Well I think the center is currently too far to the right - especially in the usa where from Europe we commonly consider the democrats to be a conservative party.

So I suggest an issue where does seem to divide the more conservatively minded from people like me (us?) who put a higher value of fairness.

The rest of your post was too much about specific outcomes. Currently it's awful but that is talked about in plenty of thread.

There is more to due process than simply innocent until proven guilty. Nowhere in his response did he state such a narrow definition. In fact, he provided a very broad definition. I have proven that your statements that 1) it is solely a criminal issue and 2) it did not exist in the employment context setting are patently false. It is embodied in both the substantive and procedural senses in the multiple civil areas including employment and those proffered by itshot.

Nor is your new drugpin/murderer example an absolute depending on whether the employee is public, in a union or has a contract.

He said “I think the increased accountability and awareness of abuse was a positive thing and still an incomplete process, fwiw. I'm just saying I think it is insane to throw out the "innocent until proven guilty" philosophy.”

There is no innocent until proven guilty philosophy in the work place and nothing is being thrown out. If anything we’re adding protections, it’s illegal to fire someone for being gay etc. Of course you can sign contracts with all sorts of stipulations, but that’s not what we are talking about.

I really feel like it would move the conversation forward if you could look into what “due process” actually means before proceeding here.

I really can't tell if you're trolling or not. I guess I look stupid if you are and I am justifying it with a response. W/e, you got me.

So, this research, if the intro is to be believed, would be enough to show that you are just dead wrong. I'm looking this up now because I honestly did not imagine that there were people who would throw out the idea that a movement like MeToo hasn't changed things.

I would be shocked if you could find many people on either side of the aisle that would agree with the idea that MeToo hasn't changed anything. I suspect that those leaning left would focus on the increased accountability in a positive light (or the idea of the backlash phenomenon), and those leaning right would focus on the increase in accusations leading to careers ending as being problematic from that due process stance. Surely not zero impact.

I'm not sure why you would even follow a group dynamics thread if you are a denier of a popular social movement having an impact on society. What are you hoping to get out of any of this? Maybe your time is better spent elsewhere if that's not an assumption you want to bring to the convo.

I talk to men in management roles who shape some of their interactions with women to reduce possibilities of being in rooms together, etc. These aren't creepy men, but they are masculine men. The Keanu Reeves floating hand effect, if you will.

Karlyn Borisenko wrote an article in Forbes about some of the effects (I know, I'm sure people on this thread love her...)

If you google "Change from #MeToo" you'll get a mixed bag but plenty of articles talking about the subject.

Sigh...I’m asking you to explain in your own words what you think the negative changes are. You already explained the positive ones and it seems everyone agrees.

Yeah, sigh, right. Maybe read the thing I wrote: Tension among masculine men in the workplace (especially in leadership roles), some % of accusations being false and ruining lives.

I'd add an increase in the narrative of toxic masculinity, which trickles down into how young men perceive the world, what is "cool" or acceptable to express, etc. Some of this is good, but some of this is increased shame in masculinity, etc.

I mean, I know you aren't going to give those pieces a second's consideration, so I'll stop wasting my time.

Chezlaw, I did want to hit you back on this, man. I think equality of outcomes and equality of opportunity are actually inseparable in a capitalistic society. Like, when individuals have the same opportunity but make different choices, there is not only going to be difference in outcomes, but also, down the line, difference in opportunity that arises.

I use the example in my vid: If you choose to become a politician and I choose to become a bricklayer, we'll have different opportunities in the future. I guess I would say that access to opportunity is an outcome.

And even if you believe the idea of tabla rasa with re: all groups (by ethnicity, gender, etc.) are effectively equivalent in all relevant dimensions at the starting line, there would inevitably be statistical variance that would then lead to differences in outcome and opportunity.

Anyways, those are some thoughts I've been playing with recently.

Yeah I’m probably going to stop as well. I’m not one of those people that typically lols social scientists....but you’re making it really tough.

Bringing up false allegations is a basic 101 issue of Type I vs Type II errors. Historically women were harassed/assaulted so much we largely have to accept that some unfortunate false allegations will occur to move forward. That’s unavoidable with even a very good faith Me Too movement.

I’ll contrast this with a completely different issue, voter ID laws. Here the push is not good faith. Republicans have been caught numerous times showing that they don’t want voter ID to reduce invalid votes(reducing type I errors) but actually want more eligible voters being turned away (increasing type II errors). That’s a bad faith movement and no similar analogy exists with me Too. But I’m guessing that’s not going to get in either. Good luck with your channel I guess.

Well, if you're having to defer to insulting social science, at least maybe at some level you are aware that you aren't making good points. I'll take that as evidence you aren't trolling, at least. Interesting that you are spending hours on a social science thread.

That point about Type 1 vs Type 2 does not contradict anything I said. I get it, and point to me where I made the claim that #MeToo was net harmful. Pretty sure I didn't, so what are you talking about then?

I mean, which is it?: Is your insinuation that "nothing bad happened because of MeToo" what we are supposed to go on, or is it now suddenly, "Oh, those bad things are there but the net good outweighs the bad." These are different assertions.

This is a group dynamics channel. I get that you studied math not org psych, but here's a general rule of thumb: any significant change in a system will USUALLY have some positive and negative effects, and many of the effects get pushed downstream to rise up again in unanticipated ways. That doesn't mean a specific change isn't ultimately positive, but to study group dynamics is to consider some of those pieces.

And I still think it's insane to be blase about throwing out the "innocent until proven guilty" philosophy.

Not researched up on the voter law thing enough to try and debate (I am aware of basic narratives on each side but haven't looked into the research). I get that some ppl here may conclude that means I'm hiding from the issue, but to me that's integrity. I don't know enough to intelligently hit that piece up.

How many lives have been ruined by false accusations because of MeToo? I noted earlier that the book you cited on this subject was written by a fabulously wealthy and successful lawyer whose life is so "ruined" that he no longer feels people on Martha's Vineyard are nice enough to him (for reasons that have nothing to do with sexual assault allegations).

"Innocent until proven guilty" is a criminal concept. It does not take being "proven guilty" to lose a civil trial. Ergo, it's hard to believe your suggestion that people are "throwing out" a standard that never existed in this context.

Don't really see a counterpoint in that first paragraph. If you're saying that he's still doing really well after facing an accusation, that seems to be the equivalent of saying "Lebron James must not be facing racism because he's so successful and rich". I think it's a dumb argument when the right makes it, and it's a dumb argument now.

Are you suggesting that simply accusing someone should be enough to potentially ruin their life? If the answer is no, then I agree, and not sure what else to discuss. If you are fine with unsubstantiated accusations being enough to ruin someone's life (on a legal, social, or professional level), then we disagree.

Sure, totally agree they are inseparable but the relationship between them isn't fixed. For example if we have great universal healthcare then that reduced the difference in outcome very significantly for a lot of people even if they all had the same opportunity.

Again sure, but I want the bricklayer and the politician to have the same outcome on as much as possible that matters. The one who does better (the bricklayer I assume on average ) might have better holidays or a bigger garden but even the politician should have somewhere decent to live and be able to take a holiday. They should both have heath care and education for their kids. Neither should be going hungry or cold. etc etc. I definitely agree this will then lead to more equal opportunities in the future.

Sure but politics is in part about how to shape the curves.

But what actually happened to Dershowitz? Did you read his book? What were the allegations against him and how have they "ruined" his life beyond how much his life was already ruined by virtue of him being a shitstain everyone already hated?

Details matter! The fact he feels like his life has been "ruined" and wrote a book about it doesn't automatically lend credibility to his/your argument if it's not backed up by facts.

No, I'm not suggesting that. You've written several posts arguing MeToo has people on the left abandoning standards that never existed, so I think the ways in which you've been writing posts that are flat-out untrue rises to the level of disagreeing.

Let’s talk about group psychology during the Civil War, and how many Southern lives were ruined by the Union’s accusations of the South’s malfeasance.

Wait, is he really defending Dershowitz?

Given that you've been focusing on accusations leading to careers ending, what conclusions can we draw about your politics?

Incorrect, we're talking about general group dynamics. The point I'm trying to make--and clearly failing--is that heightening the power of an unsubstantiated accusation has a negative impact.

I absolutely do think that some people who get "cancelled" are just blaming the woke mob for their poor relationship skills and bad work quality. I have not gone deep into the Dershowitz thing, and maybe that was a mistake to throw his book in the mix--I don't really care about that specific example or have any interest in defending him personally.

But I mean, I worked with young men who faced false accusations working in a therapy program, and it utterly derailed their lives even though it didn't go fully public. I saw it happen multiple times with different guys, and per our protocols, these guys hadn't been alone with the accusers ever -- and the stories were often recanted once either the narratives came under investigation or the client moved on to a new program. This probably happens more with clinical populations than people in other workplaces, but my point is that it is not okay to have an unsubstantiated accusation ruin someone's life.

I'm not really seeing anyone provide a good counter argument to this. If you think that's just because I'm hopelessly biased, then it's probably going to be hard to have a conversation anyways.

OK, how do you think that frequency and damage compares to women forced out of careers due to trauma after sexual assault, or being fired or denied promotion for not giving into sexual advances, or just having to live with the trauma and shame of giving into sexual advances, or maintaining the same employment after surviving sexual assault, other such damage from true assaults that went unpunished?

Many of the posters you are having problems having good conversations with have been posting on this forum for years and have probably never had a single good conversation in all that time. Just assume you are going to have bad conversations with bad faith actors, and temper your expectations accordingly.

Hmm, okay, so you are saying move it out of capitalism to start to unwrap that. I def don't consider myself an expert in navigating the nuances of socialism etc, but I have concerns from a psychological perspective when we divorce choices from consequences at some level. What I mean is that part of capitalism (in a pure sense, not a corrupt crony capitalism--if you believe we can differentiate) is that productive choices get rewarded and nonproductive choices are disincentivized, right? If you want to argue that what we have now is way too far in that direction, where power is getting more and more concentrated and the less wealthy are being marginalized, then I would agree. But my initial stance is to be wary of going too far in the other direction too. Curious about your thoughts here

Hey Wookie. I imagine that frequency I'm talking about is much, much lower, as I imagine you are hinting at. I am of the mind that there continues to be a need for more accountability, and more than that, raising men to be community-minded and respectful. My point wasn't that MeToo is bad. But it can be weaponized and that is not inconsequential.

If we want to talk about group dynamics, which is a big part of this thread's intent, then I do think it's important to recognize and be honest about the problems that come with solutions, even if they are not of the same magnitude. To me that's how we tweak and improve a system productively over time.

I get that in the current political environment the temptation is to interpret any such discussion as an attack on MeToo, or as advocating for less accountability with abusers...not my intent.

Shouldn’t MeToo be weaponized if the collateral damage of a few false accusations is greatly outweighed by the unearthing of myriad assaults that would otherwise go covered-up, and lead to even more assaults from the unpunished?

Seems clearly +eV.

I hope you don't stop your poker analysis of a situation when you simply get to +EV. You shove aces pre without even 3betting? That's +EV, ya know.

What I mean is that saying something is +EV shouldn't mean that we ignore the leaks still present.

How do we even know the changes that have happened are +EV? Is there any attempt to even measure or establish this?

Is this something that social scientists even worry about? Or do we all just take it as a leap of faith #MeToo has been +EV.