/sci/ - Science & Math

This looks like a serious politically motivated abuse, wow...

>>9987003

Yup, I am not a /pol/type, but if they really censored his paper as described in the article, its some appalling orwellian bullshit and the term SJW fits perfectly.

>>9986997
Bumping this thread for interest. Thanks fo sharing OP

IMHO, instead of fighting facts, the SJWs should explain why facts cannot be the basis for discrimination.
At the same time scientifically minded people should realise that there are malicious people out there who will take advantage of facts to build support for their hate platform. History has countless such examples.

>>9987042
yeah, this is the takeaway here
christ

>Unbeknownst to us, Amie Wilkinson, a senior professor of mathematics at the University of Chicago, had become aware of our paper and written to the journal to complain. A back-and-forth had ensued. Wilkinson then enlisted the support of her father—a psychometrician and statistician—who wrote to the Intelligencer at his daughter’s request to express his own misgivings

>Three days later, however, the paper had vanished. And a few days after that, a completely different paper by different authors appeared at exactly the same page of the same volume (NYJM Volume 23, p 1641+) where mine had once been. As it turned out, Amie Wilkinson is married to Benson Farb, a member of the NYJM editorial board. Upon discovering that the journal had published my paper, Professor Farb had written a furious email to Steinberger demanding that it be deleted at once. “Rivin,” he complained, “is well-known as a person with extremist view

>Neither replied. Instead, even long after the Intelligencer rescinded acceptance of the paper, Wilkinson continued to trash both the journal and its editor-in-chief on social media, inciting her Facebook friends with the erroneous allegation that an entirely different (and more contentious) article had been accepted.

This shit should not be happening..

>>9987048
jew niggers at it again

I'm a genetics noob. The mechanism in the paper depends on the existence of genes that express themselves differently based on gender. Is this something that exists?

Like, there is intelligence gene UIIX and it makes boys smarter but it has no effect on girls. Such genes need to exist for the mechanism to work. Do they?

>>9987048
Welcome to 2018 science, same way people denounce Watson because of his racist views despite elucidating DNA.

>>9986997
And once again, like the last one, this will simply get a boon from the Streisand effect.
Good job, now it is going to become even more well known among the general populous than it would've been otherwise.

>>9987077
>Are men and women biologically identical.
I dunno, are men stronger? Perhaps, other traits? Yes, it makes sense.

I am happy that the people at /r/math are relatively more redpilled than the average rabbit user

>>9987141
Barely so. Read the comments and you’ll see a lot of redditors spouting bullshit like “my first reaction was to censor it” or “I could see why it should be censored.” So no, not very redpilled at all and very much cringeworthy.

Funny how women want to be both subservient and dominant at the same time. They want to be subservient because their biology attracts them to men than are better than them in everything. A woman, no matter how successful, will tend to want a man who is even more successful than her.
At the same time, they want to be dominant. They want to control the social agenda. They want to control the very same men that are better than them (they don't care about the other men).
What would they even do if they achieve perfect numerical equality. Who will they mate with? Will they all become lesbians?

who cares? honestly?

once they start unapologetically and blatantly censoring you you know you've already won. censorship is the last recourse of an aging and dying system desperately grasping at straws trying to stay afloat.

Projects like Heterodox Academy and Quillette are growing stronger and stronger. They're already attracting heavyweights of the american intellectual life. This kind of censorship is gonna backfire so badly.

>>9987178
Save that you end up not getting any more grants and years of your hardwork go down the sink.

>the Department Head had explained that sometimes values such as academic freedom and free speech come into conflict with other values to which Penn State was committed.
Holy Kek.

>>9987154
but the comments at the top are not saying that outright, which is leagues better than outright complaining about the content rather than the censorship

>>9986997
Evolutionary biology must be in a very dark place in these times.

>>9987224
>mfw my areas of interest are evolutionary biology, the effects of culture and genes on human behavior, sexual and racial differences among human beings, the genetics of intelligence

Am I autistic for not understanding the point of this comment or am I correct in assuming it makes no sense?

>>9987131
>Yes, it makes sense.
That's not how logic works anon

>>9987244
There are also neurological differences in the male and female brain.

>>9987229
You can hope to get hired by some billionaire with private team working on enchanting humans by less legal means
Just imagine crunching numbers and checking results on random children

Everybody should read again and again Pinker's "The Blank Slate" and Sowell's "A Conflict of Visions". The near future is bleak for those who seek truth.


"SOCRATES: The difficulty, my friends, is not in avoiding death, but in avoiding unrighteousness; for that runs faster than death. I am old and move slowly, and the slower runner has overtaken me, and my accusers are keen and quick, and the faster runner, who is unrighteousness, has overtaken them. And now I depart hence condemned by you to suffer the penalty of death, and they, too, go their ways condemned by the truth to suffer the penalty of villainy and wrong; and I must abide by my award - let them abide by theirs. I suppose that these things may be regarded as fated, - and I think that they are well.

And now, O men who have condemned me, I would fain prophesy to you; for I am about to die, and that is the hour in which men are gifted with prophetic power. And I prophesy to you who are my murderers, that immediately after my death punishment far heavier than you have inflicted on me will surely await you. Me you have killed because you wanted to escape the accuser, and not to give an account of your lives. But that will not be as you suppose: far otherwise. For I say that there will be more accusers of you than there are now; accusers whom hitherto I have restrained: and as they are younger they will be more severe with you, and you will be more offended at them. For if you think that by killing men you can avoid the accuser censuring your lives, you are mistaken; that is not a way of escape which is either possible or honorable; the easiest and noblest way is not to be crushing others, but to be improving yourselves. This is the prophecy which I utter before my departure, to the judges who have condemned me. " (Plato's Apology)

>>9987178
The ussr lasted for a long time as an instrument of oppression. The dark times will be here a while.

It's good to see some confirmation once in a while that academia is still as political and rotten as ever.

>>9987252
>There are also neurological differences
Yes, I know.
For example:
https://www.pennmedicine.org/news/news-releases/2013/december/brain-connectivity-study-revea
Btu what are the real significance of those differences? Can we strongly conclude "women don't belong in X" or whatever?

The issue is we have is faggots gatekeeping academia and industry for no real reason.
As an analogy, tall lanky guys are statistically less likely to become champion weightlifters. Yet we don't have bros running around gyms gatekeeping lanklets trying to protect their weight rooms; in fact, such behavior would get you banned from the gym.

>>9987325
there is an entire elephant's brain worth of difference of cortical neurons between men and women

>>9987325
>Can we strongly conclude "women don't belong in X" or whatever?
I've never once even hinted at that. My girlfriend is a female mathematician, I have absolutely no problem with women who should be in STEM, being in STEM. In fact, so long as you are in STEM on an entirely meritocratic basis, then that's fine with me.

>>9987048
This is how everything, everywhere, has always been. Other groups are dumb for not acknowledging it and engaging in it, chinks and jews are the most proficient at it.

>>9987242
it doesn't matter because what darwin thought is irrelevant, he is old and busted

>>9987331
>In fact, so long as you are in STEM on an entirely meritocratic basis
Which is how it should be. Too bad the gatekeepeers think being a female is at odds with merit.

>>9987167
I don't understand why men go for partners that are somewhat "worse" than them, is the wish to dominate so strong? The wish to have a more competent partner seems more reasonable because both will profit. I don't want to see my lover as beneath me, if I did it wouldn't be love.

>>9987048
>Amie Wilkinson
This fucking bitch

>>9987425
I actually find highly intelligent women more attractive than idiots. And I'm sure I'd say the same thing if I was bisexual, or homosexual, about men.

>>9987425
Yes, the gatekeepers who force women of poor merit through the gate. The belief in absolute equality on the surface, the underlying belief of female superiority, and their real actions that imply female inferiority, with added belittlement.

>>9987026
My God this girl is so cute. The fact that I can't touch her makes my heart ache. I literally feel a throbbing pain in my chest right now.

>>9987481
Anon should we call an ambulance?

>>9987331
That's good, but not all people are like you. Remember the google manifesto guy? Similarly, my country has a high percentage of female students in STEM and female scientists, but I still see dipshits undermine them because "you got womyn bonus points" when there is no such thing here.

I am happy as long as people are aware that the women in STEM got where they are because of their knowledge and skill and not because somebody pushed them for the sake of equality, you have to be interested for that to work in the first place.

>>9987469
So you think somebody can be forced into STEM without having a real interest in what they're studying and pass all exams? It doesn't work like that. In fact, recently there was that headline that in Japan the bar for female students of medicine was set higher because they expect them to become mothers and abandon work. And this isn't a new thing in the world either.

>>9987503
I acknowledge that, but it isn't right to censor a general overview of IQ distribution. This wasn't biased toward the notion of "affirmative action".

>>9987513
I don't think anyone is saying that woman who aren't interested in STEM are forced to. The argument is that woman who are less qualified than some men are prefered over those said men. Nothing else nothing more. All of this in order to fill equality quotas and propagate their agenda.

Was there any form of filth or profligacy, particularly in cultural life, without at least one Jew involved in it?
If you cut even cautiously into such an abscess, you found, like a maggot in a rotting body, often dazzled by the sudden light-a kike!
What had to be reckoned heavily against the Jews in my eyes was when I became acquainted with their activity in the press, art, literature, and the theater. All the unctuous reassurances helped little or nothing It sufficed to look at a billboard, to study the names of the men behind the horrible trash they advertised, to make you hard for a long time to come. This was pestilence, spiritual pestilence, worse than the Black Death of olden times, and the people was being infected with it! It goes without saying that the lower the intellectual level of one of these art manufacturers, the more unlimited his fertility will be, and the scoundrel ends up like a garbage separator, splashing his filth in the face of humanity. And bear in mind that there is no limit to their number; bear in mind that for one Goethe Nature easily can foist on the world ten thousand of these scribblers who poison men's souls like germ-carriers of the worse sort, on their fellow men.
It was terrible, but not to be overlooked, that precisely the Jew, in tremendous numbers, seemed chosen by Nature for this shameful calling.
Is this why the Jews are called the 'chosen people'?
I now began to examine carefully the names of all the creators of unclean products in public artistic life. The result was less and less favorable for my previous attitude toward the Jews. Regardless how my sentiment might resists my reason was forced to draw its conclusions.
The fact that nine tenths of all literary filth, artistic trash, and theatrical idiocy can be set to the account of a people, constituting hardly one hundredth of all the country's inhabitants, could simply not be tanked away; it was the plain truth.

>>9986997
>Variability.
The paper didn't even claim one gender was "better" it just said more variety.

The only reason it was blocked was because it could be used to argue that men were WAY more diverse than the current narrative.


This is down right heretical.

>>9987527
Well, that's what "being forced through the gate" sounded to me. I agree with you there, I think it should be approached in a different way. Projects that interest kids in science and teaching older ones professional work culture.

>>9987167
You're just basing this on your highly biased perception of the world and taking specific subgroups of women. Women are more selective, but where do you get this "they want to be dominant" part aside some people you might have seen online?

>>9987628
Hypergamy

>>9987077
>The mechanism in the paper depends on the existence of genes that express themselves differently based on gender. Is this something that exists?
Yes, especially for genes found on sex chromosomes

>>9987644
But I did say they were more selective, I asked about a source for dominance

>>9987325
Being a gatekeeper is a reason in itself.

>>9987666
you
the numbers do not lie

>>9987503
In my country there's no AA and guys are pretty happy when (almost non-existent) girls in STEM get +1 to grades, because without AA there's somehow no controversy about it. It's even seen as a fascinating effort that those girls somehow figured out to go to STEM.

>>9987513
It does work that way: marketing creates demand for what you would never need otherwise.

>>9987666

don't reflect the perspective of what is doing the choosing or if any choice actually has to happen.

in any random combinatorial model, the amount of possible choices decreases with any choice made regardless if it starts our random or not because choice destroys randomness by removing the unchosen choice.

add to that that if you are making the intent survival, then only those that chose what is here now made the right choice and will be able to choose again, meaning both that, in a closed system, choice destroys future choice and future choosers.

>>9987896
That was directed at >>9987167 saying women want to be dominant and control men, did you respond to the wrong post?

>>9986997
>How is this allowed?
How do people not see that this is par for the course, and even on the light side of generally accepted levels of unethical behavior?

One time this guy was trying to make the case to me that 9/11 couldn't have been an inside job because there is no way that many people could keep something a secret. It was faulty arguing though because it is not a secret that 9/11 was an inside job. Indeed, when "the government" was outsmarted on 9/11/2001, what reason is to think they ever went back into the lead position on any day following?


The Truth About Evolution
http://www.vixra.org/abs/1602.0132

>>9987958
what kind of shit are you on

>>9986997
Wouldn't a selective pressure lead to less variability and the lack of selective pressure lead to more variability?
It seems the paper has it backwards.

>>9986997
Good. fuck scientists they've been at the forefront of the modern censorship movement. Seems only right modern lysenkoism ourobouroses them.

>>9987048
>is well-known as a person with extremist view
And? Was the paper wrong? What about it was lying or deceitful?

Fucking nothing, that's why instead of trying to counter the paper with facts you ad hominem attack the man's character. Maybe his views aren't extremist, maybe they are just fucking realistic.

There are people unironically arguing on reddit that you should censor results that give ammo to right-wingers, even if they are true. Disgusting..

>>9988191
>There are people unironically arguing on reddit that you should censor results that give ammo to right-wingers, even if they are true. Disgusting..
It's all strategic. Censorship is the correct thing to do politically speaking.

>>9987048
>DADDDDYYYYYYY I DONT LIKE THIS PAPER MAKE THEM TAKE IT DOOOOOOOWWWWWWNNNN
just lmao at whoever thought it was a good idea to let women do science or put jews in charge of publishing. can’t wait until civilization collapses

it's a horrible paper but it didn't deserve such a treatment

>>9987503
Demore did nothing wrong, that wasn't his point at all. His memo sought to find ways to get more women interested in CS, taking into consideration biological differences.

>>9988212
But he never made any suggestions for that. He focused on passively bitching about the way things are, which only gives off the impression he wants to lower competition, that's why it was negatively received.

>>9988191
If the information stream is censored in any way, then that means the censors are telling whatever story they want, and they are the ones who say what the story is. I say, "Don't censor it at all," but if they are going to censor it (obviously yes) then I'd like them not to use their story drafting to paint me in a negative light without the shadow of the rest of the universe behind me.

>>9988212
Demore was a fucking idiot, read it again, he misinterpreted studies he brought up based on bias.

>>9988230
>Demore
Did this person rub salt in it with a fake review to shit on me with?

>>9986997
>She replied that she had received no criticisms on scientific grounds and that her decision to rescind was entirely about the reaction she feared our paper would elicit.
At least she was sincere. Usually, they pretend to that it is on scientific grounds.

>>9987048
>This is how a senior professor of mathematics at the University of Chicago acts in 2018.
Great.

>>9987503
Someone in the reddit thread also mentioned Damore.
They claimed:
> people like Summers and Damore use (the greater male variability hypothesis) as an excuse to deny the existence of any women in the upper tails of the distribution
>Damore pretty much said that women should stick to things like marketing and being booth bunnies.
I honestly think, as bizarre as it might seem, that a lot of people got very angry about Damore's memo without ever reading it.

Damore didn't make any of these outrageous claims attributed to him by redditors and clickbait writers.
For example, he made it clear that he wasn't "denying the existence of any women in the upper tails of the distribution," which is pretty clearly an absurd strawman.
From his memo:
>Note, I’m not saying that all men differ from women in the following ways or that these differences are “just.” I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership.
>Many of these differences are small and there’s significant overlap between men and women, so you can’t say anything about an individual given these population level distributions.

>>9988218
>But he never made any suggestions for that.
There was a section labeled "Non-discriminatory ways to reduce the gender gap" where he put forward a few recommendations. Pretty sparse desu, but you can't say he didn't make suggestions

>>9988285
I suggest you read some critiques of his memo, he specifically looked into facts that enforce his opinion and ignored biological differences that disadvantage men like men being more prone to anger and being less cooperative. It's a bunch of pseudo-science blabber which he masks with a bunch of "well I'd never imply this BUT".

Seriously, read up on the critiques.

>>9987026
I don't even care whether or not that's actually a girl. What's her/his name?

>>9988285
>ignored biological differences that disadvantage men
Maybe he didn't find those very relevant to the subject of female under-representation in the field.

>>9988053
Lets say we have people throwing dices. The dices has the numbers -n, -n +1, ... , 0 , ... , n-1, n on them. Now the people 10% of people that gets the highest numbers wins. if you have a dice with a small n on it its gonna be unlikely that you win while if you have a dice with a high n its becoming more likely. So higher variance is more likely to be selected.

>>9986997
>>9987048
>tfw I actually thought /pol/ was just being facetious
The Jews actually do manipulate and censor even in academia. WTF???

>>9988301
I replied to wrong post, but this was in reply to your post >>9988335

>>9988218
>that's why it was negatively received
it was negatively received because it was thoughtcrime you idiot

There is no place for racism or sexism in science. Fuck off.

>I wrote polite emails directly to both Wilkinson and her father, explaining that I planned to revise the paper for resubmission elsewhere and asking for their criticisms or suggestions. (I also sent a more strongly worded, point-by-point rebuttal to her father.) Neither replied. Instead, even long after the Intelligencer rescinded acceptance of the paper, Wilkinson continued to trash both the journal and its editor-in-chief on social media, inciting her Facebook friends with the erroneous allegation that an entirely different (and more contentious) article had been accepted.

>At this point, faced with career-threatening reprisals from their own departmental colleagues and the diversity committee at Penn State, as well as displeasure from the NSF, Sergei and his colleague who had done computer simulations for us withdrew their names from the research. Fortunately for me, I am now retired and rather less easily intimidated—one of the benefits of being a Vietnam combat veteran and former U.S. Army Ranger, I guess. So, I continued to revise the paper, and finally posted it on the online mathematics archives.

lol this is hilarious, all this entire stunt did was damage the scientific community's credibility, the one thing the right wing media will absolutely chew down on and serve up in the future again and again to discredit real science. This is the outcome several people chose over publishing a benign paper.

the best redditors were the "corporate lawyer"s moral grandstanding spergout and the assblasted anti-Petersonian who kept bringing him up.

>>9988500
Science is like the most racist/sexist area of anything ever. I'm not even exaggerating. Like well beyond what you could give the benefit of the doubt to.

>>9987167

several men worked at this too, in particular some cunt's husband who abused his powers and duties for her

it's hard to claim that any of it is motivated by sexism, though it is motivated by politics and a blind loyalty to idealogy

>>9986997
a mathematical paper got shut down by the politically correct camp because it was politically incorrect

this is nothing new. shockley and crick both got the same treatment. probably fischer too. these guys were all racists or eugenicists, and they admitted it

it is sad that legit "scientific" results from guys like this get suppressed, but honestly, political correctness, though annoying, isn't really the end of the world

so what, a few pieces of "scientific evidence" for racist or misogynist things got shut down. who cares. the academic community's job is to shut down crackpot theories, and they exercise it on hundreds of crackpot theories per day.

the fact that some theories are deemed "crackpot" even if they are somewhat questionable -- like maybe this guy isn't a crackpot? -- is a fact of life. and people performing their science on the fringes, where they should be well aware of the political implications, should know that they're playing with fire.

just don't publish on issues that trigger people. if you choose to do that, you can be sure it will be controversial.

OTOH there is plenty of room to be doing science that isn't "charged" politically

if you choose to do your research in a politically charged field, then it's known that shills inhabit these regions of science. so if a PC policeman gets you, too bad for you, you chose to research a politically sensitive topic

>>9988285
>I honestly think, as bizarre as it might seem, that a lot of people got very angry about Damore's memo without ever reading it.
And you would be exactly right. I see this time and time again whenever the subject is brought up.

>>9988301
Link?

>>9988970
>who cares
>just don't publish on issues that trigger people
I see... you think we should stop scientific inquiry because a ferocious and vocal minority gets buttblasted over it?

>>9988390
jews arent human, they're what remains of the neanderthal race.

they tried to kill everyone a long time ago and they failed only to get destroyed themselves and barely survive by their women whoring out like no tomorrow.

>>9988385
Thanks. I understand the basic reasoning now.
If you changed the 10% to 50%, wouldn't groups with a higher mean have the advantage regardless of variance?
Are we assuming the offspring will have a distribution centered at the value of the chosen parent or is the offspring also randomly selected from the distribution centered at 0?
My reasoning is that high variance can produce good results but it can take them away just as easily.
Selecting only for high variance could lead to genetic instability.

>>9988335
Don't you think that for a company like Google that deals with communication the traits women exibit are more beneficial? Proficiency in languages, communication and teamwork? No company wants an incompetent worker, everyone's skills have to be above a certain threshold.

As for representation in a field, the effects of socialization have been repeatedly proven: how women underperfomed in chess and tests when they were told they competed against men and how women have the tendency to underestimate their IQ while men overestimate it. Women used to be more prevalent in coding at one point. It's beneficial to remove prejudices that affect this, you may say "women are just different" and call it a day, discourage hiring them because of pregnancy and the expectation women will be taking care of children, but there is no benefit it this.

No company will just magically hire idiots at their own cost, it's just that the value of communication and cooperation has risen.

If /sci/ actually finds this surprising, then for a bunch of smart guys, you sure are dumb.

>>9988970

>there is no need to publish things about heliocentrism, its your fault you chose to research a politically sensitive topic. There is plenty of room to be doing science that isn't "charged" politically, such as epicycles!

You are either a troll on an idiot.

>>9989160
>proven
confident assessment, these must have been in the 10% of social science studies that are replicable and i mean obviously there isn't some kind of publication bias issue...

>>9989160

>No company will just magically hire idiots at their own cost

Dont idealize the corporate world. There are plenty of idiotic decisions by higher management resulting in company losing money, especially when its about latest fads. I speak from experience.

>>9989259
it's leveraging best practice holistic synergy through mindsharing.
cute how quickly nu-leftists turn ruthless capitalist efficiency calculators though.

lmao

You all told me to go back to /pol/ when I discussed censorship a couple years back.

This really brightened my day, almost as much as the daily stories about feminists going alone to some shithole country to prove it's safe and then ending up dead.

>>9986997
I just wrote an email about this to a few of the professors at my university to see how they'll respond. I'm curious to know if this shit is happening here. I see a lot of "Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion" shit around campus but they don't seem to do anything but post a few things in the school paper from time to time.

That said we did all get a couple of emails and then there was a big (not mandatory) campus wide meeting about what it means "to be a [redacted]" because someone "used a racial slur in a group chat that many students use" and it "spread to other group messages."

>>9989224
Have you read this board at all? It's mostly the 95 IQ "I'm such a nerrrrd you guise" normie crowd.

>>9987011
I'm about half way through reading the actual paper and there's nothing objectionable about it. Personally I thought the Greater Male Variability Hypothesis was a pretty obvious thing when you think about it, but these guys put in the work to prove it's likelihood mathematically. The paper isn't even specifically about humans and it is just a mathematical model for predicting if a sex of a species will be more or less variable in the long run based on the selectivity of the opposite sex. And throughout they run the numbers for if the sex is or isn't relatively selective.

>>9987077
Yes, and we're finding more evidence of if occurring even on non-sex chromosomes on a fairly regular basis.
>But how?
It (probably*) has quite a bit to do with how the DNA folds within the cell, perhaps entirely determined by something else found on the sex chromosome. Consider that women often get colder faster than men - well temperature is sure to be one of the biggest determinants for how molecules (proteins and DNA) will be folded within the cell, and that folding determines to a large degree, which segments of DNA are coded into RNA and then into MRNA and proteins.

Doesn't belong on /sci/, this is a science board and we are open-minded, not bigoted like what this paper is trying to turn people into. Take it to /pol/, shoo shoo ankle biter.

>>9988301
>men being more prone to anger and being less cooperative
This. Kick normies out of STEM now!

Hate is not science.

Hate is not science.

Hate. Is. NOT. Science.

How is this hard, like how?

>>9989259

There's a difference between idiotic decisions and idiotic people. People can get arrogant, desperate or overworked and make shit decisions because of it. But that doesn't mean they weren't qualified for the role when they were first brought on.

Now that being said people brought on can find themselves advancing into positions they aren't qualified or ready for which is a problem because seniority does get conflated with experience/intelligence. And often times that's where the company starts taken hits.

However we live in a different era and with the prevalence of computing more emphasis is placed on extrovertedly "laced" skills because the intellectual grunt work is automated.

>>9987242
The comment's point is coherent but very very wrong. The comment understands Darwin to be saying; "The adult males of most species look very different from the young and old members of the species while the females look the same regardless of age." and thus he thinks Darwin was not talking about individual variance between members of the same sex.

>>9988285
>I honestly think, as bizarre as it might seem, that a lot of people got very angry about Damore's memo without ever reading it.
They are just lying. You can't justify the equality of outcome measure to help women get to the best STEM positions, if women are by and large less interested in STEM.

THey have a political agenda, and they will lie as much as they need to.

>>9986997
>women are more selective than men
>generation by generation, more women reproduce than men

This in turn just means that greater evolutionary pressure is put on men. Run this program for hundreds of thousands of years, and you get our modern day. Women are barely past monkey tier IQ, and men are going to mars. It's just nature.

>>9989326
i agree, to you Hate is more akin to a metaphysical force that your """Love""" will defeat

>>9988053
Depends entirely on what is being selected for. If men tend to agree on what a "good woman" is, then women will tend towards an average, but if women don't tend to agree on what "a good man" is, then men will increase in variability to fill niches.

>>9989352
Get on the right side of history. If you doubt my words look at #LoveWins. Love always wins over your hate.

>>9988932
This

>>9988970
The main point of issue here is that the paper itself isn't at all politically charged. The issue, ultimately, is that there's a radical left-wing ideological agenda infesting the process and calling whatever it dislikes; "Political" and therefore "Controversial" and therefore "Fair game" to be disappeared

>Well that's perfectly fair. Is someone disagrees with something, it is by definition controversial and political.

Oh, OK. So literally everything that is currently known is all that there is to know, as learning (researching) anything new will produce skeptics who will disagree with any new idea, thereby making it controversial, political, and shut-down-able.

>>9988970
Theory of evolution is controversial too.

>>9989359
nice poe. anyway these people are just a super gay version of fundies. the boiling zeal of backstabbed exconverts is to be expected.
>>9988970
>sensible middle ground

>>9989334
>>9989344
>>9989259
>>9989248
/sci/ is a bunch of insecure dweebs that think women want to be better than men and take their jobs. They'd even go so far to deny research and defend biased hogwash. Who would have thought.

>BOOHOO I WAS GOING /POL/ IN REAL LIFE AND THOSE JEWISH ESS JAY DOUBLEVIEWS SAID A MEAN WORD TO MEEEEEEEEEE
>WHERE IS MY SAAAAAAAAAAAAAFE SPAAAAAAAAAAAACE WUAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Fuck off back to the containment board Hitler wannabe nazi shit (get punched)

>>9989373
Please stop projecting. A woman could never take my job because I doubt a monkey could do the kind of research I do. That is why we give you fake math like statistics and fake science like social science to keep yourselves occupied.

I leave /sci/ for one day and now it's got blatant nazi threads. Fantastic.

>>9989373
>y-you're denying research
>on a thread about censorship
are you denying the replication crisis?

Congrats OP you successfully made a double whammy nazi (antiscience, active science denial) and MGTOW (antiscience, active science denial) thread on a science board which is leftist (the diametric opposite of nazi).

Are all the (you)s making your mom proud?

MODS

>>9989382
It's their hypocrisy to deny research in a thread about censorship, not mine. The findings of this research have been known before, I never disagreed with it in my post and thought it should be censored. I'm complaining about the inferiority complex teens trying to be smart with pseudo science bias.

Nazis get punched, that's why they're hiding inside and shitting up /sci/ with antiscience and nazi drivel instead.

>why joooooooooos mad at my nazi paper??? wuaaah I thought we were supposed to have safe space wuaaaah donil tromb help us from evil joos censoring innocent nazi!

>>9989393
/sci/ isn't a leftist board it's a science board. There are more posts itt decrying nazism than there are heil Hitlers on /pol/. Read the article, it's a perfectly coherent mathematical model to explain the greater male variability hypothesis; the mathematical modeling for which is gender and species neutral.

How about discussing the math, or merits of the theory instead of making this political?

>>9989397
The best scientific evidence available suggests the vast majority of social science research is unscientific crap. I suggest from what we can see from the series of events depicted here it's very likely there's other strong biases distorting even that minority of published findings in the field that can even be replicated. Taking any of it with a grain of salt until these issues are ameliorated is a reasonable and scientifically informed heuristic, don't you agree?

>>9989402
Fuck man, I don't like the jews but even I feel bad for them when their money is going towards lazy ass shillposters like you. Come on, the jews at the very least deserve some decent shills for the kind of money they pay. Up your game, please. Shekelstein is going to be so sad when he finds out his shekels are going towards your low energy posts.

>>9989410
>watch my 4 hour conspiracy theory video to understand why the earth is flat and I'm actually not a nazi even though I'm sieg heiling and talking about le evil joooooos
You're doing what /pol/ does, you just swapped some words to match the theme of the board.

We are most likely targeted by organized stormfront nazis. Mods look into it.

When will these fuckers understand the Streisand effect?

>>9989397
Are you living under a rock? The stereotype threat got BTFO by the replication crisis, my friend. Social psychology is at this point no better than astrology.

>>9989411
So how is their bias better than the opposing bias? Because it suits your opinion?

>>9989411
>social science research is unscientific crap
>therefore I'm obviously right!

Why is this nazi troll thread still up?

>>9989433
>>9989434
>an academic pseudoscience propaganda machine with heavy handed censorship is okay because someone else might be wrong too

>>9989487
Where did I say it's ok if it was propaganda? How do you prove their bias isn't just an opinion and propaganda?

>>9989499
Where did I say it makes me right if you're wrong? Is this really the best damage control you can think of?
Look, as long as you admit you're wrong, demonstrably, as a matter of scientific fact, we can take it from there.

>>9989393
Nazi is socialism, which is pretty left.

>>9989007
>If you changed the 10% to 50%, wouldn't groups with a higher mean have the advantage regardless of variance?
Well since lower than 50% cutoff would make lower variance be better and higher than 50% would make higher variance better 50% shouldn't care about variance and only the mean matter. So if the objective was to increase the mean this would seem beneficial.

>Are we assuming the offspring will have a distribution centered at the value of the chosen parent or is the offspring also randomly selected from the distribution centered at 0?
That's an assumption you will have to make that can change the results. You could make the mean of the new child do a random step from the parent or it could take a step towards the "dice roll" or we could just set it to 0 on all of them. However i think that higher variance is likely to come out ahead more often than not.

>My reasoning is that high variance can produce good results but it can take them away just as easily.
Lets assume you have two equally large groups, group A and B. A has a higher variance than B. The top % distribution will favor group A, lets say the distribution is 60/40. We now do the same procedure again but with the new 60/40 distribution instead of the original 50/50. Eventually group B will be wiped out.

>Selecting only for high variance could lead to genetic instability.
Agreed. But this isn't always a bad thing evolution tends to kill off species that are occupying niche areas since they tend to be less resistant to environmental changes. There is a trade-off in high/low variance. If we would model evolution as a gradient decent on a curve where the curve is the environment. High variance will make it harder to get close the the optimum and thus low variance will likely win. The environment however isnt static and the optimum changes and if you cant follow it fast enough you die, this increases selection for high variance.

cont.

>>9989524
cont.

Now what we want to figure out is why inside of a single species there can be one sex with higher variance than the other. And the model shows that if we have different cutoffs for the different sexes we can get this effect. Now what can cause different cutoffs inside the same species though? For humans this would be the fact that a female can only have a limited amount of offspring while a male can have theoretically an infinite amount. Thus to make sure your genes continues a man can just drop the quantity hammer while a woman must choose quality genes in the mate.

>>9989465
>thread on scientific censorship
>better censor it
>wouldn't want those anti-intellectual book burners to gain another foothold
oh go bulldoze some palestinian houses you two faced psychotic sack of shit.

>>9989506
>You are doing damage control!
>a-admit you're wrong
I suggest you read the thread and realize to which shitposts that response was instead of trying to save your fragile ego by begging the other person to admit they're wrong.>>9989373

One guy talks about women being barely above monkey level IQ and another claims women aren't interested (which is an idea also based on a social study), then there's a kid who pretends to be speaking from experience as if we all don't have jobs, those are teenage shitposts. I'm pointing out they defend one kind of pseudo science while the other that goes against their feelings is obviously fake.

>>9989532
you're drawing a false equivalence betwixt obvious shitposts on 4chan and the puerile and malignant actions of credentialed expert adults posed as the scientific and moral authority in civil society, so yeah... it's damage control

>>9989545
I'm saying that there are malignant actions of people who hold different opinions and if we assume one kind of research is manipulated then all of them are, yet people make claims that suit their opinions based on them, like the google memo.

If somebody uses arguments based on social research then it's valid to use arguments based on social research against them.

>>9989556
there's no need to make any unwarranted assumptions, here are the facts and logic:
1. what are you doing is called conflation
1.a. this is a well-known diversionary tactic
1.b. who gives a fuck about the google memeo
2. social psychology has been shown to be on the whole largely equivalent to creation science
3. ordinal career preferences of women from rigorous population surveys however is plain statistics, that is replicable, and so actual science
3.a. unlike almost all of social psychology
3.a.a. which you relied on

>>9989572
>who gives a fuck about the google memeo
Then you responded because of the shitposts instead?
>ordinal career preferences of women from rigorous population surveys however is plain statistics, that is replicable, and so actual science
What about the plain statistic that there are more highly educated women than men? What about the reasons behind those statistics and choices?

And again, you don't know to what subject you wanted to reply, I relied on social psychology because the anons above argued about the google memo which is also based on social psychology if you read it.

So this is peak fragile masculinity.

>>9989681
>Professor and Associate Head for Diversity and Equity

>>9989681
>still harping on about some faggot's manifesto
I haven't thought about that shit since a week after it came out. I had to be reminded. Why is it coming up now and why does it evidently still vex you? Is it because you're a moron?
>>9989683
Imagine being this incapable of memeing whilst simultaneously only thinking in memes.

Capitalist moralists are nauseating beyond belief, and you'd be humiliated by this if you had a shred of shame or even consistency. You're disgusting creatures that care more about rearranging society to suit your own career prospects than the impending climate cataclysm, and even though it will kill me too it comforts me dearly and to no end knowing people like you will also be the victims, so much so that I shill for fossil fuel interests for free.

>>9989705
My sides, someone here is bitter. If you're good enough and not an unpleasant coworker you'll land a job in no time.

>>9987958
>http://www.vixra.org/abs/1602.0132
boy that Tooker is probably the worlds greatest scientist; you can tell because all of his works are treatise on buzz word science, psychology and philosophy, all of which he must be much more well versed in than the 1000 specialists in each of those areas

>>9989359
There is no "love" in SJW ideology.

>>9988218

did you even read it? you are insane

this thread does not bode well for the prospects of science in an increasingly censorship-sympathetic culture

>that guy who made like 20 she bait posts
Dude there are only 56 posters

>>9988500
>>9989323
>>9989326
>>9989359
>>9989373
>>9989374
>>9989380
>>9989393
>>9989395
>>9989398
>>9989402
>>9989415
>>9989465
>>9989683

>>9986997
This is not my field so I can't comment with any authority but I have a very negative view of Quillette due to their handling of trans issues. They pretty systematically ignored the neurological evidence we have gathered over the last 20 years, arguing against some 1999 strawman. Their support of the nonsensical ROGD paper was completely ridiculous. Can anyone in the know tell me whether the paper in question is legit?

>>9986997
It's not a real math paper so why care?

>>9987048
Haha get owned. Science is fake and gay now, enjoy the hard work and autism for none of the prestige or payoff

>>9992534
Is this post sarcastic? I can't tell.

>>9989681
>more highly educated women than men
I think you mean to say that there are more women with worthless degrees than men.

>>9987042
>At the same time scientifically minded people should realise that there are malicious people out there who will take advantage of facts to build support for their hate platform.

And what's the problem with that ?

>>9987077
>The mechanism in the paper depends on the existence of genes that express themselves differently based on gender. Is this something that exists?

Are you aware that women don't have penises, right?

>>9987042
>facts cannot be the basis for discrimination

the mental gymnastics with you kikes. sheesh

>colored hair and problem glasses
IMAGUN MA SHOK

>>9993207
Nope.

>>9987141
>>9987154
I frequent /r/math and I can tell you this is an exception to the rule. Normally the userbase is very lopsided to the left. Proud of them for this one, after the visitors have done some voting the opinions that drifted to the top either support the author or bring arguments to the table if they don't.

>>9987513
>recently there was that headline that in Japan the bar for female students of medicine was set higher because they expect them to become mothers and abandon work.
That's some bullshit. Got a source handy?

>>9986997
Oh wow a bigot has to remove his paper. Science and art reflects the person who makes it and that has to be considered. I bet if they had someone watching over the study they wouldn't get the same result which tells you all you need to know.

>>9986997
>academic activists
This should not be a thing.

>>9994243
>Science and art reflects the person who makes it and that has to be considered.
Why did you try to group science with art here? This is absolutely not true, science is not a subjective process, the way to improve a theory is develop better models and results, not by attacking authors which does not make any sense at all.

>I bet if they had someone watching over the study they wouldn't get the same result which tells you all you need to know.
They did? There are several professors involved.

>>9988301
>being more prone to anger and being less cooperative
How is this a disadvantage?

>>9989681
110 IQ required for bullshit degrees
Women very interested in bullshit degrees
120 IQ required for non bullshit degrees
Men more interested in it but harder to meet the cutoff.
q e d

>>9987042
>IMHO, instead of fighting facts, the SJWs should explain why facts cannot be the basis for discrimination.

>t.NPC

>>9994221
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/japan-tokyo-medical-university-sexism-women-exam-scores-shinzo-abe-a8480896.html

>ITT full of guys first from the right

>>9994401
Who checked your IQ before allowing you into your degree program?

Another episode of:

"I can't believe the jews fuck everything wherever they go"

>>9988195
>Put Jews in charge
>Put
You don't "put" Jews anywhere, they put themselves there and make you accept and tolerate it.

>>9995439
They're only a standard deviation higher and dropping because of mixing and the low IQ/very religious types being responsible for 90% of their propagation. They don't have some magic property which transcends shifts in allele frequencies.
Brain drain immigrants will outcompete them in the US. I'm not sure if the Indians and such have a set vision for what they want their domination to accomplish yet, perhaps it will be nothing but pure power in the Jindal/Haley vein.

This is going to sound dumb but is there any evidence that this is what actually happened and that he's not embellishing at points or just making some of it up? It's certainly not unbelievable, but I'd like to know.

So this is probably a dumb question, but while this story is believable enough with how journals can be, is there any evidence beyond his own word that this actually happened?

On the recently removed paper from the New York Journal of Mathematics
https://terrytao.wordpress.com/2018/09/11/on-the-recently-removed-paper-from-the-new-york-journal-of-mathematics/

>In the last week or so there has been some discussion on the internet about a paper (initially authored by Hill and Tabachnikov) that was initially accepted for publication in the Mathematical Intelligencer, but with the editor-in-chief of that paper later deciding against publication; the paper, in significantly revised form (and now authored solely by Hill), was then quickly accepted by one of the editors in the New York Journal of Mathematics, but then was removed from publication after objections from several members on the editorial board of NYJM that the paper had not been properly refereed or was within the scope of the journal; see this statement by Benson Farb, who at the time was on that board, for more details. Some further discussion of this incident may be found on Tim Gowers’ blog; the most recent version of the paper, as well as a number of prior revisions, are still available on the arXiv here.

>For whatever reason, some of the discussion online has focused on the role of Amie Wilkinson, a mathematician from the University of Chicago (and who, incidentally, was a recent speaker here at UCLA in our Distinguished Lecture Series), who wrote an email to the editor-in-chief of the Intelligencer raising some concerns about the content of the paper and suggesting that it be published alongside commentary from other experts in the field. (This, by the way, is not uncommon practice when dealing with a potentially provocative publication in one field by authors coming from a different field; for instance, when Emmanuel Candès and I published a paper in the Annals of Statistics introducing what we called the “Dantzig selector”, the Annals solicited a number of articles discussing the selector from prominent statisticians, and then invited us to submit a rejoinder.)...

>>9995874
>For whatever reason
i.e. actual honest to god misogyny

>caring maths
>talks about genes

time to kys

>It would be interesting to hear a biologist's take. Because like you say, the math is not that interesting, so if this paper has any value, it would be as a work of mathematical biology. A lot of biology papers are cited, [...] but an actual discussion of the consensus (or lack thereof) within contemporary biology on this topic, and how this paper fits into the conversation, is conspicuously absent. Even students know this is not how you do a literature review.

>This is also an exceedingly toyish work in terms of mathematical biology. Maybe the authors could justify publication if they expanded upon several of the extensions mentioned in the "Further Research Directions" field, but those extensions would all require a more frank and detailed discussion of biology, even if one were to completely exclude human mating trends from the study.
>The citations in the Appendix are laughable. And again, most of the presented evidence is based on human studies, which have so many confounders that every single one of those quotes likely has multiple caveats [...] nothing is interpreted at all, so it might as well be a compilation of the authors' favorite rap lyrics.

>In principle I would agree, but I can understand (not endorse) NYJM's course of action. Imagine you're on the editorial board of a well-respected journal, and one editor together with the editor-in-chief smuggle in a mathematically inadequate paper solely on the grounds that they agree with the political message behind it.
>The right thing would be to resign collectively, but this breaks the journal and implicates a lot of innocent thirds (it really really sucks when a journal dies while your paper is submitted there). You could issue a notice of retraction, but then you'll have to justify why the subpar paper got accepted in the first place; this again seems to risk breaking the journal.
>Scolding the responsibles and erasing the paper from memory might be seen as the 'easy out' there.
Hmm... It's almost as if

>>9993294
For a people that are so against stereotypes, they sure love enforcing them a lot.

>>9989359
Yes, and the love of science and knowledge will win over your hate of it.
Just like it did with the heliocentric model.
Just like it did with evolution.
Just like it did with relativity.
Get on the right side of history.

We Are!!!

I'm so glad to be a Penn State STEM graduate

>>9987242
The rabbit comment is incoherent and wrong.

>>9995282
LOL, It's SEXISM because some rich guys parents bribed the university and no one paid bribes to give women better scores.
Holy fuck I hate people so fucking much, the bribery is fucked but nothing to do with gender at fucking all

>>9986997
Wait I am retarded, is genetic, sexual, and racial iq real or not?

>>9998218
IQ is different when you compare races, genders, countries, cultures, university degrees, whatever.
Most of the time it doesn't mean anything because differences between individuals are much larger than differences between these groups.

>>9987272
>endangered truth

More like people not wanting to admit to living according to lies.
And it's not that they're dumb, but without solid premises, IQ is impotent. And with premises such as
-"if we all worked for each-other's good"
-"since everyone is equal"
, one's IQ is wasted.

And they know their false premises- which is why they'll attack you for attacking such premises.

>>9987042
>why is discrimination a bad thing
Accepting one's ability and RESPONSIBILITY to discern food from poison would remind people that the danger they're ignoring- in order to increase their comfort- is ever present.
And that fighting the extortioners, instead of paying them, is wise.

>>9987042
>why is discrimination bad
I don't think people believe this- they just don't want to endure the social derision that's part of defending yourself.

Also, there may be genuine misunderstanding on the difference between government and personal discrimination (and for good reason- government overreach into our lives). Personal discrimination is our right, whereas government discrimation makes us fund our destroyers (paying taxes to the institution that deprives us).

>>9987167
>women want to be dominant
"Let them know what kind of man you are, so that they know what kind of woman to be."
-Ken, Mad Men

Women are simply reacting to men's abdication of responsibility.

>>9988301
>biological differences like less cooperation

do you have source for that lovely comment?

men have had to cooperate since forever, I think you're confusing competition with lack of cooperation

>>9989376
What research *do* you do?

Science is sexist, sweetie.
And your rights end where my feelings begin~~~

>>9995874
>This, by the way, is not uncommon practice when dealing with a potentially provocative publication in one field by authors coming from a different field
/pol/ and their astroturf agenda btfo