MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

A Mathematician Says Activists Made His Paper Disappear Because Its Findings Offended Them

At behest of a feminist professor, an academic journal's board reportedly threatened to "harass the journal until it died."

MathBulat Silvia / DreamstimeTheodore Hill, a retired professor of mathematics at Georgia Tech, claims that activists successfully pressured the New York Journal of Mathematics to delete an article he had written for the academic journal because it considered a politically incorrect subject: the achievement gap between men and women at very high levels of human intelligence.

The Greater Male Variability Hypothesis, first proposed by Charles Darwin, suggests that there are more men than women at both the bottom and the very top of the distribution for intelligence scores. More men than woman are Nobel Prize winners and chess grand champions, and more men than women are homeless, unemployed, and in prison. Men as a group express greater variability in aptitude and ability. This difference, of course, need not be innate—it could be the case that social custom and pressure has punished women for falling anywhere outside the norm.

Writing for Quillette, Hill says that he and a co-author came up with a theoretical model that would help explain the gap, then attempted to publish a paper about their work in Mathematical Intelligencer. The paper was accepted, though the topic is controversial: Larry Summers resigned as president of Harvard University in part due to criticism he received for broaching the subject of variability at an academic conference.

As might have been anticipated, the paper was poorly received by feminist scholars. Hill's co-author, Sergei Tabachnikov, faced strident opposition at Penn State, where he is employed as a professor of mathematics. According to Hill:

At a faculty meeting the week before, 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. A female colleague had then instructed Sergei that he needed to admit and fight bias, adding that the belief that "women have a lesser chance to succeed in mathematics at the very top end is bias." Sergei said he had spent "endless hours" talking to people who explained that the paper was "bad and harmful" and tried to convince him to "withdraw my name to restore peace at the department and to avoid losing whatever political capital I may still have."...

The National Science Foundation eventually wrote to Tabachnikov asking him remove from the paper any acknowledgment that the NSF had helped to fund the research. This was done, according to Hill, after two Penn State academics—the chair of the climate and diversity committee, and the associate head for diversity and equity—had warned the NSF that the paper promotes ideas "detrimental to the advancement of women in science, and at odds with the values of the NSF."

Mathematical Intelligencer rescinded its acceptance of the paper. According to its editor-in-chief, publishing Hill and Tabachnikov's work would create a "very real possibility that the right-wing media may pick this up and hype it internationally." In his Quillette piece, Hill claims that a University of Chicago mathematics professor, Amie Wilkinson, lobbied the journal to abandon its plans to publish the piece.

Some time later, an editor at another publication, the New York Journal of Mathematics, wrote to Hill and offered to publish the paper. Hill accepted, and the article was published. But then:

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 [NYJM Editor-in-Chief Mark Steinberger] demanding that it be deleted at once. …

Unaware of any of this, I wrote to Steinberger on November 14, to find out what had happened. I pointed out that if the deletion were permanent, it would leave me in an impossible position. I would not be able to republish anywhere else because I would be unable to sign a copyright form declaring that it had not already been published elsewhere. Steinberger replied later that day. Half his board, he explained unhappily, had told him that unless he pulled the article, they would all resign and "harass the journal" he had founded 25 years earlier "until it died." Faced with the loss of his own scientific legacy, he had capitulated. "A publication in a dead journal," he offered, "wouldn't help you."

Hill wrote to University of Chicago President Robert Zimmer, a vocal defender of academic freedom and free speech, about Wilkinson's conduct. He received a response that in the administration's view, Wilkinson had merely been exercising her own academic freedom in urging the journals not to publish the paper:

A reasonable inference is that I was the one interfering in their academic freedom and not vice versa. My quarrel, the vice-provost concluded, was with the editors-in-chief who had spiked my papers, decisions for which the University of Chicago bore no responsibility. At the Free Speech University, it turns out, talk is cheap.

I can respect the University of Chicago's position, and I would not want the administration to punish a professor for denouncing research she finds problematic. I'm much more troubled by the actions of the journal editors, who seem to have acquiesced to activists' demands to kill a paper—not because its conclusions were faulty but because broaching the subject is forbidden. NYJM, in particular, did something rather cowardly: The journal should either stand by the material or retract it after an investigation. Opting to simply make it disappear is a terrible move.

The Intelligencer's editor was worried that publishing the paper could prompt "right-wing media" to hype it, but killing the paper in such a censorious fashion is far more likely to attract media attention—and not just from the right-wing. Neither Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker not Yale sociologist Nicholas Christakis are members of the right, yet both criticized the academic left's attempts to bury this research. Indeed, Pinker fretted on Twitter that the left's behavior in this matter would vindicate right-wing paranoia about P.C. censorship.

Photo Credit: Bulat Silvia / Dreamstime

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • lap83||

    Feminist scholars seem determined to show that there are just as many women as men at the lowest level of intelligence

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I do notice that there is no fighting over that quadrant.

  • Zeb||

    And you don't hear many demands that more women become violent criminals and go to prison. That's one of the most striking places where differences between men and women are high. Over 90% of the prison population is male. Maybe that's down to socialization, but it seems unlikely with such a big and persistent difference.

    This is yet another reason why equality of outcome is a terrible goal. People forget (or ignore) that there are two sides to the equation.

  • perlchpr||

    I've literally never heard one argue that women should be subject to the draft, although I have heard quite a few argue against the notion that I shouldn't.

    Also, very few women clambering to get into the waste management or sewage worker industries.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Or plumbing, painting, and lawn maintenance.

    Women dont want equality of jobs. They want power to determine what pay they get for their perceived hard work.

    "I deserve a raise" famous demand from women.

    Men say "I earned a raise".

  • perlchpr||

    They want power to determine what pay they get for their perceived hard work.

    And, as ever, the Labor Theory of Value is crap.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Interesting. It would appear that although LVT is associated to Marxian economics by contemporary economists, Marx never mentioned that theory once.

  • Enemy of the State||

    He never outright mentioned BY NAME it but his theories are all derived from Smith's & Ricardo's (James Mill's sock puppet) theories which are the source of LTV...

  • lap83||

    "I deserve a raise" famous demand from women.

    Men say "I earned a raise".

    Both statements are pretty naive. Performance is generally not the main factor companies use in determining raises. If you want to make more money it's usually smarter to A. switch companies or B. become self-employed

  • lap83||

    It seems like a tangent, but it's really not......just because feminists can be retarded about economics doesn't mean every man has it all figured out. A lot of conventional wisdom about work is just wrong. "Work hard and your employer will reward you accordingly!" is bologna, but not usually because of sexism

  • Vernon Depner||

    "Work hard and your employer will reward you accordingly!" is bologna

    Work harder than you need to to keep the job and your employer will realize he's got a good deal and he doesn't need to pay you any more.

  • MSimon||

    Work harder than you need to to keep the job and your employer will realize he's got a good deal and he doesn't need to pay you any more.

    I always liked delivering way more results than my employer paid for. I like it when the people paying me stay in business.

  • Vernon Depner||

    Performance is generally not the main factor companies use in determining raises.

    If you want to be rewarded for performance, you need a job that pays commission. With the exception of real estate, women rarely apply for such positions.

  • Brandybuck||

    """I deserve a raise" famous demand from women.""

    Also, unsurprisinging enough, heard just as often from men.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I have never heard a man say in person that they "deserve a raise". Ever.

  • Zeb||

    Saying "I earned a raise" certainly has the implication that the speaker thinks he deserves a raise.

    I've said "I deserve a raise". I deserved it because I earned it.

  • ||

    I have never heard a man say in person that they "deserve a raise". Ever.

    ^Clearly never worked around a Union job site.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I worked at a closed union shop. Paid for union and never joined.

    All the union guys know what it takes to get a promotion and pay raise, since its in the union contract.

  • dchang0||

    Well, what do the unions say when they go on strike? It always boils down to "I/We deserve a raise."

  • Priscilla King||

    Hah. I'd rather do painting, lawn maintenance, or even light plumbing, than infant care or home nursing any day. Relatively cleaner work!

  • Rossami||

    I actually have heard a few women (a very few) argue that they should be equally subject to the draft. No disagreement about waste management, sewage or other low-status work, though.

  • perlchpr||

    I mean, as a libertarian flavored anarchist, I think the draft should be abolished for everyone. But if there's going to be one, it should definitely cast its net equally.

  • John C. Randolph||

    Bullshit. You don't remedy a wrong by inflicting it on more people.

    -jcr

  • Robert Crim||

    Actually, the correct argument is that a society that does not protect its reproductive core is headed for the ash heap of history.

    There's a very good social reason why one does not draft women into armies and send them off to blow each other up. That such probably is a bad idea for everybody does not change the social utility of the discrimination.

  • PoxOnBothYourHouses||

    parlchpr: "... very few women clambering to get into the waste management or sewage worker industries."

    Hey! Those dumb men need to get jobs /somewhere/ !

  • vek||

    Feminists have never wanted equality, they want to be handed more than they deserve. They want perks, without the downsides. That just ain't fair, and they don't deserve it.

  • perlchpr||

    Feminists have never wanted equality

    This really is a straw man.

    There really are some ways in which women have been traditionally oppressed, and women speaking out against those oppressions are legitimate.

    Now, there may be many feminists who aren't all in for full equality in every way, but it's unreasonable to claim that none of them are.

  • BYODB||


    ...but it's unreasonable to claim that none of them are.

    Perhaps so, except that most of their dragons were slain outside of living memory.

  • vek||

    I suppose that is fair. There are a SMALL number who want equal opportunity, not equality of outcomes. However I would argue they are a minority. The majority seem to want perks, but with none of the downsides. Same with people who make the same arguments along racial lines.

    And as BYODB says, the majority of ACTUAL issues feminists had in the past have long since been taken care of. They've been fighting for an impossible equality of outcomes for a LONG time, because they've had equality of opportunity for a good long while.

    Women just aren't the same as men, and can't compete with us in many fields. So by default wanting equality of outcomes means they want preferential treatment, because that is the only way to achieve equal outcomes.

  • MarioLanza||

    How about: There may be a small number of women who push for equality in all things, you know, like occupational mortality, suicides, etc. But no one has seen one of these.

  • Penrose21||

    And perhaps we should demand that all such discussion of this difference be denounced and prohibited as well. I mean, who cares about academic freedom, freedom of speech, and search for truth when such actions may be offensive or possibly used to support an erroneous agenda?

    At the risk of being offensive and condemned, I must say this is reminiscent of the William Shockley controversy. While his theories may have been pure BS, academia missed the opportunity to emphatically prove that once and for all. Such proof could have prevented others from legitimizing his unproven theories by engaging in rigorous debate based upon controlled peer-reviewed research. Because he was condemned and ostracized by the media and academia without any research, the theories have persisted without proof.

    Obviously the academic community can not engage every hypothesis espoused, but Shockley was a Nobel prize winner for the invention of the transistor and a well-respected professor of physics at Stanford. In addition, although he was not a biologist or geneticist, some of his statements had a certain amount of logic, even though based entirely upon anecdotal evidence. Well-controlled, double-blind, peer-reviewed studies might have firmly de-legitimized his theories. Refusal to engage in robust research always creates the thought that the opposition has something to hide, thereby providing support for the original thesis.

  • mpercy||

    Not a lot of fighting for women to be injured or killed in workplace accidents either, despite men holding a huge "advantage" in that category.

  • Priscilla King||

    Prozac is an equalizer. Before the SSRI antidepressants, unprovoked murder seemed to occur *only* when blood testosterone levels were higher than most females' ever go...

  • MoreFreedom||

    Feminist scholars seem determined to show that there are just as many women as men at the lowest level of intelligence


    Seems to me they're determined to show they just as willing as men to suppress speech they don't like, and perhaps more so. But your point is supported by the fact, that their approach isn't to provide a counter-argument, and instead they argue (unsuccessfully IMHO) that his speech is harmful. They also failed the kindergarten lesson that "Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me."

    Meanwhile they're happy to harm him by creating a fuss that verges on disturbing the peace. Certainly, they are very uncivil. Their best argument, is that his words threaten the foundation and funding of feminist curriculum for feminist PhDs. But making that argument validates his research. One could argue they're smart to not make it. And then, without government funding, I doubt they'd be employed given their infidelity towards reason and argument in an educational institution.

  • Eddy||

    "What is more important - cold, unfeeling mathematics or women's lives?"

  • MarioLanza||

    Let me correct that:

    "What is more important - cold, unfeeling mathematics or women's feelings?"

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    and I would not want the administration to punish a professor for denouncing research she finds problematic.

    She didn't seem to argue against it though, she just pushed it to be removed. And so I do take issue with that. That's poor intellectualism.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Though I'm very curious. Does this happen otherwise? Is this really a unique thing. Hell, is the paper author telling the truth?

  • perlchpr||

    Hell, is the paper author telling the truth?

    We're not allowed to know. The question is taboo.

  • Robert Crim||

    Not true. It simply does not compute.

  • MarioLanza||

    The author says that he has talked to many, many people and was told that they had never heard of a paper that had been accepted for publication be "unaccepted".

  • Paloma||

    Ate they really objecting to the subject? Or is it the findings? Something tells me had the research found women were actually more capable at higher math than men, the feminist scholars would have been not only okay with it, they'd have had a parade.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Are you asking if censorship happens in scientific journals? The answer is unfortunately yes. What SHOULD happen (and what Robby should have argued if he honestly cared about free speech and the truth) is publishing of rebuttals (and rebuttal rebuttals) in the usual form of "Comments on..." or "A letter on..."

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Feminist scholar might be an oxymoron.

  • Trollificus||

    Apparently IS an oxymoron, for commonly-accepted values of "scholar".

    In this case, it is clear that the results of research are to be judged, not by accuracy or increased understanding of the subject, but by the desirability or undesirability of the EFFECTS of the research, as determined subjectively, by said "feminist scholar".

    Pretty sure that ain't how science is supposed to work. Or math.

  • Priscilla King||

    Becomes one when people become "scholars" for the purpose of pushing their agenda. However, antifeminist scholars have done as badly or worse. I.Q. tests work pretty well in determining how well people are likely to do in traditional "book learning" school systems. They would work better if antifeminist "scholars" hadn't manipulated the tests, dragging in "sports" and so on, to reduce the superior average of females.

    They're not applicable to the kinds of intelligence people need outside the classroom anyway, so trying to skew the tests to bring male averages closer to "equality of outcome" was strictly an ego defense.

  • perlchpr||

    I dunno. I guess I can agree with the statement that I don't want the University Administration to "punish" her, by like, taking away her tenured teaching position or reducing her research funding, I guess.

    But I would certainly have absolutely no objection to them widely publicizing that she's a censorious asshat who is a terrible scientist.

    Sadly, advertising that would probably just make her more popular with a certain segment of anti-intellectual university student. I really really hate that that last phrase makes sense.

    Basically, I don't want the University to "punish" her, I want it to denounce her back!

  • loveconstitution1789||

    These people are anti-intellectuals and need to be booted from academia.

    The proper method is peer review, not extorting people to delete their papers under threat of harassment.

  • perlchpr||

    There's even a widely accepted standard for such in the publication of scientific journals, wherein someone who objects to the research is invited to publish a comment on the article alongside the article itself in the publishing journal.

    The idea that the proper response to "bad speech" is censorship, instead of more speech, is always troubling.

  • croaker||

    Just wait until Trump is re-elected, you'll see the death camps.

  • Priscilla King||

    Absolutely. If someone writes a bad paper, refute it.

    I don't even mind handing them an idea: There's no dispute about the incidence of the "math gene" in males, or in specific ethnic groups. Refute it by demonstrating that people are able to work in STEM professions without showing "the math gene."

    Also, perhaps, train little girls to understand about competitiveness. When the geek Tom belittles the nerd Mike (because both show "the math gene" but Tom went into computers whereas Mike settled for accounting), that's not about gender (the same for both) or race (different between these individuals, but who cared). It's about "I'm smarter than he is, nanny nanny boo boo and so's his old man!" Girls may still tend to go into a spiral of "Oh dear he doesn't LIIIKE me," and maybe he doesn't, but if girls want to be treated equally with guys they ought to realize that these guys don't LIIIKE each other that way either.

  • ||

    I wouldn't take a class with her in it.

    Usually, it's mediocre and envious minds or one corroded by ideology that lobby to squash opinions.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    My issue is Robby saying basically that it's not her fault, it's the journal itself for backing down.

    Perhaps the journal does hold some blame, but there is absolutely blame that can be leveled at those who seek to crush ideas through force rather than honest discussion. Particularly in the scholarly realm where that's all they do.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Denouncing research on political grounds rather than scientific grounds seems unprofessional and generally against any respect for a spirit of free inquiry.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Yes, but to admit this would be to validate right-wing paranoia, and we can't have that.

  • Uncle Adolf's Gas and Grill||

    According to its editor-in-chief, publishing Hill and Tabachnikov's work would create a "very real possibility that the right-wing media may pick this up and hype it internationally."

    So there you have it. The greatest danger presented by the far right. That they might be telling the truth. Worse, people might respond to it.

  • colorblindkid||

    It's the same thing with crime statistics, like the fact that 24% of hate crime offenders are black, twice their share of the population. Ignoring these things and pretending like they don't exist because they might help right-wingers is the most counterproductive action possible.

    All this does is give those right-wingers valid claims to the truth. Then people start believing other things they say, and justifiably think the media is hiding other things.

  • perlchpr||

    24% of hate crime offenders are black

    Is that actually true?

    I mean, I definitely accept that 24% of the people we have imprisoned for hate crimes are black. I'll just accept that number as accurate for this argument.

    The issue is, I have no idea how good of a job we're doing on imprisoning that actual total population of "hate criminals".

    (As an aside, I hate the term "hate crime", because it's so goddamn vague, but, moving on.)

    So, if, by some chance (I am not claiming this is the case, I'm making up numbers to make a math demonstration) there were really twice as many black hate crime committers as are in prison, but four times as many white hate crime committers as are in prison, then the ratio of actual hate crime committers would reflect the ethnic proportions of the country.

    So, are the cops and courts more likely to convict black folks of the same crime than white folks? I dunno. Do they do it at a rate that inflates the "black prisoner" signal to twice it's expected demographic strength? I dunno. I kinda doubt it.

    But just accepting the "24%" number as gospel presumes a level of ability to discern truth that I am unwilling to grant to the government.

    Sorry. Pedantic. *shrug*

  • loveconstitution1789||

    A real discussion of black inequality in crimes and incarceration would probably be both system bias and actual higher crime rates.

    Thugs gotta thug.

    Many crimes by black folks are drug crimes, which does increase the incarceration rates and are non-violent crimes.

  • perlchpr||

    Thugs gotta thug.

    There certainly does appear to be a popular culture of criminality among a certain segment of the black population.

    I'm not entirely sure that there isn't an equal popular culture of criminality among a certain segment of the white population though. Think, tweaker Dukes of Hazzard redneck sorts. Maybe less of a vocal willingness to brag about murder, although there's definitely the same sort of "I will kill you for fucking with me" honor culture going on there too.

    And my point really, is that based purely on the signals I get from pop culture as I experience it, I can't tell what the real answer is.

    Yes, "gangsta rap" appears to be popular with black people, and it glorifies criminality. But what percentage of black people really adhere to that lifestyle?

    And, on the flip side, what percentage of white people adhere to that maniac redneck lifestyle?

    And how much emphasis is placed on each one of those things in the news media and popular media?

    The whole question is a mess, unfortunately.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    More and more black folks are becoming mainstream and joining the professional working world.

    These people will remember who was president when that happened and it was Trump.

    You're right about white people being criminals-fo-life. They're a tiny minority of the American white population.

  • vek||

    I've dug through a lot of these statistics over the years... There is little doubt in my mind that for serious crimes, blacks commit them at far higher rates. I think they may get busted for minor infractions somewhat unfairly though. But the ~50% of murders they commit are not made up. Cops don't just go randomly grab blacks off the street and frame them for murder. Same with assaults, etc.

    There are reasons for these disparities, but many of them aren't PC...

  • Vernon Depner||

    Cops don't just go randomly grab blacks off the street and frame them for murder.

    Just the opposite. The clearance rate for murders in violent Black neighborhoods are low. Since the race of the offender doesn't show up in the stats if the crime is not solved, the actual disparity in murder rates between Blacks and other ethnic groups is certainly higher than the stats show.

  • perlchpr||

    There is little doubt in my mind that for serious crimes, blacks commit them at far higher rates. I think they may get busted for minor infractions somewhat unfairly though. But the ~50% of murders they commit are not made up.

    I'd be interested in seeing the same data sorted by income level, too, by race.

    i.e.: to see if "black people who earn under $10k per year" are committing more murders than "white people who earn under $10k per year".

    The theory being that a lot of people say that economic status is also a high predictor for criminality, so, is the "poor" signal more important, or the "race" signal?

    Not really arguing with you, more sort of agreeing and extending. :)

  • BYODB||


    I'd be interested in seeing the same data sorted by income level, too, by race.

    One and done, son. Crime is almost always a function of income and/or education, and if people have been paying attention how does the black community score on those two points?

    It has nothing to do with race, not really, although there is without a doubt something to a culture that lauds criminality and ignorance. And yeah, I'm lumping redneck white trash into the same group.

    EXERCISE: Read the lyrics from popular country and rap songs and see if you can tell a difference lyrically. I sure can't.

    In fact, those two community's are so alike it's no wonder they don't get along. Familiarity breeds contempt.

  • BYODB||

    Oh, and bonus points if you stop and consider exactly how many potential black lives have been snuffed out by planned parenthood. When, exactly, does a genocide become a genocide and if a culture or group is expunging itself from existence does that still count?

  • vek||

    "i.e.: to see if "black people who earn under $10k per year" are committing more murders than "white people who earn under $10k per year".

    The theory being that a lot of people say that economic status is also a high predictor for criminality, so, is the "poor" signal more important, or the "race" signal?"

    One, all the data is out there. You have to Google foo some of it hard, and a lot of it is posted by people that would be "ZOMG racist!" But they give legit sources, like FBI, FedGov etc. I don't bookmark 99.9% of stuff I read, but google things and they will come.

    But here's the short version as I recall: Blacks still commit crimes at slightly higher rates than whites of comparable income, but they're a lot closer.

    The best predictor of criminality is IQ, it's way stronger than income bracket. Blacks and whites of the same IQ commit crimes at similar rates, but whites are still a touch lower. But only a touch.

    Now a "race realist" would point out that both criminality and income are DOWN STREAM from IQ. The fact that blacks have 12-15 point lower IQs on average explains both lower income and higher crime rates.

  • vek||

    Keep in mind, one need not believe in GENETIC differences causing the IQ gap. Prog scientists say it is all environmental factors, even though most science points to it being 60-70% genetic in origin. So to say it is lower black IQs does NOT necessarily mean it is inherent in blacks, and unalterable. Merely that that is the current state of things, and that this IQ gap explains current outcomes.

    The IQ gap is NOT disputed BTW. Merely argued by ultra egalitarians that IQ is meaningless (Which it IS NOT. Whatever it measures is a very good predictor of lots of things, even if it doesn't measure ALL forms of intelligence), or that it is environmental. But that blacks score lower on IQ and all other forms of intelligence testing is indisputable.

  • Priscilla King||

    Where and when did you get a 12-15 point gap? In the 1990s when I last studied the numbers, people were getting, I forget, single digits, bigger gap between White and Black males than between White and Black females, females leading males by single digits in both groups...and people can get 15-20 point gaps by taking different tests on different days.

  • Priscilla King||

    When and where did you get 12-15 point gaps? Last time I studied the statistics, in the 1990s, it was single digits, bigger gaps between Black and White females than between Black and White males, females leading in all racial groups, and also it's not unusual for an individual to get a 15-20 point gap by taking two different tests.

  • MJBinAL||

    "EXERCISE: Read the lyrics from popular country and rap songs and see if you can tell a difference lyrically. I sure can't."

    I certainly can. Please, if you will, point out the the country songs that feature killing cops and beating whores and major, or even any , parts of the song.

    Your comment suggests that you haven't actually listening to much of them but want to sound even handed and fair.

    My personal opinion, is that there is nothing related to race involved here directly. The issue is culture and the idiocy that "all cultures are equally valid". Culture, is a collection of common ideas and accepted practices. To say all cultures are equally valid is to say that all ideas are equal. Complete idiocy.

    The problem with "Black Culture", that is actually poor, inner city, black culture, is that it is a culture that celebrates ideas and practices that assure economic failure, unhappy lives, and often leads to violence and prison. All there is racism, in my opinion, this culture, rather than racism, is what holds many black people back from personal success, happy lives, and economic contribution.

  • MJBinAL||

    I really wish we had the ability to edit our posts. Please forgive my typing errors.

  • vek||

    It is a 110% fact that even if ALL disparities were not eliminated by blacks getting rid of urban ghetto culture, they would be a million times better off. I don't think anybody can disagree with that.

  • vek||

    Also, Priscilla, google it. Almost all large scale ACTUAL IQ tests, not inferred IQ from other types of testing like SATs, tend to range in the 10-15+ point gap. There are outliers, but that is the typical range. The gap narrowed up until the late 80s/early 90s and then stopped narrowing. It used to fall into the 15+ plus range. Some chock this up to even blacks in the US finally getting enough of the good diet etc that whites had enjoyed a bit earlier in US history.

    And that gap for the same person on a different day is POSSIBLE, but not normal. The fact is that on the scale testing has been done, the averages are pretty solid. Blacks score the worst on all forms of intelligence testing worldwide. You can blame whatever you like, but they have lower IQs in the here and now, and lower IQs are known to correlate with TONS of problems. Crime, lower incomes, etc.

    Like it or not, there seems to be a real issue with black IQ, which translates very well into what most people define as book smarts. This likely causes most of the problems blacks experience worldwide. As I said, chock it up to genetics, environment, or whatever... But it is the root cause of problems in the black community IMO.

  • Ann NY||

    With so many plea deals, how can we be sure that they're not taking the non-violent plea?

  • Ann NY||

    I'm talking about drug convictions in general regardless of race.

  • colorblindkid||

    No, I agree with you. Either black people disproportionately commit hate crimes, or hate crime laws disproportionately target black people. It's probably some of both. Both are good reasons to get rid of hate crime laws altogether, though.

    What is interesting, though, is that most hate crimes are race-related, and they're almost all anti-black. With the pretty good assumption that few of those offenders are black, this means that all other types of hate crimes are disproportionately committed by blacks by a huge margin.

    Anecdotally, the only two times I've ever been harassed by strangers for being gay were black men. Of course I didn't go to the police or complain about it on social media. I moved the fuck on because I know actual hate crimes, especially ones that involve physical violence, are exceptionally rare.

    Fearmongering about hate crimes is as statistically nonsensical as fearmongering about being killed by illegal immigrants. Both are completely irrational fears in America in 2018.

  • vek||

    I think from other crime rates that they likely do commit more hate crimes per capita. Keep in mind being ONLY represented at twice their percentage of the population is actually LESS than they are represented for lots of other crimes. Murder is around 50% every year, IIRC assault is something like 35-40%, etc.

    So for them to be 24% for hate crimes seems entirely reasonable. As I said above, I think it is obvious for some categories of crimes blacks do just commit them at higher rates. The cops don't just randomly frame people for murder, serious assaults, etc. These cases have witnesses, evidence, etc. It's not like busting somebody for smoking a joint, whereas they might let a white guy off or whatever.

  • rrgg||

    That might be a valid argument but we don't know. However, can you apply that to serious crimes like homicide? You can't really believe the rate is so high among one group due to racism. Police aren't just letting white criminals walk on homicide. https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf

  • perlchpr||

    "Letting them walk", no. Things getting charged as lesser offences? Maybe. I dunno. I'm not in any way claiming that this is what happens, just that such a thing would be an explanation for perceived differences in rates.

  • vek||

    It's not that dude. Most of the black murders are blacks killing other blacks, and a HUGE percentage of it is gang related. Whites simply don't get involved in "organized" crime at nearly the rates. Most white criminals are solo drug dealers/thieves/whatever, or do that stuff with a few buddies or connections. Black and Hispanic gangs in the US tend to be way larger, more organized, etc. And that's where most of the murders come in.

  • perlchpr||

    Whites simply don't get involved in "organized" crime at nearly the rates.

    Oh, true, that's another possible confounding factor I hadn't thought to control for in the comment I left above: urban/suburban/rural divide. Even if the poor white tweaker rednecks are as inclined to murder as their black counterparts, it may be the case that they execute (ha ha) that option less frequently simply because being spread out in the countryside, they aren't rubbing up against one another all the time and causing friction.

    Like, it may be that the urban environment itself is a contributing factor to the amount of violence happening there, with the violence occurring mostly among the poor of the urban environment, and with the urban poor mostly being black and hispanic, with the poor whites living in Rev. Kirkland's fantasies.

  • vek||

    It may well be a legit factor. The south is about the only area where blacks commonly live in rural settings, for historical reasons of course...

    Suburban/rural areas tend to have less crime across the board. I would imagine this holds true for blacks in rural areas, IE they commit fewer crimes than urban blacks, however I don't recall ever seeing a stat that said as much. That said, I do recall reading that blacks still commit more crimes than whites in rural settings, BUT I don't know if the gaps in rates are as large as in urban environments. It may well be smaller. All that said, the differences in rates of poor whites/blacks living in urban environments could make statistically significant contributions to the gap. I wouldn't rule it out.

    Also, people who live in urban environments do have a lot of know physiological traits that differ from rural folks. They tend to be more stressed, agitated, etc according to studies. So more opportunity for conflict + stress/aggravation may well tweak the numbers.

    ALL that said, I still don't think any controls at all will eliminate the disparities. The gap for serious crimes is simply too high IMO. I personally think it is the IQ gap causing it all, as the math lines up PERFECTLY if you look at the data. You can believe the gap is environmental factors, so as not to be "racist' if you wish, but it still explains it all in one fell swoop.

  • MJBinAL||

    In particular, most violent black crime has black victims. The irony of letting off black offenders in order to avoid appearing racist, is that it primarily puts other black people at risk of being victims of violent crime.

    Those black children shot in their homes in Chicago were killed by black men, not white men.

    There ARE white criminals and thugs, and they tend to prey on others in their own cultural group just as the black thugs tend to prey on theirs.

  • vek||

    Yup. Which is exactly why most middle class blacks are totally down for policing the shit out of bad parts of town, even if it means more black gangstas end up in prison. They don't want their kids getting shot in a drive by.

  • ||

    I loathe the terms 'hate crime' and 'hate speech'.

    Commie weasel speak.

  • colorblindkid||

    I agree. If some dude kills me for being gay, why should he punished more than a guy who killed my brother for no reason at all? Is my life worth more? Isn't that guy far more dangerous to society than the guy who killed me?

  • MasterThief||

    That does seem to be a little too blatantly partisan for a supposedly intellectual institution

  • Rat on a train||

    It is all good as long as people don't post photographs of my waterfront property.

  • Priscilla King||

    Bwahahahaha! I don't consider myself right-wing, but they would. And I'm tweeting this! Tremble, lefty censors! :-D

  • Don't look at me.||

    Facts are only correct if they are the right facts.

  • MJBinAL||

    Yes, and I am going to disagree with the wise folks on this one.

    The feminist professor SHOULD lose tenure and be fired. Not for disagreeing with the study results, or the paper, but rather for interfering with the publication of the paper.

    She is free to disagree. Free to publish a letter refuting whatever she finds wrong with the study. Free to conduct a new study, or try to replicate the one she disagrees with to validate it, or not.

    The action of intimidation to suppress other researchers work is a violation of scientific method and academic ethics, and should absolutely be grounds for dismissal.

  • Priscilla King||

    This feminist completely agrees.

  • tommyguns2||

    But what if she's hot? I don't think the scientific method applies to them. There's a "hot chick" exemption, I believe.

  • Priscilla King||

    Not with women readers/reviewers ;-D

  • Priscilla King||

    Not with women readers/reviewers :-D

  • colorblindkid||

    Blank slate advocates are no different than creationists. They believe humans are special and immune to th results of evolution. Regular creationists do little harm to the world, though. It's a pretty harmless belief; just easy and fun to mock. These people create policies and teach our children, and it is just as bad as teaching creationism in schools.

  • Uncle Adolf's Gas and Grill||

    Another thing they share with creationists: they don't have a lick of evidence supporting their position, and put all their effort into trying to undermine the ever growing pile of evidence being accumulated by their opponents.

  • colorblindkid||

    At least most creationisms just say "God made the Earth that way" and leave it at that. I'm fine with that. I always pictures it kind of as a Matrix-type world, where the universe was created as is with everything set in motion. Silly? Sure. But it's explained by supernatural beliefs.

    The blank slatists though are the ones who claim to love science and rationalize their beliefs with bad science. That is worse.

  • SQRLSY One||

    Yes, the atheist-evolutionary mindset, when coupled with political correctness, says that we are the randomly created beings made by random or pseudo-random wanderings of mindless, directionless evolutionary processes, and that the universe is a cold and uncaring place, and does NOT give ONE hoot about the welfare of humans. Evolution has no "goal". See the writings of Jay Gould, for example.

    Yet evolution could NOT EVEN POSSIBLY have formed us with any male-female or racial differences in mental talents... BECAUSE WE SAID SO! Or because the universe has carved out a special exception, and cares about political correctness, and the hurt baby feelings of would-be thought-controlling humans?

  • perlchpr||

    My Sqrlsy friend, it is perfectly reasonable to believe that male and female humans are both members of a sexually dimorphic species that demonstrates significant variation between the average for each type, which signal persists across all ethnic backgrounds, and even extends to cover the physical structure of the brain, and certainly the hormonal balance of the individual, which we also know to have an impact on cognition, and that there is enough of a difference in "male" and "female" brains that they can be distinguished enough that persons-born-as-male who become transwomen have been determined after autopsy to possess "female brains" AND that there is no discernable difference, at all, in any way, between the base level functioning of those brains, or in the capability of those different structures to have different levels of variability.

  • vek||

    But that's not what every study ever done has found...

    With all the reading I have done on this stuff, which is a lot, there is a MASSIVE difference in the AVERAGES between male/female traits and different ethnic groups. There is plenty of overlap in the middle, but that there is overlap is not questioned by anyone.

    At either end of the spectrum on measuring whatever physical/mental traits is where one sees the large difference, and also when one averages the outcomes. Women DO NOT think like men. They have preferences that are completely different, and these are consistent across basically 100% of cultures on earth. That's nature, not nurture. They aren't as strong. They are better at language than men, men are better at math. Etc. This stuff shows up in every single test ever devised, and no controls have even been able to eliminate it.

    I've never understood this need to deny obvious reality right in front of your face... Especially when all the evidence backs it up. Is the concept that we all have to be IDENTICAL soooo important that we must ignore the fact that 100% of the evidence says the opposite.

    Re trans stuff, it does seem that gay and trans people do have mixed traits of both sexes in at least some instances. This is likely a genetic "error" or whatever you care to call it, which is WHY they are gay/trans. I doubt barring hormones etc anybody has ever changed their brain, they were likely born with the mixed/opposite sex brain.

  • MJBinAL||

    Brain scans showing right brain and left brain activity is predominately very different between men and women. The right and left brains of men perform more uncoupled activity, whereas women perform more coupled activity.

    There is no reason to say one is better than the other, but every reason to observe that they are different.

  • SQRLSY One||

    By "Jay Gould" I actually meant this guy here...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Jay_Gould

    To paraphrase again...

    "The universe and the evolution that it contains is coldly uncaring and directionless, but it could NOT POSSIBLY have evolved humans with group-differentiated mental abilities, because... Because we don't want to go there!"

  • perlchpr||

    Yep. No objection to people who believe in magic using magic as an explanation of how things happen.

    (Strong objection to those people being put in positions of authority or responsibility, but that's something else.)

    People who claim to accept science, and then make up magic explanations are actually more delusional than the first crew.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    They 'accept' science to be self-righteous. They just dont know how scientific method actually works.

  • perlchpr||

    Indeed.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    The proper oxymoron is "believe in science".

  • MJBinAL||

    There is nothing in science that proves, or disproves the existence of God. We can forever spin about, going to basic sub-atomic particles and then ask "where did the particles come from" and if you suggest they are just aberations or spin in the fabric of space, "where did the fabric of space come from".

    At the end of the day, the acceptance of the existence of God is faith, a believe taken without scientific proof. The denial of God is faith, a believe taken without scientific proof. If you are going to maintain you believe in science only, then you must be agnostic, since God is neither proven nor disproven.

    There are folks who believe in a literal reading of religious documents that maintain that science is wrong, for a variety of reasons because the findings do not match the word in the book. I am not one of those, as I do not accept that a book written for the equivalent of a 3 yr old (in terms of how the world really works) is literally true any more than Grimms fairy tales are. Which is not to say that there are not valid ideas in both.

    The tendency of science believing atheists to make fun of people who believe in God is pretty rich, since when they become atheist, they raise science to a religion.

  • Priscilla King||

    Agreed again.

  • tommyguns2||

    Can't argue with a word said here....

    Neither the religious nor the secular have an answer to basic cosmogeny

  • colorblindkid||

    I'm just ranting now, but even more infuriating to me than blank-slatists are all the people who FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE and want to imprison climate change deniers, yet oppose nuclear energy. The amount of fake science and bullshit fearmongering I see from my environmentalist friends around nuclear energy is worse than the climate change deniers.

    Any chance we had of stopping climate change died with the death of the American nuclear power industry, and that was in large part due to science-hating Luddite environmentalists. Yes, economics played a role, but even that was driven in part by irrational fearmongering by these morons.

    Also, I have found numerous thing on I FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE that were just wrong. Like outright wrong. Like mislabeling species of stingray and other bullshit that's not even up for debate. But they FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE and FACTS.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    There are other ways of producing energy that does not involve nuclear power.

    Nuclear power is an established tech for producing energy, along with fossil fuels.

    Solar on every home and business with good batteries and microgrids would be more efficient than sending electricity around the USA on nationwide grids. Nuclear is very efficient when up and running but can be 10,000 years type of dangerous when something goes wrong.

    Solar is not established energy tech, so the 70+ years of infrastructure is not there like coal, oil, and nuclear.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Wrong on so, so many levels. But the best fairy tale of all is having the grid subsidize your hobby and pretend it pays for itself.

  • MJBinAL||

    Solar and wind power are expensive and nearly useless for a broad based energy system unless we develop battery technology hundreds of times less costly than any technology that we currently have.

    At this time, every MW of Solar or Wind generation must be accompanied by 1/2 MW of natural gas swing generation to cover the intermittent nature of solar and wind. This stand by swing generation has to be on line burning natural gas continuously in order to be able to make those swings.

    At this point, while nuclear is a great solution, it is not useful as a substitute for natural gass with solar and wind. Nuclear is excellent for base load, but does not swing quickly enough to cover for the large, and unpredictable swings inherent in wind and solar.

    So, wind and solar use is mostly making a mess. It is expensive, makes the generation system complicated, and actually requires natural gas generation in increasing amounts to balance out it's intermittent nature.

    The only time wind and solar makes any sense, is when it is located geographically close to large hydroelectric installations where it can be used to pump water up into the reservour, using it as a giant (inefficient) battery. And even then, it is extremely expensive.

  • Priscilla King||

    If I can't store solar power in rechargeable batteries that will run computers, lights, refrigerators, even heating/cooling...why not?

    Also, why can't I use an "exercycle" to charge batteries?

    Serious need for additional work here. I believe cheap energy is within our grasp.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    The only climate change "deniers" are those who think that climate change can ever be stopped. Stasis is a fantasy, as are the ridiculous ECS and TCR of the GCM's.

  • Tony||

    The level of ignorance it takes to conflate the concept of current rapid climate change with "climate change" in the abstract is so great that you have to be taking it on willfully.

  • JesseAz||

    There is no current rapid climate change dumb fuck. You're comparing yearly deltas with 30 year smoothing trends. There's been no warming since about 98. Run away warming! It warmed faster from 1890-1940 than from 1980-current. And this is even with the data manipulation of historical records.

  • Mike W.||

    +1

  • ShotgunJimbo||

    "Yep. No objection to people who believe in magic using magic as an explanation of how things happen.

    (Strong objection to those people being put in positions of authority or responsibility, but that's something else.)"

    Ya very much agreed. Unfortunately the amount of true scientists and rational thinkers in charge of our country are sparse. We elect a body of mostly lawyers with mostly average intelligence, and little to no scientists. Hence we get debates among a bunch of magical thinkers over what's best

  • SQRLSY One||

    "Pinker fretted on Twitter that the left's behavior in this matter would vindicate right-wing paranoia about P.C. censorship."

    Right-wing paranoia about P.C. censorship has just been vindicated. ALL brands of paranoia about P.C. censorship has just been vindicated!!!!

    "Do not let facts stand in the way of our beliefs and values". This is not a way to make good progress!!!

    PS, if we are going to be forced to pretend that women can make top 0.001% math geniuses (or "appoint" them to be such), then fairness dictates that we need to put as many women in jail, as there are men in jail, as well.

  • SQRLSY One||

    OK, for you nit-pickers, correction below...

    PS, if we are going to be forced to pretend that women can make top 0.001% math geniuses AT THE SAME PERCENTAGE RATE OF THE POPULATION AS MEN...

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    That changes it a bit.

  • perlchpr||

    I'm not concerned about them being in jail. I am concerned about their devotion to achieving "equal job representation" as men in only prestigious fields.

    If women come in and drive men out of prestigious fields, but refuse to take shitty jobs, then proportionally, even more men will be shoved into those jobs.

  • perlchpr||

    And fuck it, if they're allowed to bitch about "fairness" as though it mattered, so am I.

  • SQRLSY One||

    Amen all the way down!!!

  • Paloma||

    So you think being a hotel maid is a better job than garbage collector? They are both shitty jobs but guess which pays more? Women could apply for garbage collectors but by and large are not strong enough. Most would have to be fired after a week.

  • CE||

    My garbage collectors for the past 20 years have only had to be strong enough to drive a truck.

  • MJBinAL||

    Sorry dude, you mean based on the small portion of their job you see at your house, they "only had to be strong enough to drive a truck". Which of course misses a substantial portion of the job.

  • Priscilla King||

    Smokescreen. Most people who succeed in STEM jobs are not top 0.001% geniuses; just smart enough to do their jobs. Women *can* get into *that* category, if they get on with the jobs instead of (having more fun) screaming about how hurtful it is to study to what extent there really is a sex-and-ethnicity-linked "math gene."

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    As a libertarian, I'm OK with papers being removed as long as it wasn't done under government coercion. The free market of ideas apparently decided it didn't want this misogynistic nonsense. The authors may, of course, publish their hate speech on a blog post or something if they really want to.

    #LibertariansForDiversity
    #WomenInSTEM

  • Don't look at me.||

    #BringBackLynchMobs

  • perlchpr||

    Excellent work. 10/10. Conflating "threats by a very small group to destroy an entire business" with "the free market" is pitch perfect overenthusiastic idiot progressive. Well done!

  • dchang0||

    Destroying the business with ONLY market power is still free market.

    But the instant those feminists tried to use any other kind of power (backed by the gov't's lethal force), they'd violate the free market. And of course today's feminists have demonstrated that if they cannot win with market power, they are very willing to escalate to the use of gov't force.

  • MJBinAL||

    And, is this tenured government employee subject to the same consequences as the private business she threatened to put out of business?

    It appears to me that she welds government force when she makes these threats from a position of government protected safety.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    That would be swell, oven baked lettuce and tomatoe, but exactly how did the "free market" enter into this decision? Inquiring minds want to know.

  • Trollificus||

    The "assuming the conclusion" part is so effortless, with the "misogynistic nonsense" and "hate speech" just thrown out as if the phrases actually meant something in this context. That is EXACTLY what I've come to expect from the proglodytes!

    Agreed, 10/10.

  • Rock Lobster||

    The East German judge says 5.9/10.

    But that's only because the commie motherfucker is jealous.

  • CE||

    Just not Facebook, YouTube, Twitter of any other site with a sizable readership.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    ...there are more men than women at both the bottom and the very top of the distribution for intelligence scores.

    There's a reason the bell curve looks like a boob.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    That's because Gauss did all his work in the midst of hot Jack seshes.

  • Incomprehensible Bitching||

    I ducking love science!

  • damikesc||

    So, it's only science if it agrees with your worldview?

    Wonder if the EIC realizes that they are not publishing an academic journal. They are publishing an exceedingly dull propaganda flier.

    Remember --- when we defund higher education completely, it will be due to being "anti-intellectual", not this shit.

  • BYODB||


    Remember --- when we defund higher education completely, it will be due to being "anti-intellectual", not this shit.

    Well duh, socialists and their ilk have been making that argument for something like 100 years and it has mostly consistently worked I.E. if you are against the state doing the thing, than you are against the thing.

    Why stop now at only a few dozen million corpses? The argument works so there's a hole in the human brain that this neatly fits through regardless of any evidence. It just 'sounds good' to people.

    There is, apparently, no real rebuttal that will work other than (for example) coming out the other end of the cleansing and realizing that maybe you shouldn't do it again for 50 years or so.

  • MJBinAL||

    Why stop at a few million corpses when there are tens of millions, perhaps more, of socialists in the US wanting to use government to enslave the rest of us. If we are going to start using force to defend ourselves, we have a target rich environment indeed.

  • Microaggressor||

    Will we look back on this period of time as the Woke Dark Age?

  • Incomprehensible Bitching||

    Scientists are never, ever political! This is known.

  • damikesc||

    I wonder when scientists will realize how horrificly they damaged their profession over the last few decades.

    The Renaissance church was more open to different ideas than modern science is today.

  • Trollificus||

    Yes, this. The comparison between what Galileo faced from a church that at least respected the fact that our ability to reason was God-given, and what current year scientists face when their results counter identity dogma actually makes the medieval church look good.

    Of course, the Church did burn Giordano Bruno and the progs haven't been quite so daring, but I suspect it's only a matter of time.

    "Antifa members HAD to suppress him with axe handles and bike locks, before his hateful research harmed someone!"

  • Stevecsd||

    As someone who has studied medieval & renaissance history, I don't agree. I understand your point. You may have missed that Galileo was put under house arrest for the last nine years of his life by the Inquisition because he supported heliocentrism.

  • JesseAz||

    Heliocentric theory was denounced by the CONCENSUS due to a lack of parallax of celestial objects. It was a scientific consensus at the time. Galileo was more in antagonism with accepted science than religion at the time.

  • perlchpr||

    My friend Billy Beck termed it, "The Endarkenment".

  • croaker||

    We'll look back on this period of time as the Woke Learned How To Fly (Poorly).

  • perlchpr||

    Everyone knows that the best response to scientific research which might have the wrong answer is to suppress it.

    Because when you suppress the research, you just get to declare what the answer is!

    Which is why marijuana has no medical uses. The end. And you aren't allowed to say otherwise, and aren't allowed to conduct research to demonstrate otherwise.

    So, these folks are roughly on the same level as people who deny that MJ has any medical uses at all, and flat earthers.

  • BYODB||

    Well, most actual doctors and researchers I know admit that MJ has borderline medical uses but none that are remarkable enough that the condition isn't better handled by actual medicine.

    You know, since smoking pot has it's own set of downsides and health risks. It's not some 'un-mined miracle drug' and the medical angle was always inferior to the 'just let people smoke it if they want' argument.

    Also, keep in mind that a sugar pill has been known to 'cure' people of various illnesses and notably a sugar pill doesn't get you high to make you think it's working. Fucking stoners will believe anything.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Women play it safe as a gender.

    It means they live longer and experience less hardship than men who take more risks and experience the highs and lows of life.

    Any woman who would not discuss this universal truth with others is part of the problem.

  • damikesc||

    From my experience, women frequently have no clue what they want and have absurd assumptions about what their choices actually lead to.

    "you mean I have to CHOOSE between work and family?" Well, yeah. Men have had to do so for centuries.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Exactly. The power brokers would rather throw 6-9 months of paid maternity leave than have a real discussion about life balance and consequences of choices.

  • vek||

    Yup. Female brains are NOT wired like mens. The average woman, not the rare odd balls who can think more like men, literally cannot comprehend some male arguments or ways of thinking. That we even have to discuss the fact that men and women fundamentally do not think the same is insane. Anybody who has spent 5 minutes on planet earth knows this in their gut, but this brainwashing of SAMENESS is so drilled into some people they refuse to admit the obvious.

  • Priscilla King||

    Well, actually, for most of those centuries, most people of both sexes worked within and among their families. When there was a debate, it was about at what age a boy should make the transition from being carried around by Mommy to working beside Daddy.

    Of course, the trade-off there was that most people did manual work--farming, weaving, metalwork, etc.--in their homes, so there was no way to "escape to the office." And homes tended to be messy.

    (No link, but I enjoyed Aries' History of Private Life; glad most libraries seem to have all five big expensive volumes.)

  • vek||

    More or less? In agricultural societies the differentiation on the types of activities done by the sexes somewhat narrowed... But men still did harder labor jobs, went off to war and killed people, etc. Also, many men DID work outside the house in mines, building, or a myriad of other trades. Women did too, but not as commonly until more recent times.

    But in hunter gatherer societies, which STILL exist on planet earth to this day, men were out and about with other men hunting etc.

    Any which way, these things all lead to very different traits being desirable in the different sexes... Which is why we evolved to be radically different physically and mentally.

  • perlchpr||

    All of which makes perfect sense from an evolutionary perspective.

    If, in your tribe of 100 people, 50 men and 50 women, 25 men die, functionally, the tribe can keep having as many children as before if they can feed them.

    If 25 women die, your population creation ability just dropped 50%, period.

    So, keep the women safe.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Try having a rational discussion about that topic with some women.

  • croaker||

    If you're not breeding, we don't have to protect you. Simple.

  • Trollificus||

    This is decidedly relevant to the types of progs I see on college campuses.

  • Paloma||

    If we're mainly breeding, 100 of us only need one of you.

  • MJBinAL||

    Perhaps so. Sound a lot like inner city culture!

  • MJBinAL||

    Who cares how many of the men die, we were not expecting to marry them anyway!

  • Incomprehensible Bitching||

    We live in a world where, if you measure everyone's ability at birth, we are all equal, and only racism/sexism/homophobia holds anyone back!

    That's my story and I'm sticking to it!

  • Mark22||

    I can respect the University of Chicago's position, and I would not want the administration to punish a professor for denouncing research she finds problematic.

    How about punishing a professor for placing her political agenda ahead of the scientific method? For behaving unprofessionally?

    Or are you saying that women's feels trump any requirement for professionalism?

  • Cathy L||

    How about punishing a professor for placing her political agenda ahead of the scientific method?

    Yeah, that would be a problem for academic freedom too.

  • perlchpr||

    Y'know, everyone holds up "academic freedom" as some sort of unimpeachable platinum idol of perfection.

    I'm not convinced that academics shouldn't be impeachable the same way presidents and justices are.

  • perlchpr||

    Damnit, I just realised I used 'impeach' in two different contexts in to sentences. Sorry. Need caffeine.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Calling for censorship is as much academic freedom as murder is just being a rugged individual.

  • Mark22||

    So what? Academic freedom is not something libertarians recognize, in particular in public universities.

  • Trollificus||

    As is clearly demonstrated by the numbers of papers suppressed, speakers shouted down and departments defunded, by libertarians. Oh wait...you DIDN'T want facts with that, did you? My bad.

  • Mark22||

    As is clearly demonstrated by the numbers of papers suppressed, speakers shouted down and departments defunded, by libertarians.

    Libertarians would like to defund all public universities and departments. And libertarians certainly believe that private employers, including private universities, should be able to fire employees at will, including professors.

  • dchang0||

    You are conflating supporting public funding with supporting academic freedom.

    Think of it this way. My refusal to give you $100 of my own money does not limit your freedom to go spend your own money in any way.

    And you are also conflating the restriction of a private university to fire a professor with academic freedom. First of all, private universities have tenure too. But let's say they don't. No university offers tenure anywhere. Professors can still have academic freedom if they choose to work for universities that prioritize academic freedom. In other words, they can pick and choose who they work for; i.e., the free market still works.

  • dchang0||

    Also, it is important to note that right now, thanks to public funding in the form of grants, many professors and researchers DO NOT have academic freedom in that they cannot publish research that goes against the desired political outcomes.

    Gov't always involves politics, so money coming through the gov't will always have a political string attached.

  • Mark22||

    Also, it is important to note that right now, thanks to public funding in the form of grants, many professors and researchers DO NOT have academic freedom in that they cannot publish research that goes against the desired political outcomes.

    And the libertarian solution to that is to eliminate public funding, not to add the un-libertarian concept of "academic freedom" on top of the already un-libertarian concept of public funding.

    To put it differently, as a libertarian, I very much hope that public funding will come with so many unpleasant strings attached that academics themselves will choose to refuse it.

  • Mark22||

    You are conflating supporting public funding with supporting academic freedom.

    I'm actually not, but since you bring it up...

    Professors can still have academic freedom if they choose to work for universities that prioritize academic freedom.

    You're saying that private universities might still have "tenure" and "academic freedom" as part of employment contracts. That is true, they might, but it's unlikely.

    The concept of academic freedom arose out of government employment, that is, to make professors independent of government pressures under a monopsonistic academic system found in countries like Germany. In a system of purely private universities, it simply isn't needed because labor mobility is much more effective for addressing the issues that "academic freedom" is supposed to address.

  • Priscilla King||

    The administration should respect the feelings of women who are insulted by politicking disguised as scholarship.

  • ||

    If only he also included an addendum to the greater "achievement" gap between men and women at very low levels of human intelligence, this would have shut them up real quick.

  • ||

    Never mind, he did. This line sums up the entire stupidity of tertiary education, and it emphasizes SJW's next step is to take over mathematics; "Sergei said he had spent "endless hours" talking to people who explained that the paper was "bad and harmful" and tried to convince him to "withdraw my name to restore peace at the department and to avoid losing whatever political capital I may still have."...

    When do math teachers have "political capital" and what do they "invest" it in?

  • Cathy L||

    When do math teachers have "political capital" and what do they "invest" it in?

    When they work in institutions run by humans; to get funding, resources, and attention.

  • grips||

    Nope, that would be researchers, not teachers. They are quite different.

  • BYODB||


    Nope, that would be researchers, not teachers. They are quite different.


    So...you're not familiar with college Professors eh?

  • Ska||

    Better coffee, access to pastries, invites to cocktails...

  • JP88||

    I wonder if feminists would have cared if the paper was ONLY about the over representation of men among humans with low levels of intelligence...

    JK, we all know they would not have minded that at all.

  • Mark22||

    In case you care, this appears to be related to the paper in question.

  • SQRLSY One||

    Awesome! Thanks much!!! It appears to me to be THE paper in question! I am glad to see that the paper has not been totally burned by the book-burners!!!!

  • Earth Skeptic||

    Your IP address has been logged and actions will be taken. Please stand by your door with your hands against the wall.

  • MJBinAL||

    Mr. Politically Correct Thug, meet Mr. 38 Special. You can be peaceful and leave before Mr. 38 Special speaks, or you will be peaceful and taken away after Me. 38 Special speaks.

  • Priscilla King||

    This is so politically incorrect...I laughed. Out loud.

    (Why are the most interesting comments on this post all coming from one person? Are we related? I don't actually know anybody in Alabama.)

  • SQRLSY One||

    In the days of broadband internet connections, and dirt-cheap storage for GIANT files, the current "journals" method of research reporting no longer makes sense... ESPECIALLY when waves of "politically correct" pressures prevent you from publishing in the journals to begin with!!!

    We need a new era of high-tech-enabled Samizdat, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samizdat ... Instead of citations, just attach a PDF file-copy of ALL of your cited papers! Or at least, all of them that have been suppressed... We are headed, perhaps, towards "Samizdata enabled research reporting"...

  • Stormy Dragon||

    If that is the paper, then it's actually shit mathematics.

    The basic structure of the paper is:

    If A, then B
    B
    Therefore A.

    Which isn't a logically valid inference, regardless of how novel the proof of "if A, then B" is.

  • Trollificus||

    Then that should have been the basis of the complaint asking that it be unpublished. And there exists, in both journals, a procedure to do exactly that. Nowhere in the sphere of academic publishing is there, or should there be, a mechanism to remove publications based on threatened harassment.

    Therefore: fuck off.

  • BYODB||

    I don't know, there's a certain irony in a paper with faulty mathematics being blacklisted for it's conclusions by women who didn't notice the math flaw angle at all.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    As might have been anticipated, the paper was poorly received by feminist scholars.

    They aren't scholars if that is their objection.

    I would not want the administration to punish a professor for denouncing research she finds problematic.

    If it were mathematically problematic, sure. But not when it's politically problematic.

  • JP88||

    When mathematicians cannot publish truth, we have a serious problem.

    2 + 2 = 5

  • croaker||

    For reasonably large values of 2.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    What, you've never seen women trying to divide the lunch tab?

  • Rockabilly||

    His paper should disappear because he hurt their feelings.

    This is only fair and under the guidance of Chairman Mao.

  • MJBinAL||

    Chairman Mao had everyone who disagreed with him killed. Can I do that? Please? lol

  • earthandweather||

    Your best article to date, Robbbie.

  • perlchpr||

    Not a single "to be sure" to be seen!

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    To be sure, this is that in disguise:

    I can respect the University of Chicago's position, and I would not want the administration to punish a professor for denouncing research she finds problematic.

    for failing to note that the problematic is political.

  • perlchpr||

    The criteria was "best article to date".

    Baby steps, SR&C, baby steps.

    ;)

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    You mean the one where he doesn't have an issue with a UChicago prof trying to censor views shes doesn't like? Sorry, we just call it "denouncing" and that makes it all better.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    Mathematics is a male patriarchal construct, so of course men are better at it than womyn. All goodthinking people know this to be true. /sarc

  • Rob Misek||

    Been there done that.

    Science is heresy.

    Welcome the new dark ages.

  • ||

    "Indeed, Pinker fretted on Twitter that the left's behavior in this matter would vindicate right-wing paranoia about P.C. censorship."

    That's because the progressive left projects.

  • Tony||

    What's going on right here in this article and comments?

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Your typical projection. Next question.

  • Jack Klompus Magic Ink||

    Noticing that you, the human anal wart, has arrived to infect another discussion with your bottom feeding stupidity?

  • Hamster of Doom||

    >>> "A publication in a dead journal," he offered, "wouldn't help you."

    A scientific journal that doesn't science wouldn't help him either, but I suspect the point is that Steinberger was most interested in helping Steinberger.

  • Hamster of Doom||

    There's not much about a sexually dimorphic species' millenia-long bitchfight as to which gender is *best* gender that seems intelligent.

  • NoVaNick||

    Progtards fucking love science (and math too, I guess, although they have always been mathematically challenged).

    Except when science doesn't love them back: http://gourl.gr/b0g5

  • SQRLSY One||

    Relevant to your link 'Journal Looking Into Study on 'Rapid-Onset Gender Dysphoria' ...

    http://reason.com/blog/2017/10.....ll#comment
    I am utterly SHOCKED to learn that NOT offending the "tranny brigade" of PC people is WAY more important than the actual happiness of trannies and potential trannies!!!

    Speaking of such things, there are biochemical, often off-label, solutions to your urges towards becoming a tranny, which MIGHT actually lead to better results! To MORE happiness, for many potential trannies! To becoming happy with your body, as it already is! Imagine that!

    See http://www.drugs.com/condition.....horia.html for "Off Label" uses of drugs for suppressing "gender dysphoria"… 6 drugs listed in web link above, to include (pretty obviously) testosterone…

  • SQRLSY One||

    Also use below as search-string…
    "Transgender woman, who claims pills for male hair-loss sparked gender change, opens up about 'life and death struggle'"

    Concerns male-hair-loss "…drug Propecia, called finasteride, to halt the onset of hereditary baldness", which feminized his / her body, and brought around the desire for a sex change, according to him-now-her.

    So then Propecia AKA (generic) finasteride sounds like a darned-good choice for an off-label drug use, if you are female, contemplating sex-change to male, and worrying that your marriage might not survive such a sex change… Which is a strong possibility! Try this first, to see if maybe you'd like to stay female, before you make drastic changes…

    Also see "The successful treatment of a gender dysphoric patient with Pimozide" at http://www.researchgate.net/pu....._a_gender_ dysphoric_patient_with_Pimozide

  • NoVaNick||

    Until literally a couple of years ago, transgender was consider by the APA and most other mental health orgs to be a psychiatric disorder. Now, thanks to Caitlin Jenner, it has become not just acceptable, but hip. I have no doubt that there has long been a very small percentage of legitimately transgender people (maybe 1%), but when it becomes culturally hip, and teens see it as a way of testing/shocking their parents, you have to wonder about it, like young women who go through a lesbian phase in college, but are actually primarily heterosexual. The transgender political movement wants to have as many members as possible, so they do not want to hear this.

  • Vernon Depner||

    It appears to me that there are several different distinct conditions being lumped together as "transgender". Men like Jenner who suddenly decide in middle age that they want to be women are clearly different from feminine gay teenage boys who would rather be called "she". And, as you pointed out, for many "transgender" youth, being "transgender" seems to be nothing more than an affinity group fashion statement like being Goth or a Stoner.

  • MJBinAL||

    And transgender is a mental disorder. Whether they call it that or not.

    It is no different than those said people who believe they are a dog, cat, or horse. I feel sorry for them. But they are not a dog, cat, or horse, they are a mentally ill human.

    I feel sorry for you and know you believe you are a man trapped in a woman's body. But you aren't, you are mentally ill.

  • Vernon Depner||

    Not all people who call themselves "transgender" or are considered so by activists believe they are "trapped" in the wrong body or suffer from the delusion that they really are the opposite sex in some way. Those that do suffer sex dysphoria or are delusional certainly are mentally ill, but, as I said above, the "transgender" tent also covers people with very different mental conditions, as well as a social affinity group whose members have no disorder.

  • grips||

    Lysenkoism all over again.

  • SQRLSY One||

    Exactly! (Seems you know your Soviet history).

    Science is subordinated to political ends... It never helps us out in the long run...

  • ScottM||

    So leftist dogma over rules science. And here we though lefties were all about science. Would these dogmatic lefties not want to identify phenomena and then try to identify the factors that produce it? Perhaps it would confirm their biases or perhaps they're afraid it will invalidate them as being a result of cultural bias and be a natural result of the evolution of our soecies perhaps? Or maybe the measurements of intelligence are invalid? Why would you want to quash science unless you were fearful of the results?

  • Tony||

    Fearful of right-wing ideologues misconstruing the research for either a) their genocidal goals or b) to confirm their retarded conspiracy theories.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Pretty sure Paul Ehrlich and John Holdren are on the left, sport.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Force-initiating altruists, as opposed to altruists who are into the initiation of force.. that's a difference?

  • Mark22||

    ^ Tony crossing the line between crazy left wing ideology and an outright parody of himself

  • Jack Klompus Magic Ink||

    You have the intellect of a pre-scraped shoe turd.

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    IOW: Left-wing paranoia.

  • Trollificus||

    lol "genocidal goals"?? On the RIGHT?

    Wow. I'd think it was parody, but I rather suspect it's an effect of "invective inflation", where what once might have come out as "bigotry" or "discrimination" and built up to "racism", now just starts at the top: "genocide", first thing.

    Clearly no thought was given to the fact the aforementioned research was on trait variability between genders...otherwise it might have occurred to Tony that even the evil "right-wing ideologues" were probably not calling for the systemic elimination of all woman.

    Genocide. Derp.

  • Arcxjo||

    Who lets a Penn State professor co-author a math paper? They can't even count to 18 there!

  • Tony||

    Seems like the pissy-pants right with their emotions on a hair trigger is the real problem either way.

  • LynchPin1477||

    Excuse me? A research paper was blacklisted because of the political implications of its finding, and the people pushing to blacklist it are very much left wing.

  • Jack Klompus Magic Ink||

    Seems like you would lose an IQ contest to a drooling inbred, you fucking retard.

  • perlchpr||

    He'd lose an IQ contest to a piece of shoe leather. Tony is dumber than a sack of hammers. He has the intellectual capacity of a box of hair.

  • MJBinAL||

    Oh look! Tony is here!

    His Mom must be letting him on the computer again. Guess he did the dishes after all.

  • I am the 0.000000013%||

    Not an original thought with me, but logically this is likely, and it seems to bear out looking at ancient genes.

    The argument would go something like this. Women are the child bearers, and the genetic mutations they pass on are often fatal in the absence of advanced medicine. This is a robust way of not passing on bad birthing genes.

    Men are far more likely to pass on non-fatal mutations, again, this is a good thing because diversity assures that someone will survive regardless of environmental change.

    Male viable variability gets correlated with male genetic makeup, female non-viable variability gets correlated with female genetic makeup.

    Voila, you get evolutionary selection for the 'heretical' phenomena. Sadly, only science that fits an agenda is acceptable... Oh well...

  • CE||

    Nah, it's just men trying to impress women across the board.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    All this whinging is about an abstract probability model of how sexual variability dimorphism could work. Imagine the reactions to any serious discussion of why. Such as, in pre-woke days primitive males had to deal with lots of unexpected challenges outside the cave, and if a few had variable traits that improved survival, they could come home and knock up the ladies. The ladies, of course, could lay about and argue over photo-Oprah while incubating babies--no variability required.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    I can respect the University of Chicago's position, and I would not want the administration to punish a professor for denouncing research she finds problematic.

    Cool, now do Trump and the NFL. Or James Gunn's critics.

    They're just denouncing something they find problematic, right?

  • Anomalous||

    Nobels and dumbbells. Not really news.

  • vek||

    Sooo as someone who has done insane amounts of research on IQ over the years, THIS IS NOT NEW INFORMATION.

    People have known men make up FAR higher numbers of high and low intelligence scores since we first came up with tests. It shows in all forms of testing, all over the entire planet, and magically it always shows the same relative strengths and weaknesses.

    In short, men tend to have far more high and low IQ people. Women cluster towards the mean. However our traits are not equally aligned. Women always do better in language related tests, better at multitasking, etc and men always do better in math, visual spacial etc.

    But yeah, there are simply vastly more men at very high IQ levels. Women REALLY start to fall off after about 120 IQ. This is why men dominate virtually every intelligence intensive activity in the world.

    This is not new, and it is solidly proven. In a sane world it would be non controversial. I really hope we can return to a sane world where people just accept that men are better at some stuff, and women are better at other things. All the brow beating about lack of women CEOs, programmers etc is basically explained by KNOWN data like this. Imagine if we just let people do what they wanted, and didn't freak out about things not being perfectly distributed. I mean men DID get shafted by having more dumb people too, it's not like we got ALL the perks!

  • vek||

    Not to mention differences in HOW we think, and our preferences. Women prefer safety and are more risk averse, men are more aggressive. Women DO think more emotionally and empathetically, men are more cold and logical. Basically almost every gender stereotype you can think of has been proven by science, but it all gets buried like this paper.

    Of course those are all averages. There is plenty of overlap in the middle. Men that are emotional, women that are aggressive, etc. But outliers do not make the norm! The NORM makes the NORM. There's a reason all these stereotypes existed in the first place. Pretty obvious evolutionary pressures can explain half the stuff too just by thinking about it for 2 seconds. Men are stronger, faster, better physical reflexes, and are more aggressive because... We had to go out and hunt woolly fucking mammoths! Women picked berries and breast fed babies, didn't need to be aggressive/strong/etc for that.

    None of this means anything for any given individual, which is why it is so ridiculous that they feel the need to lie about it. If a chick is good at math that's fine! But statistically she's likely to be better at English. So what, deal with individuals as such and it's all good.

    I will not concede this nonsense anymore even out of politeness when it comes up around people. I'm too sick and tired of the lies and nonsense. I just shoot out the facts, and if people don't like it they can fuck themselves. I'm not going to support a lie.

  • Tony||

    But read Virginia Woolf. Perhaps IQ itself, and the professions to which people with high IQs are drawn, are male-centric because men are in charge in the first place. We don't write IQ test questions about domestic work and life skills requiring emotional intelligence and other things that women may excel at either naturally or because of social convention. Why was war a more suitable subject of important literature than marriage and housework, at least until Jane Austen came around to disprove the notion?

    Either by nature or social convention or some combination, men and women play different roles, but the fallacy is in ranking them hierarchically, assuming one set of roles is more frivolous than the other, a determination made of course by people with a stake in the matter.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Ask gravity what it thinks of your "emotional intelligence."

    Ask the second law of thermodynamics about your social conventions.

    You'll be waiting a long time (well not that long, just 'til you die from exposure or impact).

  • Tony||

    I don't think Isaac Newton's most important characteristic is as a male.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    Counterpoint:

    Jocelyn Bell Burnell discovered pulsars, after which her adviser Antony Hewish took credit for her work and eventually received the Nobel Prize in Physics for her discovery.

    So is the lack of female representation among Nobel Laureates because men are innately more capable of the work? Or because they're in better positions to steal the credit for other's work?

  • Mark22||

    "But maybe the world really is flat!"

  • BYODB||

    Who gives a fuck about a Nobel, again? That would seem to be directly inferior evidence that one would only bring up because you can't formulate an actual argument.

  • vek||

    Sure there are a few examples... But simple doing a raw head count at the highest reaches in any scientific field will show not that many women there. Half the discoveries Nobel prize winners made WERE NOT some random women hiding behind the curtain they stole the credit for. So don't be ridiculous.

    As I said the IQ gap at the higher ends is VERY large. By the time you get to high genius IQs there are orders of magnitude more men than women. It is a logical conclusion that it explains why men are over represented. This would be commonly accepted if it were not heresy according to the left.

  • Incomprehensible Bitching||

    Frivolous ranking can't be science!

  • LynchPin1477||

    Gee, that sounds like the kind of perspective that might be nice to see published side-by-side with the paper in question.

    Oops. The paper in question is gone. So much for civil debate.

  • Mark22||

    Tony, by design, IQ tests are domain independent.

    And despite your ridiculously sexist assumptions, women do just as well on average as men on IQ tests. Women simply are underrepresented among both geniuses and idiots.

  • vek||

    You know, I always read that was true as well. That was the mainstream view for a long time, and I guess still is. However some interesting new info has come out on that. Men might have a couple IQ point advantage on women on average as well. Only a couple points mind you, nothing big.

    Basically a researcher noticed that men tended to trail behind women of the same age in childhood and into early adolescence. This had been known for a long time. They then caught up to girls by 15-16 years old. Since everybody knows males hit puberty slower, nobody thought anything of it. In some testing by later teens or early 20s men had a statistically negligible advantage. Testing always has randomness, so nobody thought anything of it.

    Now both men and womens brains continue to change into our 20s. Women hit full maturity earlier here as well. Almost all large scale IQ testing has been done on kids in schools, including uni. So this researcher wondered if one looked at FULLY adult brains, which men tend to not hit until 25-26, would the results be the same?

    They found that it wasn't. By full adulthood men have a statistically relevant couple point advantage. Google it if you want, it's kind of interesting.

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    'Emotional intelligence'?

  • Vernon Depner||

    The opposite of "reasoned feelings".

  • vek||

    As wimpy and lame as it sounds, it is a thing! And a valid thing IMO. Some people seem to have NO sense of what other people are thinking, feeling, etc. Some people can read others like a book. Women are better at this than men. It has real world practical advantages. It's certainly nothing I would write off as being useless.

  • Mark22||

    It's a misnomer, however, since it falsely suggests that the skill of reading and manipulating people is a component of or aspect of intelligence, which it is not.

  • vek||

    Yeah, it's a definitions thing. I personally think the general definition of intelligence most people have, meaning essentially the capacity for book smarts, figuring things out quickly, being able to comprehend complex things others can't, etc is totally fine. It's what people mean 99% of the time when they use the word.

    That said, I don't MIND more expansive definitions THAT much. Being a violin virtuoso doesn't necessarily translate into "intelligence" in the strict sense, but it is a favorable mental trait that showcases SOME kind of intellectual skill of some variety. Same could be said for "emotional intelligence" I think. If you don't agree, I think that's fair too, but that's my take.

  • Mark22||

    "Emotional intelligence" is to "intelligence" as "brain power" is to "horse power": it's a metaphor for something otherwise unrelated.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    But read Virginia Woolf.

    Nah, she's useless.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Why was war a more suitable subject of important literature than marriage and housework, at least until Jane Austen came around to disprove the notion?

    Seriously? Jane Austen's novels are quintessential UMC White Girl gossip-mongering. They're Young Adult fiction for the Georgian set. They only sound like "important literature" because the educated English of the early 1800s were far more sophisticated intellectually than the Paki-inbred populace that dominates their urban life these days.

  • vek||

    Here's the thing Tony:

    1. IQ tests are not meant to be tests of specific knowledge, but to test ones theoretical computing ability if you will. IQ tests with questions about washing dishes would no longer be an IQ test, but some other form of testing.

    2. I never said that men are necessarily BETTER or even smarter overall... Merely that the things tested by IQ tests, things 99% of people would consider "book smarts," men score higher on. It is a simple fact that someone with a high math IQ subtest score CAN learn math faster, and do it better than someone with a low math IQ score. Women are better than men at the language portion. They ARE better communicators than men on average.

    This means women are probably better suited to MANY professions than men... Say being a therapist, doctor, or even sales if they're aggressive too. But it also means men are likely to be better at other things... Like theoretical physics or engineering.

    I'm not going to say an engineer is BETTER than a therapist, BUT it is logically true that one would expect more men to make better engineers based on the data.

  • vek||

    I'm fine with people saying we're "different but equal" if they want to play that card... Because things like communications skills, emotional intelligence, etc are important... But that needs to include accepting that men ARE objectively better at lots of things, many of which are held up by both men and women as being "good" things, like being a math genius. If women are better communicators, which they are, then we must accept men are better at math too. Facts are facts, whether you like them or not.

    As mentioned, men also get the shitty end of the stick. There are far more low IQ men than women. Go into any special ed class at a school, and see how many boys are in there versus girls. It's just reality. There's no reason we shouldn't be able to accept that there are more male geniuses in the world, because any given women is still possibly a genius as well. It's not like they don't exist, they're just a smaller portion of the female population.

  • MJBinAL||

    Who assigned roles as frivolous?

    Please point out the comment here that you are rebutting.

    Hurry, before you Mom makes you get off the computer again.

  • Priscilla King||

    The trouble is the stereotyping. Men definitely average taller than women. However, Robert Reich is not taller than Janet Reno. We have to stop looking at group averages when considering actual, individual measurements and just accept that some people are bigger/smaller, or more/less talented in some way, or whatever, than average--for some group, or for humankind generally.

    (I also enjoyed Tavris' Mismeasure of Woman.)

  • vek||

    Individuals should always be taken as individuals... But here's the think you're missing Priscilla, that's not what the left is trying to do nowadays.

    They're trying to insist Google should have as many female engineers as males... And to put it bluntly the only way to ever do that is to hire inferior females as diversity hires to try to look good.

    The same can be said for many types of science, being CEOs, or any number of other things. Women simply can't hack it compared to men in a lot of areas. However women are better than men in other areas. That's just the way it is.

    If we're looking at societal level statistics, we need to accept that women ARE NOT as good as men at some things, and just accept it. When an individual is being looked at for a job, they should be looked at based on their merit, without stereotyping. I know a few female programmers that are great at their jobs, better than many men I know could possibly be... But they're a statistical anomaly, not the norm. You cannot strive for equality of outcomes on a societal level.

  • Priscilla King||

    True. The complaint would be that talking loosely about averages ("women...men" versus "MOST women...MOST men") feeds the stereotype, and the more harmful version of it ("If Jane is taller/stronger/better-at-math than John, then either Jane's not a real woman or John's not a real man, or both").

    That's not a valid reason for censoring studies of what the averages are. Nor for failing to do studies of whether the averages are useful, or how people may in fact be offsetting the averages, or how the averages have changed, or whether single factors skew averages...or whether, when it comes to gender differences, all the averages were studied exhaustively in the 1990s.

    This included the argument about lowering standards to be "inclusive." Should the Army accept women on an equal basis with men? Yes. Should it accept smaller, weaker soldiers of either gender if they can do non-combat jobs? Yes. Should this automatically lead to equal numbers of 100-pound soldiers (even if they can carry 125 pounds) in combat beside 250-pound soldiers? Not. Even. Funny. And not what sane feminists wanted.

    More feminists sound saner when people drop the group comparisons and talk about the objective standards.

  • Priscilla King||

    True. The complaint would be that talking loosely about averages ("women...men" versus "MOST women...MOST men") feeds the stereotype, and the more harmful version of it ("If Jane is taller/stronger/better-at-math than John, then either Jane's not a real woman or John's not a real man, or both").

    That's not a valid reason for censoring studies of what the averages are. Nor for failing to do studies of whether the averages are useful, or how people may in fact be offsetting the averages, or how the averages have changed, or whether single factors skew averages...or whether, when it comes to gender differences, all the averages were studied exhaustively in the 1990s.

    This included the argument about lowering standards to be "inclusive." Should the Army accept women on an equal basis with men? Yes. Should it accept smaller, weaker soldiers of either gender if they can do non-combat jobs? Yes. Should this automatically lead to equal numbers of 100-pound soldiers (even if they can carry 125 pounds) in combat beside 250-pound soldiers? Not. Even. Funny. And not what sane feminists wanted.

    More feminists sound saner when people drop the group comparisons and talk about the objective standards.

  • vek||

    Well, the fact is that it is unavoidable. If women are less strong than men, which they are, it is obviously going to be a stereotype that women are less strong... Because it's true. I think most people can see past stereotypes and see that a particular woman is ripped or whatever though. There are also negative stereotypes for men, FYI.

    Stereotyping is a functionally useful thing in day to day life, that's why we evolved the ability to group things, which is all stereotyping is.

    As for objective standards, I think that's all anybody really wants... The problem is that feminists have demanded standards be dropped where they shouldn't be, just to pad the number of women. For instance there are female firefighters... There should be basically, MAYBE, 1-2% female firefighters. There just aren't that many women that are strong enough to do it. BUT for the sake of not being sexist, they've allowed in women that are inadequate for doing the job properly.

    I think this i inherent if you take the modern feminist idea that women should be included everywhere... When really they almost shouldn't. The same could be said for men in some roles. If we're going to allow people to do whatever, which is good, REAL standards need to be maintained, not watered down ones to make people feel good.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    "the chair of the climate and diversity committee, and the associate head for diversity and equity"

    Is that what we call commissars now?

  • Seamus||

    According to its editor-in-chief, publishing Hill and Tabachnikov's work would create a "very real possibility that the right-wing media may pick this up and hype it internationally."

    So they suppress the article, and the right-wing media picks up the story of the suppression and hypes it internationally, giving it way more publicity than the article itself would have gotten. Somebody needs to tell these clowns about the Streisand effect.

  • Tony||

    Somebody needs to take away the right-wing media's binky until they've learned to stop whining about everything like little bitches.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    They'll have to pry it away from Chuck Todd and CNN first.

    Trump is picking on us! He's being mean!

  • Incomprehensible Bitching||

    What's introspection?

  • Mickey Rat||

    The left wing here is actively suppressing research for the very subject being verboten. They are throwing a tantrum.

  • Anomalous||

    Censorship is just fine with leftists if it's the right that's being censored.

  • MJBinAL||

    Not necessarily "the right" but rather anything they don't like.

  • Jack Klompus Magic Ink||

    You're the living breathing definition of a dickless bitch boy.

  • vek||

    Uhhh, Tony... It's the left that is whining like bitches. They can't accept that there ARE statistically significant differences between men and women, because women don't come out on top of some measures, and are actively trying to suppress the science they claim to love. Because of feelz.

    I can accept that women have higher pain tolerances than men. That they're better communicators. That they live longer. And so on. Why can't they accept that men are better at math? Better visual spacial skills? Stronger? It's nonsense. Nobody who has spent 5 minutes on planet earth can REALLY believe men and women are exactly the same in all ways, yet that is what is demanded by the Church Of Equality. Fuck that.

  • ShotgunJimbo||

    Higher pain tolerance is one of those things that is said to make pregos feel better.

    I regularly see these situations and most women are honestly not great with pain. Even with epidurals, just the pressure of contractions that is not erased by an epidural causes a lot of them to lose it. Myself and many of my buds that have seen some shit have endured more and dealt better with it. The fact that we don't give birth doesn't mean that if guys did give birth they wouldn't be better at it. My wife cuts her hand and bitches about it for 2 days. I cut myself on something and keep moving without thinking twice.

    Some "stereotypes" are just made to make people feel like they contribute.

  • vek||

    LOL

    This may well be. It's just one of those things I've seen all my life, and taken as fact. I do seem to recall vaguely having seen a reference or two to some studies that supposedly "proved" it in some scientific way, but that may well be BS since leftists like to pervert science to prove things they want to be true. I have never looked into debunking that factoid as I never thought it important!

  • LynchPin1477||

    I can respect the University of Chicago's position, and I would not want the administration to punish a professor for denouncing research she finds problematic.

    She was within her legal rights, but the right response would have been to publish a paper criticizing this one on intellectual grounds.

  • Longtobefree||

    She did not find the research problematic.
    She just did not like the results, for political reasons unrelated to the paper.

  • John C. Randolph||

    It seems that you're not clear on what SJWs mean when they say "problematic". For them, it means "heretical".

    -jcr

  • vek||

    It is rather funny. I can't count the number of articles I have seen when studies show that women are better at XYZ thing than men... Yet you NEVER see an article that shows the same thing when it is men in the lead. You have to go digging through scientific journals, or doing crazy Google foo to find such things.

  • Longtobefree||

    2 + 2 = 4
    *publish*
    I think that equation is sexist! Right or wrong it must be destroyed! #metoo #stillwithher #bullshitisgood
    *unpublish*

    And people actually wonder why there a large number of people who ignore the rants of 'feminists'.

  • NoVaNick||

    Like the bible thumpers on the right, the science cult on the left seems to have a poor understanding of what they are advocating for.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Socialism. Conservatives push a protective tariff tax-happy version of monarchic mercantilism and divine right while communists push the same altruistic dictatorship but with less organized religion behind it. So basically we have a religious mixed economy and lay mixed economy advocates at each other's throats. This was pretty much the situation when "Capitalism and Slavery" was published--about early Democratic party mercantilism. Bastiat, Lysander Spooner and Rand's laissez-faire are anathema to the Socialist LeftandRight, and lucky for us, they also hate each other.

  • MaleMatters||

    File this under "Examples proving women have no power."

  • Priscilla King||

    Examples proving the leftist academic clique selectively empowers LEFTIST women?

  • AToR||

    "This difference, of course, need not be innate—it could be the case that social custom and pressure has punished women for falling anywhere outside the norm."
    -

    Not innate? Are you sure? It's a cross-cultural and cross-species feature... and I think, like a lot of evolutionary psychologists, that natural selection has a lot to do with that. I don't think mosquitos have such oppressive cultural norms against female mosquitos, nor insects or mammals in general. By the way, for "innate" evolutionary psychologists often mean "developmentally innate" - in the sense that if nothing "strange" occur in the interaction between genes and the developmental environment of the individuals, it's a characteristic feature that likely occurs (and occured) because of pressures of natural selection.

    And also, if this feature was only the product of oppressive cultural norms against women, then why are there more men than women in the lower end of the distribution? The hypothesis, remember, is not that men are on average "more X" (where X is a trait) than women, but that their variability (ie the variance of the distribution) is greater.

  • vek||

    It's innate, and genetic. But they're just covering their ass, because even stating something obvious like "Men are stronger than women" is basically heresy nowadays.

    One need look no further than the kerfuffle over women in combat units in the military to see how far the nonsense has gone. IIRC the top 10% of women scored at around the 50% mark for men, and it is spun into women are equally strong! Keep in mind more than 50% of jobs in the military are NOT front line combat jobs, so if the military is doing it right and only putting the strongest and toughest people in combat positions, that should mean ZERO women.

    All this nonsense will not stand for much longer. It's too obviously ridiculous to think there are no differences between the sexes. Everybody knows in their gut it is a lie, and lies can only stand for so long.

  • Trollificus||

    I saw a video where somebody...Mark Steyn? Brett Weinstein? was looking for an unexceptionable example of differences between the sexes, and stated "Men are, on average, taller than women.".

    You could hear the outraged hiss of breath before the shouts and rants of "WNBA!" and "That's sexist!". The speaker was stunned, as if realizing the entire crowd spoke ancient Etruscan instead of English, and the task of communication and discussion was, instead of merely difficult, a task of Sisyphean difficulty and futility.

    Ref also the CBC debate between Jordan Peterson and a professor (male) who maintained that there are NO PHYSICAL DIFFERENCES between males and females. Which debate was declared inappropriate to show in a classroom without the warning that one of the participants was "controversial". That one being, of course, Jordan Peterson.

    We are actually in a version of Crazy Town.

  • vek||

    I love Mark Steyn! He's hilarious.

    But yeah... The world has gone mad. I don't take no shit from these people anymore, not even to be polite. I don't go out of my way to bring up offensive/controversial topics, BUT if they come up I just tell it straight. I KNOW I have all the facts and logic on my side. I've basically crushed some people to the point where they look like their puppy died by busting out some of the male/female traits differences.

    The nutters relied on people being polite, and simply not questioning their nonsense in public, in order to fool the simple minded into really believing this nonsense. The only way to defeat it is to refuse to be polite in the face of wrongness and stupidity.

    IMO something that is so obviously false, and so against nature cannot stand for long. Every society ion the history of the world accepted these things because they were TRUE... A couple decades of insanity on these topics will likely soon be replaced by a return to reality.

  • AToR||

    GMVH is not a "gap", it has nothing to do with gaps, it just says that in many traits men have a greater variance than women.

  • AToR||

    Or rather, it has to do with gaps - actually it can be one of many explanatory factors of a lot of gender gaps related to the extremes of trait-distributions, but in itself GMVH it is not a gap.

  • TxJack 112||

    So you are no longer permitted to have a theory in academia if it is counter the accepted narrative? I think it is hilarious that these are the same people who claim to be fighting fascism, but in fact are the actual fascists who threaten us all because they oppose any speech other than that speech the deem to be acceptable.

  • Mark22||

    The new fascism is just like the old fascism

  • Trollificus||

    IIRC, the old definitions of the Italian version of "fascism" match up pretty well with the current eager adoption by corporations of the leftists' versions of identity politics and feminism, which is also supported by the government...thus aligning the interests and power of government and business and moving ever closer to ACTUAL fascism.

  • jjjjj||

    Scratch a "revolutionary" long enough and you'll eventually find a reactionary.

  • Uncle Jay||

    It is only through inequality can we truly achieve equality in America.
    Ask any proggie.

  • BradA||

    To the NSF, etc, Science doesn't care about your Values or your Feelings.
    Or putting it another way, Try pouring a ton of steel with nothing but Feelings and Values.

  • Trollificus||

    Try building a bridge with a design and construction team comprised of people whose scores in math and engineering have been completely ignored. Just let me know which bridge it is.

  • vek||

    Did you not hear about the all woman, diversity hire bridge built in Florida I believe it was? It collapsed.

    No fucking joke. It was all female engineers, and lauded as being an all female project... And the fucking thing collapsed, because they were incompetent and didn't design/construct it correctly.

    THAT is how far this nonsense has gone. Fortunately it didn't kill anybody, but it very well could have. Risking lives for the sake of diversity is BULLSHIT. I have no problem with competent female engineers, I know some very smart female computer programmers I would trust a lot more than many men I know, but advancing people with inferior skills just to make a department look good or whatever is nonsense.

  • Enemy of the State||

    There is no idea that is so abhorrent to the Left that it can escape the memory hole, rather than be discussed in public and ridiculed into obscurity if deserved...

  • Doug Huffman||

    Only people with IQ argue it.

  • Priscilla King||

    Quillette chose a bad subject and should start over with a different one. Suppressing his paper was even worse; two wrongs don't make a right and censorship is a bigger wrong than choosing a useless topic.

    Useless because, although it does look as if there's a "math gene" (or set of genes) for which the strong form is linked to maleness and concentrated in Asia, people succeed in math-related jobs with only the weak form. Most people who do their jobs well are not in the top 0.001%.

    Perhaps when gender bias has been abolished we can consider the "math gene" abstractly as a question of genetic science.

    Meanwhile, the cure for useless papers is to ignore them to death while publishing better ones, and Quillette's opponents are a disgrace to all women writers, scholars, and scientists.

  • Priscilla King||

    ** error: Quillette (magazine) suppressing Hill's paper, caving to Hill's opponents...

    Must beware of letting details slip out of short-term memory while reading other people's comments...

  • vek||

    But it's not useless. It is SUPER useful information. It explains, objectively, why there are more male engineers, scientists, etc and more female doctors, English majors, etc.

    If you pretend that the skill gap doesn't exist, it has negative real world implications. Companies are being lambasted for not hiring women, being called sexist... When really it is just that there aren't enough qualified women TO hire even if they wanted to.

    People tend to gravitate towards what they're good at or interested in. This is why women love being nurses, and men like being programmers. There's nothing WRONG with that. But to try to force women to be programmers, and men to be nurses, will lead to inferior outcomes for all. Because men have shit bedside manner compared to more compassionate women, and women aren't as good at math.

    The odd ball man who is compassionate, or the woman who is awesome at math, should be able to do what they want to do... But equality of outcomes is NEVER possible without sacrificing quality of service, and discriminating against the sex that isn't as skilled in a given area.

  • Robert Crim||

    Actually, the refutation of the paper's base assumption is easy for any biologist: DNA codes for proteins, not ideas. Is it true on the average that men CURRENTLY are better at math? Yes. But, finding an ultimate cause for that will take more work. Women, for example, for not having the testosterone levels of men, tend to be less combative and more willing to talk things out. To do that, one needs skills in English (or whatever your language is), and time spent on that subject is time not spent on calculus. Which is economics-based, not biological.

    In other words, the ultimate causes may be so deeply cultural that we may never be able to unwrap them all, and writing it all off to "instinct" or "genes" or the will of the gods really is a non-explanation -- what you reach for when the problem is too difficult to admit of a ready solution.

    That brings us back to Wilkinson and her solution. Demanding censorship of the paper rather than simply pointing out inherent deficiencies only highlights that she also has no understanding of the phenomenon.

  • vek||

    Come on dude. You're grasping at straws.

    These trait differences appear in EVERY society the world over. You'd think ONE society would have ended up completely flipped on its head if its all cultural stuff. But there has never been a society where women fulfill all the roles men do and vice versa. If it is lack of testosterone that ultimately leads them down a path that ALWAYS leaves them deficient in other areas... It's STILL biological anyway.

    But the differences in the way our brains show up in brain scans, etc lead a reasonable person to assume it is probably more directly related to the way our brains are wired.

    The thing I can never understand is why people are SO attached to the idea that we can't possibly have any inherent differences biologically. That is COUNTER to what we see in EVERY species on earth. Why in fucks name would human being be THE ONLY SPECIES on the planet where there were no biological differences?

    The whole idea is patently ridiculous, and illogical, I can't take anything serious that somebody says if they believe in that nonsense. The whole idea is literally just a BS concept that got invented in the 20th century, and is STILL only believed by a small minority of idiot progressives in the western world. It's a wrong theory, and won't last for long IMO.

  • Priscilla King||

    That the top 0.01% of math (and music) talent is concentrated in males, more in Asian than European and more in European than African or Native American males, and that math and music talents tend to appear in combination, suggests a specific gene...but useful studies would not rehash what's known about its incidence, but actually isolate the gene (or whatever).

    I think some feminists are triggered by questions like "Why is he, emphasis on 'he', concerned about gender rather than ethnicity?" and "How do studies of 0.01% of humankind turn into stories about 49% versus 51% of humankind?"

    The stereotype works for me, as a female whose only question, given a shiny new computer to program, was "How do I use it as a word processor?" Nevertheless the triggered feminists have valid points. Most STEM professionals are merely in the top 10% of math talent, where women (and Black and Red/Latino types) are reasonably well represented. Nobody tells little Black boys they shouldn't major in math because they're not in the top 0.01%, or denies that they're "really" Black if they have a talent for math.

    Is it possible that Wilkinson's emotions, as well as her politics, are sabotaging her scholarship? Yes.

  • Priscilla King||

    That the top 0.01% of math (and music) talent is concentrated in males, more in Asian than European and more in European than African or Native American males, and that math and music talents tend to appear in combination, suggests a specific gene...but useful studies would not rehash what's known about its incidence, but actually isolate the gene (or whatever).

    I think some feminists are triggered by questions like "Why is he, emphasis on 'he', concerned about gender rather than ethnicity?" and "How do studies of 0.01% of humankind turn into stories about 49% versus 51% of humankind?"

    The stereotype works for me, as a female whose only question, given a shiny new computer to program, was "How do I use it as a word processor?" Nevertheless the triggered feminists have valid points. Most STEM professionals are merely in the top 10% of math talent, where women (and Black and Red/Latino types) are reasonably well represented. Nobody tells little Black boys they shouldn't major in math because they're not in the top 0.01%, or denies that they're "really" Black if they have a talent for math.

    Is it possible that Wilkinson's emotions, as well as her politics, are sabotaging her scholarship? Yes.

  • Priscilla King||

    Uh-oh. Are comments messing up for other people too?

  • Priscilla King||

    That the top 0.01% of math (and music) talent is concentrated in males, more in Asian than European and more in European than African or Native American males, and that math and music talents tend to appear in combination, suggests a specific gene...but useful studies would not rehash what's known about its incidence, but actually isolate the gene (or whatever).

    I think some feminists are triggered by questions like "Why is he, emphasis on 'he', concerned about gender rather than ethnicity?" and "How do studies of 0.01% of humankind turn into stories about 49% versus 51% of humankind?"

    The stereotype works for me, as a female whose only question, given a shiny new computer to program, was "How do I use it as a word processor?" Nevertheless the triggered feminists have valid points. Most STEM professionals are merely in the top 10% of math talent, where women (and Black and Red/Latino types) are reasonably well represented. Nobody tells little Black boys they shouldn't major in math because they're not in the top 0.01%, or denies that they're "really" Black if they have a talent for math.

    Is it possible that Wilkinson's emotions, as well as her politics, are sabotaging her scholarship? Yes.

  • Priscilla King||

    Are comments messing up for others today too?

  • Priscilla King||

    Is the new Facebook cookie what's causing comments to mess up today?

  • vek||

    People ARE in fact trying to find specific genes for things. They've already identified the first several hundred that at least correlate with intelligence actually.

    The thing is it's not just about the .01%. The differences at the 10% are already pronounced in some areas, and not in others. At 5% it is more so. At 1% it is VERY pronounced.

    But if you're going to bitch about not enough women/blacks/etc in tech companies, the fact is that there WILL be a discernible difference because of the differences in the average. And as far as managers/C suite/CEOs/etc it will be a VERY big gap. Women/minorities don't like this... But other than hiring inferior people, there's nothing to be done about it.

    Keep in mind it's not even JUST brain power in a given subject for women... We ALSO have different preferences. Women PREFER not to work alone on abstract concepts, even if they're capable, they prefer to work with people. Hence smart women are more likely to be doctors than engineers. This makes the gap appear bigger in some fields.

    Bottom line is ANY target for equality in anything is a bad idea. People will sort themselves out as they want/are capable of.

  • Duelles||

    Dear Dr. Pinker, it is not paranoia! When they can not rebut, refute, or not replicate they disappear thoughts , papers research or anything that is not PC. PC is not PC! Amazing, but true.

  • dchang0||

    To all of you who argue that taxpayers should protect (subsidize) academic freedom, you should read this article on ZeroHedge about a Penn State Finite Math professor Marc Fabbri inserting Democrat propaganda into his math lessons and exams.
    The title is "Penn State Math Course Covers "Imperialism" & "Cultural Intolerance""

    So the state of PA takes taxpayer money and gives it to this professor so that he can defraud the students, who are paying tuition to learn finite math but are instead getting leftist indoctrination.

    If there were a truly free market in all of this, this abuse of power would not happen. A free market of labor between professor and university and free market of services between university and student (no subsidies for tuition or student loans!!) would ensure that only finite math is taught in a finite math course.

  • Uncle Jay||

    This math professor is obviously a closet sexist, misogynist pig who wants to oppress all women by employing science, math, logic and sound reasoning.
    No academic institution on this planet should allow this professor, or any other male to provide solid evidence that runs afoul of the stated and politically correct stance of avoiding any fact that runs contrary to the doctrine of hyper-sensitive beliefs of the snowflakes that have taken the time and trouble to oppress everyone and anyone they deem not in line with their liberal beliefs.
    A sound public flogging before his crucifixion should be ample warning to others not to think for themselves or produce evidence that is contrary to the established politically correct order.
    The thought police are watching and listening.
    Think at your own peril.

  • Uncle Jay||

    "Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas."

    Joseph Stalin

  • Robert Crim||

    I just want to know if any of these people got thrown off of Twitter?

  • Hank Phillips||

    Suddenly the plutocrat testing Mangu-Ward with the question about outliers makes more sense--depending on when this went down. But not just paranoid crypto-minions seek to censor math. Freakonomics is criticized for showing Rumanian Comstock law bans on birth control correlate with crime rate increases after a lag. Birth rates before the Pill are off limits and Petr Beckmann's criticism of portions of the Einstein theory are taboo. Even translations of German gun "control" laws from the national socialist era are contrivedly difficult to find with search engines.

  • Burkhard||

    Is this a story about political activism by the left in mathematics, or the willingness by conservatives to uncritically believe any story that fits their preconceptions?

    Anne Wilkinson did not ask or lobby for the paper to be withdrawn, only that a critical response to be published
    https://math.uchicago.edu/~wilkinso/Statement.html

    The editors did not respond to political pressure, but noted the the editor in chief had not followed normal peer review protocol, resulting in a substantially flawed and sub-standard paper
    https://www.math.uchicago.edu/~farb/statement

    Is the science in the paper bad? Here an analysis by Sir William Timothy Gowers, FRS, Royal Society Research Professor at the Department of Pure Mathematics and Mathematical Statistics at the University of Cambridge, and Fields Medal winner. He too was worried initially about alleged political pressure - but concludes his devastating critique that the serious flaws in the analysis made a retraction necessary: here his analysis of the paper:
    https://bit.ly/2CLubb1

    Soave's post is typical for political science - everything is an opinion worth discussing, there is no objective truth. Proper science does not work like that and is self-correcting, with can mean retraction of flawed research.

  • vek||

    I don't know about this guys model... But his model is pointless, beyond mental masturbation.

    It is a FACT that men and women show greater variability objectively speaking. Every test EVER has showed this. This guys model being right or not is like saying that the earth has got hotter, but because the climate scientists models can't figure it out exactly right, it must NOT have got hotter... Even though it objectively DID.

    All that means is using his model to predict results may not be accurate, but it is already a known fact that these differences exist, whatever the exact model to predict/analyze it.

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    "Pinker fretted on Twitter that the left's behavior in this matter would vindicate right-wing paranoia about P.C. censorship"

    It's not paranoia if you are correct.

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    "Pinker fretted on Twitter that the left's behavior in this matter would vindicate right-wing paranoia about P.C. censorship."

    It isn't paranoia if you are correct.

  • Priscilla King||

    Yes, Reason, here's evidence. Comments are messing up today. It's not only me. Though it may be only Chrome 49, which is something Reason needs to fix.

  • Priscilla King||

    Yes, Reason, here's evidence. Comments are messing up today. It's not only me. Though it may be only Chrome 49, which is something Reason needs to fix.

  • Priscilla King||

    Yes, Reason, here's evidence. Comments are messing up today. It's not only me. Though it may be only Chrome 49, which is something Reason needs to fix.

    Or, to sharpen the point, the problem may be your system's compatibility with Windows 10 not working well with Chrome 49. Fix it, please. Those of us who've not already DOWNgraded don't intend to DOWNgrade to Windows 10.

  • madam margaret||

    of course...what does this say about all the other 'research' done in this context?

  • Bart Drennon||

    So now it has been documented that women have a greater standard deviation from mean than men. This is a mathematical fact, so how long do they think they can hide this reality? The research subjects that are most taboo seem to be the ones that we already intuitively know the results of, but don't want anyone to make public. One of the greatest disillusionments of my life has been the utter corruption and politicization of science. Our brightest minds are also some of the most close-minded and politically-driven, not to mention for sale at the right price.

  • Longtobefree||

    Maybe Georgia professors should not publish in New York journals?

  • Priscilla King||

    Or should professors of English origin avoid studying something people of Japanese origin do better? ;-D

  • D.E. Plorable||

    Well. That's the end of their credibility. If they can't debate facts they will silence your free speech. How pathetic. There's nothing worse than these kind of people, nothing. I know Darwin's theory will eventually weed out this type scum, but it's so painfully slow.

  • TommyInIdaho||

    "I would not want the administration to punish a professor for denouncing research she finds problematic." You'd be great fun at a street committee re-education session.

  • macsnafu||

    So feminism trumps science?

  • Paratrooper||

    Mark Steinberger was a committed conservative. If he did what this article says, then I'm sure he truly, honestly feared for the future of his beloved journal.

    Mark, however, cannot defend himself here. He was diagnosed with glioblastoma in late March and died Saturday.

  • MikeyParks||

    "Feminist Scholars." Now there's a term to reckon with! The perfect oxymoron.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online