“Roughly one-third of students are in favor of banning controversial books”(twitter.com)
twitter.com
“Roughly one-third of students are in favor of banning controversial books”
https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1406255522475556869
109 comments
> The target population of our study are all current social science students at GoetheUniversity of Frankfurt
> Participation was voluntary and incentivized with a lottery of three Amazon gift vouchers to the value of 50 euro each.
> However, the actual net response rate dropped from 14% to 7.5% when we consider only those who completed at least80% of the survey (n= 501), which is clearly poor and has to be kept in mind whendrawing conclusions from the data.
Not really a great sample. All participants are from a rather specific demographic, and a small sample size at that.
> Participation was voluntary and incentivized with a lottery of three Amazon gift vouchers to the value of 50 euro each.
> However, the actual net response rate dropped from 14% to 7.5% when we consider only those who completed at least80% of the survey (n= 501), which is clearly poor and has to be kept in mind whendrawing conclusions from the data.
Not really a great sample. All participants are from a rather specific demographic, and a small sample size at that.
This is using the easiest sample.
Here's another study. National, in the US, of fraternity and sorority members.[1] It's not primarily about censorship, more about Greek life and COVID issues.
If a controversy over offensive speech were to occur on your campus, would the administration be more likely to...
- Defend the speaker’s right to express his/her views: 23% - Punish the speaker for making the statement: 38% - Not sure: 39%
Have you personally ever felt that you could not express your opinion on a subject because of how students, a professor, or the administration would respond?
- Yes: 50% - No: 42% - Not sure: 9%
The sample self-identifies as 46% liberal, 33% conservative.
Results differ widely among universities. Not along obvious lines.
[1] https://assets.realclear.com/files/2021/04/1801_RealClear-Co...
Here's another study. National, in the US, of fraternity and sorority members.[1] It's not primarily about censorship, more about Greek life and COVID issues.
If a controversy over offensive speech were to occur on your campus, would the administration be more likely to...
- Defend the speaker’s right to express his/her views: 23% - Punish the speaker for making the statement: 38% - Not sure: 39%
Have you personally ever felt that you could not express your opinion on a subject because of how students, a professor, or the administration would respond?
- Yes: 50% - No: 42% - Not sure: 9%
The sample self-identifies as 46% liberal, 33% conservative.
Results differ widely among universities. Not along obvious lines.
[1] https://assets.realclear.com/files/2021/04/1801_RealClear-Co...
Exactly. They say this in the study:
---
Our empirical analysis is based on original survey data collected from social science students at Goethe University Frankfurt. We are certainly not under the im- pression that our sample is representative of university students in general (or the wider public, for that matter). On the contrary, we purposefully consider the social science studentship at Frankfurt as a most likely case (George and Bennett 2005; Gerring 2007)
---
..a fact that was obviously overlooked by the outraged masses on Twitter.
---
Our empirical analysis is based on original survey data collected from social science students at Goethe University Frankfurt. We are certainly not under the im- pression that our sample is representative of university students in general (or the wider public, for that matter). On the contrary, we purposefully consider the social science studentship at Frankfurt as a most likely case (George and Bennett 2005; Gerring 2007)
---
..a fact that was obviously overlooked by the outraged masses on Twitter.
I have a request - can we add the sample size to studies like these, in the HN title?
The sample size is so small that I don’t think this study is of any use.
The sample size is so small that I don’t think this study is of any use.
n = 501 is not good enough for you? Seems decent enough.
"In practice, pollsters need to balance the cost of a large sample against the reduction in sampling error and a sample size of around 500–1,000 is a typical compromise for political polls."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_poll
"In practice, pollsters need to balance the cost of a large sample against the reduction in sampling error and a sample size of around 500–1,000 is a typical compromise for political polls."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_poll
> We were able to collect a total of n=932 responses in the period from 16 May to 2 July 2018. However, the actual net response rate dropped from 14% to 7.5% when we consider only those who completed at least 80% of the survey (n = 501), which is clearly poor and has to be kept in mind when drawing conclusions from the data
So clickbait BS. Is nobody reading the linked study?
So clickbait BS. Is nobody reading the linked study?
How is that clickbait BS? People sometimes poll an entire country by taking a sample of 500 people.
500 people gives you an error margin of +/- 4.5% (Variance of a binomial is npq=np(1-p), worst case p=1/2, so n/4, std deviation thus sqrt(n)/2, then take 2 std dev to cover 95%, thus sqrt(n), as a percentage of all responses sqrt(n)/n = 100/sqrt(n)%), which is not amazing, but not BS either. Is nobody aware of basic statistics?
500 people gives you an error margin of +/- 4.5% (Variance of a binomial is npq=np(1-p), worst case p=1/2, so n/4, std deviation thus sqrt(n)/2, then take 2 std dev to cover 95%, thus sqrt(n), as a percentage of all responses sqrt(n)/n = 100/sqrt(n)%), which is not amazing, but not BS either. Is nobody aware of basic statistics?
you just assumed a random sampling. these sorts of studies are literally the farthest you can get from random sampling- a bunch of uni students at a single uni in a single region.
Many of us went through study size calculations when we were first learning how to run clinical trials (well, probalby not many, but everybody in my cohort did). The general conclusion among quantitative scientists is that social science like this is worse than useless because of how much time you have to spend explaining to people that the world is not a simple uniform random sampling.
Many of us went through study size calculations when we were first learning how to run clinical trials (well, probalby not many, but everybody in my cohort did). The general conclusion among quantitative scientists is that social science like this is worse than useless because of how much time you have to spend explaining to people that the world is not a simple uniform random sampling.
I don't think the comment you are responding to is dismissing it based on the absolute number of responses, but because of the poor response rate.
When you have a really poor response rate, don't you worry about how it might have biased your sample?
People talked about this a lot with respect to political polling by phone during the last US Presidential election. Very few people answer phone polls these days and figuring out how different they are from the general population is important.
When you have a really poor response rate, don't you worry about how it might have biased your sample?
People talked about this a lot with respect to political polling by phone during the last US Presidential election. Very few people answer phone polls these days and figuring out how different they are from the general population is important.
No one is aware of basic statistics. You see this comment on every poll which samples under a million responses (so every poll).
It's a non-random sample. You can draw valid statistical conclusions from a surprisingly small random sample. You can draw bullshit conclusions from a surprisingly large non-random sample.
Reading? A study?
I'm just here to get angry at a misrepresentative editorialized title!
I'm just here to get angry at a misrepresentative editorialized title!
A misrepresentative, editorialized tweet written by the founder of this website.
... who, over time, has demonstrated he's not particularly keen when it comes to social sciences.
I know you must have some powerful evidence that only 7.5% or survey requests being responded to makes a survey invalid, right?
>Is nobody reading the linked study?
This is hacker news... our time is too valuable to waste actually reading the article and making an informed opinion.
This is hacker news... our time is too valuable to waste actually reading the article and making an informed opinion.
Well "from their university library" is a pretty important qualifier.
Certainly, curating which books are placed in the university library is detrimental to diversity of thought and exposure to various views (even knowing what extreme views are out there is important if you wish to counter them). But it's not really the same as say a government ban of controversial books.
Also, this survey was done in Germany, where you can already go to jail for claiming the holocaust didn't happen.
Certainly, curating which books are placed in the university library is detrimental to diversity of thought and exposure to various views (even knowing what extreme views are out there is important if you wish to counter them). But it's not really the same as say a government ban of controversial books.
Also, this survey was done in Germany, where you can already go to jail for claiming the holocaust didn't happen.
Universities are supposed to be the place where you are introduced and exposed to controversial ideas. At least, that’s what I was told when I enrolled.
But maybe that sentiment has outlived its purpose now that higher education is so ideologically tilted towards one side.
But maybe that sentiment has outlived its purpose now that higher education is so ideologically tilted towards one side.
About 75% of students who were polled were against banning books pretty much across the board.
Does that fit within the ideological narrative you've constructed here for yourself though?
Does that fit within the ideological narrative you've constructed here for yourself though?
It does, believe it or not. In fact, 75% of students being against banning books implies the other 25% is either accepting or endorsing censorship. One in four is pretty significant.
It doesn’t take a majority of a population to get changes made, just a persistent and vocal minority.
But please, do go on about my narrative. Especially when you come to this thread with narratives like “The "extreme left" is not even a fraction as represented as even far right within popular consciousness and, more significantly, political representation.”
Which is farcical when you look at how mainstream and accepted ideas from the left are in the culture of the west. Unless you shift the definitions of what far-left and far-right are.
It doesn’t take a majority of a population to get changes made, just a persistent and vocal minority.
But please, do go on about my narrative. Especially when you come to this thread with narratives like “The "extreme left" is not even a fraction as represented as even far right within popular consciousness and, more significantly, political representation.”
Which is farcical when you look at how mainstream and accepted ideas from the left are in the culture of the west. Unless you shift the definitions of what far-left and far-right are.
> Which is farcical when you look at how mainstream and accepted ideas from the left are in the culture of the west. Unless you shift the definitions of what far-left and far-right are
OK. Far right idea are built on a simple idea. We (our group, nationalist, cultural, religious) are inherently better than the others. This can be proven by Y[0]. But right now, we are feeling inferior to (our neighbours, elites, educated people, [1]). The only rationnal explanation is that (the liberals/the communists/the jew/the illuminati/the deep state) are plotting against us from within. Once those are purged, we will get our rightfull place in the world.
Far left: A class war exist. this can be proven because X[2]. The non-essential properties should be communal. The mean of production should be owned and paid for by the men and women who work them. The undemocratic republic is a tool for the bourgeoisie to keep people content with an illusion of choice and power. Police and armed forces are the other tools of the bourgeoisie to protect their property more than to protect lives[3]. The bourgeoisie must be purged for the working class to thrive again.
I think both are pretty prevalent, one we talk much more about the former than about the later.
Do you think i misrepresented one part? If so, don't hesitate to correct me.
[0] often a racist sentence, hence its often left to the auditor understanding
[1] French, Jews, Africans, mediterranean (including italian for the Nazi). The list was not the same for Fascist Italy/Spain/France, but close enough.
[2] Warren buffet said so/worker are manipulated into de-unionizing/ transversal fights are a diversion by the bourgeoisie
OK. Far right idea are built on a simple idea. We (our group, nationalist, cultural, religious) are inherently better than the others. This can be proven by Y[0]. But right now, we are feeling inferior to (our neighbours, elites, educated people, [1]). The only rationnal explanation is that (the liberals/the communists/the jew/the illuminati/the deep state) are plotting against us from within. Once those are purged, we will get our rightfull place in the world.
Far left: A class war exist. this can be proven because X[2]. The non-essential properties should be communal. The mean of production should be owned and paid for by the men and women who work them. The undemocratic republic is a tool for the bourgeoisie to keep people content with an illusion of choice and power. Police and armed forces are the other tools of the bourgeoisie to protect their property more than to protect lives[3]. The bourgeoisie must be purged for the working class to thrive again.
I think both are pretty prevalent, one we talk much more about the former than about the later.
Do you think i misrepresented one part? If so, don't hesitate to correct me.
[0] often a racist sentence, hence its often left to the auditor understanding
[1] French, Jews, Africans, mediterranean (including italian for the Nazi). The list was not the same for Fascist Italy/Spain/France, but close enough.
[2] Warren buffet said so/worker are manipulated into de-unionizing/ transversal fights are a diversion by the bourgeoisie
Also, the liberal left trying to close overton window while opening theirs is a poor response, but a response nonetheless.
For people realy on the far left reading this: you are behind the fascists and the liberals in the culture war: go to your group and start opening overton windows about the far left culture: violence against property as a mean of expression, street occupation and guns right as a mean of self-defense (rememebr the Black Panthers? Go do the same thing! Or at least talk about it).
For people realy on the far left reading this: you are behind the fascists and the liberals in the culture war: go to your group and start opening overton windows about the far left culture: violence against property as a mean of expression, street occupation and guns right as a mean of self-defense (rememebr the Black Panthers? Go do the same thing! Or at least talk about it).
I don’t know what point you’re trying to convey, to be honest.
But in my own experience all sorts of people who hold views on the Left tend to 1) distance themselves from “the left”, 2) claim that what is perceived as left-wing is actually only barely left wing, and 3) claim that the right has dramatically more power and influence than they really do.
So I’m not really looking for a definition of what the left and the right are. I’m just noting how the person I was responding to must have a radically different definition that convention.
But in my own experience all sorts of people who hold views on the Left tend to 1) distance themselves from “the left”, 2) claim that what is perceived as left-wing is actually only barely left wing, and 3) claim that the right has dramatically more power and influence than they really do.
So I’m not really looking for a definition of what the left and the right are. I’m just noting how the person I was responding to must have a radically different definition that convention.
I've read a book -a pamphlet, really- about how killing heirs are the quickest and less expensive way of wealth redistribution. Several good point were made, not that clever though tbh, and with some provocativness and irony.
I think a better writer could make a good book, less ironic, even more convincing and less upfront with the idea. If this book existed, would you let young people read it? I mean, you could argue back that heir add value by living and pushing their parent to earn even more money, and killing them would kill their motivation, but now, killing the 3rd generation should not have any influence on the early motivation, yes?
I think a better writer could make a good book, less ironic, even more convincing and less upfront with the idea. If this book existed, would you let young people read it? I mean, you could argue back that heir add value by living and pushing their parent to earn even more money, and killing them would kill their motivation, but now, killing the 3rd generation should not have any influence on the early motivation, yes?
I would “let” the young people read it because as citizens we share the right to free speech and the right to consume ideas, whatever they may be.
That being said, an individual’s actions may be outlawed or punished, but I see that as distinct from what they read and publish.
That being said, an individual’s actions may be outlawed or punished, but I see that as distinct from what they read and publish.
A properly educated and humanist generation of young people would presumably not be driven to mass murder by a convincing pamphlet, unless driven by the extraordinary circumstances of famine (French Revolution) or an existential conflict (World War I).
Many if not most universities are publicly funded quasi governmental institutions.
Yes, and? Are you arguing taxpayers should be forced to fund the dissemination of extreme views?
You said it is different than a government banning books but universities/colleges being publicly funded are effectively the government. I fail to see the difference. Libraries in general to the extent they are publicly funded should be neutral and not pick what materials they put in their collection based on political considerations, or subjective opinions of what material is too extreme.
Banning a book entails prohibiting private citizens / businesses from distributing it. Just because a government isn't funding the distribution of certain material doesn't mean it's banning that material.
Letting the library keep a single copy is hardly funding distribution. Historically books were expensive so unless you were wealthy the only place you would have access to books is the library. Saying you think it’s ok to ban a book from the library so long as it isn’t totally banned is basically arguing to keep ideas that are too dangerous away from the unwashed masses.
It’s not even banned from the library though - libraries provide internet access via which you can read the book if the author chose to make it available to the public in the internet.
Yesterday's extreme view is today's mainstream.
Historically universities have been the birthplace of various revolutionary movements. It is arguably one of their roles in society.
Historically universities have been the birthplace of various revolutionary movements. It is arguably one of their roles in society.
> Many if not most universities are publicly funded quasi governmental institutions.
That sounds very much like someone whose only experience is with large public universities. I don't really know what "quasi-governmental" means, but any reasonable meaning I can assign it is far beyond my small university--and there are way more small universities than big ones.
That sounds very much like someone whose only experience is with large public universities. I don't really know what "quasi-governmental" means, but any reasonable meaning I can assign it is far beyond my small university--and there are way more small universities than big ones.
It's also worth looking at the context - the students were given four specific scenarios:
1. Someone who believes that Islam is incompatible with the Western way of life.
2. Someone who thought there are biological differences in talents between men and women.
3. Someone who is against all forms of immigration to this country.
4. Someone who thinks that homosexuality is immoral and dangerous.
Only for #4 were as low as 66% against removing their works from the university library. For 1, 78% were against, for 2, 81% were against, for 3, 74% were against.
While that may still be troubling, it's clear peoples willingness to have them removed from the library depends significantly on the specific statement, and another way of presenting this is that the more clearly a statement was flat out expressing bigotry, the more willing people were to remove works by that person.
1. Someone who believes that Islam is incompatible with the Western way of life.
2. Someone who thought there are biological differences in talents between men and women.
3. Someone who is against all forms of immigration to this country.
4. Someone who thinks that homosexuality is immoral and dangerous.
Only for #4 were as low as 66% against removing their works from the university library. For 1, 78% were against, for 2, 81% were against, for 3, 74% were against.
While that may still be troubling, it's clear peoples willingness to have them removed from the library depends significantly on the specific statement, and another way of presenting this is that the more clearly a statement was flat out expressing bigotry, the more willing people were to remove works by that person.
[deleted]
My very least favorite horseshoe effect example is, as always, Huck Finn.
It is an absolutely stellar novel. “All right then, I’ll go to Hell” is one of the more courageous bits of writing that young Americans are exposed to about ourselves. How dare we try to pretend otherwise. It is beyond me.
It is an absolutely stellar novel. “All right then, I’ll go to Hell” is one of the more courageous bits of writing that young Americans are exposed to about ourselves. How dare we try to pretend otherwise. It is beyond me.
Apart from the poor methodology that others have commented on, pg's scare statistic appears to come from just one row of Table C on page 12 (numbered 482), related to one topic.
Looking at all of the other topics paints a different picture: approximately 75% of student are consistently against banning books. But that's significantly less easy to hand-wring about.
Looking at all of the other topics paints a different picture: approximately 75% of student are consistently against banning books. But that's significantly less easy to hand-wring about.
"Roughly one third of 501 students at a single university in Frankfurt, in Germany where certain publications are required by the constitution to remain prohibited, are in favour of removing controversial books from a single named library" presumably -- while rather more accurate -- didn't quite make the weaksauce point we were looking for.
That's a pretty accurate summary, though I'd say that the following is more accurate still:
"About a quarter of social science students at a (deliberately chosen left-leaning) university in Frankfurt, Germany, are in favour of removing controversial books about certain topics from their university library."
ETA: And, in fairness to pg, the sentence quoted ("Roughly one-third of students are also in favor of banning controversial books from their university library") is in fact a direct quote from the study.
"About a quarter of social science students at a (deliberately chosen left-leaning) university in Frankfurt, Germany, are in favour of removing controversial books about certain topics from their university library."
ETA: And, in fairness to pg, the sentence quoted ("Roughly one-third of students are also in favor of banning controversial books from their university library") is in fact a direct quote from the study.
> in Germany where certain publications are required by the constitution to remain prohibited
This is false.
This is false.
That is not actually false. Volksverhetzung, as in "incitement to hatred" is censored and includes Holocaust denial. Usage of nazi symbols is restricted too, you can use them in historical context, but not for fun however you wish.
Mein Kampf itself is legal. But not everything is.
Mein Kampf itself is legal. But not everything is.
And where does the Basic Law mandate this?
For anyone reading this thinking: "huh?".
This is presumably about Hitler's "Mein kampf". Which wasn't banned by law in Germany. The province of Bavaria simply inherited the ownership (copyright) of it and decided not to grant anyone permission to print it. Thats why it was not illegal to have the book but it was illegal to print it.
I believe the copyright has now expired in Germany and it is in the public domain.
This is presumably about Hitler's "Mein kampf". Which wasn't banned by law in Germany. The province of Bavaria simply inherited the ownership (copyright) of it and decided not to grant anyone permission to print it. Thats why it was not illegal to have the book but it was illegal to print it.
I believe the copyright has now expired in Germany and it is in the public domain.
Does pg get automatically recommended to all twitter users or something? The replies to his post are pretty low-quality; I'm guessing few people in it have read any of his books (technical or the essay compilation). Why'd he get cursed with such a following?
The tweet is really low quality clickbait so the replies are of same quality. If you actually read the study you'll find that PG's summary has little to do with it. It reads like anti-woke clickbait if anything.
He blocks the intelligent critics.
It's the nature of banter constrained by a character count.
Beyond that, PG is a public figured with a huge following, not some obscure academic.
Beyond that, PG is a public figured with a huge following, not some obscure academic.
> Why'd he get cursed with such a following?
My observation is that most twitter replies are pretty low quality across the board. Especially on politics twitter.
My observation is that most twitter replies are pretty low quality across the board. Especially on politics twitter.
Well, the summary is of course extremely condensed, and it helps a lot to read the paper. Some very quick observations:
- These are data from social science students in Frankfurt, Germany. The city and university is traditionally left-leaning, so not at all representative for anything (not for students, not for Germany, not internationally)
- The total population is ~6600, and the sample is N=501, which is further reduced by some missing values. Note that very few people actually identify as political leanings, espeically hardly anyone on the conservative spectrum. So I would argue that this study has not enough power to draw any serious conclusion (power in the statistical sense as sensitivity to reject a H0 given it is false)
- The measured variables were many more than merely banning books. Some restrictive attitudes were not supported.
Finally, it is immensenly important to remember that countries must pick one of roughly three approaches to dealing with harmful political attitudes (see Ziblatt's "How Democracies Die" for a longer review of this):
- Have all attitudes compete equally (this is the US model of free speech)
- Contain bad attitudes by shunning them and rendering them a taboo
- Exclude bad attitudes by prohibiting them legally (this is the German model, which criminalizes expression of some opinions such as denial of the Holocaust).
- These are data from social science students in Frankfurt, Germany. The city and university is traditionally left-leaning, so not at all representative for anything (not for students, not for Germany, not internationally)
- The total population is ~6600, and the sample is N=501, which is further reduced by some missing values. Note that very few people actually identify as political leanings, espeically hardly anyone on the conservative spectrum. So I would argue that this study has not enough power to draw any serious conclusion (power in the statistical sense as sensitivity to reject a H0 given it is false)
- The measured variables were many more than merely banning books. Some restrictive attitudes were not supported.
Finally, it is immensenly important to remember that countries must pick one of roughly three approaches to dealing with harmful political attitudes (see Ziblatt's "How Democracies Die" for a longer review of this):
- Have all attitudes compete equally (this is the US model of free speech)
- Contain bad attitudes by shunning them and rendering them a taboo
- Exclude bad attitudes by prohibiting them legally (this is the German model, which criminalizes expression of some opinions such as denial of the Holocaust).
Agreed that this does not represent the world, or Germany, or students in general. But it is one datapoint about social science students in Frankfurt, which was deliberately chosen as a "likely worst case" to detect the problem.
In fact, the authors are very explicit about that point: "We are certainly not under the impression that our sample is representative of university students in general (or the wider public, for that matter). On the contrary, we purposefully consider the social science studentship at Frankfurt as a most likely case."
Next, as outlined above, n=500 seems enough to reject the hypothesis that the percentage that wants to ban the books is near 0. In other words, I dispute your notion that the study has not enough power. Strong sampling bias might be a problem, but nobody has made a case for that yet.
In fact, the authors are very explicit about that point: "We are certainly not under the impression that our sample is representative of university students in general (or the wider public, for that matter). On the contrary, we purposefully consider the social science studentship at Frankfurt as a most likely case."
Next, as outlined above, n=500 seems enough to reject the hypothesis that the percentage that wants to ban the books is near 0. In other words, I dispute your notion that the study has not enough power. Strong sampling bias might be a problem, but nobody has made a case for that yet.
Well I am in favor of banning misinformation, clickbait, and “studies” conducted against an extremely small sample size intended to promote outrage and justifying bad behavior.
Just like YouTube banning discussion of lab leak theory on the word of a biased professor, banning misinformation is a fool's errand and ends harming more than helping.
In that case, they censored science.
In that case, they censored science.
the lab leak theory has nothing to do with science
The origins of COVID is not concerned science in your view for what reason? It's a scientific theory. The only proof to the contrary is from biased individuals who in some cases were directly involved in the granting of money for the purposes of extremely controversial gain-of-function research to the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
So, what's not science about the origin of a virus? Your comment makes zero sense.
So, what's not science about the origin of a virus? Your comment makes zero sense.
You don't get SARS-CoV-2 by combining an RaTG13 backbone with a pangolin spike in a lab -- it is still decades of evolution away form SARS-CoV-2 which you don't get via passing it through a dozen generations of mice. There's no evidence WIV was ever doing GOF research (although they did collaborate with GOF research that happened on US Soil), it is entirely circular logic. The idea that WIV employees were treated for SARS-CoV-2 is entirely evidence free, nobody knows the names of those employees, China has claimed those were 3 samples submitted in Jan from community collection which is rejected out of hand because it comes from China. The whole lab leak theory is that its a coincidence that the pandemic started in the city that had the lab, and the theory that coincidences never happen.
This is what actual science looks like:
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.01.22.427830v3
https://www.cell.com/cell/pdf/S0092-8674(21)00709-1.pdf
This is what actual science looks like:
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.01.22.427830v3
https://www.cell.com/cell/pdf/S0092-8674(21)00709-1.pdf
It should come as no surprise that the right-leaning students who ideologically agree with the stated "controversial books" or ideological viewpoints of the hypothetical speakers do not want to remove them from the university library.
Also, it's a third of SOCIAL SCIENCE students, not overall student population, and the study has a terrible response rate of 7.5% which they themselves admit in part 4.1. Also, because it seems like bad faith editorializing by the OP, it's about banning books from the university library, not in general.
In other words, the study is awful and it doesn't prove any point, but because it's easy to spin it into an anti-woke censorship narrative, HN is going to eat this up.
Also, it's a third of SOCIAL SCIENCE students, not overall student population, and the study has a terrible response rate of 7.5% which they themselves admit in part 4.1. Also, because it seems like bad faith editorializing by the OP, it's about banning books from the university library, not in general.
In other words, the study is awful and it doesn't prove any point, but because it's easy to spin it into an anti-woke censorship narrative, HN is going to eat this up.
I tend to be right leaning and would flip out if the extreme left was censored. If you can't have a discussion you can't have democracy.
> I tend to be right leaning and would flip out if the extreme left was censored.
Florida is demanding ideological surveys of faculty within the state. Laws are being passed banning discussion of "CRT" in a variety of institutional levels. I've got a few friends who receive fairly consistent death threats every time they are mentioned by Fox News or equivalents for being "anti-american ivory tower leftists" for teaching courses on police violence or race and gender in medieval europe. One of the authors of the 1619 project had their position changed from a tenured position to a TT position after interference from the board of a public university.
Heck, the Trump administration published "the 1776 project", which was absolutely ahistorical nonsense (no single historian was involved in the project) explicitly designed to shift history curricula towards a specific ideology.
Florida is demanding ideological surveys of faculty within the state. Laws are being passed banning discussion of "CRT" in a variety of institutional levels. I've got a few friends who receive fairly consistent death threats every time they are mentioned by Fox News or equivalents for being "anti-american ivory tower leftists" for teaching courses on police violence or race and gender in medieval europe. One of the authors of the 1619 project had their position changed from a tenured position to a TT position after interference from the board of a public university.
Heck, the Trump administration published "the 1776 project", which was absolutely ahistorical nonsense (no single historian was involved in the project) explicitly designed to shift history curricula towards a specific ideology.
I mean, whole range of topics tangentially related to 1916 is being censored in american schools right now and it is not even extreme left.
By actual lawmakers.
By actual lawmakers.
The "extreme left" is not even a fraction as represented as even far right within popular consciousness and, more significantly, political representation. There's no Marxist-Leninist politicians of note in Germany (where the study was done). There are however plenty of popular politicians and parties with significant power who align with some of the statements and topics the students were asked about.
What I'm trying to say with that is that it's not an equal comparison. There is no political mobilization for extreme left ideas that is even remotely comparable to the far-right that align with some narratives that the students obviously consider as dangerous, such as anti-Islam and anti-immigration, anti-LGBTQ, and pro gendered labor division.
I am not in favor of flat out banning such books (even if I personally believe they have no place in an environment of science and learning such as a university), but it's easy to understand why the response of left-leaning students towards right-leaning topics is stronger than the inverse.
What I'm trying to say with that is that it's not an equal comparison. There is no political mobilization for extreme left ideas that is even remotely comparable to the far-right that align with some narratives that the students obviously consider as dangerous, such as anti-Islam and anti-immigration, anti-LGBTQ, and pro gendered labor division.
I am not in favor of flat out banning such books (even if I personally believe they have no place in an environment of science and learning such as a university), but it's easy to understand why the response of left-leaning students towards right-leaning topics is stronger than the inverse.
>The "extreme left" is not even a fraction as represented
A good democratic country will swing between extreme polls but if you look around you'll see many strongly leftist ideas (extreme gun control, censorship, minors consenting to sex reassignment surgery etc.) getting quite a lot of support and becoming laws in many countries. I certainly wouldn't argue that they're being ignored.
A good democratic country will swing between extreme polls but if you look around you'll see many strongly leftist ideas (extreme gun control, censorship, minors consenting to sex reassignment surgery etc.) getting quite a lot of support and becoming laws in many countries. I certainly wouldn't argue that they're being ignored.
Idk if you're still talking about Germany specifically or more global trends. Regarding Germany: gun control is a non-partisan issue and not even remotely part of the public discourse. Censorship of various degrees is written in German law especially when it pertains to racism, hate speech, and Nazi language and symbolism. Regarding the last, I'm not aware of the state of Germany on that point.
However, none of the points you named are anywhere even remotely near "extreme left", even by US standards. Those are all Democrat party talking points, which is anywhere from slightly left of center to center-right.
The "extreme left" (no, US Democrats are not socialists) has no political representation anywhere in the Western world and barely registers in public consciousness at all.
However, none of the points you named are anywhere even remotely near "extreme left", even by US standards. Those are all Democrat party talking points, which is anywhere from slightly left of center to center-right.
The "extreme left" (no, US Democrats are not socialists) has no political representation anywhere in the Western world and barely registers in public consciousness at all.
> The "extreme left" (no, US Democrats are not socialists) has no political representation anywhere in the Western world and barely registers in public consciousness at all.
That's false. In France there's a far left party ( France Insoumise, which has or has had stuff like redistribution of wealth and nationalisation of infrastructure, increasing the minimum wage in multiples in their programme, and regularly works with the Communist party for elections ) which is pretty mainstream, and their candidate, Jean-Luc Mélenchon, was 4th with 19.6% in the last presidential elections. ( For reference, 3rd was with 20%, 2nd with 21.4%, first with 24%)
Isn't there a far left party in Spain as well? And Italy?
Western world != US, Canada, UK.
That's false. In France there's a far left party ( France Insoumise, which has or has had stuff like redistribution of wealth and nationalisation of infrastructure, increasing the minimum wage in multiples in their programme, and regularly works with the Communist party for elections ) which is pretty mainstream, and their candidate, Jean-Luc Mélenchon, was 4th with 19.6% in the last presidential elections. ( For reference, 3rd was with 20%, 2nd with 21.4%, first with 24%)
Isn't there a far left party in Spain as well? And Italy?
Western world != US, Canada, UK.
Are any of those "strongly leftist" ideas in reality? When I think of the most famous book burnings and censorship, I think of this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_book_burnings), or this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism), or pretty much any case on this list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_destroyed_libraries
Something I notice is that, whether it's nationalist Italians burning Communist literature, Germany (WWI-era) burning Catholic writings, or the Nazis burning Soviet books, it's...almost exclusively the right-wing that supports censorship, at least on the list for destroying libraries. When I think of who's actually achieved anti-censorship in the United States, I think of people like Allen Ginsberg, the reason the First Amendment actually began to mean something in the US for the first time in its history. Now, I could be wrong, but I think Ginsberg was...a leftist going against the right-wing?
The left seem to have a certain libertarian bent if anything: They seem to want private enterprise to be able to host what they want. It makes sense from a free market perspective.
Something I notice is that, whether it's nationalist Italians burning Communist literature, Germany (WWI-era) burning Catholic writings, or the Nazis burning Soviet books, it's...almost exclusively the right-wing that supports censorship, at least on the list for destroying libraries. When I think of who's actually achieved anti-censorship in the United States, I think of people like Allen Ginsberg, the reason the First Amendment actually began to mean something in the US for the first time in its history. Now, I could be wrong, but I think Ginsberg was...a leftist going against the right-wing?
The left seem to have a certain libertarian bent if anything: They seem to want private enterprise to be able to host what they want. It makes sense from a free market perspective.
>The left seem to have a certain libertarian bent if anything
My understanding was that the "left and right" is more or less orthogonal to the "authoritarian vs libertarian" dimension. The authoritarian forms of both are absolutely terrible, that's why we have democracy: so they can do their best to cancel each other out.
My understanding was that the "left and right" is more or less orthogonal to the "authoritarian vs libertarian" dimension. The authoritarian forms of both are absolutely terrible, that's why we have democracy: so they can do their best to cancel each other out.
Do you see why presenting "extreme gun control, censorship" (authoritarian ideas, not "leftist" ideas) might therefore not be considered a good argument for the idea that left-wing policy is gaining popular support?
This is a common misunderstanding in another group I converse with. Left in his context refers to the American one, which refers to an overarching field that is represented by the American progressives and includes the moderate dems (center left) progressives and socialists /communists, amongst others. You're coming from a European left right split, which means something different.
The first two are moderate positions. They are only "strongly leftist" in a far-right banana republic (i.e., the USA). Giving people the right to physically match their gender identity is a human rights issue.
> They are only "strongly leftist" in a far-right banana republic (i.e., the USA).
Even in the US, they are, at least some of them, more prominent in the more centrist faction of the Democratic Party than even the Democratic “left”, much less the actual (for the USA) “far left”. Remember that one of the establishment arguments early on against Sanders was that he had a historically weak voting record on gun control.
The American Right tends to confuse the degree to which a position is associated with the Democratic Party with how far “left” it is.
Even in the US, they are, at least some of them, more prominent in the more centrist faction of the Democratic Party than even the Democratic “left”, much less the actual (for the USA) “far left”. Remember that one of the establishment arguments early on against Sanders was that he had a historically weak voting record on gun control.
The American Right tends to confuse the degree to which a position is associated with the Democratic Party with how far “left” it is.
I'm curious how you think the third is consistent with the idea that minors can't consent to sex. Do you justify it pragmatically or is there something deeper?
No, kids getting gender confirmation surgery is little more than a right wing talking point. WPATH recommendation is to put kids on puberty blockers 'til they're old enough to consent. Sure, some trans kids probably want that, but some cisgender teens want plastic surgery, too (and, a gal in my high shool had rich parents who paid for that, and they had to fly somewhere because american surgeons can't or won't)
"Extreme gun control" is interesting. By that criteria, Australia is extremely leftist! As is the UK and almost all of europe! Or... maybe the US is the extreme one here.
No. Extreme leftists use guillotines to bring literal class war to the rich. Sieze the means of production and all that. You get the job the state gives you, you get what the state gives you. Collectively somehow even though everybody disagrees with the fundament?
Moderate leftists write laws to tax profits in order to provide infrastructure and services to people to increase the baseline of wellbeing in the state. Biden is actually quite conservative in that regard
"Extreme gun control" is interesting. By that criteria, Australia is extremely leftist! As is the UK and almost all of europe! Or... maybe the US is the extreme one here.
No. Extreme leftists use guillotines to bring literal class war to the rich. Sieze the means of production and all that. You get the job the state gives you, you get what the state gives you. Collectively somehow even though everybody disagrees with the fundament?
Moderate leftists write laws to tax profits in order to provide infrastructure and services to people to increase the baseline of wellbeing in the state. Biden is actually quite conservative in that regard
[deleted]
> I am not in favor of flat out banning such books (even if I personally believe they have no place in an environment of science and learning such as a university)
In society’s most important institutions of science and learning, ALL ideas must be open to scrutiny, especially unpopular ones.
Shouldn’t we want society to be built on the bedrock of truth via scrutiny, rather than on the mere sand of intellectual fashions?
In society’s most important institutions of science and learning, ALL ideas must be open to scrutiny, especially unpopular ones.
Shouldn’t we want society to be built on the bedrock of truth via scrutiny, rather than on the mere sand of intellectual fashions?
Ideally, sure.
It is just my personal opinion that anti-science does not have equal value as science and should not be found right alongside it. Given the correct context and time and place, I don't fundamentally have an issue with the books existing or people being able to read them.
It is just my personal opinion that anti-science does not have equal value as science and should not be found right alongside it. Given the correct context and time and place, I don't fundamentally have an issue with the books existing or people being able to read them.
An idea is not “anti-science” merely because it makes you or anyone else feel uncomfortable.
4. Someone who thinks that homosexuality is immoral and dangerous.
I'd argue that this is anti-science. The biological theory "en vogue" is that homosexuality (not the sexual act, the falling in love part) is determined by hormonal balance during pregnancy. I don't think any theory argue that this is dangerous, and well, about immorality, it has nothing to do with science.
So this idea is anti-science, and i don't think is interesting enough to take a spot on a shelf in a science university. Maybe in the reserve. Are you disagreeing with that?
I'd argue that this is anti-science. The biological theory "en vogue" is that homosexuality (not the sexual act, the falling in love part) is determined by hormonal balance during pregnancy. I don't think any theory argue that this is dangerous, and well, about immorality, it has nothing to do with science.
So this idea is anti-science, and i don't think is interesting enough to take a spot on a shelf in a science university. Maybe in the reserve. Are you disagreeing with that?
So which is it? If someone says "homosexuality is immoral", is it anti-science, or does it "have nothing to do with science"? You can't have both.
Morality has little to do with science, and this case is not different. For an extreme example we determined that murderous psychopathy was related to a developmental hiccup, would you be surprised that people would call it immoral or dangerous?
Well, I have some news from the future of that comment. HN is not eating it up. Almost every post is about how the study isn't great and the title doesn't reflect it.
Im not a researcher, but why would any study of some social environment not be worth studying?
Especially as it relates to present day & macro-scale social dilemmas, and more importantly a robust history to learn from vs repeat –– Though for this, I'd be more interested in historic psycho- analysis/profiling, present day, and how individual viewpoints evolve to large social disruptions in democratic societies.
Especially as it relates to present day & macro-scale social dilemmas, and more importantly a robust history to learn from vs repeat –– Though for this, I'd be more interested in historic psycho- analysis/profiling, present day, and how individual viewpoints evolve to large social disruptions in democratic societies.
Never said it's not worth studying. The methodology, resulting samples, one-sided nature, and biased and opinionated narrative structure of the paper (I urge you to read through it) make it entirely uninteresting is all.
It's clear that this is yet another piece to throw on the libertarian heap and to spin it into anti-woke agitprop just as the OP (and linked tweet, to a lesser extent) did with their heavy editorializing. Fuel for the fire for everyone who wants to read the title and extrapolate some greater social trends from this to fit their already established perspectives.
It's clear that this is yet another piece to throw on the libertarian heap and to spin it into anti-woke agitprop just as the OP (and linked tweet, to a lesser extent) did with their heavy editorializing. Fuel for the fire for everyone who wants to read the title and extrapolate some greater social trends from this to fit their already established perspectives.
[deleted]
Roughly 90% of teenagers want pizza and ice-cream for dinner. SHOCKING!!!1
Why not link to the original paper?
https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11577-020-007...
> However, the actual net response rate dropped from 14% to 7.5% when we consider only those who completed at least 80% of the survey (n= 501), which is clearly poor and has to be kept in mind when drawing conclusions from the data. All analyses are based on pair-wise deletion of missing values.
Divisive political issues attract people at the fringes of the political spectrum. If you're getting less than 10% of the sample filling the majority of the survey, it's likely that your sample is just those people interested enough to fill it out because they're on the fringes.
I am skeptical of the results, because in my experience at university (2007-2012, 2017-2020) I never observed "wokeness" or concern over microaggressions or many of the things right wing media reports on. It's a more likely explanation that Conservatives have victim complex, and "university wants to burn books and ban speakers" fills that complex well.
Why? Politics is just business in disguise. My theory is that conservatives don't want government to pay for education, and in the US they are succeeding in this goal [1]. Saying universities are hypocritical is a good excuse.
[1] https://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/state-hig...
> However, the actual net response rate dropped from 14% to 7.5% when we consider only those who completed at least 80% of the survey (n= 501), which is clearly poor and has to be kept in mind when drawing conclusions from the data. All analyses are based on pair-wise deletion of missing values.
Divisive political issues attract people at the fringes of the political spectrum. If you're getting less than 10% of the sample filling the majority of the survey, it's likely that your sample is just those people interested enough to fill it out because they're on the fringes.
I am skeptical of the results, because in my experience at university (2007-2012, 2017-2020) I never observed "wokeness" or concern over microaggressions or many of the things right wing media reports on. It's a more likely explanation that Conservatives have victim complex, and "university wants to burn books and ban speakers" fills that complex well.
Why? Politics is just business in disguise. My theory is that conservatives don't want government to pay for education, and in the US they are succeeding in this goal [1]. Saying universities are hypocritical is a good excuse.
[1] https://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/state-hig...
Why would anyone ask students what their opinion on these matters are? The whole point of students is that they are still learning and studying. Should we ask a 2nd grader whether they should do their math homework or not?
But... nobody is asking them to vote on this question, ie nobody is proposing to let the students decide on this.
Rather, the study is about the opinion of those students on certain topics, and for that, you have to ask them about their opinion.
Rather, the study is about the opinion of those students on certain topics, and for that, you have to ask them about their opinion.
Right...my point is why even ask?
If you asked my 6th grade classroom whether they should learn more math, they would say no because they never use math in their lives.
If you asked my 6th grade classroom whether they should learn more math, they would say no because they never use math in their lives.
At some point, these students will become adults, and some of them university administrators, and then they make the rules.
Students are adults.
Back in the day I joined evening classes just to get access to the technical college library. Reading books was a thing then.
I do see some value in erasing human history and starting again.
We have been so comprehensively vile to each other it might be better to erase it all.
By "controversial books" they likely mean CRT - it's the number 1 battleground in education facilities today. But banning the books is silly. We shouldn't ban knowledge, even if it's the infamous MeinCampf or CRT - only practicing of certain knowledge should be banned.
> it's the number 1 battleground in education facilities today
In a university in Frankfurt, Germany?
In a university in Frankfurt, Germany?
Please (not you in specific, but the general you), can everyone at least try to read the abstract before commenting (preferably the article).
It's in Germany, and has nothing to do with CRT.
It's in Germany, and has nothing to do with CRT.
Oh, my bad then. I've made the common mistake on HN - assumed that anything here is about the US.
Wonder if that includes books about burning books, struggle sessions, or psychoanalysis within political sociology, and ...
how radicalized progressive movements develop — likely not a part of any curriculum anyway vs redefining them as new modern progressive study or hashtag.
how radicalized progressive movements develop — likely not a part of any curriculum anyway vs redefining them as new modern progressive study or hashtag.
Well, the fact that they did not ask questions about book on violence against property and space occupation as a mean of democratic manifestation (which is a far left position) but about books on how homosexuality is immoral and should be banned, i'd say this study will pretty much have the result the researchers want.
If you live in any moderately large sized city, you’re just going to get your books from the public library anyway. No one used the school library at our school and we were fairly large and fairly successful.
If it’s in class, 99% of the kids were going to SparkNotes whatever book they ended up getting anyway.
If it’s in class, 99% of the kids were going to SparkNotes whatever book they ended up getting anyway.
Not entirely sure you can claim that most university libraries go unused just because yours did.
Wait, I was talking about high school. Do universities ban books too? How does that make sense?
And my point is that public libraries are simply better stocked than high school libraries to the point of making high school libraries obsolete.
And my point is that public libraries are simply better stocked than high school libraries to the point of making high school libraries obsolete.
The paper referenced in the original tweet was about banning books from a university library.
- The sentence pg quoted ("Roughly one-third of students are also in favor of banning controversial books from their university library.") is verbatim from the study.
- However, this study must be seen in context. It was deliberately and openly designed to detect anti-free-speech sentiment by looking at a specifically chosen probable "worst case", namely social science students at a traditionally left leaning university in Germany (which houses the "Institut für Sozialforschung" that gave rise to the "Frankfurter Schule" (Horkheimer, Adorno, Marcuse) of critical theory, a predecessor of (among other things) CRT). That this is the case is revealed right in the title of the study: "Is Free Speech in Danger on University Campus? Some Preliminary Evidence from a Most Likely Case", and further emphasised in the text: "We are certainly not under the impression that our sample is representative of university students in general (or the wider public, for that matter). On the contrary, we purposefully consider the social science studentship at Frankfurt as a most likely case." (my emphasis).
- So, the study succeeded in detecting some moderately illiberal attitudes in a quarter or so of students at one deliberately chosen "worst case" faculty in Germany.
- All the hubbub here about the statistical limitations is overblown, n=501 is not bad for social science and gives a error margin of around 5%, which means the results stand unless there was massive sampling bias.