Earlier quoted context omitted.
According to an outdated anatomical taxonomy from the 1700s.
Yes, absolutely. The whole concept of race is obsolete and discussions of it are anachronistic to the extreme. I reckon, the only people who still use those terms in earnest are US law enforcement agents, racist groups and people who just haven't got the memo.
Has an uncomfortable truth been suppressed?
221–230 of 232 posts
Re: Has an uncomfortable truth been suppressed?
#222Earlier quoted context omitted.
The paper is on Arxiv for everyone to read. But apparently, it was introduced into NYJM through subterfuge, and the peer review board demanded (understandably) that it be removed. Again: its presence in NYJM, given that journal's remit, was embarrassing to everyone involved. Not just politically but as mathematicians.
Making the paper disappear after having published it, replacing it with a different paper without any explanation at all of what did happen, should also be embarrassing for everyone involved.
Would you argue that Social Text would, in that situation, still have some sort of duty to publish the paper? Would you argue they'd have a responsibility to give it a prominent, permanent, place in their archives to avoid accusations of having "disappeared" it? Would you argue that they'd need to air that dirty laundry in public? If they did air it all publicly and honestly, would you treat that as a form of bullying of Sokal and his accomplice(s)? Remember: that would be the powerful journal leveling accusations of deliberate fraud against an academic who submitted the paper, and accusations of, at the very least, dishonesty and violation of review processes against one of their own.
Re: Has an uncomfortable truth been suppressed?
#223Earlier quoted context omitted.
Three answers to this. 1. Look at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17949340 for a more detailed account of what happened. This specific story is not a case of taboo, it's a case of attempting to publish something that's not science in a science journal, being of course rejected, and reframing the rejection as a taboo. 2. It can be discussed, but this kind of discussion invariably attracts people who are not there…
The idea that we need to establish consensus on a false truth before we can reveal a real truth doesn't make sense to me. 1. We can still agree that men and women are humans and that we all deserve ways rights 2. The inevitable differences maybe show that men are less capable than women in a variety of fronts (wouldn't that be great for women's rights?). 3. Once a lie has been installed into every boy and girl, raisi…
But that's generally not what's being argued. What's usually being argued is something more like "it is incontrovertibly and undeniably proven beyond all doubt that evolution has deeply and unalterably hard-wired female humans not to be as good as male humans at programming computers, and therefore it is an inescapable conclusion that we should stop caring whether men outnumber women among computer programmers, and we should immediately cease all efforts to teach/encourage more women to be computer programmers."
I'm not even exaggerating. This is why people want to make these kinds of "well, women and men are different, you know" arguments. The "well, women just aren't as good at this" or "well, women just aren't as interested in this" arguments have been tried in multiple fields, and have fallen over flat in the face of actual empirical evidence over and over and over. But people keep desperately trying to revive them and say "Ah, but this field is different! The females really are inferior and less interested in our field, and we have science truths to back it up!"
Also, here's a takedown from someone who just did basic math back during the initial burst of drama around Damore's "diversity memo". It's very hard, once you check the math, to accept that we have any basis for asserting that observed ratios of men and women in STEM have a biological basis:
https://twitter.com/search?f=tweets&q=from%3Awikisteff%20sin...
That's a link to a date-based search. Scroll until you see "if there were large biological gender differences in STEM, you'd see it", and then start reading up from there for the replies.
I have to link you to that, because the thread was in reply to, disagreeing with, and debunking a tweet that's now deleted, and that apparently breaks Twitter's threading. The deleted tweet being debunked, for what it's worth, is from a user whose Twitter bio says she is "founder and editor" of Quillette, the site hosting the claims of the author of the "uncomfortable truth" paper this HN thread is about.
Re: Has an uncomfortable truth been suppressed?
#224Earlier quoted context omitted.
Making the paper disappear after having published it, replacing it with a different paper without any explanation at all of what did happen, should also be embarrassing for everyone involved.
Imagine, for a moment, if Alan Sokal had gotten a like-minded friend who worked at Social Text to fast-track his infamous paper, but by chance someone else did happen to take a look at it and immediately caught on that it was a huge troll and that their processes had been subverted by someone who wanted to score cheap political points by sneaking a paper into their journal. Would you argue that Social Text would, in…
Yes, airing the problem as publicly as possible would be the right thing to do, out of respect for the readers of the journal.
Removing the paper from the publication record is acceptable, as long as it is done very openly, as a kind of "erratum".
Re: Has an uncomfortable truth been suppressed?
#225There is more going on than this. It's important to know a bit about the venues in question. Mathematical Intelligencer isn't really a journal at all; it's literally a magazine, carried on the shelves it bookstores. It runs some original research but also poetry and jokes and general cultural coverage. NYJM is, on the other hand, a serious (if online-only, lower-tier) theoretical mathematics journal. Ted Hill's paper…
https://quillette.com/2018/09/07/academic-activists-send-a-p...
Re: Has an uncomfortable truth been suppressed?
#226Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, absolutely. The whole concept of race is obsolete and discussions of it are anachronistic to the extreme. I reckon, the only people who still use those terms in earnest are US law enforcement agents, racist groups and people who just haven't got the memo.
Not just law enforcement, the entire US government does. For example, you will see a question about your race on the 2020 census if you are in America: https://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/img/person1_hispani...
Re: Has an uncomfortable truth been suppressed?
#227Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not just law enforcement, the entire US government does. For example, you will see a question about your race on the 2020 census if you are in America: https://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/img/person1_hispani...
There are often race-related questions in job applications.
I live in the UK, in the EU. Here, it's illegal to ask candidates questions about their race, religion, age, marital status, family planning etc. As it is illlegal to advertise jobs to "white male 30 yrs old" etc.
Of course, people still do stuff like that- e.g. I've been asked about my age a couple of times and apparently it's common to be asked about whether you're planning to have children soon, by interviewers, though this has never happened to me (so it might depend on the industry).
Re: Has an uncomfortable truth been suppressed?
#228Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are often race-related questions in job applications.
Is that sort of thing legal, in the US? Or is it more like, it's illegal but everybody does it anyway? I live in the UK, in the EU. Here, it's illegal to ask candidates questions about their race, religion, age, marital status, family planning etc. As it is illlegal to advertise jobs to "white male 30 yrs old" etc. Of course, people still do stuff like that- e.g. I've been asked about my age a couple of times and app…
The point is that there is a lot of people who do care about race, not just US cops.
https://race.bitc.org.uk/sites/default/files/kcfinder/files/...
Re: Has an uncomfortable truth been suppressed?
#229here's a genetics paper that covers this topic: https://investigativegenetics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.... Issues with the paper and its relevance to the platform it was published in notwithstanding, I think that we have two highly politicized sides, one wishing to promote a finding of "this is how things have been through history" as "this is the way things ought to be" (The MI staff expressed this concern), an…
Sometimes it feels like we are in competition to claim that we are the least fortunate of all sub-groups. Not future focused at all.
I feel as though somehow the West (as a civilization) has become overcome with embarrassment at what it did in the past (to Africans, Native Americans, and Asians, in particular) and now, instead of moving on and pursuing reconciliation in good faith, we have decided the only recourse is to obsess about how we are the enemies of civilization. Future? What future? We did so much bad stuff in the past. How could we take any pride in who we are? We're still so racist, sexist, etc. Nevermind the fact that modern life owes a great debt to the West (aircraft, antibiotics, modern representative government, etc.)
There are serious problems facing the world today (climate change potentially a existential threat to our species). If you look at the past few centuries, you would think that it is precisely the West that has the institutions and paradigms to address those problems. I'm not saying China isn't destined for great things, or won't contribute to addressing the problems. But imagine what China could do if it worked hand in hand with a 21st century USA that was as determined to end climate change as the 20th century USA was to end various infectious diseases (polio, tuberculosis, measles, for example) or put a man on the moon. Our team is losing the basketball game because one of our star players is at home moping about a mistake he made last season. It's societal narcissism, and, instead of helping "the Rest" (to use Niall Ferguson's shorthand for non-Westerners), it serves no one.
My point is: we need to see we are sick as a society. We are too preoccupied by things that happened in the past. Isn't this the lesson of at least one of the great classical tragedies? Why did Romeo and Juliet die? Because their families were stuck in the past and couldn't see that the future was more important than their petty feuds. There's no question we should continue to mind how we treat others (women, immigrants, people from other ethnicities), but we also (in the US, say) need to rediscover a sense of shared national heritage and purpose. History did not, as Fukuyama says, end with the destruction of the USSR. Surely, now that the USSR is gone, the interesting (and peaceful!) work should begin. Instead we're bickering amongst ourselves?
Re: Has an uncomfortable truth been suppressed?
#230I'd just like to point out that the paper was never removed from the NYJM site[0]. Note the references to the Damore controversy in the third paragraph of the introduction, which Hill conveniently left out of the version he linked to on arXiv. Also interestingly, its accepted date was later than the paper that replaced it and most of the other accepted papers that I've checked from that edition. 0: http://nyjm.albany…
For what it's worth, it sounds like the Summers/Damore discussion was added at the suggestion of the referees or editors at NYJM. If you look at the arXiv history, Hill and coauthors didn't include included mention of Summers/Damore until version 5 of their paper. (It disappears at version 8. I would generously guess Hill removed it because he didn't particularly agree with NYJM's suggestion.)
Finally, for those who are concerned that the mention of Summers/Damore is damning, here is what Hill says about Summers/Damore in the NYJM version of the paper:
"A resurgence of controversy came after the VH was linked to the forced resignation of Harvard President Larry Summers and the firing of Google engineer James Damore."
"VH" is variability hypothesis. My point is the paper does not endorse either Larry Summers or James Damore. It just mentions that the topic of the paper is a contentious one, as proven by the controversy surrounding Summers and Damore, and that the hope of the paper is to provide a concrete (if simple) mathematical theory in which to investigate VH in the evolution of species. If it weren't the variability hypothesis but instead Anderson localization, I think it's clear it would have received neither fire nor fury.