61–70 of 106 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
High-energy physicists make up theories for the mechanisms behind phenomena that may or may not even exist all the time. One can question the utility of this but no one strings up such authors for heresy.
Theoretical physics does not aim to influence social policy.
Ironicaly if the Greater Male Variability Hypothesis is true this also means that many more men are more dumber than women since women are more centered towards the gauss average. 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 h…
Because many advocates of GMVH are only interested in justifying the gender imbalance in leadership positions biologically, dismissing any well known social factors (e.g. competence rating on double blind fake CVs)?
"Feminists say GMVH means men are all smarter" is a gross oversimplification of the situation.
If you have 2.5 hours to spend on a video essay, I'd very much recommend "The Bell Curve"[1], a breakdown of the book of the same name. Not so much for the racism part, but for the background on the construction of IQ.
[1] https://quillette.com/2018/09/07/academic-activists-send-a-p...
Retracting a paper should only be done in select situations, like fraud, plagiarism or violating ethical guidelines. Was any of that present? If you retract papers that were just 'wrong' you would be retracting at least 50% of the work published in a lot of fields. Furthermore you would leave a blind spot in the research, other researchers might try and pursue those retracted ideas not realizing they are dead ends.
Wouldn't that be a win? Don't people read & reference these published, reviewed, non-retracted 'wrong' papers with the assumption that they are right?
Ironicaly if the Greater Male Variability Hypothesis is true this also means that many more men are more dumber than women since women are more centered towards the gauss average. 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 h…
I think you meant “grovel”. Growling like a dog before them would be quite a fun experiment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Theoretical physics does not aim to influence social policy.
That's news to me. How do all those nifty particle accelerators get funded, then?
The paper itself is a chuckle fest (as are many Intelligencer submissions) and concludes: > The goal here has been neither to challenge nor to confirm Darwin’s and other researchers’ observations of greater male variability for any given species or any given trait, but rather to propose an elementary mathematical theory based on biological/evolutionary mechanisms that might serve as a starting point to help explain h…
High-energy physicists make up theories for the mechanisms behind phenomena that may or may not even exist all the time. One can question the utility of this but no one strings up such authors for heresy.
I see what you did there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've created a simple mathmatical model that suggests they wouldn't get created in the first place, so we no longer need to discuss whether banning them was a good idea or not, it just happened naturally, and there's nothing anyone could have done to change that.
And the obviously hyperbolical nature of that model still doesn't prevent you from creating it or from it leading to potential further research oppurtunities (in fact,please do release the paper that results from such,I'd love to read it.) and following logically from that it still doesn't prevent anyone from creating a model that disagrees or from following any potential research opputunities that such would lead to…
Individual agents have a mild preference for publishing only models I agree with. They will never publish anything that I 2/3 disagree with (I rank all published papers in order of preference and the bottom 1/3 fail this test) and will immediately retract anything they have published that I disagree with to that extent and replace it with something I do agree with a random amount that places it in the top 66%. We start with them having published things that I randomly agree or disagree with.
No other factor than my agreement will have any impact on their decision to publish or retract.
Surprisingly, with only this mild preference people will automatically self censor and not publish any models I disagree with.
In reality, it's a series of laws that stops them, but we've just proved it's natural so really do those laws even matter?
Surely the right wing media will now jump on the fact this paper was "cancelled" as it was communicating an inconvenient truth for the wokerati? You can't win. The best thing to do is to let such things go as this article would have gone unnoticed.
Or, we could not make decisions about what to publish and what not based on how the lunatic fringe might react to it.