Math Journals Bullied into depublishing math models on gender differences.

[ocean size]

Historically, men have reaped the benefits of education first. Women are still denied access to education in many countries today.

Someone took a census of educated professionals and decided to extend that data to the innate capabilities of learning in gender, global access to learning aside. Doesn't sound like a productive use of time to publish conclusions that there are innate barriers to education in biology, that's some phrenology skull-size measuring "The Afrikaans brain is naturally underdeveloped" creepy doctor bullshit

What did I miss? what census are we talking about that isn't in the paper in question?

 

[MacDuffle]

What did I miss? what census are we talking about that isn't in the paper in question?

figure of speech, he's grouping by gender and saying it's biology while ignoring massive input to this gap in measured intelligence by global relationships with education traditionally excluding women

 

[ocean size]

figure of speech, he's grouping by gender and saying it's biology while ignoring massive input to this gap in measured intelligence by global relationships with education traditionally excluding women

So I could be 100% in agreement that there are social reasons for educational disparaties etc. but that is besides the point, because this paper is completely theoretical and has nothing to do with empirical data, except where it cites numerous other studies that support this hypothesis. Including ones with children before school age etc.

 

[MacDuffle]

So I could be 100% in agreement that there are social reasons for educational disparaties etc. but that is besides the point, because this paper is completely theoretical and has nothing to do with empirical data, except where it cites numerous other studies that support this hypothesis. Including ones with children before school age etc.

You might as well just try selling me "the polish are innately stupid" with a research paper mate, I've heard all this blanket rhetoric before, I live in those places. We get you like the study where a guy said Lady Brain Doesn't Learn as Good because "I don't see as many working female professionals in the bright and glorious fields of education and learning"

Hard to connect those dots for him, maybe. Evidently the publishers had a better understanding of the history of education

 

[ocean size]

You might as well just try selling me "the polish are innately stupid" with a research paper mate, I've heard all this blanket rhetoric before, I live in those places. We get you like the study where a guy said Lady Brain Doesn't Learn as Good because "I don't see as many working female professionals in the bright and glorious fields of education and learning"

Hard to connect those dots for him, maybe. Evidently the publishers had a better understanding of the history of education

Never said Iike the paper, and from what I can tell it shouldn't have been published in a prestigious math journal because it isn't very interesting mathematically. But if you want to criticise it do it on the merits of the paper or even the author's intent if you must, don't lazily assume it based on educational data. It has no empirical data and it isn't even specific to humans.

Oh and speaking of who is in glorious fields of education and learning, here is a little secret:

Figure 6: Postgraduate Research Students by Gender, Selected Fields 2002

 

[NoDak]

 

[MacDuffle]

Never said Iike the paper, and from what I can tell it shouldn't have been published in a prestigious math journal because it isn't very interesting mathematically. But if you want to criticise it do it on the merits of the paper or even the author's intent if you must, don't lazily assume it based on educational data. It has no empirical data and it isn't even specific to humans.

Oh and speaking of who is in glorious fields of education and learning, here is a little secret:

Figure 6: Postgraduate Research Students by Gender, Selected Fields 2002

So the study lacks in application of mathematics, lacks empirical data and doesn't apply solely to humans and you think that's a slam dunk for what you "learned" from it?

Posting a graph of working professionals doesn't adequately conflate gender with gender-based capacities for learning one way or another, it merely records professionals in a field

Which as you've already been told, slants a certain way for historically obvious reasons

This isn't a statistically complicated or theoretical debate. Women have less access to education than men globally

 

[MacDuffle]

So I could be 100% in agreement that there are social reasons for educational disparaties etc. but that is besides the point, because this paper is completely theoretical and has nothing to do with empirical data, except where it cites numerous other studies that support this hypothesis. Including ones with children before school age etc.

Also do you hear yourself?

I don't know how you acquired this dumbfuck world view but you should be looking for information the other way around.

When you're trying to reassure people a theoretical study of gender disparity and learning capacity is spot-on because it's theoretical, just know you're a bad person

 

[ocean size]

Also do you hear yourself?

I don't know how you acquired this dumbfuck world view but you should be looking for information the other way around.

When you're trying to reassure people a theoretical study of gender disparity and learning capacity is spot-on because it's theoretical, just know you're a bad person

Just a hunch, but we probably agree widely on the broad topic of disparity in social outcomes, I'm just not going to set up strawmen to knock down. When you are saying demonstrably false things about a specific article, things that can be disproven just by clicking the link and reading the first few lines, you are only hurting your case.

I only replied because your criticism had so little to do with the actual OP I thought I might have missed something, and now you are strawmanning me as well. You can't say I criticised the article in one reply and tell me I'm a bad person for saying it is ''spot on" in another <Lmaoo>

Sorry your jimmies are russled. But if you want people to consider what you have to say, it will help to at least appear to have some intellectual integrity.

 

[Frogsfrogsfrogs]

If the issue is not complicated why is Gowry strongly disputing the findings of the paper. I personally don't think the findings are that complicated but the fact Gowry strongly disagrees with the finding makes it appear that there is room for argument. That leads to the position that this is complicated maybe not mathematically but at least in some manner

Sorry, I wasn't quite clear enough. I mean the issue of whether this paper is interesting or novel in a mathematical sense is quite clear (it is not). So, that being the case, probably the value of the paper, if there is any, is for biology insights or something else. Gowers is attempting to understand that.

My point is: if you want to publish in a mathematics journal, your work should involve some nice mathematics. Otherwise, choose a more appropriate subject journal.

 

[sub_thug]

The public image of it is being undermined and used to wield partisan agendas dealing in pseudoscience, misinformation and complete falsehoods. Science itself is an objective, apolitical, global enterprise of accumulative knowledge and continued investigation into the nature of the Universe that checks and balances itself by adhering to a stringent set of principles (or method). The entire edifice rests upon this impartiality and verification through experiment.

It could really probably do with a hard line redefinition and strict inclusion of only mathematics*, physics, chemistry, biology and their respective sub-fields and interdisciplinaries. That would be quite enough, there is so much horseshit thrown under the umbrella of "science" these days that is actually of an economic, political, social, moral and/or historical nature. It's far too heavy on personal bias, opinions, feelings and emotions to belong in the same arena. It doesn't work, it simply won't do.

* It technically isn't although the relationship between pure mathematics and physical science is far more symbiotic than popular impression would seemingly have it; they have and do inspire and drive developments between each other. It's not all too different from the relationship between theoretical and experimental physics.

Both yes and no. Yes, absolutely, science is predicated upon experimentation and controlled variables in order to further understand and measure the world around us. However, also consider applied sciences, such as engineering, psychology, and medicine. Those are still very much scientifically based, but we can't do control groups for experimentation due to feasibility. It requires us to take corollary data based on individual data points, aggregating it over time to determine probabilities, best practices, and governing rules.

You have to be careful about the exclusivity in the mindset. While I certainly understand and appreciate the sentiment you're conveying, I would also warn you that it's a dangerous game. If you separate that the hard sciences are sciences, while the economics and politics are definitely not sciences, you may convince people that the scientific method should have no place in how they conduct themselves. You may suggest that what they are doing is inherently an emotive response to external stimuli, and you'll end up with those who make only emotional appeals winning the day, a frightening thought. As easy as it is to criticize our current system, and it definitely has its problems, but the honest truth is that the system is working pretty well. Guys like Richard Spencer are not actually in charge, implementing overtly racist policies that might see all minorities enslaved or eradicated. Groups like Antifa are not actually in charge, routing out anyone that they deem to be a fascist and putting these "undesirables" into reeducation camps. When you consider all the possible outcomes between utopia and the worst possible suffering for everyone everywhere at all times, we are actually doing pretty well. If we take a sense of objectivity away from the political sphere, what I suspect is that you'll see a shift towards that hell because you'll lose your ability to measure both good and bad, and that would be a bad thing.

 

[MacDuffle]

Just a hunch, but we probably agree widely on the broad topic of disparity in social outcomes, I'm just not going to set up strawmen to knock down. When you are saying demonstrably false things about a specific article, things that can be disproven just by clicking the link and reading the first few lines, you are only hurting your case.

I only replied because your criticism had so little to do with the actual OP I thought I might have missed something, and now you are strawmanning me as well. You can't say I criticised the article in one reply and tell me I'm a bad person for saying it is ''spot on" in another <Lmaoo>

Sorry your jimmies are russled. But if you want people to consider what you have to say, it will help to at least appear to have some intellectual integrity.

It's a flimsy study in a shitty thread made specifically to push a shitty point of view that women are naturally dumb which is one step removed from attributing race to learning capability in the 30s

Way to go to bat for it

 

[lifelessheap]

Historically, men have reaped the benefits of education first. Women are still denied access to education in many countries today.

Someone took a census of educated professionals and decided to extend that data to the innate capabilities of learning in gender, global access to learning aside. Doesn't sound like a productive use of time to publish conclusions that there are innate barriers to education in biology, that's some phrenology skull-size measuring "The Afrikaans brain is naturally underdeveloped" creepy doctor bullshit

 

[Kindacrazy]

It's a flimsy study in a shitty thread made specifically to push a shitty point of view that women are naturally dumb which is one step removed from attributing race to learning capability in the 30s

Way to go to bat for it

You are to stupid to understand the implications of your world view and should probably recuse yourself from participation in mature discussions.

 

[MacDuffle]

You are to stupid to understand the implications of your world view and should probably recuse yourself from participation in mature discussions.

I don't hear a counter specific

 

[Amerikuracana]

Imagine if you were to write a paper about the cities the Boers were able to create in Africa in a fairly short time, and what it may mean.

Look, this kind of thing is going to get worse, we know that.

 

[esdoornblad]

Sorry, I wasn't quite clear enough. I mean the issue of whether this paper is interesting or novel in a mathematical sense is quite clear (it is not). So, that being the case, probably the value of the paper, if there is any, is for biology insights or something else. Gowers is attempting to understand that.

My point is: if you want to publish in a mathematics journal, your work should involve some nice mathematics. Otherwise, choose a more appropriate subject journal.

I was going to disagree with you, but it's true that the paper is somewhat low-brow and doesn't seem to fit the journal. In particular, mathematical biology does not appear to be in any of the editorial areas: http://nyjm.albany.edu/EditorialAreas.html. The article was originally submitted to the Mathematical Intelligencer, which also looks inappropriate. OTOH, I have no reason to doubt the variability hypothesis.

 

[ocean size]

Imagine if you were to write a paper about the cities the Boers were able to create in Africa in a fairly short time, and what it may mean.

Look, this kind of thing is going to get worse, we know that.

Generally I think this is a non issue, but Sam Harris raised a hypothetical that did give me pause - a few years ago scientists found that most non-africans have a few % Neanderthal DNA. But what if this result was the opposite? How much more would the scientists be called bigots, the results be scrutinized and dismissed perfunctorily?

OTOH IMO there would be a lot more people that would use that hypothetical result to fuel biological determinism.

 

[Lord Coke]

I was going to disagree with you, but it's true that the paper is somewhat low-brow and doesn't seem to fit the journal. In particular, mathematical biology does not appear to be in any of the editorial areas: http://nyjm.albany.edu/EditorialAreas.html. The article was originally submitted to the Mathematical Intelligencer, which also looks inappropriate. OTOH, I have no reason to doubt the variability hypothesis.

Geez I haven't seen you post in years. Have you been lurking?

 

[Kindacrazy]

I don't hear a counter specific

Why would I provide a counter to, "your mean"?