The redefining of ‘Diversity, Equity and Inclusion’ as a danger to ‘American values’ by the coterie running the USA has troubled many around the world, not just those directly affected.
It's worth individuals briefly considering whether they're a lark or an owl, and it's worth decision-makers of various kinds briefly considering whether something will unintentionally make things difficult for one or the other in a way that could be easily fixed.
But I don't think it's good for anyone to make their chronotype the cornerstone of their identity and view everything that happens to them through that lens. I think it's actively mentally unhealthy to attribute negative or rude behaviour from others to their reaction to one's chronotype. It's unhelpful to train employees that they should keep the other person's chronotype at the forefront of their mind when interacting with them and that they should deliberately interact differently with larks than with owls. And it's wrong for employers or universities to reject individual larks purely on the basis that they currently have more of them than owls, or vice versa (and also counterproductive if they're a bakery or a nightclub and might disproportionately attract one or the other).
So I don't think DEI is an unalloyed good, and I think a lot of it is actually re-entrenching racist or sexist attitudes that 10-20 years ago we were starting to move beyond. (I have a half-written post about this that I should get around to finishing.)
I'd agree that DEI applied indiscriminately might do more harm than good. (And the blue eyes/brown eyes experiment had very limited lasting impact, so attempts to reduce prejudice and structural inequality need to be evaluated - which is one of the areas of research denied funding by the current US government.)
However, slashing vast amounts of research because it might challenge the privilege of those in power is something I view with horror.
I'm reminded of the Landmark Forum telling everyone that there had been three defining moments in their growing up, when they would have felt in sequence "Something's wrong", "I don't belong", "I'm on my own". Even at the time this felt like a bit of a shoehorn, but at the same time I could well believe that almost everyone will have some kind of experience that can be shoehorned into that template without too much difficulty because it's just such a universal experience.
Yes, that particular bit of Landmark technology drew on Adler's and Freud's ideas. I didn't say that Freud also described feelings of inferiority and how they can lead to 'compensating' as a defence mechanism.
I think 'shame' comes in when we decide the "Something" that's wrong is us, rather than the society we're being raised in.
I know they've changed the terminology they use, but I still think their explanation of how we create our 'winning formula' to compensate for those three defining moments makes it clear and vivid.
It's worth individuals briefly considering whether they're a lark or an owl, and it's worth decision-makers of various kinds briefly considering whether something will unintentionally make things difficult for one or the other in a way that could be easily fixed.
But I don't think it's good for anyone to make their chronotype the cornerstone of their identity and view everything that happens to them through that lens. I think it's actively mentally unhealthy to attribute negative or rude behaviour from others to their reaction to one's chronotype. It's unhelpful to train employees that they should keep the other person's chronotype at the forefront of their mind when interacting with them and that they should deliberately interact differently with larks than with owls. And it's wrong for employers or universities to reject individual larks purely on the basis that they currently have more of them than owls, or vice versa (and also counterproductive if they're a bakery or a nightclub and might disproportionately attract one or the other).
So I don't think DEI is an unalloyed good, and I think a lot of it is actually re-entrenching racist or sexist attitudes that 10-20 years ago we were starting to move beyond. (I have a half-written post about this that I should get around to finishing.)
I'd agree that DEI applied indiscriminately might do more harm than good. (And the blue eyes/brown eyes experiment had very limited lasting impact, so attempts to reduce prejudice and structural inequality need to be evaluated - which is one of the areas of research denied funding by the current US government.)
However, slashing vast amounts of research because it might challenge the privilege of those in power is something I view with horror.
I'm reminded of the Landmark Forum telling everyone that there had been three defining moments in their growing up, when they would have felt in sequence "Something's wrong", "I don't belong", "I'm on my own". Even at the time this felt like a bit of a shoehorn, but at the same time I could well believe that almost everyone will have some kind of experience that can be shoehorned into that template without too much difficulty because it's just such a universal experience.
Yes, that particular bit of Landmark technology drew on Adler's and Freud's ideas. I didn't say that Freud also described feelings of inferiority and how they can lead to 'compensating' as a defence mechanism.
I think 'shame' comes in when we decide the "Something" that's wrong is us, rather than the society we're being raised in.
I know they've changed the terminology they use, but I still think their explanation of how we create our 'winning formula' to compensate for those three defining moments makes it clear and vivid.