more inclusive and equitable academic environment that values merit and potential over moral judgments and encourages students from diverse backgrounds to pursue careers in science.
Considering the challenges of graduate school and hiring practices in academia: While exceptional talents should be encouraged, it's crucial to assess their readiness for graduate school. Hiring practices in academia are complex and not driven solely by systemic racism.
While it may be tempting to advise students with exceptional talents in a particular field to pursue advanced degrees, it's essential to consider if they have the necessary skills and resilience to endure the rigors of graduate school. Furthermore, it's crucial to recognize that hiring practices in academia are not driven by racism, but rather by a complex interplay of factors. The notion that underrepresented groups are excluded from academia due to systemic racism is a simplistic explanation that overlooks the intricacies of the issue. Instead, we should focus on addressing the underlying factors that discourage diverse groups from pursuing and succeeding in academic careers. Additionally, the metrics used to define excellence in academia, such as attending elite institutions, can be biased proxies. It's essential to challenge the elitist culture within academia and work towards creating a more inclusive and equitable environment.
Acceptance rate vs. Elite Status: Acceptance rate doesn't determine elite status, and diverse students can thrive in intellectual environments despite challenges, but institutions must prioritize academic rigor and separate the person from the science.
The acceptance rate of an institution does not necessarily determine its elite status. Evergreen State College, which had a high acceptance rate, allowed a diverse range of students to attend, including those who may not have been considered college-ready by traditional standards. While some struggled in the intellectual environment, others thrived due to the unique learning experience and the opportunity to be assessed based on their abilities rather than a checklist. However, the college also had its share of issues, including a lack of academic rigor and instances of grift and graft. The debate over denaming or recalibrating buildings on college campuses raises the question of whether institutions can prioritize social justice and truth-seeking at the same time. While scientists have an obligation to be decent people, their insights should not be discarded based on their personal flaws. History shows that many great scientists, including Newton, Edison, and Fisher, had questionable character traits but made significant contributions to their fields. Therefore, it is essential to separate the person from the science and recognize the value of diverse perspectives in the pursuit of knowledge.
Considering the context and impact of historical figures: While acknowledging historical figures' flaws, focus on education and public art to understand complex history and inspire progress, rather than erasing it.
While acknowledging the flaws and problematic actions of historical figures, it's important to consider the context and impact of their contributions. Removing statues or renaming buildings might not be the solution in every case. Instead, using public art and education can help us understand our complex history and inspire future progress. The speaker also emphasized the importance of not erasing history, even if it's uncomfortable, and recognizing the role of figures like Christopher Columbus in shaping our world. Additionally, the speaker criticized the DEI movement for creating a hostile workplace for those who resist their initiatives. Instead, they suggested fostering an inclusive environment where diverse perspectives can coexist and contribute to a better understanding of our past and future.
Societal perceptions and reactions can be influenced by individuals' presentations: People's appearance should not dictate how they're treated or perceived, as societal expectations can shape reactions to their actions.
Societal perceptions and reactions can be influenced by how individuals present themselves, even if their actual identity remains the same. The speaker's experience at the market with a man dressed in feminine tropes while exhibiting aggressive behavior highlights this concept. This man's actions, which might have been perceived as a threat if he were dressed as a man, were met with less resistance due to his feminine appearance. This situation raises questions about the role of societal expectations and the potential impact of an individual's presentation on how they are perceived and treated. This issue is connected to broader discussions on diversity, equity, and inclusion, as it challenges assumptions and biases. Ultimately, it's essential to remember that people's identities are complex and multifaceted, and their appearance should not dictate how they are treated or perceived.
From fighting for fundamental rights to a hostile environment: The feminist movement has shifted from advocating for basic human rights to creating a hostile environment, where individuals risk losing their ability to earn and advance if targeted, and seeks immunity to criticism.
The evolution of feminism from the early 1900s to the present day has seen a shift from fighting for fundamental rights like the right to work and maintain personal convictions, to a focus on ignoring science, attaining power through victimhood, and making unchallengeable arguments. The feminist movement in 2018, as described, also led to a hostile and alienating environment, where individuals are not only unsafe in the workplace but also risk losing their ability to earn and advance if they are targeted by the mob. This environment, rather than creating an unhostile space, actually thrives on creating hostility and seeks to be immune to criticism. It's important to remember that the goal should be to create an unhostile environment, not claim that we have one while actively making it hostile. The 20th century saw significant progress on human rights issues, but it's crucial to be aware of the potential pitfalls in the current feminist discourse and strive for genuine inclusivity and understanding.
Advocating for Progress and Preserving Hard-Won Gains: Embrace fact-based reasoning, open-mindedness, and self-care. Stay engaged with the world, question assumptions, and prioritize progress.
The speaker is advocating for progress and the preservation of hard-won gains, particularly in the realm of civil rights and scientific inquiry. He expresses frustration with those who seek to undo these advances and urges a return to fact-based reasoning and open-mindedness in science. The speaker also shares a personal story of feeling unwell and the metaphor of "circling the drain," emphasizing the importance of recognizing potential threats and taking care of oneself. Additionally, he reflects on his own injury and the slow process of healing, highlighting the importance of persistence and resilience. Overall, the speaker encourages listeners to stay engaged with the world, question assumptions, and prioritize progress and self-care.
Body's pain response system can be influenced by illness or injury: Illness or injury can cause threshold adjustments in sensitivity, leading to increased pain awareness in seemingly unrelated areas.
Our bodies have a complex pain response system that can be influenced by illness or injury. The speaker shared a personal experience of a potential connection between pain in his hip and hand, which he believed was due to a threshold adjustment in sensitivity. He explained that our bodies constantly send signals for us to adjust and take care of ourselves, but most of this information never reaches conscious awareness. When he became ill and had a fever, he noticed that both his hip and hand pain worsened, even though there was no visible change in his hand. He hypothesized that the illness caused a threshold adjustment, making the pain in these areas above the normal threshold for his awareness. This could explain why some joint aches occur during illness, as they may be a result of the body's sensitivity being adjusted rather than the joints being directly affected.
Understanding Pain Threshold and Its Role in Our Bodies: Our pain threshold adjusts to protect us from external threats and maintain homeostasis, making it crucial for coping with various stimuli and maintaining overall health. Using the analogy of a fever or a camera's light meter, the pain threshold can amplify or dampen pain signals, allowing us to adapt to different situations.
Our bodies have a pain sensitivity threshold, which can make it difficult to distinguish between different types of pain or injuries. This threshold may be an adaptation to maintain homeostasis and protect us from external threats, such as pathogens or extreme temperatures. Using the example of a fever, the body adjusts its temperature regulation to fight off infections, but this adjustment can make us feel colder than usual. Similarly, the pain threshold may adjust to amplify or dampen pain signals, depending on the situation. This analogy can be extended to a camera's light meter, which can be recalibrated to account for external factors and produce a clearer image. Overall, the pain threshold is a crucial aspect of our sensory system that helps us cope with various stimuli and maintain our overall health.
Our bodies may adapt to illness or injury: Exploring the complex interplay between personal health and broader evolutionary contexts, we may discover adaptive responses or non-adaptive effects. Distinguishing between them requires rigorous testing and objective methods.
Our bodies may respond to illness or injury in ways that serve a purpose, such as adjusting pain thresholds to promote healing or discourage social interaction to prevent disease transmission. These responses could be adaptations or simply side effects, and they may offer insights into the complex interplay between personal health and broader evolutionary contexts. While these hypotheses require further testing and exploration, they highlight the importance of paying attention to internal patterns and using personal experiences as a source of scientific inquiry. The challenge lies in distinguishing between adaptive responses and non-adaptive effects, and developing methods to test these hypotheses in a rigorous and objective manner. Ultimately, this approach could lead to new discoveries and a deeper understanding of the intricate mechanisms that underpin our health and wellbeing.
Social species may exhibit threshold effects to pathogens more precipitously: Social species might show quicker responses to pathogens' threshold effects, potentially leading to faster healing for some individuals while leaving others unaffected
Social species may exhibit more precipitous threshold effects in response to pathogens than less social species. This is based on the hypothesis that sociality brings individuals together, making it more likely for a threshold effect to be observed. Another prediction is that triggering this threshold mechanism could lead to an increased rate of healing for those who can respond, while those who cannot may still be affected. However, this is a weaker test due to potential confounding factors. Additionally, during the conversation, there was a discussion about a shark video that emerged during Shark Week, with claims that it showed the first time a shark had been seen maneuvering over a shallow water barrier. While intriguing, the likelihood of this being the first observation of such behavior is questioned due to the possibility that sharks have been attempting this for a long time. The concept of the adaptive landscape in evolutionary biology was also briefly touched upon, explaining how the depth of an evolutionary valley can impact the likelihood of a species evolving from one opportunity to a better one.
Fish can wiggle on land more than we thought: Fish like mudskippers, coelacanths, and lungfish can wiggle on land, using their pectoral fins to move. This behavior is more common in fish species living in intertidal zones and tide pools.
The ability for fish to move on land, a behavior known as "wiggling," might be more common than previously thought. This behavior, which allows fish to survive in situations where they are trapped in shallow water or need to reach prey in dry areas, has been observed in various clades, including mudskippers, coelacanths, and lungfish. The wiggling motion of fish in swimming also puts their pectoral fins in contact with the substrate, making it possible for them to propel themselves forward on land. This behavior is likely to be more common among fish species that inhabit intertidal zones and tide pools, where they are exposed to unpredictable water levels. The number of circumstances where this behavior could be useful is vast, making it a fascinating area for further research. While it's unclear whether this behavior is new to science or not, it's an intriguing discovery that highlights the adaptability and resilience of fish in various environments.
Reporting new observations contributes to scientific discovery: New observations, even if not statistically significant, can spark scientific discussion, publication, and further investigation. Reporting rare or complex behaviors in animals is valuable.
Observing and reporting new phenomena, even if they may not be new to humanity, holds value in scientific discovery. The speaker emphasizes that just because an observation may have been made before, it doesn't mean that those who made the observation had the scientific ability to understand its implications or potential significance. Natural history data, which involves reporting observations without a hypothesis or experiment, can still contribute to scientific knowledge and fit within the falsificationist ethos of science. One observation, while not statistically significant, can spark discussion, publication, and further investigation. The speaker also acknowledges the challenges of studying complex or rare behaviors in animals and the importance of reporting significant observations, such as Jane Goodall's observation of chimpanzee warfare. While the speaker admits to not publishing a note on tentmaking bats, they acknowledge that such observations are valuable contributions to scientific knowledge.
Uncovering the Truth About Bat Tent Builders: Using technology like infrared cameras and LED illuminators, a researcher discovered that a certain bat species was not the tent maker but a tent thief, emphasizing the importance of careful observation in animal research.
Observing and identifying animal behaviors can be challenging, especially when the animals are elusive or the conditions are not ideal. This was the case for a researcher studying bat behavior and the construction of their "tents." Initially, the researcher believed a certain bat species, Artibias chamaeus, was making tents based on the architectural styles observed. However, further investigation revealed that this species was not the tent maker, but rather a tent thief. The researcher used technology like infrared cameras and LED illuminators to observe the bats in their natural habitat, which was crucial to making the discovery. The conditions, such as darkness and the animals' sensitivity to human presence, made it difficult to observe the bats without disturbing them. The researcher's findings suggest that Artibias chamaeus may take over tents from other species, and this information can serve as a foundation for future research on this behavior. Overall, the importance of careful observation and the use of technology in animal research was emphasized in this discussion.
Upholding the integrity of research and facts: Scientific community should ignore fashion and stand up for evidence-based truths, fostering a collaborative and inclusive environment for all.
The scientific community should focus on upholding the integrity of research and facts, rather than succumbing to fashionable trends or creating alienating work environments. The right for scientists to hold onto their convictions and maintain the credibility of their work is crucial, unlike the debatable effectiveness of other rights discussed, such as the right to work-life balance or the right of a mother to her profession. However, it's essential to recognize that this right doesn't extend to convictions based on unfounded claims or harmful biases. The scientific community should aim to ignore fashion and stand up for evidence-based truths, fostering a collaborative and inclusive environment for all. Additionally, individuals can contribute by asking questions, engaging in thoughtful conversations, and promoting critical thinking through resources like the Laboratory of the Self and Dark Horse UMissions. Overall, the focus should be on the pursuit of knowledge and truth, rather than personal gain or adherence to current trends.
