Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: sumpnz on September 07, 2018, 10:12:52 PM
-
https://quillette.com/2018/09/07/academic-activists-send-a-published-paper-down-the-memory-hole/
If true, this just showcases even more the need to excise radical leftism from the levers of power in academia.
Tl:Dr person: Math prof writes paper on the logic of the theory that greater male variability in intelligence can help explain disparity in gender representation in STEM. Leftists go bat-crap crazy and get it memory-holed.
-
I wish I could say I was surprised. ;/
-
"She" is "a representative of the Women In Mathematics (WIM) chapter in his department"
“As a matter of principle,” she wrote, “I support people discussing controversial matters openly … At the same time, I think it’s good to be aware of the effects.” While she was obviously able to debate the merits of our paper, she worried that other, presumably less sophisticated, readers “will just see someone wielding the authority of mathematics to support a very controversial, and potentially sexist, set of ideas…”
The words "very controversial" seem to mean "inherently wrong" in this passage.
So, without putting words in anyone's mouth, let's say I am on position A on a "controversial" topic, and you are on position B.
So If I present evidence, mathematical or not, supporting my position A, your argument will be that my evidence must be wrong, since B is obviously correct.
I got that a lot from Wife2.
And she would stamp her feet.
Truly it is said, it is nearly impossible to reason a person out of a position they did not reason themselves into.
Oh, yeah, I just thought of it: "Open discussion." Riiiiiight. You wouldn't get me to walk into that lion's den. Or lioness's.
Terry, Husband2
-
You better watch what you say in our emerging egalitarian matriarchy.
-
"She" is "a representative of the Women In Mathematics (WIM) chapter in his department"
“As a matter of principle,” she wrote, “I support people discussing controversial matters openly … At the same time, I think it’s good to be aware of the effects.” While she was obviously able to debate the merits of our paper, she worried that other, presumably less sophisticated, readers “will just see someone wielding the authority of mathematics to support a very controversial, and potentially sexist, set of ideas…”
The words "very controversial" seem to mean "inherently wrong" in this passage.
So, without putting words in anyone's mouth, let's say I am on position A on a "controversial" topic, and you are on position B.
You don't understand. "She" made it quite plain: She supports discussion of controversial topics. She does not support discussion of very controversial topics. And, presumably, she gets to decide which topics are merely controversial, as opposed to very controversial.
-
You better watch what you say in our emerging egalitarian matriarchy.
"egalitarian matriarchy"
Mmmmmkay. LOL. (But I get a tiny spike of annoyance whenever I see someone use "SWMBO." I know it's actually meant sarcastically, but nevertheless the concept tickles my ticked-off neurons.)
The words "very controversial" seem to mean "inherently wrong" in this passage.
So, without putting words in anyone's mouth, let's say I am on position A on a "controversial" topic, and you are on position B.
You don't understand. "She" made it quite plain: She supports discussion of controversial topics. She does not support discussion of very controversial topics. And, presumably, she gets to decide which topics are merely controversial, as opposed to very controversial.
Of course. How silly of me. So "she" can set the agenda on any subject. I just hope Sergei is smart enough to go on a fishing or hunting trip for a week or so. Come to think of it, isn't it muzzleloading season in most of the country now?
I'd like to see that model:
I came up with a simple intuitive mathematical argument based on biological and evolutionary principles and enlisted Sergei Tabachnikov, a Professor of Mathematics at Pennsylvania State University, to help me flesh out the model.
I can see intuitively how "biological and evolutionary principles" can favor expansion of "intelligence" on the high end for males, but it's hard for me to see "intelligence" going down for males based on those principles, except for the effects of wars and other deadly cultural conflict.
Terry
-
230’s “lol” = whistling past the graveyard
-
230’s “lol” = whistling past the graveyard
Yeah, I know. I know.