"...colorblindness is negatively related to stereotyping ( .19, 95% CI [ .29, .10]; Table 2). Colorblindness is also negatively related to prejudice ( .07, 95% CI [ .15, .003]), but not discrimination ( .08, 95% CI [ .24, .08])." I pulled this from the results section of the study talked about in the paragraph discussing the study Grant referenced in his response (btw, the hyperlink in paragraph 12 does not link to anything). I'm curious what Coleman's thoughts on the results showing no negative relation to discrimination, and his opinion on whether that should hold any weight?
Another point I was curious on getting some more information on is in the second to last paragraph, where Coleman states that "a string of evidence points to the latter explanation", regarding TED deliberately not promoting Coleman's talk. Anderson's response states "It’s true that the other talks Coleman referred to were shared on the TED Talks Daily podcast, which gives a significant audience boost. His talk so far has not been posted there. It may yet be. Many of our talks never make it onto that podcast, which has its own curation team". Based on this response, is Coleman implying that the curation team is responsible for the TED Talk not getting as much promotion as other talks?
Overall, I found the TED Talk to be interesting. I find Coleman to be someone willing to speak with those he disagrees with, which is something that is in short supply these days.
After reading your post today, I wish that I had become a new member to The Free Press sooner. I said good to TED this morning. Thank you Colman for following up with the truth.
Really interestingly, I once read a Woke defense of the anti-Coleman Hughes position on color- blindness and how and why color blindness would not be as effective as the "better" approach emanating out of Woke academic ideology, which perhaps was equity--I can't recall. Anyone remember what their position was?
TED Conferences, LLC is an American-Canadian non-profit media organization that posts international talks online for free distribution under the slogan "ideas worth spreading". Wikipedia
Someone needs to correct this on wikipedia; in fact TED is an organization that censors views with which it disagrees, and everyone should be so-advised
The truth about Coleman's TED talk and their many attempts to dilute or suppress its arguments, rather than simply have someone else give a "counter-talk" on the same subject, stands as evidence that no one gave the counter-talk because their position could not be substantiated.
Despite that--and this is the crucial aspect--they stand firmly behind a position they cannot defender.
So like the Left, which often silences debate points they cannot counter, especially on social media. That's who they are, folks. That's what they are.
I’m so sick of the idea of companies cowering to the political/social viewpoints of their employees. Companies exist to make money for their shareholders. It makes sense if social responsibility is a factor and in that case let the public decide. If employees disagree with the companies values to this extent then they should quit.
I am very disappointed in TED. Coleman’s provided a very thoughtful perspective that deserved thoughtful analysis not hostile racial emoting. Again, I am very disappointed in TED and their actions have influenced greatly my perception of TED and my further viewing of any TED talks. TED is RIGGED!!! Black@TED seriously; when will White people stop this pandering instead of engaging in effectual solutions.
Ignoring differences (“color blindness”) is associated with reduced stereotypes and prejudice. . . but fails to protect against discrimination. From the authors: “discrimination may be most problematic in organizations where color blindness prevails.”
How is it possible to have 'REDUCED stereotypes and prejudice' and
MORE discrimination ???? Unless you are defining discrimination in some bizarrer social science way that has nothing to do with the conventiuona definition.
This is so disappointing. I just saw Coleman’s Ted Talk a couple of weeks ago. I thought it was beautifully presented and it moved me. If only we could approach everything from policies to personal relationships this way, life in this country would be soooo much better. Thanks to Coleman for speaking up and thanks to the Free Press for amplifying this story.
Great TED talk Colman ! Thank you for publishing your story on TFP. You have shined a bright spot light on the leadership of TED and their weakness in standing up against a minority of employees who don’t embrace TED’s mission: ideas worth spreading.
Institutions are made up of people. Sadly, too many institutions have been captured by a minority who have good intentions in their heart, but who execute failed tactics in order to accomplish their goals and objectives. This is in fact “rot” that is causing much of the division in our society today.
I’m not even going to waist my time reading the counter argument to this essay, also posted on TFP, because I don’t want to dance on top of a pin, bending and twisting to find a result that makes no sense to me.
Free Press - here's a short version of an essay I'd write for you on this topic.
I have a framework that can clear up the confusion here. While I agree with many of the comments on this post the mistake is getting stuck with the explicit content (debating facts) versus implicit content (underlying psychology/meaning). I believe the cultural rift emerging in our time is about a fundamental, existential decision about how we want to relate to the world: through comfortable delusions or through reality (which is discomforting to some). The challenge is that there is a kind of truth in both sides. Let me explain.
Steel man: This discomfort with growth and change is a fundamental human problem within all of us. When we are challenged to grow, to integrate a new fact or experience about the world (including what we disagree with), it can be painful because we prefer the familiar (even if the familiar is ultimately a worse option). As a psychotherapist this is the thing I’m always working with, though it takes many forms. So the truth of the TED side of things is that these people probably genuinely do feel overwhelmed with the information Coleman is presenting. I can imagine that if one builds one's identity and career around social divisions based on race that Coleman's brilliant insights would be very threatening to them. I see in the comments many references to children. These are correctly based on the intuition that developmentally children do indeed need protection from the world. But, the question becomes when does the responsibility for processing the world shift from the outside (the protective function of parents) to the inside (an individual adult)? So what is slippery about claims of being “harmed” is that they may very well be upset, but the mistake comes in how we as a culture relate to them and their subsequent demands.
So much of this has to do with an individual’s relationship to growth and change. A good analogy is running. After a meeting I once had a conversation with a woman about running. I was excited to hear she did a thing I loved too but she surprised me: “I hate running”. I asked her why. She said because she has to breathe hard, get sweaty, her muscles get tired and it takes her time to recover. I said “Hum, that’s interesting - those are exactly the reasons why I love running so much!”
There is a certain kind of taste one can develop for personal growth/truth like learning to like whiskey or olives. The growing pains are sometimes hard for me, too, but there is an inherent meaning and existential satisfaction when I arrive at a more aligned truth. More specifically, I can stop resisting life so much by embracing how things are, and every single time this is the pivot point where I can get unstuck and actually start to address real problems and move my life forward.
So what we are really talking about between these two sides, I believe, is an existential preference about our fundamental relationship to Truth. One is for an existential state which is small, familiar and comfortable, but (if one pays attention) has a twinge of falsity to it (and arguably many downstream effects from living in delusion), and another way which is larger, can be difficult to arrive at, is often more complex and unpredictable, but inherently satisfying as a gateway for real change.
We underestimate things like the Copernican Revolution. This was a revolution of what? I’d argue that it wasn’t about simply seeing a few scientific facts differently but about a fundamental pivot from old power-based delusions as enforced by the Catholic church to a taste for being in reality. This is when the surrender of faith shifted from what’s familiar/comfortable (baseless claims about physics made by the Pope) to what’s experientially true/demonstrable. While it takes many forms, this is an inherent challenge that confronts us again and again as humans. Our freedom is in our choice of how we relate to it.
To be concrete, I'd like to see a long-form moderated debate between the best representatives of both “sides”, the one that says “We’d rather not research gender differences, seriously question people’s claims about identity, or challenge leftist race orthodoxy because some people don’t have the emotional capacity for these conversations” versus “There is something inherently valuable in knowing Truth, whatever it is. As individual adults, people’s emotional reactions regarding facts about the world are their responsibility. The world works better, and there is ultimately less overall suffering, when we dismantle the delusions that would otherwise lead to one unanticipated crisis after another. Some will be upset by this - always have and always will”. The purpose of this debate would not be to change the minds of the vocal minority that will have meltdowns every time the world isn't exactly as they'd like, but rather for the 95% (like TED organizers, university administrators, etc) that need a deeper understanding so they can better navigate the inherently difficult confrontation with another human's unhinged rage and projections.
This is effectively the same scam TED pulled on Nick Hanauer over his May 2012 talk on income inequality & the benefits to the larger economy of progressive taxation. TED brands itself independent and unswerving in its devotion to a free exchange of ideas but, in fact frequently holds the line on ideas core to the elite, neoliberal consensus
I found Coleman after following John McWhorter and Glenn Loury on various podcasts, substack , etc. Three incredible men to listen to. Thank you, Coleman for your voice in such chaotic times. Stay strong.
TED has been heading this direction for a while. I’ve pretty much stopped watching the woke sermons that it now tends toward. I hope it can recover some semblance of courage, but I won’t bet on it.
"...colorblindness is negatively related to stereotyping ( .19, 95% CI [ .29, .10]; Table 2). Colorblindness is also negatively related to prejudice ( .07, 95% CI [ .15, .003]), but not discrimination ( .08, 95% CI [ .24, .08])." I pulled this from the results section of the study talked about in the paragraph discussing the study Grant referenced in his response (btw, the hyperlink in paragraph 12 does not link to anything). I'm curious what Coleman's thoughts on the results showing no negative relation to discrimination, and his opinion on whether that should hold any weight?
Another point I was curious on getting some more information on is in the second to last paragraph, where Coleman states that "a string of evidence points to the latter explanation", regarding TED deliberately not promoting Coleman's talk. Anderson's response states "It’s true that the other talks Coleman referred to were shared on the TED Talks Daily podcast, which gives a significant audience boost. His talk so far has not been posted there. It may yet be. Many of our talks never make it onto that podcast, which has its own curation team". Based on this response, is Coleman implying that the curation team is responsible for the TED Talk not getting as much promotion as other talks?
Overall, I found the TED Talk to be interesting. I find Coleman to be someone willing to speak with those he disagrees with, which is something that is in short supply these days.
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2019-54272-001
Link to the Paper, “On Melting Pots and Salad Bowls: A Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Identity-Blind and Identity-Conscious Diversity Ideologies."
After reading your post today, I wish that I had become a new member to The Free Press sooner. I said good to TED this morning. Thank you Colman for following up with the truth.
The end of progressive "democracy" is near.
Really interestingly, I once read a Woke defense of the anti-Coleman Hughes position on color- blindness and how and why color blindness would not be as effective as the "better" approach emanating out of Woke academic ideology, which perhaps was equity--I can't recall. Anyone remember what their position was?
TED Conferences, LLC is an American-Canadian non-profit media organization that posts international talks online for free distribution under the slogan "ideas worth spreading". Wikipedia
Someone needs to correct this on wikipedia; in fact TED is an organization that censors views with which it disagrees, and everyone should be so-advised
The truth about Coleman's TED talk and their many attempts to dilute or suppress its arguments, rather than simply have someone else give a "counter-talk" on the same subject, stands as evidence that no one gave the counter-talk because their position could not be substantiated.
Despite that--and this is the crucial aspect--they stand firmly behind a position they cannot defender.
So like the Left, which often silences debate points they cannot counter, especially on social media. That's who they are, folks. That's what they are.
I’m so sick of the idea of companies cowering to the political/social viewpoints of their employees. Companies exist to make money for their shareholders. It makes sense if social responsibility is a factor and in that case let the public decide. If employees disagree with the companies values to this extent then they should quit.
Signed up to FP to hear more from Mr Hughes, well worth it!
I am very disappointed in TED. Coleman’s provided a very thoughtful perspective that deserved thoughtful analysis not hostile racial emoting. Again, I am very disappointed in TED and their actions have influenced greatly my perception of TED and my further viewing of any TED talks. TED is RIGGED!!! Black@TED seriously; when will White people stop this pandering instead of engaging in effectual solutions.
Pasting from Grant's post:
Ignoring differences (“color blindness”) is associated with reduced stereotypes and prejudice. . . but fails to protect against discrimination. From the authors: “discrimination may be most problematic in organizations where color blindness prevails.”
How is it possible to have 'REDUCED stereotypes and prejudice' and
MORE discrimination ???? Unless you are defining discrimination in some bizarrer social science way that has nothing to do with the conventiuona definition.
Which I suspect is the case.
This is so disappointing. I just saw Coleman’s Ted Talk a couple of weeks ago. I thought it was beautifully presented and it moved me. If only we could approach everything from policies to personal relationships this way, life in this country would be soooo much better. Thanks to Coleman for speaking up and thanks to the Free Press for amplifying this story.
Great TED talk Colman ! Thank you for publishing your story on TFP. You have shined a bright spot light on the leadership of TED and their weakness in standing up against a minority of employees who don’t embrace TED’s mission: ideas worth spreading.
Institutions are made up of people. Sadly, too many institutions have been captured by a minority who have good intentions in their heart, but who execute failed tactics in order to accomplish their goals and objectives. This is in fact “rot” that is causing much of the division in our society today.
I’m not even going to waist my time reading the counter argument to this essay, also posted on TFP, because I don’t want to dance on top of a pin, bending and twisting to find a result that makes no sense to me.
Best of luck with your new book.
Free Press - here's a short version of an essay I'd write for you on this topic.
I have a framework that can clear up the confusion here. While I agree with many of the comments on this post the mistake is getting stuck with the explicit content (debating facts) versus implicit content (underlying psychology/meaning). I believe the cultural rift emerging in our time is about a fundamental, existential decision about how we want to relate to the world: through comfortable delusions or through reality (which is discomforting to some). The challenge is that there is a kind of truth in both sides. Let me explain.
Steel man: This discomfort with growth and change is a fundamental human problem within all of us. When we are challenged to grow, to integrate a new fact or experience about the world (including what we disagree with), it can be painful because we prefer the familiar (even if the familiar is ultimately a worse option). As a psychotherapist this is the thing I’m always working with, though it takes many forms. So the truth of the TED side of things is that these people probably genuinely do feel overwhelmed with the information Coleman is presenting. I can imagine that if one builds one's identity and career around social divisions based on race that Coleman's brilliant insights would be very threatening to them. I see in the comments many references to children. These are correctly based on the intuition that developmentally children do indeed need protection from the world. But, the question becomes when does the responsibility for processing the world shift from the outside (the protective function of parents) to the inside (an individual adult)? So what is slippery about claims of being “harmed” is that they may very well be upset, but the mistake comes in how we as a culture relate to them and their subsequent demands.
So much of this has to do with an individual’s relationship to growth and change. A good analogy is running. After a meeting I once had a conversation with a woman about running. I was excited to hear she did a thing I loved too but she surprised me: “I hate running”. I asked her why. She said because she has to breathe hard, get sweaty, her muscles get tired and it takes her time to recover. I said “Hum, that’s interesting - those are exactly the reasons why I love running so much!”
There is a certain kind of taste one can develop for personal growth/truth like learning to like whiskey or olives. The growing pains are sometimes hard for me, too, but there is an inherent meaning and existential satisfaction when I arrive at a more aligned truth. More specifically, I can stop resisting life so much by embracing how things are, and every single time this is the pivot point where I can get unstuck and actually start to address real problems and move my life forward.
So what we are really talking about between these two sides, I believe, is an existential preference about our fundamental relationship to Truth. One is for an existential state which is small, familiar and comfortable, but (if one pays attention) has a twinge of falsity to it (and arguably many downstream effects from living in delusion), and another way which is larger, can be difficult to arrive at, is often more complex and unpredictable, but inherently satisfying as a gateway for real change.
We underestimate things like the Copernican Revolution. This was a revolution of what? I’d argue that it wasn’t about simply seeing a few scientific facts differently but about a fundamental pivot from old power-based delusions as enforced by the Catholic church to a taste for being in reality. This is when the surrender of faith shifted from what’s familiar/comfortable (baseless claims about physics made by the Pope) to what’s experientially true/demonstrable. While it takes many forms, this is an inherent challenge that confronts us again and again as humans. Our freedom is in our choice of how we relate to it.
To be concrete, I'd like to see a long-form moderated debate between the best representatives of both “sides”, the one that says “We’d rather not research gender differences, seriously question people’s claims about identity, or challenge leftist race orthodoxy because some people don’t have the emotional capacity for these conversations” versus “There is something inherently valuable in knowing Truth, whatever it is. As individual adults, people’s emotional reactions regarding facts about the world are their responsibility. The world works better, and there is ultimately less overall suffering, when we dismantle the delusions that would otherwise lead to one unanticipated crisis after another. Some will be upset by this - always have and always will”. The purpose of this debate would not be to change the minds of the vocal minority that will have meltdowns every time the world isn't exactly as they'd like, but rather for the 95% (like TED organizers, university administrators, etc) that need a deeper understanding so they can better navigate the inherently difficult confrontation with another human's unhinged rage and projections.
This is effectively the same scam TED pulled on Nick Hanauer over his May 2012 talk on income inequality & the benefits to the larger economy of progressive taxation. TED brands itself independent and unswerving in its devotion to a free exchange of ideas but, in fact frequently holds the line on ideas core to the elite, neoliberal consensus
I found Coleman after following John McWhorter and Glenn Loury on various podcasts, substack , etc. Three incredible men to listen to. Thank you, Coleman for your voice in such chaotic times. Stay strong.
Coleman is a treasure.
TED has been heading this direction for a while. I’ve pretty much stopped watching the woke sermons that it now tends toward. I hope it can recover some semblance of courage, but I won’t bet on it.