University Profs' Criticism Led to Retraction of Math Paper on Gender (2018)

Ironicaly this is never mentioned, they just see this is a "many more men can have a higher iq distrubution wise due to the male gauss tail stretching out further than womens, so this is sexist to say that men are smarter".

This shows you how biased all of these critics are, zero scientific discussion, pure emotional and egoistic outbursts.

They see this paper as "men are better", while in reality it says only "men are more in the extremes, both higher AND lower extremes than women."

Also if you read this: https://quillette.com/2018/09/07/academic-activists-send-a-p...

This is a good example of how NOT to handle a situation like this. The authors tried to convience the people that they were just doing science in good faith, but those feminist zaelots just saw it as "men are better".

You cannot argue with such people. Those people in charge are the opposite of intellectual academic scientists.

Sad so to see what academia has devolved to.

Sad that people in such high places have such beliefs.

The correct response in this situation is to tell them to go f** themselves and expose them for the immature brats that they are.

Growling like a dog before them IS ALWAYS THE WRONG COURSE OF ACTION.

If you growel before them you give them authority, this is the worst thing that you can do and will perpetuate this anti-scientific cycle.

Against who? Parody artists? Weird Al has a parody along the same lines on his 2014 album and I'm not aware of any outrage.

If your biggest concern in life is being "cancelled" (a dramatic term for being criticized on the internet), I think that says more about you and your intolerance for free speech, than anyone else.

While some people do overstate it, it's definitely real.

Those who diminish it are the fascists of our generation.

Sean Penn (far left activist) and Conan O'Brien (staunch centre left advocate, public supporter of Hillary Clinton etc.) publicly decried the problem as 'Stalinist' - strong words. In their experience, in private conversation in Hollywood people are freaked out about the oppression, while a few virtue signal here and there publicly while towing the party line, everyone is thinks it's nuts.

Stephen Pinker (staunch centre-left, respected academic) has spoken out about this, and faced a 'cancellation' of his own for merely suggesting publicly that the issue with policing in America is more a general problem as opposed to specifically a racial problem. The 'mob' came for him and tried to have his participation on various boards 'cancelled'.

A long list of thinkers, including the likes of Chomsky himself, had to come out and publicly admonish the 'cancellers' (mostly on the far left) for the systematic problem.

It's without modern precedent.

There's a 'civil war' between generations at the NYT (Editorial) about what constitutes 'fair'.

The 'outrage mob' has a measurable effect on academia and especially creative culture.

Producers just don't want to risk a project being annulled, and so they go out of their way to 'sanitize' efforts left and right.

The Wachowski sisters (then brothers) were 'condemned' for 'Cloud Atlas' where they dared to have people of different classes, genders and races, play various characters - frankly in attempt to display the common humanity within all of us (not some arbitrary bit of ugly humour) - though the outrage wasn't enough to hurt them, it's become a 'no go zone' for content in 2022.

Actors playing characters of different source origin i.e. someone 'non Japanese' playing a character from Anime, actors playing historical figures, actors playing arbitrary fictional characters of questionable origin etc. etc. - it's all a minefield, scaring producers away from anything.

30 Rock, made by your typically socially progressive groups, had several episodes pulled.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

Go ahead and re-watch 'Superbad' - it could not be made today, it wouldn't even get pitched. Every scene is 'off message' - arbitrary bits about crude porn, jokes involving trans people, 'period' gags. It was always a bit 'outrageous' but that kind of humour will risk too much ire and so it's out. Even the actors just wouldn't want to risk being on the wrong side - look at Seth Rogen's most recent work, it's like a 180 degree shift.

Institutional entities that have been around for some time, notably 'make money' and notably have their own production ability - South Park and Family Guy, basically get a free pass.

But most people in entertainment and academia do not have power like 'Dave Chapelle' or institutional protection like 'South Park' or respect of 'Stephen Pinker' - so they 'stay on message' and 'away from controversy' or else the script does not get approved. And FYI even the people turning it away aren't ideological about it 'it's just business' and an accommodation of the outrage mob, fickle advertisers etc..

The 'outraged' a fairly small group, with a sizeable group of allies particularly among Gen Z, which can be noted in the continuous public furor over ostensibly 'terrible person', JK Rowling. The way they go on about here is medieval.

While I don't think our campuses are overtly hostile, the issue does linger.

> You know what else leads to segregation? Actual laws that enforce it at the point of a gun with legal and extra-legal terrorism.

"Tell me you don't understand social science, without telling me you don't understand social science." The point of these models is not usually to argue for the status quo. Often they're made as a simple sanity check. For instance, if even small incentives towards aggregation can lead to self-segregation, this changes the policies we would choose to try and create a different outcome.