This article justifies its logic in statements like, “There are significantly more men than women, for example, among Nobel laureates, music composers, and chess champions—and also among homeless people, suicide victims, and federal prison inmates.” All biased measures.
-
-
-
Yes, these rather silly examples early on in the article would almost discourage one from reading on. Rather undermined the scientist’s point.
-
Why are they silly examples?
-
These are examples of cultural and social selection rather than natural selection. We have concrete evidence that Nobel prizes go to men over more deserving women, for example. Check out the story of Jocelyn Bell Burnell who discovered quasars.https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/11941453/Female-physicist-overlooked-for-Nobel-Prize-finally-receives-recognition-as-Woman-of-the-Year.html …
-
It went to her supervisor, the one who devised the project she embarked on. This was nothing to do with male/female bias and everything to do with supervisors taking credit for their students work...
-
You should read the whole story, because it was obvious she was the discoverer and the Nobel committee rewarded a man instead. How about Rosalind Franklin? She was the discoverer of the DNA double helix, for which three men received the Nobel Prize: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosalind_Franklin …
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
I think it is interesting that you would promote this story, of a paper that incorrectly portrays research on sexual dimorphism in animals (mean differences) as variation differences and proposes selection that does not match known coupling rates as somehow important.
-
We know of a mechanism where variation in certain traits in humans may decrease: bias. In fact, in my paper, I even show a graph of how increased bias against a group decreases variance.https://medium.com/@n.k.h.73908513321516/the-murray-fallacy-and-the-heritability-of-bias-c20c2381fe27?source=linkShare-af2b8fd0529a-1536508706 …
-
But it seems with every step this year, you dive deeper and deeper into apologism for bigotries and biases and promoter of any theory, no matter how obviously incorrect, that would deflect from the awareness of these problems in society.
-
lol Nathan doing your act again First of all: the GMVH is well-known and replicated among dozens of domains. Second: a descriptive argument cannot be bigoted. Third: the article is about activists circumventing peer review to erase accepted papers, which you totally ignore.
-
You claim it’s well established, yet the paper only points to studies (like reference [8]) where the results are: - not statistically significant (as clearly stated) across nearly all data points - were on traits that differed in mean and the variance “linearly adjusted”
-
Then the Quillette article explicitly points to bias and states that these results help temper such an interpretation. It’s not like I was the one who introduced that connection here. But my paper does show how bias decreases variance explicitly.
-
The paper is nonsensical as a model because the level of selection required would be observable in decreased coupling rates that are just not seen. You understand that objection, right?
-
Finally, what is most concerning here is the portrayal of speech, advocacy, and actual peer review as somehow anti-speech. This inversion needs to end. What happened to this article was that it did not ultimately meet the standards of the community of the journals.
- 26 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Yet another example of the Left working diligently to prevent people from being exposed to information. Whether you agree w/the paper or not, it's clear that the real science deniers are all on the left.
-
Those pesky leftist and their evolution deni- wait. Those pesky leftist and their climate change deni- wait. Both sides deny science to fit their agenda.
-
Not even close. Anthroprogenic climate change has been scientifically disproved and yet, just like this paper, the Left refuses to acknowledge it and works tirelessly to suppress it. Evolution has been widely accepted with only factional argument. Try again.
-
Climate change deniers & evolution deniers tend to be the same people. The denial ideology comes from sources within their political bubble, not from peer reviewed science.
-
Are you referring to the peer reviewed science where they change previously recorded data in an effort to match their ideology and then get caught doing it? Or actual science?
-
Actual science.
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.