/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10005594
It looks like a fairly bad paper to begin with.

>>10005606
That's not the issue. Plenty of fairly bad papers get published every day.
The issue is that it was peer-reviewed, accepted, and published, twice, and the journals rescinded it because a few people's fragile egos were hurt.

This isn't a 'math paper' tho. Nice try, please stick to /tv/ and /v/ for culture war threads.

>>10005619
Not entirely, but it has some mathematical models.
Also, you, too, seem to be missing the point. See >>10005615

I can't believe there are people actually pretending this isn't a big issue

i think the subject of the paper should be pursued further it seems very interesting

>>10005641
How is censoring bad things a problem? Papers don't exist in a vacuum, they exist in a societal context. You have to think about the implications of publishing them. Imagine this paper got published and a woman read it and got so depressed that she ended up killing herself. Would you still be ok with the paper having been published?

>>10005688
I didn't even think of it that way. That WOULD be sad

>>10005688
I would be overjoyed if that happens. If someone is weak-minded enough to kill themselves over a paper they read, their genes deserve to be removed from the pool.

>>10005700
its bait you massive retard

>>10005688
>tfw mentally unstable women kills herself because she reads an academically worded neutral paper
Pretty sure that's the woman's problem. Why should we cater to literal insane people by censorship.

>>10005688
What desperate appeal of emotion. Why are you on /sci/? This is a science baked. We like numbers, statistics, practical probability. Not your whatifs backed up by 0 empirical evidence.
>he's merely pretending
Never mind then. Carry on.

>>10005688
I think you're trolling but i will write this nonetheless.

Science is or should be 100% objective. Nobody should try to bind science with ethics or morality. Morality changes throughout time.

In Bruno's and Galileo's times, Christianity was the morality. If it was against bible, obviously it should be banned.

Now the morality is political correctness, if some scientific fact is not politically correct, then it should be banned.

Tomorrow it will be something else.

>>10005707
I know it's bait but I wanted to respond anyway, in case someone unironically has that opinion.

>>10005700
>>10005709
>>10005710
>>10005725
Maybe the woman example was a poor pick, given that we're on 4chan. Let me try another example:
Imagine that someone puts out a paper detailing how to build nuclear bombs using only common household ingredients. Would you not want it to be censored? Would it be wrong of the government to intervene and protect us from ourselves (i.e. the curious 10 year old next door, the mentally unhinged white kid, the vindictive ex, etc)?

Some papers deserve to be censored. This was one of them.

>>10005737
>comparing the possibility of mass destruction with angering a few feminists.

>>10005737
Please elaborate on the equivalency between putting disproportionate levels of violent power in the public's hands and pointing out that men make up the majority of the world's geniuses and retards

This is clearly bullshit, but it's not a big issue as it's not really a big scientific thing to talk about basic statistics of psychometric distributions. I.e. no one is going to start censoring papers of proper scientific fields.

The underlying problem here is not whether the male has more diversity and hence a wider distribution, increasing the number of those at the top but whether meritocracy itself - the assignment of who gets to tackle the problems - eliminates any voices wanting to participate.

Why do we have a system where only the so called "best" get to contribute? If I have a warehouse full of shovels, do I only allow the best to be used, or is it better to give out all the shovels?

What is it about the structure of society that only allows those at the top to be rewarded for their answers, when it is obvious that the questions are uniformly distributed?

We wouldn't care who was the best if we weren't so homogeneous and centralized to begin with.

And along with that homogeneity and centralization comes the lack of diversity and decentralization that actually solves problems by increasing the chance of finding an answer because more are working on it from independent stances.

Once again it is the conclusion that is attacked because we can't see the givens as the problem.

>>10005688
no, papers should exist in a context of scientific methodology

if society says something about a certain paper, like "i don't like that conclusion!" or "yeah this must be true, no further proof required!!!" then those conclusions by society are basically worthless

>>10005750
>If I have a warehouse full of shovels, do I only allow the best to be used, or is it better to give out all the shovels?
Poor analogy, have a better one.

If I have a warehouse full of gardening implements and people need shovels, do I only hand out shovels or is it better to just give out anything?

>>10005750
If you have 100 shovels and 200 people willing to work. Then yeah, you only give the best 100 the shovels. It makes sense. You don't pander to idiots, you make sure the idiots improve themselves so they're not left out the next time you're handing it shovels. It makes sense in a business context to only want the best working for you. Don't be stupid, you're ignoring logic to prove a point.

>>10005700
Correct.

>>10005737
bad analogy. Nice try femanist

>>10005750
What? For many modern positions, you can't even begin to start spouting shit without some backround training. There's a difference between a rigid meritocracy that fillers through arbitrary process, and the fact that to participate in certain things, it's required that you have an understanding of what is going on. People participate in whatever they can, that's why we have plenty of jobs, but obviously not everyone can work at a lawyers firm just because they want to. Also, demand (in whatever economic context) fixes the necesity of tasks to be done, and so society is going to trust the most capable. Now, yes, even in academia, there are bullshit steps you have to confront to even being considered, but that doesn't mean you cannot examine someones skills and appropriately value their output. And well , it's a hard fact, that some people are just biologically gifted ro fit certain jobs, but well, what else is going to win when the playfield is even and the dedication is the same? Anyone can try and participate, but obviously not everyone will manage to get the best position.

>>10005750
>if I have an infinite amount of shovels, I'll give everyone a shovel

you absolute fucking brainlet

>>10005756

It is better to give out anything if it means you go without a garden waiting on the elites.

>>10005769

Argumentum ad absurdum.

Eliminate Intellectual property and everyone who can produce does so because they can be rewarded for it.
The market creates a dummy variable called value in order to eliminate scarcity by rewarding the production of scarce items, punishes surplus by not rewarding the production of surplus items, and encouraging the solution to problems through the introduction of new products.

Markets cannot however solve everything. You can't NOT buy to harm a company, so only those who benefit from a product buy it and those that are harmed have no recourse. You cannot address what is not on the spreadsheet, so you can't use the market to value Harm.

But what you can do is not protect monopoly. What this does is ensure small markets, diverse items, and decentralization of both the enforcement and the infrastructure of the market.

This is what is missing. It is the monopoly of meritocracy that limits the number of opportunities in any field.

>>10005815
>You can't NOT buy to harm a company
how small is your brain?
do you use your empty cranium to store your bottle cap collection?

>>10005757

Not at all. Survival shows us that those that spam their environment win. Give out all the shovels to everyone and even if 90 out of 100 are used to shove coke up their nose, the random 10 that do something with it is a better bet than only giving out 10 to those you think can do great things, because the bottom line is, you can never plan for the next problem, only for the problems you already know how to solve.

Look what happened when computers left academia, and any loser with time on their hands could use them for what they never were intended to be used for...

>>10005830
>Survival shows us that those that spam their environment win
If you haven't realized you're retarded by now, I don't think you ever will

>>10005823

It's funny how you think you are insulting me, but instead are simply showing everyone else how stupid you are that you can't get that you have to participate in the purchase of a product or its competition in order to use the market to choose, otherwise you have no vote.

But you keep goin' champ. We are all having a good laugh reconfirming our experience that the majority of 4 chan is full of morons like yourself.

>>//pol is that way...

>>10005832


yup! >>10005835

>>10005835
In the market, everything competes with everything because people have limited resources to spend. You don't have to purchase an item's direct competition to "vote" the item down. People just buy whatever the fuck they want, and if not enough people spend their money in certain sectors, then those sectors suffer.

Let's say you get a brilliant idea to produce a device that inserts into your asshole and flicks your balls every 30 seconds. You have no competitors on the market, but people don't give a shit about your gadget and spend their money on other things and you go out of business. It's that simple.

Fuck you for making me waste my time explaining such a trivial concept

>>10005594
They're invading CS too. Python is renaming standard library functions to be less offensive, and Rust changed default pronouns to they

>>10005688
Uncomfortable truths must be fully acknowledged and understood if we're ever going to continue advancing as a species.

>>10005804
Seeds will make good shovels.

>>10005688
88's of b8!

But yeah if you're actually serious, she was most likely going to kill herself anyway. Plus, she would most likely be an idiot, because the paper implies that men make up the best AND the worst in many different areas. If she is going to kill herself by being between -2 to 2 standard deviations from the mean, she might as well as well kill herself from being lower to middle class.

>>10005915
Well -1 to 1 standard deviation most likely

>>10005688
>How is censoring bad things a problem?
Every day is a day we get closer to Western Civilisation collapsing.

>>10005688

I kill myself over your post because it is so stupid. Now, is it your fault I killed myself?

>>10005688
I'm sure glad there's a scientific consensus on what "bad things" means.

>>10005830
Well, you see in a survival show, it's slightly different. Under my scenario, I am completely correct. You said "spam shovels" how the fuck are we going to spam shovels to 200 people with a maximum of 100 shovels? I feel my numbers were very clearly outlined and I'm completely right. Pick The best 100 to give shovels out of 200 people. Shit isn't a hard concept, stupid. Stay with the rest of class, you're the reason standardised testing is trash.

>>10005757
If you have 200 people willing to work and only 100 shovels, then you better start producing more shovels.

>>10005594
>Math paper purged for wrong-think
What? How the fuck? Math is apolitical.

>>10005688
Cringe post.

>>10005688
Bait

>>10005737
If it means I don’t have to share a planet with sjws, sure, why not

>>10005737
SHALL

I wouldn't call it "wrongthink".
More like toxic-think.

>>10005737
How is a paper that says something intuitively correct: that there may exist biological differences between sexes, comparable to arming the whole world with nuclear weapons? All it says is literally:
For certain selectivity parameters, there may be differences in variability between sexes.

>>10006446
Or, let the less skilled 100 starve or improve themselves to being in the top 100. It's a doggie dog world anon.

>>10006446
Let the people without shovels make their own, you fucking commie.

>>10005750
If you have 2 different brands of shovels, with one brand on average being better than the other. Do you choose the worse brand for a job because you don’t want to hurt the manufacturers feelings? Is it wrong to test which brand is better in the first place?

>>10005688
>How is censoring bad things a problem?
1984 was a warning, not a guide brainlet

>>10006533
You're already giving 100 shovels away in this analogy, but if you starting to produce more you're a communist?

>>10006530
That's an option, but what is the benefit of people starving if they would otherwise be willing to contribute?

>>10006646
Only those smart enough and strong enough to be top 100 get to live and breed. Survival of the fittest.

>>10005594
what does "roasties" mean?

>>10006446
or you use shift work

>>10005688
>he said, lighting the bonfire beneath another heliocentrist

>>10005737
>Imagine that someone puts out a paper detailing how to build nuclear bombs using only common household ingredients
This was already figured out by a boy scout in the early 90s: David Charles Hahn. Weapons-grade nuclear material is made by further isolating the fissile material used in nuclear reactors.

The science behind it is NOT censored, but the engineering required to make it is such that actually making it is prohibitive for anyone who doesn't have the time, the money, the space, the intelligence, or really the good health to pull it off without succumbing to the radiation. In terms of dedication to his craft, David Hahn was a magnificent bastard, completely above and beyond, and you'd have to have done something seriously fucked up for a vindictive ex to do half of what he did.

>>10005688
#celebrate

>>10005746
yeahnah