I think this is working as intended. We often joke that if something is publishing in Nature it's almost certainly wrong.
But realistically, at any time in any field there are only a small number of people who are truly pushing the state of the art (I'm referring to discovery science, not reference science- IE, a focus on adding 1% additional knowledge to our already copious understandings. Any I think tthose people shouldn't have to follow the normal rules about scientific publishing: I want them to push the limits as much as possible. That means occasionally publishing something that contains a mistake (not a falsification), and then being willing to have it retracted (without consequence to future publication).
These sorts of fields tend to self-correct because somethign that's wrong isn't reproducible, and all these scientists are working to reproduce each other's results (note: both the people who thing Dias faked his results were going to take the new protocol home and attempt to repro it in their hands ASAP).
In a sense, it's being willing to accept a higher false positive/false negative rate so you don't filter out some true positives.
Corporate DEI initiatives using divisive rhetoric designed to foster paranoia, in order to keep workers on edge around each other. ("You're all racist. Even if you think you aren't racist, asserting you have no subconscious racial biases only proves that you're overtly racist. You're constantly commit racist 'microaggression' offenses against your coworkers without even realizing it.")
Such paranoia between coworkers is a serious impediment to labor organization. The more diverse the workplace, the better this works.
My experience has led me to believe that most individuals in favor of corporate DEI initiatives are earnestly and in good faith attempting to put into practice the recommendations of critical race theory and related frameworks.
The same experience has led me to believe that most managers and employers are not so crafty, and are going along with it because it seems to be trendy and in-demand and because they don't want to be publicly canceled. It's more about petty virtue signaling among managers than coordinated suppression of organized labor.
Furthermore, most DEI initiatives do not look like what you describe, outside of a limited subset of academic institutions that have always been somewhat radical (including few to none of the name-brand universities in the Americas) and smaller companies/startups headed by highly-opinionated idealists.
In general I think we are right to be skeptical of attempts to divide, rather than unite. It's absolutely possible that DEI initiatives are weaponized at some organizations, and we should be wary of that possibility. But it's also not fair or correct to assume that it's always being wielded as such.
It's worth noting that there are legitimate good intentions behind all this no-subconscious-bias microaggression stuff. It's derived from a very earnest radical academic tradition. The kernel of wisdom at the core of it all is that diversity is good and should be not just acknowledged but actively embraced and celebrated. That is, people can be united together, without all being the same.
> My experience has led me to believe that most individuals in favor of corporate DEI initiatives are earnestly and in good faith attempting to put into practice the recommendations of critical race theory and related frameworks.
Yes, of course they are. As explained by Chomsky's model of propaganda, corporations hire true believers for these roles because they are the most effective and reliable.
> most managers and employers are not so crafty
Amazon being so crafty is a documented fact; it's naive to think they're the only ones.
Chomsky's model of propaganda is a useful model, but it's not an iron law.
Amazon is a great example of a company where I absolutely would not put it past them to use DEI initiatives to try to defeat labor organizing. But in many other cases these initiatives are actually demanded and sought after by employees.
I think in this case the actions of well-meaning people were only appropriated as an oppression tactic after they've caught on in popularity.
History and my own anecdotal experience are not consistent with your implied theory that CRT-driven DEI became popular specifically as an anti-labor capitalist conspiracy.
Incidentally, it was while working at Amazon years ago that I first encountered the divisive and paranoia-inspiring form of DEI training which I described above.
Residents need jobs. Alaska is one of the most beautiful states in the country, but there are relatively few opportunities for work. If there were more jobs, more people would consider moving to Alaska.
We got a taste of this effect when remote working became common. A lot of people moved to other states and cities they wouldn't or couldn't live in before when they were expected to live near the office. But of course remote working isn't possible for many industries, particularly for blue collar labor, so if you want those people to move into your area, you need to have job opportunities to offer them.
> If there were more jobs, more people would consider moving to Alaska.
I wouldn't bet on a surge of people. Even in Anchorage, the sun comes up mid-morning and sets mid-afternoon in the winter. And about half the year the high temperature struggles to get above freezing. A typical summer temperature tops out in the mid 60s, and summer is short.
Sure, some people will still move there, but it's not just jobs that makes Alaska a tough sell.
One thing to consider is jobs isn't the only thing that attracts residents. If i could double my salary by moving my family to Alaska I still wouldn't go. It's too cold.
It's at least an indication of a general preference for privacy, which sycophants for surveillance capitalists often try to claim doesn't exist ("only you nerds care about privacy, normal people don't care")
Even without tracking, virtually all advertising is a form of psychological warfare. Here's a common sort of ad: an image depicting young popular people having fun in the park, with cans of cola next to them. The message? If you drink our cola, you can have this lifestyle. This sort of advertising is designed to exploit insecurities people feel about themselves and their social life. This is psychological warfare for commercial gain, and it's standard operating practice for the advertising industry.
Yes and the infrastructure to target people individually exists, as noted with the political shenanigans that took place getting Trump into office and the UK to vote for Brexit. Just remember with Brexit, Scots were polled first to see if they wanted indepdence at a time when they thought it would not be possible to get the UK to leave the EU, so they didnt vote for independence. Brexit occurred, and now the Scots want independence in order to rejoing the EU.
The timing of questions asked are important, as any court room lawyer will know, especially if the defendants answer can be later associated and used against them.
The fact this situation is allowed to exist in the hands of unaccountable people and entities namely businesses, is arguably illegal if the laws were to exist against targeted advertising, but we all know big business would b.e against this.
TLDR targeted advertising is a way to psychologically hound people into suicide. Its a murder weapon exploiting the needs of business to be efficient with their advertising spend.
The criminal perpetrators rely on their victims keeping quiet because no one wants to be humiliated, in much the same way if your parents were wrong 'uns they rely on that parental bond to keep you quiet.
