Academic Activists Send a Published Paper Down the Memory Hole • Hacker News Board

Re: Academic Activists Send a Published Paper Down the Memory Hole

#41

Post by brenschluss » Sat, Sep 08, 2018, 4:59 AM UTC

zeth___ wrote: post #32

brenschluss wrote: post #31

The paper seems to have some egregious and basic errors. Take a look at the paper: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.04184.pdf On page 2, it says (in discussing Special Case 1): "If sex A is relatively selective and will mate only with the top most desirable quarter of sex B, then all of the next generation will be offspring of the more variable subpopulation B1" However, if you look at the histogram in Figure 1, it's clear…

You misunderstand the argument. It's like having a bag 1 filled with equal quantities of capsicums, cherries, and apples, then selecting the top reddest 25% of bag 1 and moving them to bag 2. You will have much less variability of fruit type in bag 2 because you used color selection to fill it (apples and capsicums come in three colors at will be selected 1/3rd the rate of cherries). That's the whole point of sexual…

> You will have much less variability of fruit type in bag 2 because you used color selection to fill it

Yes, I completely agree with you! You will have much less variability.

However, that's not what the paper argues. The paper argues that you would have more variability.

I'd appreciate you taking a look at the original paper (specifically, the bottom of page 2 [edit: and Figure 1]) and understanding my original argument.

Re: Academic Activists Send a Published Paper Down the Memory Hole

#42

Post by brenschluss » Sat, Sep 08, 2018, 5:01 AM UTC

waterhouse wrote: post #36

brenschluss wrote: post #31

The paper seems to have some egregious and basic errors. Take a look at the paper: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.04184.pdf On page 2, it says (in discussing Special Case 1): "If sex A is relatively selective and will mate only with the top most desirable quarter of sex B, then all of the next generation will be offspring of the more variable subpopulation B1" However, if you look at the histogram in Figure 1, it's clear…

Subpopulations B1 and B2 are supposed to be genetically distinct, in ways that change their variability. If it helps, imagine that subpopulation B1 has a gene that, at birth, flips a coin and will make the child either ugly or beautiful, and that subpopulation B2 has no such gene and they're all of average beauty. Based on this interpretation, in Special Case 1 as an example, if sex A is relatively selective and mate…

However, that's not how the paper defines variability.

I did think for a second that your definition was the case, and variability was a function of phenotypical expression, but it (as defined in the paper) is strictly about the statistical distribution of desirability within a population. See p4.

Re: Academic Activists Send a Published Paper Down the Memory Hole

#43

Post by brenschluss » Sat, Sep 08, 2018, 5:02 AM UTC

quotemstr wrote: post #33

brenschluss wrote: post #31

The paper seems to have some egregious and basic errors. Take a look at the paper: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.04184.pdf On page 2, it says (in discussing Special Case 1): "If sex A is relatively selective and will mate only with the top most desirable quarter of sex B, then all of the next generation will be offspring of the more variable subpopulation B1" However, if you look at the histogram in Figure 1, it's clear…

You've identified the mechanism by which sexual selection operates. It's clearly a powerful force. This paper is arguing that in addition to sexual selection's first order directional effect, there's an overlaid second order effect on variability, and the argument makes sense. Male reproductive success is already highly variable, because male gametes are cheap. Some males end up being disproportionately successful, e…

>The effect doesn't apply to female children, since a female mammal cannot have 200 offspring in her lifetime, but a male mammal certainly can.

From the paper:

"Note that this theory makes no assumptions about differences in means between the sexes, nor does it presume that one sex is selective and the other non-selective"

So the reproduction capacity of sex A and sex B is equal. I'm attempting to debate the paper strictly based on its own arguments.

Re: Academic Activists Send a Published Paper Down the Memory Hole

#44

Post by brenschluss » Sat, Sep 08, 2018, 5:05 AM UTC

quotemstr wrote: post #35

zeth___ wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You misunderstand the argument. It's like having a bag 1 filled with equal quantities of capsicums, cherries, and apples, then selecting the top reddest 25% of bag 1 and moving them to bag 2. You will have much less variability of fruit type in bag 2 because you used color selection to fill it (apples and capsicums come in three colors at will be selected 1/3rd the rate of cherries). That's the whole point of sexual…

I'm glad the OP posted his comment, since it presents a window into the kind of thinking that will go on to form the narrative scar tissue surrounding this affair. By now, the response pattern from the activist camp to inconvenient manuscripts should be clear to anyone who has been paying attention. If attempts to silence authors pre-publication don't work, and if post-publication censorship ends up being ineffective…

I am examining the paper and attempting to understand it based on its arguments.

You are critiquing my argument based on what I am saying, not my method.

I argue that you are attempting to frame my critique of the paper based on the desired narrative you wish to pursue, rather than any kind of rigorous or inquisitive method.

If you agree with this analysis, then you will probably continue to disparage my efforts as some kind of attempt as "censorship", furthering your desired narrative.

If you disagree, then I heartily welcome a discussion of the paper.

Re: Academic Activists Send a Published Paper Down the Memory Hole

#45

Post by quotemstr » Sat, Sep 08, 2018, 5:10 AM UTC

brenschluss wrote: post #43

quotemstr wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've identified the mechanism by which sexual selection operates. It's clearly a powerful force. This paper is arguing that in addition to sexual selection's first order directional effect, there's an overlaid second order effect on variability, and the argument makes sense. Male reproductive success is already highly variable, because male gametes are cheap. Some males end up being disproportionately successful, e…

>The effect doesn't apply to female children, since a female mammal cannot have 200 offspring in her lifetime, but a male mammal certainly can. From the paper: "Note that this theory makes no assumptions about differences in means between the sexes, nor does it presume that one sex is selective and the other non-selective" So the reproduction capacity of sex A and sex B is equal. I'm attempting to debate the paper st…

The paper then goes on to discuss, in detail, how differences in selectivity drive differences in variability, so the passage you quoted does not mean that the author is imagining A and B to be equally selective. The author is just asserting that both of his arbitrary sexes might be selective in an absolute sense.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, especially since you've opted not to quote or address the majority of my comment.

Re: Academic Activists Send a Published Paper Down the Memory Hole

#46

Post by quotemstr » Sat, Sep 08, 2018, 5:11 AM UTC

brenschluss wrote: post #44

quotemstr wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm glad the OP posted his comment, since it presents a window into the kind of thinking that will go on to form the narrative scar tissue surrounding this affair. By now, the response pattern from the activist camp to inconvenient manuscripts should be clear to anyone who has been paying attention. If attempts to silence authors pre-publication don't work, and if post-publication censorship ends up being ineffective…

I am examining the paper and attempting to understand it based on its arguments. You are critiquing my argument based on what I am saying, not my method. I argue that you are attempting to frame my critique of the paper based on the desired narrative you wish to pursue, rather than any kind of rigorous or inquisitive method. If you agree with this analysis, then you will probably continue to disparage my efforts as s…

Besides, the merit of this paper's argument is irrelevant. It could be totally wrong and the treatment it's receiving would still be abhorrent. Getting into the weeds on population genetics might be interesting, but it doesn't make a difference when it comes to the idea that we should debate results, not censor them.

Re: Academic Activists Send a Published Paper Down the Memory Hole

#47

Post by whatshisface » Sat, Sep 08, 2018, 5:12 AM UTC

ve55 wrote: post #29

When opponents think about how 'damaging' papers like this are, they should also consider how damaging things like this are to the field in general, and how they may cause a lot of second-order harm. Many that I know have begun to distrust areas of academia much more recently, and when they see scenarios like this over and over it doesn't help. We all know that no one will support you for saying the truth if it won't…

At least the controversy about string theory has been in the public eye for a while now. It seems like physics hit the worst of it in the 90s and the public trust we have now is relatively sturdy.

Re: Academic Activists Send a Published Paper Down the Memory Hole

#48

Post by fnordsensei » Sat, Sep 08, 2018, 5:17 AM UTC

briandear wrote: post #40

quotemstr wrote: post #15

This disgraceful behavior from academia is shredding the credibility of the entire enterprise. How is anyone supposed to trust any unintuitive conclusions with expensive implications --- for example, on climate change --- when the academic community has demonstrated a propensity to shriek at and censor unorthodox ideas instead of contest them on the merits?

This is specificly why I am a climate skeptic. Not a denier, mind you, but a skeptic when it comes to anything purporting to be “settled science.” It’s specifically because there is a strong resistance to anything damaging to the status quo, as supported by grant funding and, to a lesser extent, political agenda. Frankly, it’s hard to trust academia on controversial topics.

With climate change though, it seems that the academic consensus is that humanity has an effect on the climate, while (some significant portion of) media seems to regularly depict it as more of a 50/50 up-in-the-air situation.

In this article, it's not about media depiction vs academic consensus, but friction within academic sciences itself.

Re: Academic Activists Send a Published Paper Down the Memory Hole

#49

Post by waterhouse » Sat, Sep 08, 2018, 5:19 AM UTC

brenschluss wrote: post #42

waterhouse wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Subpopulations B1 and B2 are supposed to be genetically distinct, in ways that change their variability. If it helps, imagine that subpopulation B1 has a gene that, at birth, flips a coin and will make the child either ugly or beautiful, and that subpopulation B2 has no such gene and they're all of average beauty. Based on this interpretation, in Special Case 1 as an example, if sex A is relatively selective and mate…

However, that's not how the paper defines variability. I did think for a second that your definition was the case, and variability was a function of phenotypical expression, but it (as defined in the paper) is strictly about the statistical distribution of desirability within a population. See p4.

That's how variability is defined, yes, on groups (or, technically, on "probability measures")—which might be the entire population or a subgroup thereof. The term "subpopulation" isn't defined, and it isn't explicitly stated whether the high variability is a heritable trait. I believe your contention is that that the overall population has basically the same genes, everyone rolls the dice, and then the subpopulations are defined post hoc in terms of the resulting quartiles (or x-iles). Mine is that the subpopulations are genetically distinct and their die rolls behave differently.

Given that the paper is about evolutionary mechanisms and whether one group "prevails" over another, I think my assumption is reasonable; and I think that, given my assumption, the paper makes good sense in the examples under discussion.

Re: Academic Activists Send a Published Paper Down the Memory Hole

#50

Post by thyrsus » Sat, Sep 08, 2018, 5:24 AM UTC

lucio wrote: post #13

traject_ wrote: post #7

Wow, I didn't know that academia was getting this bad; what happened to letting the truth be debated a la the Socratic dialogue in the academia of all places!

>what happened to letting the truth be debated a la the Socratic dialogue in the academia of all places! https://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi...

The Bailey paper proposes three steps: 1. Women have been historically discriminated against. 2. Women are currently discriminated against by people using the Socratic dialog. 3. The Socratic dialog discriminates against women.

The leap from 2. to 3. is reminiscent of "Hitler was a vegetarian. Therefore vegetarians are Nazis."