Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Has an uncomfortable truth been suppressed?

gowers.wordpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 232 posts

Re: Has an uncomfortable truth been suppressed?

#91

Post by kthejoker2 »

mg96226 wrote: post #80
Arnt wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the differences are small. Insignificant. If you take some group of 1000 people which has been selected in some way that skews towards intelligence, you might find that the men have IQ 105.14 on average and the women 105.13. Like, wow. You can find groups with bigger differences if you're willing to pick an obscure group, but then you have a bigger but more obscure difference. If you talk about that you risk…

If the differences are insignificant then why are most sports segregated by gender? Why does the entire female FIDE rating distribution sit 200 points lower than the male distribution? The FIDE gap is not one that can be hand waved away as under-representation or discrimination or anything else. There are clearly differences between genders and races, and sometimes they are clearly significant. Whatever your views ma…

How can you say FIDE isn't just an under representation gap caused by culture or the federation itself? The number of boys who play chess dwarf the number of girls.

If we took 1000 random 5 year olds and subjected them to 3 years of Magnus Carlsen style coaching I'm confident there would be no "FIDE gap."

Re: Has an uncomfortable truth been suppressed?

#92

Post by kthejoker2 »

rdl wrote: post #4

This is the Streisand Effect in action. (I am sure there are going to be people in a few years who learn of the Streisand Effect first and then learn about some random washed-up musician responsible for it second.)

This is like calling Frank Sinatra or Elvis or John Lennon some random washed up musician. Need to check your predilection to undersell what you personally don't value.

Re: Has an uncomfortable truth been suppressed?

#93

Post by doombolt »

pgeorgi wrote: post #89
doombolt wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you please add links for your pp. 1-4? Otherwise it looks like you assume the result of this path without helping us actually walk it.

Theodore Hill (the paper's author) wrote about his side on https://quillette.com/2018/09/07/academic-activists-send-a-p... Somewhere in the middle he linked to the paper: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.04184.pdf From there you can get to its abstract page that also carries the versions: https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.04184

Thank you!

So I went through more than half of abstract versions and the article itself, struggle to find anything scandalous there. I persuade everyone to do the same.

Re: Has an uncomfortable truth been suppressed?

#94

Post by buboard »

Arnt wrote: post #33
buboard wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it's all about the edges of distribution though. If equality of the means mattered, countries across the world would be very similar economically, which unfortunately is not the case.

It's ALL about the edges? What does that mean? What are the edges, and why does nothing else matter?

because everyone is looking for the BEST e.g. engineers, not for the slightly-above-average.

Re: Has an uncomfortable truth been suppressed?

#95

Post by iguy »

kasey_junk wrote: post #79
iguy wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The third, WTF? Not really. A society where only 16% of men mate has 84% angry young men with nothing to lose. Expect a lot of violence, and not much careful consistent tending of the fields... My understanding is that this is why state-sanctioned monogamy exists: it is a tool for avoiding this situation.

You are making a fairly obvious mistake here in conflating timelines. Widespread “state sanctioned monogamy” is a very recent phenomenon but the genetics results you are basing from have to do with very long time frames. There are loads of plausible ways monogamy arose as a virtue that needn’t have to do with changing that ratio & there are loads of ways that ratio could have come about without societies filled with…

No and no. I don't even know what times you think I'm conflating.

From memory, numbers like 16% come from population genetics around the time we invented farming -- we swung from relatively egalitarian hunter-gatherer societies to massively unequal concentrated power. Kings who could command the labour of thousands. There's a giant bottleneck there in how many men reproduced.

And we started on building organised societies, including organised religion, around then too. It seems clear to me that these are partly about finding ways to counteract such tendencies, ways to make people work together better. We needn't invoke virtue, merely that societies with less internal friction & more work from everyone were better at clobbering their neighbours.

Now I may be wrong about this story, surely there are other explanations. But it's not "WTF" material.

Re: Has an uncomfortable truth been suppressed?

#97

Post by tacomonstrous »

cyborgx7 wrote: post #14
joe_the_user wrote: post #3

This is headline and article appear to be just a way to sneak a non-mathematical position into questions of supposed mathematical censorship. True or not, suppressed or not, the claim being described can't be described as a "Mathematical truth". It's a paper in what could be described as theoretical biology and theoretical biology making a point. IE, there's no theoretical math that anywhere near this model - no one'…

Yes, this is about science, not mathematics. But scientific results are open to being question in their methodology and in the interpretation of their results. Mathematics is either correct or it isn't. This is a pretty blatant attempt of shifting something from one category to the other.

>Mathematics is either correct or it isn't.

That's not really a relevant standard for publishability. There is an infinite variety of correct mathematics that is far from being novel enough to be in a quality journal.

Re: Has an uncomfortable truth been suppressed?

#98

Post by buboard »

tarsinge wrote: post #29
frebord wrote: post #6

Honest question, the general physical differences between the sexes or even races are undeniable, so why is it so taboo to talk about the differences that almost certainly exist in our minds?

Bad timing. The hot issue today is overcoming discriminations and social pressure, which to my knowledge dwarf any physical effects. That doesn't mean that these research should not be discussed, but I can understand why introducing a side discussion is frowned upon, because that's not the kind of subtle analysis that you'll get in click-baity links and twitter posts. In this very particular context, if I had to choo…

> The hot issue today is overcoming discriminations and social pressure, which to my knowledge dwarf any physical effects

That is an extremely unscientific statement, let alone logically false. It's impossible to attach a moral value to any scientific finding anywhere, especially a priori. There are always both good and bad consequences, impossible to predict. And if you are coming to science with a predefined set of results you find acceptable, you 're not a scientist, period.

Re: Has an uncomfortable truth been suppressed?

#99

Post by pdkl95 »

buboard wrote: post #94
Arnt wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's ALL about the edges? What does that mean? What are the edges, and why does nothing else matter?

because everyone is looking for the BEST e.g. engineers, not for the slightly-above-average.

Do they only hire from Lake Wobegon, where "all the children are above average"?

/apologies to Garrison Keillor

edit:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Wobegon#The_Lake_Wobegon_...

(and yes Keillor's "Lake Wobegon" stories [ibid.] are hilarious)

Re: Has an uncomfortable truth been suppressed?

#100

Post by buboard »

pdkl95 wrote: post #99
buboard wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

because everyone is looking for the BEST e.g. engineers, not for the slightly-above-average.

Do they only hire from Lake Wobegon, where "all the children are above average"? /apologies to Garrison Keillor edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Wobegon#The_Lake_Wobegon_... (and yes Keillor's "Lake Wobegon" stories [ibid.] are hilarious)

i don't follow, but sounds like something funny
Post reply on HN