Researchers produce study on the possible mathematical underpinnings of the Greater Male Variability Hypothesis.
Experts in the field praise the study. Editor of journal, though aware of the controversial nature of studies into intelligence and gender, offers to publish the article to encourage a robust debate on the subject.
When interest groups in academia find out, they denounce the paper. One of the authors is encouraged to remove his name from it.
Under pressure from diversity professionals, the National Science Foundation requests that the authors remove mention of their funding for the research.
The editor withdraws her support and rejects the article, citing the possibility that it could be used as political ammunition by the right.*
One of the researchers buckles under the attack and withdraws his name from the paper.
Another journal offers to publish revised article, after assessment by referee. Conditions met, publication is confirmed.
This journal is attacked in turn, and half the board threaten to resign if the paper is published. It's pulled from the journal.
* This is the same argument that religious authorities use to suppress the teaching of evolution - its scientific merits matter less than the threat it poses to social values.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
Sorry, this isn't just about the words people use. There are zealots and extremists out there who furiously reject any challenges to their orthodoxy, regardless of the science and regardless of how the challenge is worded.
Actually, that’s exactly what we were talking about. If you’d like to move the goalposts in this direction, I’m more than happy to respond to this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CliffFletcher
Another case showing that conservatives aren't the only ones who denounce and suppress science that challenges ideological orthodoxies.
* This is the same argument that religious authorities use to suppress the teaching of evolution - its scientific merits matter less than the threat it poses to social values.
These are, quite frankly, unique situations, and as illustrated by the very article you presented, the solution is: continue having the conversation, adjusting along as required to land your message or explore your idea, in order to present something you think is valuable.
So, some academics didn’t like a paper, and the author goes on to not only publish a long article explaining why that’s an issue on Quillette, the paper is included, and reading the comments section, the response is overwhelmingly (99%+) positive and supportive. Can you explain to me the issue? That there was resistance? There’s always resistance on any contentious issue, the solution is, as illustrated, to work a little harder for good ideas.
Again, whether posters here claiming that they’d rather just avoid conversation altogether than put effort in, or your hypothetical friend who can’t see to put any effort in to expressing his idea, the solution is: be open, listen, and be prepared to work on your presentation of a statement.
That’s pretty basic social functionality. Again, I know that it becomes much harder depending on certain psychological conditions, but for the average relatively healthy mind, that’s just pretty much how we were all raised to interact. The solution when you meet someone who doesn’t know how, or who just reacts poorly to your own presentation of something, isn’t to just sit and mope.
So, some academics didn’t like a paper, and the author goes on to not only publish a long article explaining why that’s an issue on Quillette, the paper is included, and reading the comments section, the response is overwhelmingly (99%+) positive and supportive. Can you explain to me the issue? That there was resistance? There’s always resistance on any contentious issue, the solution is, as illustrated, to work a little harder for good ideas.
Because some issues have essentially become taboo in academia. We're not talking about intellectual disagreement and debate, but about people who disagree with research on political grounds using every means they can to suppress - not challenge, but suppress - that research. Whole realms of study have become so politicized that they're now treated as essentially sacred.
This is not normal. It's not part of the Western intellectual tradition. It's new.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
Last edited by CliffFletcher; 09-10-2018 at 10:19 AM.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
He said, in a lazy drive-by. If you don’t want to engage, save the effort, nobody cares. If you do, let’s discuss!
I mean, ignoring the fact that the cultural revolution in the 60s is what gave academia much of the freedom that it currently enjoys, I suppose it depends on the definition of “new.”
Your lazy post did not require engagement. Replying to concerns about a chilling effect on academic research, certain areas being verboten, by referencing Galileo as if that has any relevance to the conversation whatsoever... what is anyone even supposed to say to that? It's asinine. That's not a serious rejoinder.
If you have a bunch of examples to demonstrate that this has in fact been a consistent reality in universities throughout the past half century, fine, post them. Otherwise his point stands - this phenomenon wasn't an issue in 2008, or 1998.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following User Says Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
Researchers produce study on the possible mathematical underpinnings of the Greater Male Variability Hypothesis.
Experts in the field praise the study. Editor of journal, though aware of the controversial nature of studies into intelligence and gender, offers to publish the article to encourage a robust debate on the subject.
When interest groups in academia find out, they denounce the paper. One of the authors is encouraged to remove his name from it.
Under pressure from diversity professionals, the National Science Foundation requests that the authors remove mention of their funding for the research.
The editor withdraws her support and rejects the article, citing the possibility that it could be used as political ammunition by the right.*
One of the researchers buckles under the attack and withdraws his name from the paper.
Another journal offers to publish revised article, after assessment by referee. Conditions met, publication is confirmed.
This journal is attacked in turn, and half the board threaten to resign if the paper is published. It's pulled from the journal.
* This is the same argument that religious authorities use to suppress the teaching of evolution - its scientific merits matter less than the threat it poses to social values.
What the thinking here? I assume that this would support the idea that men are specialized for various roles within society due to a greater degree of variation in size, strength, intelligence, etc...
This would then support the theory that women are less able to fill those specialized roles? I suppose if the theory were true, you'd expect a male to be more likely to have a very high end intelligence, with females more likely to fall around the average. This could be equally damaging for men who would be perceived as below average intelligence and pigeon holed there.
Quite frankly, from my experience I've found an equal proportion of both smart and dumb people of both genders. It's also very difficult to make any kind of test that is an accurate measure of intelligence, which has no single definition and is heavily influenced by bias.
It's hilarious to read that article because it pretty much covers off why they were put there and why a solution for women wasn't required; it was meant to address a specific problem: drunk dudes pissing in public. Of course an irrational minority will get their nose out of joint, it isn't even a question any more.
What the thinking here? I assume that this would support the idea that men are specialized for various roles within society due to a greater degree of variation in size, strength, intelligence, etc...
This would then support the theory that women are less able to fill those specialized roles? I suppose if the theory were true, you'd expect a male to be more likely to have a very high end intelligence, with females more likely to fall around the average. This could be equally damaging for men who would be perceived as below average intelligence and pigeon holed there.
Why the assumption that there's a political agenda at play? Greater male variability is a fact of genetics. This research was meant to use math to look into how that variance could play out with regards to intelligence.
Do we really want to assume science is always motivated by ideological and social agendas? Isn't that what global warming deniers accuse the climate scientists of - using dubious research to justify a political and economic agenda? How far do we want to go down the road of suppressing science just because it could be used to support controversial ideological positions?
Discovering how the world works, and making decisions about how we ought to behave, are two entirely different things. Keeping them separate is a cornerstone of the enlightenment and of the scientific method.
Quote:
Originally Posted by blankall
It's also very difficult to make any kind of test that is an accurate measure of intelligence, which has no single definition and is heavily influenced by bias.
Research has identified something known as general intelligence. The fact that it's controversial and some people are upset at the idea doesn't change the science.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
Last edited by CliffFletcher; 09-10-2018 at 12:37 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
cracked is a comedy site, but they do have some interesting opinion pieces, even though it usually doesn't have much depth.
Fellow named Mark Hill comments on Peterson
"At a glance, he's doing the same "Political correctness is destroying society!" bit that for years has been the hallmark of right-wing content aimed at young white males. But there is something very, very different about Peterson. The sooner we understand that, the better."
for someone like myself who has little knowledge on the matter. was the author pretty accurate?
Not to comment on the article itself, but the question "does Peterson repackage alt-right ideas".
Yes, to some extent. There's a reason why the nazis love him.
One central term/enemy to Peterson is "postmodern neo-marxism", which is essentially just "cultural marxism" repackaged. "Cultural marxism" isn't even an alt-right / neo-nazi idea, it's a literal Nazi idea, created to bundle together everything the nazis hated, like leftists, liberals, gays etc. It's really uncomfortably close to the exact same boogeyman/fantasy of the united liberal intellectual queer multiculturalist left that's super commonly used in especially US political discussions. (Hint: it's not a real thing.)
Another alt-right -friendly idea Peterson peddles is the myth of a united western history, that is very closely tied to the myth of a united white history.
He's also said a bunch of things that just appeal to alt-rights, like "respectful discussion is born out of fear of physical violence" (paraphrasing obviously, but it really is pretty exactly what he said).
Personally I would also call Peterson a fairly obviously misogynist conservative, who just mostly hides it very well. He might also be an outright "cryptofascist" (someone who deliberately hides his fascist ideology, often even denying they are fascists in public even though they openly celebrate the ideology in private), but that's purely speculation.
I really highly recommend Contrapoints video on Peterson.
NSFW to all Contrapoints videos: languages and occasional flirting with kinky trans imagery, or just weird humour.
(Contrapoints is awesome in general. Her style might rub some the wrong way, but she's really, really good at explaining all things alt-right.
And her video on Incels is probably the best you'll see on the topic by a fairly wide margin. If you don't understand the Incel-phenomenon, you'll understand after that video. Contrapoints does her research.)
Last edited by Itse; 09-10-2018 at 01:13 PM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Itse For This Useful Post:
Your lazy post did not require engagement. Replying to concerns about a chilling effect on academic research, certain areas being verboten, by referencing Galileo as if that has any relevance to the conversation whatsoever... what is anyone even supposed to say to that? It's asinine. That's not a serious rejoinder.
If you have a bunch of examples to demonstrate that this has in fact been a consistent reality in universities throughout the past half century, fine, post them. Otherwise his point stands - this phenomenon wasn't an issue in 2008, or 1998.
And, likewise, the inference that academic suppression is new, or somehow very very recent phenomena was asinine enough to warrant that exact response, that it has been happening for 400 years, and that academic studies have been suppressed on a variety of topics throughout history since that time.
If depending on the argument from ignorance fallacy is all you have, then sure, Cliff is right until someone proves him wrong, I guess. But that’s poor logic. If you’d like to use google, you’ll find a large range of evidence detailing academic suppression, from the tobacco industry, to climate change, to the events of hurricane Katrina. All large, very prominent issues over the past 20-30 years that have been subject to academic suppression.
Otherwise, I don’t know what else to say to someone who believes academic suppression is a new 2018 thing. It’s ridiculous
Why the assumption that there's a political agenda at play? Greater male variability is a fact of genetics. This research was meant to use math to look into how that variance could play out with regards to intelligence.
Do we really want to assume science is always motivated by ideological and social agendas? Isn't that what global warming deniers accuse the climate scientists of - using dubious research to justify a political and economic agenda? How far do we want to go down the road of suppressing science just because it could be used to support controversial ideological positions?
Discovering how the world works, and making decisions about how we ought to behave, are two entirely different things. Keeping them separate is a cornerstone of the enlightenment and of the scientific method.
Research has identified something known as general intelligence. The fact that it's controversial and some people are upset at the idea doesn't change the science.
I agree with a lot of your points.
My main issue is with a lot of the "research" in the field of sociology and intelligence as a whole. You're basically taking very abstract concepts, like human intelligence and personality, and attempting to quantify them.
Sociology as a field also seems obsessed with proving that nurture outweighs nature, when they should be focusing on the role of both nature and nurture in human experience. It's a field of study that is inherently politically motivated.
I do disagree that the variation hypothesis is a "fact". There are studies going both way on the subject. Like I stated before quantifying intelligence isn't possible and will automatically lend itself to bias. "Variation hypothesis" is a hypothesis and not a fact. There also appears to be differences in the degree of variability across economic, cultural, and national backgrounds. This suggests either bias in the testing or a nurturing effect, which is in opposition to the proposition that there is greater inherent (IE genetically pre-determined) variability of intelligence in males.
Sociology as a field also seems obsessed with proving that nurture outweighs nature, when they should be focusing on the role of both nature and nurture in human experience. It's a field of study that is inherently politically motivated.
Having studied sociology, that's just not even in the ballpark of true. Most sociology is not even interested in the nurture/nature question, that's more related to fields like pedagogy or psychology.
Also, the idea even within the field of sociology people interested in this question are "trying to prove nurture outweights nature" is just patently false. Also, that's not a political bias.
For the record though, I would agree that a lot of human sciences are BS. But that's not how they're BS.
EDIT:
Quote:
You're basically taking very abstract concepts, like human intelligence and personality, and attempting to quantify them.
Also, just no. This is basically opposite to reality.
The whole field of qualitative research was essentially invented because fields like sociology were NOT interested in quantifying things like intelligence and personality, but instead wanted to find ways to say something interesting about these topics without trying to quantify them.
EDIT2: ALso, intelligence and personality are not really sociological topics, you're talking psychology.
Sociology by definition studies groups of people.
Last edited by Itse; 09-10-2018 at 01:43 PM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Itse For This Useful Post:
Yeah, limited education here, but in my 3 university sociology classes, not one of them seemed to contain any real political lean one way or the other. Seemed a lot closer to anthropology than psychology.
Having studied sociology, that's just not even in the ballpark of true. Most sociology is not even interested in the nurture/nature question, that's more related to fields like pedagogy or psychology.
Also, the idea even within the field of sociology people interested in this question are "trying to prove nurture outweights nature" is just patently false. Also, that's not a political bias.
For the record though, I would agree that a lot of human sciences are BS. But that's not how they're BS.
EDIT:
Also, just no. This is basically opposite to reality.
The whole field of qualitative research was essentially invented because fields like sociology were NOT interested in quantifying things like intelligence and personality, but instead wanted to find ways to say something interesting about these topics without trying to quantify them.
EDIT2: ALso, intelligence and personality are not really sociological topics, you're talking psychology.
Sociology by definition studies groups of people.
Perhaps things differ between professors/programs, but the first lesson in my Sociology 101 class was that all human behaviour was learned. I took two upper level sociology classes as well, and it seemed to be same.
Just to clarify I absolutely do not think that all humanities are BS.
