Math Journals Bullied into depublishing math models on gender differences.

[Lord Coke]

Papers in math journals get republished from conference proceedings, etc. I'm not making a copyright law argument. I'm just telling you what happens.

There may be some legal issues, but I'm just saying that I haven't seen them come up in practice in this situation in this field.

I'm curious now. What do you think will happen to Ted if he republished?

I am not talking about the practical realities of journals here which I don't know anything about.
As a general matter, you can't make a minor alteration in a publication to avoid copyright issues.
If he represented to another publisher that there was no copyright he could get sued by them on contract and fraud grounds.
The original publisher could sue the new publisher for copyright infringement.
So as a practical matter it would not get published because no one in their right mind wants to buy a lawsuit.
Possibly the journals are republishing with consent from the original publisher so that is a nonissue.

 

[helltoupee]

The exploration of human knowledge is being suppressed for political gain. That is disturbing. Basically a mathematician made a mathematical model arguing for why one gender might have more variation due to evolutionary pressure and due to a feminist backlash the paper was unpublished. Anyone want to defend the journal. I think they are cowards.




The first article I read about this is here
http://reason.com/volokh/2018/09/08/a-mathematics-paper-two-math-journals-w



Long article by the math professor here.
https://quillette.com/2018/09/07/academic-activists-send-a-published-paper-down-the-memory-hole/

Not surprising at all.

The right doesn't "believe" in climate change or evolution (religious subset), the left doesn't "believe" in human genetic variation and has started becoming overtly hostile towards the reality of biological sex although the 'smarter' ones substitute that for gender and present the dishonest argument that it's something fundamentally different. There's also flat earthers, moon hoaxers and anti-vaxxers out the arse coming in all shapes, sizes and political stripes.

The Anti-Intellectual Movement is strong.

Should we change one of the core tenets of our nation from "All men were created equal" to "All men evolve differently"? Is this science denial too? There is absolutely nothing about science/nature that invokes equality.

I don't think the left is denying science (the article seems to be an outlier), so much as adhering to the notion that people shouldn't be inherently oppressed because of their genetic makeup, which has been a major problem throughout history.

While I don't necessarily agree that science, or the hypothesis in the article, should be censored in any way, I do understand that shit like this has not been traditionally used as an attempt to understand our world better, but as an appropriation for discrimination.

 

[BangersAndSmash]

I've always felt the climate denial among the right is a real black mark on the conservative movement. I think that there is a lot of room to debate how MUCH the climate is being changed but to deny pumping millions of tons of pollution into the system is causing a change is crazy

I am glad the left has given us a similar anti science position so the right can take the high ground now.

Meh, don't cream your pants just yet. Firstly, climate change is a much more settled science that's built on a long-lasting foundation. Secondly, the right is in more denial about gender or biological sex related studies anyway. They categorically deny any studies which discuss more than one gender or studies that minimize differences between the sexes, and they love to misrepresent and extrapolate data from studies that prove differences between the sexes so they ass pull their ridiculous assertions and claim they are backed up with facts.

Newsflash- getting a job or publishing a paper in Academia has always been a kiss-ass politics contest (In the sense that powerful, academically famous individuals and administrators have an out-sized amount of power). Maybe this paper was shit. Maybe the author pissed off the wrong person. As another poster above me pointed out, maybe a rogue editor tried to shoehorn the paper into the journal when it didn't belong.

 

[Frogsfrogsfrogs]

I am not talking about the practical realities of journals here which I don't know anything about.
As a general matter, you can't make a minor alteration in a publication to avoid copyright issues.
If he represented to another publisher that there was no copyright he could get sued by them on contract and fraud grounds.
The original publisher could sue the new publisher for copyright infringement.
So as a practical matter it would not get published because no one in their right mind wants to buy a lawsuit.
Possibly the journals are republishing with consent from the original publisher so that is a nonissue.

For the record, Tim Gowers (famous mathematician) who founded and runs several journals (which is not common among famous mathematicians) agrees with me. For instance, see, his comments below his blog.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/gowers...s-an-uncomfortable-truth-been-suppressed/amp/

He characterized the copyright issue as "a small problem that could be easily solved", and I completely agree.

An aside: I agree with Gowers - for those going on about academic freedom, etc., it would be more convenient for your case if the paper was actually any good.

 

[lifelessheap]

The left being anti-science again. Discussing gender differences or even racial differences is a big no-no to the left.

Well, they believe Bruce Jenner is a woman. So they are fucked in the head.

 

[lifelessheap]

Meh, don't cream your pants just yet. Firstly, climate change is a much more settled science that's built on a long-lasting foundation. Secondly, the right is in more denial about gender or biological sex related studies anyway. They categorically deny any studies which discuss more than one gender or studies that minimize differences between the sexes, and they love to misrepresent and extrapolate data from studies that prove differences between the sexes so they ass pull their ridiculous assertions and claim they are backed up with facts.

Newsflash- getting a job or publishing a paper in Academia has always been a kiss-ass politics contest (In the sense that powerful, academically famous individuals and administrators have an out-sized amount of power). Maybe this paper was shit. Maybe the author pissed off the wrong person. As another poster above me pointed out, maybe a rogue editor tried to shoehorn the paper into the journal when it didn't belong.

Tell us more about how men are women.

 

[BangersAndSmash]

Tell us more about how men are women.

Tell me more about how the Earth is flat and only 6,000 years old.

 

[lifelessheap]

Tell me more about how the Earth is flat and only 6,000 years old.

LOL, you are so angry for a woman. That isn't very lady like.

 

[BangersAndSmash]

LOL, you are so angry for a woman. That isn't very lady like.

Damn. Good one. I bow to your superior insults brainlesssheep.

 

[Rygu]

Bruce Jenner is a man and the Earth is billions of years old.

I hope this helps.

 

[Kindacrazy]

there are some legitimate reasons for disapproving of gender studies.

within-group-variability. a common concept within statistical research. in this case, many believe that men are so different from other men (and the same is true for women), that its almost silly, or politically driven, to make efforts to compare them to another equally diverse group.

its almost like comparing all blue-eyed people to those with brown. whats the point?

The point in this case is to examine the notion of systemic bias. If it can be displayed that there are variances between sexes and races in characteristics that are important to career success in some fields then the existence of outcome biases becomes obvious and implicit instead of as a result of some hidden biases. If male IQs above 150 are 5x as common as female IQs in the same range then you would expect to find 5x as many men in professions requiring 150+ IQs (not accounting for other factors).

 

[Lord Coke]

The point in this case is to examine the notion of systemic bias. If it can be displayed that there are variances between sexes and races in characteristics that are important to career success in some fields then the existence of outcome biases becomes obvious and implicit instead of as a result of some hidden biases. If male IQs above 150 are 5x as common as female IQs in the same range then you would expect to find 5x as many men in professions requiring 150+ IQs (not accounting for other factors).

the biggest issue with studying bias is personal preference among genders differ.
Scandinavia is the best place for gender equality but you see the most difference in jobs between genders.

http://www.thejournal.ie/gender-equality-countries-stem-girls-3848156-Feb2018/

 

[sub_thug]

Should we change one of the core tenets of our nation from "All men were created equal" to "All men evolve differently"? Is this science denial too? There is absolutely nothing about science/nature that invokes equality.

I don't think the left is denying science (the article seems to be an outlier), so much as adhering to the notion that people shouldn't be inherently oppressed because of their genetic makeup, which has been a major problem throughout history.

While I don't necessarily agree that science, or the hypothesis in the article, should be censored in any way, I do understand that shit like this has not been traditionally used as an attempt to understand our world better, but as an appropriation for discrimination.

I'm nearly positive that the Founders meant "all men were created equal" to mean equal in terms of the law and their natural rights, not an interpretation of "every man was born exactly the same as every other man." If you think otherwise, please defend your position.

To the point about oppressed due to genetic make-up, yes, that absolutely happened. Slavery was the great contradiction that muddied the spirit of this nation at its founding.

The basic issue is that people generally dismiss facts that they don't agree with. Noting genetic variances in different populations is helpful for everyone. It's why we can detect and treat a host of diseases early, it helps us make effective policy, and it helps us understand the world that we live in. The claim that science is used as a justification for discrimination means selecting out a small minority of studies as your evidence, whereas most science is used for the greater good.

 

[Kindacrazy]

the biggest issue with studying bias is personal preference among genders differ.
Scandinavia is the best place for gender equality but you see the most difference in jobs between genders.

http://www.thejournal.ie/gender-equality-countries-stem-girls-3848156-Feb2018/

Sure, that would be a different factor that could be studied as well. I think that is fairly well trodden ground really. I was just giving an example of the value of this kind of research.

 

[helltoupee]

I'm nearly positive that the Founders meant "all men were created equal" to mean equal in terms of the law and their natural rights, not an interpretation of "every man was born exactly the same as every other man." If you think otherwise, please defend your position.

I would say that the idea stems from the Christian belief that all men are equal in the eyes of god. As to how the founding fathers specifically meant those words to be interpreted, I would agree with you. Of course the argument could also branch off into *who* exactly the founding fathers were referring to - as we know, men, as they were defining it, did not refer to all people. That's a separate discussion I guess.

The basic issue is that people generally dismiss facts that they don't agree with. Noting genetic variances in different populations is helpful for everyone. It's why we can detect and treat a host of diseases early, it helps us make effective policy, and it helps us understand the world that we live in. The claim that science is used as a justification for discrimination means selecting out a small minority of studies as your evidence, whereas most science is used for the greater good.

I largely agree with what you say, but science is, and has often been, married to political causes and/or specific interests, as scientific research requires funding. Again, I don't think scientific studies should be discouraged, nor should we dismiss results, regardless of how uncomfortable it makes us - however, I also think it is important to remain aware of how those results could be skewed by a perverse agenda that might be anti-ethical to the tenets that we are founded on.

 

[sub_thug]

I would say that the idea stems from the Christian belief that all men are equal in the eyes of god. As to how the founding fathers specifically meant those words to be interpreted, I would agree with you. Of course the argument could also branch off into *who* exactly the founding fathers were referring to - as we know, men, as they were defining it, did not refer to all people. That's a separate discussion I guess.

Fair enough.

I largely agree with what you say, but science is, and has often been, married to political causes and/or specific interests, as scientific research requires funding. Again, I don't think scientific studies should be discouraged, nor should we dismiss results, regardless of how uncomfortable it makes us - however, I also think it is important to remain aware of how those results could be skewed by a perverse agenda that might be anti-ethical to the tenets that we are founded on.

You have to be careful here. A lot of science is funded by people who are looking to use it to make a dollar. A lot of science comes from research and post-graduate programs. Science may be the best thing we've got going for us, so it's tough to be too cynical here. Where it gets dangerous is making policy based on conclusions that the research doesn't actually support. That leap from science is generally where the problems arise.

 

[helltoupee]

Fair enough.


You have to be careful here. A lot of science is funded by people who are looking to use it to make a dollar. A lot of science comes from research and post-graduate programs. Science may be the best thing we've got going for us, so it's tough to be too cynical here. Where it gets dangerous is making policy based on conclusions that the research doesn't actually support. That leap from science is generally where the problems arise.

Good point. No disagreement here.

 

[MPD-Psycho]

At this point I’m not surprised...

 

[NoDak]

I largely agree with what you say, but science is, and has often been, married to political causes and/or specific interests, as scientific research requires funding. Again, I don't think scientific studies should be discouraged, nor should we dismiss results, regardless of how uncomfortable it makes us - however, I also think it is important to remain aware of how those results could be skewed by a perverse agenda that might be anti-ethical to the tenets that we are founded on.

It would certainly be ridiculous to deny that it's ultra-competitive among researchers or that issues in regards to publishing need addressing but at the level of pure science (basic research, as opposed to applied and development) this largely isn't the case. Not only is it apolitical but there's no real profit motive attached for the simple fact that scientific theories and discoveries made in nature cannot be patented. There's no focus on products and processes - although it certainly lays the fundamental groundwork for them - it's knowledge for the sake of knowing.

The basic issue is that people generally dismiss facts that they don't agree with. Noting genetic variances in different populations is helpful for everyone. It's why we can detect and treat a host of diseases early, it helps us make effective policy, and it helps us understand the world that we live in. The claim that science is used as a justification for discrimination means selecting out a small minority of studies as your evidence, whereas most science is used for the greater good.

Yea, that is very sensitive territory because of how much population genetics on a molecular level has been shown to line up with unsatisfactory traditional concepts of race and ethnicity. The data is subject to heavy objection within the social sciences/humanities. It's just human diversity born out of evolutionary processes that arose from being - largely and comparatively - geographically isolated for tens of thousands of years prior to the advent of modern transportation.

Terrifying stuff, I know. Here's the thing: genomic and genetic research need to be pursued unrestrained, not least because of the immense insight they yield into human history, evolution and ancestry but also for their practical applications in agriculture, health, disease and precision medicine. People need to stop trying circumvent progress with their bullshit brand of social politics and stay in their fucking lane.

Talk about irony and yapping out of both sides of your mouth.

 

[NoDak]