Math Journals Bullied into depublishing math models on gender differences.

[ocean size]

Disagree all you want, just back it up.

lol you are learning

 

[AGGAMEMNON66]

Not defending the journal or stupidity of denying science here.
I just feel that if you want to fight against human knowledge being suppressed for political gain religion should be the enemy to fight against.
Not a bunch of trannies and feminists. They are small potatoes in the game.

Acting like everyone that is religious doesn’t consider science, or that people that follow a religion have never contributed to scientific study and breakthroughs is a big part of your problem, sounds like.

 

[sub_thug]

I understand and appreciate the problem. It doesn’t change my stance: If you argue that science and politics have no intersection at all, you’re going to trade the above set of problems for a much larger set of problems.

 

[Kindacrazy]

Something seems strange about this whole thing. I mean, if the board voted against the article, maybe it wasn't at the level of accepted publications? We need more information. It's not like there doesn't already exists a plethora of studies and literature on the difference in biological gender.


This is a good point. One does not exclude the other.


Huh? I think you missed the IQ thread. Here's part of a post, replying to a Peterson video.

"The argument that IQ is purely genetic is highly disputed, and does not seem to be the case. Before we go into a few smaller examples, let's talk about the Flynn Effect which is widely recognised as a legitimate phenomenon (6). Psychologists James Flynn, based on emperical data, showed that from 1932 to 1978 the average IQ rose almost 14 points, meaning approximately 3 points per decade. Flynn concluded that this change was due to societal changes, meaning that IQ has epigenetic components. Other studies examining IQ changes over a few years on the same person, especially in children and adolescence, has shown that IQ can change over time, and that environmental factors can impact that change (7, 8). There is no doubt that genetics matter in regards to your IQ, but it doesn't seem to be the only factor.

Interestingly a new study this year from PNAS, which is one of the most respected journals in the world, showed that the Flynn Effect is reversing and presents evidence that this is caused by changes in our environment and society (9). People are getting "dumber" (at least IQ wise)."

No, I understand there is an environmental factor to IQ. I never suggested otherwise. The issue here is your understanding of the age adjustment for IQ. You are presuming its linear. The older an individual becomes, the larger the difference between accumulated knowledge becomes relative to general intelligence.

One of the important factors that people often miss when assessing individual IQs is that people with high IQs tend to seek stimulus. Finding complexity to examine in the real world isn't difficult. You don't need a great deal of access to formal educational opportunities to find phenomena to examine and rationalize. High IQ people tend to find social success regardless of their background and the higher the IQ, the more uniform the social outcomes.

The Flynn effect is difficult to pin down, I have read Flynn's work and it is often misrepresented. Flynn's work reflected a change in static intelligence rather then spatial and reasoning ability. It is something that is either widely misunderstood or dishonestly presented to defend arguments that it doesn't defend. Flynn himself has said that his work did not account entirely for the difference in performance between population groups.

At the end of the day, I don't pretend to know the objective truth on the issue. What I do know is what the evidence points to and what most of the top experts in the field say despite the fact that saying it puts them under considerable social and political strain.

 

[MacDuffle]

No, I understand there is an environmental factor to IQ. I never suggested otherwise. The issue here is your understanding of the age adjustment for IQ. You are presuming its linear. The older an individual becomes, the larger the difference between accumulated knowledge becomes relative to general intelligence.

One of the important factors that people often miss when assessing individual IQs is that people with high IQs tend to seek stimulus. Finding complexity to examine in the real world isn't difficult. You don't need a great deal of access to formal educational opportunities to find phenomena to examine and rationalize. High IQ people tend to find social success regardless of their background and the higher the IQ, the more uniform the social outcomes.

The Flynn effect is difficult to pin down, I have read Flynn's work and it is often misrepresented. Flynn's work reflected a change in static intelligence rather then spatial and reasoning ability. It is something that is either widely misunderstood or dishonestly presented to defend arguments that it doesn't defend. Flynn himself has said that his work did not account entirely for the difference in performance between population groups.

At the end of the day, I don't pretend to know the objective truth on the issue. What I do know is what the evidence points to and what most of the top experts in the field say despite the fact that saying it puts them under considerable social and political strain.

Entirely childish

Environmental factors affect IQ

Made harder if you only leave the house and children to collect water or buy food

Like the history of gender roles

Education affects IQ

And he that is taught only by himself has a fool for a master

I'm also not seeing your case for identifying biological differences between males and females in brain structure

If you're going to piss on studies citing volume and cortical thickness but you can't name physical traits yourself, I don't see you coming anywhere near the subject you so fiercely defend

 

[VivaRevolution]

The threat to democracy — from the left
Fareed Zakaria


Liberals need to be reminded of the origins of their ideology. In 1859, when governments around the world were still deeply repressive — banning books, censoring commentary and throwing people in jail for their beliefs — John Stuart Mill explained in his seminal work, “On Liberty,” that protection against governments was not enough: “There needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling; against the tendency of society to impose . . . its own ideas and practices . . . on those who dissent from them.” This classic defense of free speech, which Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes later called the “freedom for the thought that we hate,” is under pressure in the United States — and from the left.

We’ve been here before. Half a century ago, students were also shutting down speakers whose views they found deeply offensive. In 1974, William Shockley, the Nobel Prize-winning scientist who in many ways was the father of the computer revolution, was invited by Yale University students to defend his abhorrent view that blacks were a genetically inferior race who should be voluntarily sterilized. He was to debate Roy Innis, the African American leader of the Congress of Racial Equality. (The debate was Innis’s idea.) A campus uproar ensued, and the event was canceled. A later, rescheduled debate with another opponent was disrupted.

The difference from today is that Yale recognized that it had failed in not ensuring that Shockley could speak. It commissioned a report on free speech that remains a landmark declaration of the duty of universities to encourage debate and dissent. The report flatly states that a college “cannot make its primary and dominant value the fostering of friendship, solidarity, harmony, civility or mutual respect. . . . it will never let these values . . . override its central purpose. We value freedom of expression precisely because it provides a forum for the new, the provocative, the disturbing, and the unorthodox.”

The report added: “We take a chance, as the First Amendment takes a chance, when we commit ourselves to the idea that the results of free expression are to the general benefit in the long run, however unpleasant they may appear at the time.” It is on this bet for the long run, a bet on freedom — of thought, belief, expression and action — that liberal democracy rests.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wa...3fbb72-b790-11e8-94eb-3bd52dfe917b_story.html

 

[Kindacrazy]

Entirely childish

Environmental factors affect IQ

And he that is taught only by himself has a fool for a master

I think you misunderstand that statement. I didn't suggest that a person who finds and is stimulated by a less formalized environment will be more knowledgeable, only that they will be equally biologically stimulated. Evidence suggests that it is nearly impossible to stop high IQ individuals from developing high levels of reasoning ability.

 

[MacDuffle]

I think you misunderstand that statement. I didn't suggest that a person who finds and is stimulated by a less formalized environment will be more knowledgeable, only that they will be equally biologically stimulated. Evidence suggests that it is nearly impossible to stop high IQ individuals from developing high levels of reasoning ability.

put them in a prison cell

in a country that does not allow outside materials (the majority of global prison systems)

educational stimulus is a big factor

 

[ShinkanPo]

Science and Mathematics is the White Westerner's tool of opression a Brown nationalist told me.

 

[NoDak]

I understand and appreciate the problem. It doesn’t change my stance: If you argue that science and politics have no intersection at all, you’re going to trade the above set of problems for a much larger set of problems.

I'm not arguing that there isn't or shouldn't be any intersection, I'm against conflation. Those subjects are not "scientific issues" and I aggressively refuse to acknowledge them as such.

Science and Mathematics is the White Westerner's tool of oppression a Brown nationalist told me.

Shhh.

 

[Ghost in the Dark]

The new left are mentally ill people possessed by demons and their mission is to bring in Hell on Earth.

 

[NastyNinja]

Odd, I dont see religions getting people fired, deplatformed or effectively getting entire industries to follow their madness.

The idea that religion is the enemy of science and knowledge is so...2010. Get with the times, SJWs and the LGBTQ+ community has done more harm in the last 3 years than religion has in the last 30.

Really?
.... Really?

 

[EradiatedHaggis]

Really?
.... Really?

Yep!
.... Yep!

Provide a single example of religious people doing what I listed in the last 30 years. Just ONE.

 

[sweede]

but the heavy injection of politics has the potential to influence mathematics and natural science policy, how it is and isn't carried out, is or isn't instructed, how it does or doesn't inform government policy. That's a problem.

A clear distinction between state and religion. Right? Coming from a secular world, this is indeed troublesome.

 

[EradiatedHaggis]

Really?
.... Really?

Further proof its the LEFT and not Religious people that are the bane of all science...now forcing a MEDICAL course to stop differentiating between men and women! Cannot WAIT to see a day where a DOCTOR kills a massive amount of people because they learned that there is ZERO biological differences between men and women.

This is YOUR future.

http://academicrightswatch.se/?p=3413

 

[alexdlrg]

put them in a prison cell

in a country that does not allow outside materials (the majority of global prison systems)

educational stimulus is a big factor

Take away food and water from people, and you can make the case that environment is supremely important, and also make the case that IQ changes with time. For the latter, you'll want to test them before and after they die.

It's a snide remark, but it's imperative to understand that the relative importance of different factors is dependent on how varied those factors are in the population being measured. Educational stimulus is important, but it's something we try to make universal for our young. There will certainly be some differences in the quantity and quality that particular individuals receive, but any population that's getting completely deprived is small enough to be of little statistical significance. Thus your point is rather meaningless. Because we make a concerted effort to stimulate and educate all of our young (or very nearly so), other factors cause greater variation of intelligence outcomes.

 

[Lord Coke]

Science and Mathematics is the White Westerner's tool of opression a Brown nationalist told me.

It's so sad that people really think this

 

[NoDak]

It's so sad that people really think this

It's quite self-defeating.

 

[ShinkanPo]

It's so sad that people really think this

Yep I got that from a Filipno language political forum I don't how serious are them though but they also say computers is also a tool by "westerners" and that we should not rely on them".



I would assume their trousers are riddled with skid marks because toilet paper is another "western" concept.

Brown pride of a different kind eh?

 

[Kindacrazy]

put them in a prison cell

in a country that does not allow outside materials (the majority of global prison systems)

educational stimulus is a big factor

Irrelevant, I am talking about hyper competent people. Hyper competent people almost never go to jail, and they almost always make use of their opportunities. In modern western societies (all of them), a hyper competent individual can attain a full ride scholarship to any school. If you come from a distressed area, the requirements for this aren't even particularly onerous. There is undoubtedly an opportunity gap based on environment but it is the smallest in history. I am up for hearing realistic ways the opportunity gap could be closed but realistically without a willingness to adopt completely different sociological dynamics within specific cultural communities, closing that gap is all but in impossible and would require a grotesquely unjustifiable wealth transfer from one community to another in perpetuity. Even if you believe in the notion that capital has no inherent moral economic return there will still be an ongoing wealth and opportunity disparity by some measure proportional to the productivity disparity. At which point normalization of social wealth between communities becomes what can only legitimately called theft.