/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9418923
>women write better than men but spend more time in peer review
Remind me, is peer review the same thing as copyediting?

All those things are really hard to study, so I am going to assume she is full of shit and used shoddy correlational bullshit and p-hacking.

Why are women so obsessed by the fact that they are women? It's as stupid as men who constantly babble about being masculine. Get over whether you have a penis or a vagina.

>women score more readable therefore they're better writers

What? This is peer reviewed science writing, not your Instagram feed. It's not supposed to be readable by untrained inexperienced brainlets. More readable science writing is unironically worse science writing.

>>9418923
Women are made to have babies and nurture children. They shouldn't be in science.

>>9418923
Peer review isn't there to improve writing style and grammar. It's there to make sure the science is good.

>>9420122
This, but unironically. God made woman for man and their natural role is of caregivers or nurturers. Their brains aren't as variable either.

Her entire basis for "women write better than men" is that women use words with fewer syllables at a lower vocabulary level.
You can't make this shit up

>>9420140
Women have no business doing research. This idiot has a PhD from a top research univeristy. How? Women get ahead because of their vaginas and nothing else. I would have failed an undergraduate econ course if I tried to pass off such sophistry. This cunt gets a PhD.

>>9420144
Women get into universities because professors want pussy.

>>9420144
It gets worse too. Almost all the rest of the paper is based on that assertion. She claims that as women continue in their careers they tend to use fewer and fewer polysyllabic words, whereas the opposite is true for men. And the math section is an absolute abortion of a proof. She used the most obscure Greek symbols she could find in order to impress her normie friends, but in this process overwrites understood mathematical symbols like "e" and sigma

>>9420157
>>9420148
This shit is wrong on so many levels. You would have to somehow control for the content of papers, even if her hypothesis about fewer syllables was right, which is impossible. I literally would have failed, fucking failed, an undergraduate class if I tried to submit this methodology.

Women get to pollute academia with such fucking sophistry it is absurd. Fuck this bitch. Fuck all her professors who didn't fail her. Fuck the system. It needs to be burnt to the ground.

>>9420166
She did control for content, by only counting words that could be found in a collection of 93 novels on Gutenberg, and then by running a series of readability algorithms designed by other people that all relied on syllables and vocab level. Her main flaw was relying on "readbility" as a measure of quality of a scientific paper. But I agree with everything else you said.

>>9420170
>She did control for content, by only counting words that could be found in a collection of 93 novels on Gutenberg, and then by running a series of readability algorithms designed by other people that all relied on syllables and vocab level.
That isn't controlling for content. The goal would be to compare apples to apples (men and women both writing about X). Men and women could be writing about slightly different topics, which could have a huge affect on the vocabulary needed.

>>9418923
This is what she means by women writing "better".
Let's say I showed you this pic and I had you guess what the author's conclusion was: would you ever guess "women write better"?

>>9420170
>>9420166
The impossible ideal would be men and women writing the same papers: same subjects with the same data, etc.

TIL insecure nerd virgins HATE it when girls do better than them at the one thing they thought they were good at.
AHAHAHAHA your time in the sun is over it's a womans world now

>>9420019
>Why are women so obsessed by the fact that they are women?
You need some way to explain away your failures. Or you simply can't be assed to do any real research, so you say fuck it and be a victim instead.

>>9420140
>words with fewer syllables at a lower vocabulary level.
That's actually not such a bad way to assess it. Unnecessary jargon and fancy words just make your paper harder to read and understand. Fools often try to mask their ignorance in jargon. It becomes very obvious if you read essays written by students or messages written by redditors.

I was instructed at school to use short sentences and unambiguous words when writing scientific papers.

>>9418923
Who cares?
This is just so utterly meaningless.

What is the "quality of writing" and how the fuck does it matter compared to "science produced"?

If I proved the Riemann hypothesis but would write it out like a 5th grader, then what?
Was the "science" "worse"?
Even if women "writer better" (whatever the FUCK that means) why does it matter? It is like judging a book by its quality of writing, sure it might have "fancy sounding words", but if it isn't interesting or provides meaningful insights then so what?

>>9420281
>TIL insecure nerd virgins HATE it when girls do better than them
That's probably true, but it's even more infuriating, when brainlets falsely believe they're doing better than the 'insecure nerd virgin'. By the way, smart people tend to be insecure, and some of the smartest scientists in history were virgins throughout their lives. Maybe these insecure nerd virgins are onto something.

>>9418923
American education is nothing more than kike propaganda designed to kill the white male

>>9420295
>Was the "science" "worse"?
Yes, in a way. It's just about impossible to assess individual aspects when the whole is always tightly woven together. I'm sure you'd prefer to read a well written paper rather than a poorly written one. Just like you'd rather talk to a pretty girl than an ugly one, even though her prettiness shouldn't affect what she says in the least.

If you think about, the principal purpose of papers is to distribute knowledge. The clearer they are, the better they achieve that goal. You're not really making science, when you write a paper about your proof. The science is already done, you're just writing it down to teach others and to get recognition.

>>9420306
>I'm sure you'd prefer to read a well written paper rather than a poorly written one
That wasn't the point I am making.
Of course the end result will be worse. The paper will be harder to read and less people will understand that, but that does NOT change the underlying science.

Again I refer to my book analogy, a nicely written book is absolutely worthless if it has no meaningful content, of course form and content have to go together.
But in science one thing is significantly more important then the other.

It is pointless to discuss who is "better at writing", of course a paper should be "well written" to some extend, but a "badly" written paper with "good science" is infinitely more valuable then a nicely written one with no meaningful science.

>>9420313
>"badly" written paper with "good science" is infinitely more valuable then a nicely written one with no meaningful science.
Sure, but how about an awfully written paper with good science, or a very well written paper with mediocre science? I agree that the quality of science is more important than the quality of writing, but I wouldn't quite say that the ratio between the two approaches infinity.

>>9420297
>smart people tend to be insecure
Says who? Just because you consider yourself both doesn't mean there is a greater correlation.

>some of the smartest scientists in history were virgin
Some of them were women. Maybe these women are on to something and everyone else should just stand back.

>literally a paper published on the author's blog
This paper is trash. I have no reason to believe anything it says.

It's almost like STEM students suck at writing and mostly are male while english majors are good at writing and are mostly women.

>>9420295
If you wrote it like a 5th grader, it would actually score as more readable and, therefore, be considered "better writing".

Not even fucking kidding here. "Better" is decided by an arbitrarily chosen metric.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flesch%E2%80%93Kincaid_readability_tests#Flesch_reading_ease

>>9419370
I'm pretty sure peer review is copy editing and content verifying.

>>9418923
Too bad women's brains are only good at the literacy portion, but shitty at the perceptive portion.

>>9418923
>She can't even into hard STEM

>>9418923
Uhm, guys, she's watching us:
>https://twitter.com/erinhengel/status/950385695184576512

>>9418923
>words per sentence means women write better (>>9420140)
>theorem 1 clearly shows double standard
fucking idiot
fuck off and kill yourself

>>9420144
I actually know of atleast 7 girls in university of Toronto who slept with their professors for an A. Most of it happened in the physics dept. And 2 girls did it with their chemistry and psychology professors

Not to mention all the 18-24 yr olds who always have a crush on their male TAs and probably sleep with them

>>9423125
she's OP, who else would care about this absolute shit?

>>9418923
take your nonsense shit somewhere else, this isn't math or science

>>9420302
Back to /pol/ pablo

>>9423137
>I actually know of atleast 7 girls in university of Toronto who slept with their professors for an A. Most of it happened in the physics dept. And 2 girls did it with their chemistry and psychology professors
I'd like to hear the details, especially how you know about all of this and whether anyone got in trouble.

>>9423138
Wait, so we have economics femanons here masquerading as STEM?

>>9423164
fuck off, you write like an absolute cunt
femanon is not a word

>>9423163
that's fucked, thank God I'm not a female so I have to be accountable for my actions

>>9423167
Newfag, please log off of 4chan. Perhaps Plebbit is more fitting?

>>9423167
Oh look, it is a word:
>https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/femanon

>>9423163
Mostly from the friends of the girls
I was studying there from 2011-2015, double major in human bio and physics.

Most of these came from close friends of these girls who won't have a reason to lie. Some of the girls confessed while drunk or just told me while giggling like a little girl.

Looking back it does make sense, a lot of teachers pet types hanged out constantly in my prof's office. I used to think the fuck these people talk about

One girl was a blonde nerdy type, she came from a religious background, was from London ON. Slept with the psych prof in the last weeks of her second year. Apparently she was in love. She also got 95+ in most of her psych courses.

Two of the physics girls were my then girlfriend's friends, one slept with a good looking TA in second year and was talking about that infront of my gf while I overheard her. The other chick slept with the physics prof because she was failing and would be put on probation if she failed one more course. She was one crazy bitch and a sorority sister

I can go on..

U of Toronto is one big whore house

>>9423170
Don't be surprised if one of the professors in UOT is accused of "sexual abuse" 10 years from now...

Apparently chicks dig daddy figures like professors and teaching assistants.. but most prof's and TAs have the good sense to run the fuck away from the crazy. But a quite a few don't... I guess young teenage pussy is hard to pass

And most of the girls who slept with their prof's are in grad schools now btw... won't be surprised if one of these cunts write a paper similar to OPs in the future.

>>9423197
>London ON
not surprised (no offense to the girl)

>>9423203
Lel you been there? It's a fucking village full of old people

Western has some fine ass girls though

>>9423207
>Western
>Fanshawe
I always thought it was party central

>>9423167
Are you retarded or something?

This is the academic version of "I'm not mad because of what you said, I'm mad because of how you said it".

I find it a rather ludicrous assertion to claim literal whitewashing of discrimination by analyzing writing style instead of content. This is rather inflammatory, and probably purposefully written so given that the obvious audience is female ("ladies, we're not that common in economics"). The end purpose of this paper isn't to expose and help resolve gender bias in academia on a legitimate basis, but instead will further any divide that may exist.

I don't think this has been accepted by any journal yet, has it?

>>9423218
>a hambeast trying to bridge the gender gap instead of widening it for her own purposes

Come on son, we both know women wont do that

>>9423209
It was, a shame I was 16 when I went to western for a few courses in chemistry as a high school program for gifted kids

I'd have partied hard as fuck too

>>9418923
>ASSA2018
>American Economic Association
How is this /sci/ related?

>>9420173
I don't think I would come to any conclusion at all if you showed me this chart out of context. The difference is consistent but not very significant.

I can't believe someone spent time to determine that men use 4.69 polysyllabic words per sentence and women use 4.31 AND THEN continued on with it as if this was some sort of interesting finding.

>>9423181
Doesn't make it any less stupid, just because something exists doesn't mean it should.

>I'm a feminist, I think men and women should be equal
>Women are better writers than men

You can't have it both ways honey

>>9423245
>The difference is consistent but not very significant.
To be fair, anon, the difference is significant in the statistical sense of the word. It is sufficient to reject the null hypothesis of equal word use at the 1 percent alpha level.

The main problem with the article isn't the lack of significant findings, it's the fact that the hypotheses are orthogonal to the conclusions that are drawn from said rejected hypotheses.

>>9420290
>>words with fewer syllables at a lower vocabulary level.
>That's actually not such a bad way to assess it. Unnecessary jargon and fancy words...
She didn't look at whether the more advanced vocabulary was unnecessary, or if was just a case of the male researchers doing more advanced work.

>>9423125
Kek, it actually is on her Twitter feed.

Erin, please ignore the obvious sexism, this is the asshole of the internet after all.

In case you are still lurking, I'm genuinely curious to hear what you would respond to the criticism that writing style isn't a particularly good way to assess the value of scientific work. Note that I am not taking position against the existence of a gender gap in science, but I do take issues with the way this problem is examined in your work.

>>9423425
Stop larping erin no one cares about your shitty paper

>>9423425
Erin, you're at least in your 30s. Why're you LARPing on 4chan?

>>9423436
>>9423441
>>>/r9k/

>>9423450
Erin, you aren't an undergraduate anymore, grow up!

>>9423450
This is what happens when a 30 year old woman is not dicked regularly

I feel sorry for you erin

>>9423486
>Virtue signalling the Twitter thread.

>>9423486
Ugh zomg like why is science so sexist lol!!!

>>9423522
>Your facts are problematic.

>>9423534
Omg!!! Stop cyber raping me you pig from 1700s

>>9423486
We're not even scientists you silly motherfuckers.

>>9423486
This is the type of people who would rather waste time on how something was said rather than what was actually said.

Embarrassing and infantile.

This forum lends itself to edgy language. Deal with it like an adult.

>>9423546
Come on new buddy, you have to admit that this thread isn't only abrasive because of what language is used to say things, but to a large extent also because of the thins that are said.

Besides that, you are getting buttmad over a bunch of women posting on Twitter just the same as a bunch of women on Twitter getting upset over the things that are said here. You're not any better than they are.

>>9423555
>>9423546
Honestly, this is a shit thread even by 4chan standards. Nothing but shitposting and the subject being discussed isn't even interesting. All that's happening in this thread is whining about a shit paper written by a nobody.

>>9423555
I'm saying the response "the humanity!" over comments on this site is so laughably childish that one can help but feel extremely disappointed.

>you are getting buttmad
I suppose responding to this would just further prove how buttmad I am, right? You should read Kafka's "The Trial" to understand where you went wrong here.

>>9423566
Please don't recommend people to read the trial, that book is awful. One of Kafka's worst works. Even if it was an apt analogy for this discussion nobody should have to suffer through that garbage.

>>9423574
I enjoyed it. The absurdity of it kept me reading.

To each their own I guess.

>>9423566
>childish
Guy, you're complaining about Twitter. It's the same thing as complaining about 4chan. What were you expecting, a nuanced adult conversation? You should read Kafka's "Das Urteil" to understand where you went wrong here.
>You should read Kafka's "The Trial" to understand where you went wrong here.
Kek, I read it in high school, besides making you look like a pretentious asshole, I fail to see the relevance.

>>9423588
You seem to have forgotten where you are. Also, I'm not sure you should be talking too loudly about being pretentious, lol.

Why so serious?

>>9420132
>>9420148
>>9420122
>>9420144
Please stop embarrassing us as we have visitors, please just lurk in this thread and post your bait somewhere else

>>9423574
>Even if it was an apt analogy for this discussion
How the fuck was it an apt analogy for this discussion? Did you faggots even read the book?

>>9423546
>This is the type of people who would rather waste time on how something was said rather than what was actually said.
What is being said is
>God made woman for man and their natural role is of caregivers or nurturers
>Women have no business doing research. This idiot has a PhD from a top research univeristy. How? Women get ahead because of their vaginas and nothing else
>Women get into universities because professors want pussy
So yeah, Dr Hengel has a point

>>9423594
There were times when the judge used the fact that the protagonist showed up and played along with the trial as proof of its validity. Just general circular logic where the mere act of replying justifies the accusations. I assume that's what anon meant by the comparison, saying the other anon was acting like the judge

>>9423591
Why should anybody care what some thots think of /sci/?

>>9423589
The irony is so strong that oxidation state - 7 is becoming exceedingly abundant. You altogether seem to have forgotten that you are on the internet you pompous faggot.

>>9423591
I hope you're baiting and not being serious.

>>9423598
The humanity!

>>9423598
You really think someone would do that? Just go on the Internet and tell lies?

>>9423600
Fair enough, though it kinda misses the point of that book, but fair enough.

>>9423605
No u

>>9423613
And remember, whoever gets the last post is the REAL troll!

What's actually happening right now?

Are we fighting for this woman's approval or something?

Are we chimping out?

>>9423618
When exactly ever are we not chimping out?

>>9423610
What, in your opinion, is the point of the book? I'm the anon who said it was awful, and to me it just seemed like a pointless meandering fever dream of a story that seemed to exist only to make the reader feel some sort of sympathetic frustration at how idiotic the situation was. However, that's a quality of all of Kafka's stories, but his other stories have the benefit of also being more enjoyable and interesting to read rather than just a series of disconnected scenes of bureaucratic nonsense.

>>9423618
It's trolls trolling trolls by pretending to care what some twitter thots think

>>9423618
We've found something to be annoyed about and we're reveling in it.

>>9418923
I just want to add that women shouldn't have the right to vote.

>>9423630
Hear, hear! This is representative of all of us!

>>9423621
>disconnected scenes of bureaucratic nonsense
Well, that exactly is the point. It is is a critique of the Austro-Hungarian court system, Kafka worked as a lawyer for some time after all. Stylistically, the book conveyes almost viscerally the inadequacy of this gigantic bureaucratic institution, which for me even to this day is relatable because I often have to deal with bureaucrats.

>>9423646
Goddamn I love being a man, peeing standing up with my penis and what not

>>9423656
/sci/ - sexism, and to some degree, also kafka

>>9423695
This is not funny guise. Respect wamen. Because they're wamen.

>>9423359
>t. Writelet

>>9423730
Well, you have me there.

>here's my research literally made to explain why i'm a shit tier academic who can't get tenure

>>9418923
>using stupid metric to measure write quality
>put metric as big revelation and important

http://www.erinhengel.com/cv.pdf

>Ph.D. Economics, University of Cambridge, 2016
M.Phil. Economic Research, University of Cambridge, 2011
M.Sc. Local Economic Development, London School of Economics, 2005 B.A. International Relations, Hendrix College, 2003

>Python, Java, SQL (especially T-SQL and SQLite), PHP, JavaScript, VBA, Stata, Mata, Mathematica, R, Matlab, Bash (Unix shell)

Only publish from 2006 to 2010.
PhD 2011-2016 never publish,only math basic skills,shitty model,work as code monkey.

But .. but ... why nobody take me serious?

Ahhh is because I am woman,will write about this!

http://www.erinhengel.com/research/publishing_female.pdf

I found CV M.S Cambridge math/physic/CS with way more paper and experience work

What this cunt doesn't understand is that she is worthless as a living being. Yes your hole that bled monthly is drying up, and your worth as a human is decreasing, but that doesn't mean that you should push nonsensical ideas that no one other the cunt having echo box wants to hear. Do some real research to make the world a better place, rather than research that helps you take your mind off of your shriveled ovaries, diminishing looks, and reduced mental capacity.

>>9423781
Remember some arabian guys say on twitter white women couldn't be rape

>>9423789
That is because it is true. Saying you can rape infidel women is like saying you can rape a pile of garbage. It isn't even rape, if a man of God is raping an infidel woman then he is doing her a favor.

Just goes to show that women really are the niggers of gender

>>9423830
I don't agree with demeaning PoC, but I do agree with the idea that women are basically trash. What's the legal route to taking away women's rights?

>>9423830
Yeah, because like niggers, women are violent and more likely to engage in stupid, risky beha- oh wait.

>>9423848
>I don't agree with demeaning PoC
>>>/pol/

>>9423562
illiterate

>>9423425
dumb bitch

Has anyone tried to interpret her "theoretical model"? Seems like a wonderful exercise in notation abuse.

>>9418923
>americuck education

>>9423425
Kill yourself stupid cunt.

>>9424398
>>9424113
Stop baiting so hard

>>9424756
delete bait threads desu

>>9424113
nigger

>REEE WHY DO WOMEN USE STATISTICS TO SHOW UP WRONGS IN SOCIETY
Go back to your hole, incel

>>9423254
True, you're the living proof

>>9423562
Yeah, I'd guess that readability of science papers is not an interesting topic for /pol/friends who have never even managed to finish a single abstract

>>9423781
>White women
>In America
Are they talking about Canada or something?

>>9425692
> WHY DO WOMEN USE STATISTICS
>>9420173

Over Shitty statistics count number complex world per sentence, "statistics" will be complex word, making only very basic paper be good writing plus autor spend 5 years on PhD cambridge and don't publish anything!!!

>>9423138
>she's OP, who else would care about this absolute shit?
She is not OP. OP is obviously a beta orbiter who sent it to her and posted this knowing racist misogynists would reply so he can white knight to try and get in her pants.

>>9420281
>>9420641
You aren't smart and your bait is bad.

>>9420290
this had better be bait

>>9423486
>these "scientists" belong back in the 1700s.
You're right. We are quite far afield from the Age of Enlightenment. And you my dear belong in primeval Crete handling snakes.

>>9423598
>dr hengel
Referring to yourself in third person is poor form.

>>9426337
Thank (You), beta.

>>9423598
Difference between those statements and hers is that hers will probably advance her career, while those statements would lead to ostracism. We're on an anonymous imageboard, so expect to hear things you wouldn't in other circumstances. Some of it is true.

>>9426539
>Some of it is true.
Like what?