Unis, Free Specech etc.

[phonics]

So the University of Warwick has banned an anti-sharia speaker from speaking as The union cited “a duty of care to conduct a risk assessment for each speaker who wishes to come to campus” and indicated they thought her words “could incite hatred on campus”.

So a bunch of other people who speak at uni's such as Brian Cox and Ben Goldacre have said they will no longer speak there either.

647678432940290050

647708452177977344

Here's an article on it that I can't be bothered grabbing quotes from.

http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/warwick-uni-banned-a-speaker-so-brian-cox-is-now-boycotting-warwick--WJW3_jU3Lx

[Yevrah]

Over sensitive students? Rofl.

[Jimmy Floyd]

Student union bodies are by some distance the most retarded public organisations in the country. If you're not absolutely miles to the left of say Corbyn, you're a neo-liberal fascist and won't be involved on it.

[Lewis]

It was always going to take one of their own getting banned before the 'liberals' got involved. Well they can get fucked.

[igor_balis]

I'm going to no-platform you cunts if you keep pushing this fascist agenda.

[QE Harold Flair]

It was always going to take one of their own getting banned before the 'liberals' got involved. Well they can get fucked.

You think these Muslim loving rape enablers regard her as one of their own? The left get massively in a spin when one of their own dislikes Islam and exposes it for what it is. Which isn't very often. Perhaps even more worrying is that anti-Sharia is now seen as an extremist position. Incredible.

[Lewis]

The point (so spectacularly missed) is that some of the people crying free speech over this were missing in action when people other than their mates were getting banned and uninvited from things, which suggests they aren't actually that concerned about the principle.

[igor_balis]

Yes and no. It is only natural that you'd be more inclined to stand up for free speech when the person persecuted isn't someone you think is a cunt.

[ItalAussie]

I always found student politics incredibly dull and pointless. I considered it a positive that basically nobody in my undergraduate university cared one whit about student government. In a university of ~20,000, one of the posts in my first year was won by seven votes to four. :D

[QE Harold Flair]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnNPh_NjdBg

A terrific speech, as always. And worryingly, the potential Canadian 'blasphemy' laws he was talking about early here have come to fruition. To hell in a handcart.

[Boydy]

http://blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/2015/10/how-to-defend-the-arts-using-liberal-values/

Good Nick Cohen article there. Surprised he found the time to write it between retweets of people praising his book.

[Lewis]

Brendan O'Neill had a good line: 'Censorship is the mother of cretinism'. He said it at Trinity (the Mick one), and apparently his speech went down like shit.

[randomlegend]

Our legendarily retarded student union has banned sombreros because they're racist and told Pedro's (a local tex mex type place) that they aren't allowed to give them out to UEA students.

[John Arne]

Who are the Student Union to tell a private enterprise what to do?

[Yevrah]

Looks like Peter Hitchens was so bang on about liberal facism.

[QE Harold Flair]

Yes, and myself. Of course the usual idiots claimed this was an impossibility.

[Lewis]

They said 'liberal fascism' is a contradiction in terms, not that left-wing people don't like to censor things.

[Yevrah]

They said 'liberal fascism' is a contradiction in terms

That's the point the label makes though, surely. :cab:

[Lewis]

It's a pretty straight-forward argument, so there are plenty of serviceable labels to use without having to invent nonsensical ones. Besides, doesn't Peter Hitchens say 'liberal bigotry' (not so nonsensical)? The idea of liberal fascism (including the famous book Liberal Fascism) is an American thing, because their liberals aren't liberals.

[Yevrah]

Yeah, fair and correct point on him actually using 'liberal bigotry'. I was conflating the two.

[Pepe]

I lolled yesterday when I read that a third university is taking back the honorary degree they gave to Bill Cosby. Apparently there are 23 more unis to go. :D

[Yevrah]

26 honorary degrees? :D

Is that some sort of record?

[Lewis]

He hasn't even been proven guilty yet. ON A SERIOUS NOTE, the way American universities react to rape allegations should really be a national scandal. That 'Mattress Girl' should have been sued into oblivion (the lad was doing the university last I read, but I can't remember the family trying to ruin [arf] her).

[Yevrah]

Mattress Girl?

[Davgooner]

Student union bodies are by some distance the most retarded public organisations in the country..

Fucking bang on. Hate the cunts.

[QE Harold Flair]

Liberal fascism is not a contradiction. If it were, you probably wouldn't see so many leftist pinkos being massive fans of massive fascists.

Also - http://new.spectator.co.uk/2009/02/liberals-are-the-true-heirs-of-the-nazi-spirit/

And also, yes Peter Hitchens does use the term

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/columnists/article-136137/Our-sneering-liberals-real-fascists--me.html

[Pepe]

He hasn't even been proven guilty yet. ON A SERIOUS NOTE, the way American universities react to rape allegations should really be a national scandal. That 'Mattress Girl' should have been sued into oblivion (the lad was doing the university last I read, but I can't remember the family trying to ruin [arf] her).

The fact that a university and not the police deals with rape cases is seriously fucked up. The whole thing IS a national scandal but as is common over here, they focus on all the wrong things. Btw, my university did a survey (I participated, got a $15 Amazon gift card out of it) and apparently 1/3 of students have been victims of some sort of 'sexual misconduct.'

[QE Harold Flair]

If that includes the odd grope then it's hardly surprising. That's what happens when non-supervised teenagers drink and party.

[QE Harold Flair]

Mattress Girl?

http://i.imgur.com/drRN9fo.jpg

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/418686/mattress-girl-perfect-icon-feminist-left-ian-tuttle

[Yevrah]

Christ, what a load of old toss that looks like.

[Lewis]

Liberal fascism is not a contradiction. If it were, you probably wouldn't see so many leftist pinkos being massive fans of massive fascists.

Also - http://new.spectator.co.uk/2009/02/liberals-are-the-true-heirs-of-the-nazi-spirit/

And also, yes Peter Hitchens does use the term

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/columnists/article-136137/Our-sneering-liberals-real-fascists--me.html

The first article is James Delingpole talking to the American writer of Liberal Fascism , and he explains in the article 'liberals' is the American term for 'lefties' (what I've said). The second uses 'liberal' in inverted commas in the fucking title. Incidentally, Peter Hitchens regards pretty much everybody (including James Delingpole) as a 'liberal' of some description, even though the entire article you've provided (but clearly not read) is about how they themselves don't seem to understand that they're not actually liberals. Plus the term 'liberal fascism' doesn't appear once, so he doesn't use the term.

[QE Harold Flair]

Desperate floundering. Liberal is in inverted commas for the very reason that it's liberals who claim to be liberal but are not. That's the whole point.

[randomlegend]

Who are the Student Union to tell a private enterprise what to do?

Well quite. The fucking lunatics.

[Lewis]

Desperate floundering. Liberal is in inverted commas for the very reason that it's liberals who claim to be liberal but are not. That's the whole point.

If 'liberals' is in inverted commas then they aren't using the term 'liberal fascism'.

But away from basic English lessons, it's still a contradiction in terms. Ian Huntley doesn't think he's a murderer. We don't refer to him as an 'innocent murderer' because he himself is confused about what words mean.

[QE Harold Flair]

Isn't it blindingly obvious? 'Liberal fascists' denotes those who claim to be liberal but are anything but. That, I repeat, is the whole point of the term.

[Lewis]

My point is that it's a stupid term. Why let them ruin the good name of liberalism (I suspect that is the idea)? Besides, they're not really 'fascist' either. They're just authoritarians like you. Call them authoritarians if you need a general term.

[QE Harold Flair]

But it's not a stupid term when it has inverted commas, right? Do you need to be spoon-fed?

[phonics]

'liberal' 'fascism'

http://i.giphy.com/qs6ev2pm8g9dS.gif

[Lewis]

When it has inverted commas it reads '"liberal" fascists'. That means they are - putting purity aside - fascists making dubious (hence the inverted commas) appeals to liberalism. That is not a contradiction, as it primarily identifies them as authoritarians. This is different to 'liberal fascists', which is the term you use. Without inverted commas that means they are both liberals and fascists. That is a contradiction in terms.

Turn the spoon on yourself.

[phonics]

The liberals are fascists and the lefties are communists.

[QE Harold Flair]

When it has inverted commas it reads '"liberal" fascists'. That means they are - putting purity aside - fascists making dubious (hence the inverted commas) appeals to liberalism. That is not a contradiction, as it primarily identifies them as authoritarians. This is different to 'liberal fascists', which is the term you use. Without inverted commas that means they are both liberals and fascists. That is a contradiction in terms.

Turn the spoon on yourself.

No, it's not that simple. They are still perceived as liberals, which is why it's necessary for the likes of the QE Peter Hitchens and the equally QE Douglas Murray to point this out.

My position on these people should be so obvious that I need not have to put inverted commas for the point to be clear and you, as is your want, are being disingenuous at best. Yevrah seemed to get it, why can't you? You always choose the most boring and mundane things to pick up on. Give it a rest.

[Lewis]

They are wrongly perceived as liberals. Hence the need to point out that they aren't liberals by using inverted commas correctly (as the QE Peter Hitchens does, and as I'm doing). Given that you're so keen on making the point that they aren't liberals by calling out their 'fascist' tendencies, why do you insist on using their terminology and reinforcing the idea that they are? That seems somewhat counter-productive.

[Lewis]

The University of Manchester Free Speech and Secular Society (bet they're a laugh) organised a debate called 'From Liberation to Censorship: Does Modern Feminism Have a Problem with Free Speech?', and the Union has banned half the speakers because they might upset women. No need to have it now anyway. Well done all.

[QE Harold Flair]

I find this news to be non-shocking.

[QE Harold Flair]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBiS4qTsjCg&list=PLMv7Y0GtoUkRAIlyRHx_xxoc _3je7EGD2

Effortless domination looks like this.

[ItalAussie]

Science and mathematics have had an acknowledged problem with structural sexism for ages. Perhaps not outright aggressive sexism, but certainly gender imbalances caused by subconscious culturally-perceived ideas. The establishment doesn't even deny that this is true. It's largely not intentionally malicious, but that doesn't mean it doesn't need to be addressed.

The real debate is how best to deal with the problem, which most universities and academic bodies are attempting at some level. I'm lucky enough to be involved in a number of programs to encourage female participation in mathematics, which is probably the most actually valuable part of my job in actuality. The good news is that the trend is moving in a positive direction, but the bad news is that it isn't there yet. Part of that is the time it takes for participation to filter up the ranks to the higher academic roles, of course. And the best thing is that improving the situation benefits science as a whole, because removing social barriers to participation allows us to retain outstanding minds who may otherwise have chosen different paths.

It's quite an impressive thing that we've reached a point that, on the whole, the establishment is willing to acknowledge these cultural biases and take steps to fix it. In general, I think a lot of headway is being made even compared to a decade or two ago.

[randomlegend]

Not sure I buy it to be honest.

Medicine is about as traditionally sexist as it gets and there are more women than men doing it at University now. If it's a subject they actually want to do there doesn't seem to be these big social issues stopping them applying.

I just think less women actually want to do maths and sciences. Less men want to do certain other subjects. I don't see why we have to try and force it to be equal.

[ItalAussie]

Not sure I buy it to be honest.

Medicine is about as traditionally sexist as it gets and there are more women than men doing it at University now. If it's a subject they actually want to do there doesn't seem to be these big social issues stopping them applying.

I just think less women actually want to do maths and sciences. Less men want to do certain other subjects. I don't see why we have to try and force it to be equal.
There's no reason to believe that's true, and there does exist actual data to show that it isn't. Specifically, when you do studies that take "stereotype threat" out of the equation, the numbers balance out dramatically. Additionally, if it were true, then outreach programs wouldn't have resulted in the definite positive trends that we've seen over the last decade or so - they'd have seen the proportions remain stagnant. There is solid evidence which indicates that when you address social perceptions, the gender balance equalizes itself out.

Nobody's trying to get people into science who don't want to be there. They're just trying to make it accessible to everyone - independent of demographic - who has the desire and ability to do so. If they don't want to be there, then all of the efforts in the world won't change anything. And it turns out that when this happens, there's a boatload of evidence which indicates that the proportions move towards a more balanced state. It's a good thing, and everyone benefits from it happening, because more top-class science gets done.

[simon]

That Milo chap is a clearly a bit of a wanker, but I think he makes a lot of valid points in that video. Especially the part where he mentions that if a woman's confidence gets so battered by a comment like Hunt's that they don't want to bother with studying the sciences anymore, then how committed were they in the first place? I mean, shit, the old man clearly is out of line with what he's said but if you're being put off something by statements like that then you were never going to make it anyway.

[John Arne]

Football fans are racist, scientists are culturally bias :)
I'm joking, of course, just an interesting turn of phrase.

[Henry]

What's the difference between a liberal fascist and a fascist fascist? And do people know what fascism is, or has it just become synonymous with "thing I don't like"?

[QE Harold Flair]

Not sure I buy it to be honest.

Medicine is about as traditionally sexist as it gets and there are more women than men doing it at University now. If it's a subject they actually want to do there doesn't seem to be these big social issues stopping them applying.

I just think less women actually want to do maths and sciences. Less men want to do certain other subjects. I don't see why we have to try and force it to be equal.

This is the correct answer. As he says, where's the drive to get more men into nursing?

[QE Harold Flair]

There's no reason to believe that's true, and there does exist actual data to show that it isn't. Specifically, when you do studies that take "stereotype threat" out of the equation, the numbers balance out dramatically. Additionally, if it were true, then outreach programs wouldn't have resulted in the definite positive trends that we've seen over the last decade or so - they'd have seen the proportions remain stagnant. There is solid evidence which indicates that when you address social perceptions, the gender balance equalizes itself out.

Nobody's trying to get people into science who don't want to be there. They're just trying to make it accessible to everyone - independent of demographic - who has the desire and ability to do so. If they don't want to be there, then all of the efforts in the world won't change anything. And it turns out that when this happens, there's a boatload of evidence which indicates that the proportions move towards a more balanced state. It's a good thing, and everyone benefits from it happening, because more top-class science gets done.

You're a science man - are you not aware that men tend to have brains which are better at problem solving than women? This is the real reason more men go into these subjects. And you have to lol at the woman in the interview, who goes on about women crying because they tend to be more emotional caring. Exactly my point, dear.

[ItalAussie]

There's plenty of data that indicates that there's no statistical difference in aptitude between men and women in mathematical or scientific areas, and that the biggest factor in demographic differences is the phenomenon known as stereotype threat. And the trend of equalization as we take steps to counter stereotype threat supports this.

I do mathematical outreach as part of my job. I'm literally paid to know about this stuff. I can point you at a dozen articles in high quality journals that have been published in the last half-decade that support my stance, if that's necessary here. :sorry:

[Pepe]

'Problem solving,' gotta love that term.

[randomlegend]

'Problem solving,' gotta love that term.

Almost as good as 'stereotype threat'...

[QE Harold Flair]

A study completed recently in December 2013 on nearly 1,000 brain scans has surprisingly confirmed what many of us thought…that there are major differences between the male & female brain. Women’s and men’s brains are indeed wired in fundamentally different ways.
The research showed that on average, female brains are highly connected across the left and right hemispheres, and connections in male brains are typically stronger between the front and back regions. Men’s brains tend to perform tasks predominantly on the left-side, which is the logical/rational side of the brain. Women, on the other hand, use both sides of their brains because a woman’s brain has a larger Corpus Callosum, which means women can transfer data between the right and left hemispheres faster than men.


Brain Size & Brain Connections: Women’s brains are 8% smaller than men’s, but have more interconnections. Women perform better at “bigger picture” & situational thinking while men do better on more specific spatial thinking (problem solving, and pattern prediction involving objects and their spatial relationships).

This is basically what I am getting at.

http://www.fitbrains.com/blog/women-men-brains/

[ItalAussie]

This is basically what I am getting at.

http://www.fitbrains.com/blog/women-men-brains/

Bit of a worry, since the cognitive left/right divide is well-known to be a myth. There are some divides, but the whole brain is active in most processes.

A good article on the topic: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00131880802082518

[QE Harold Flair]

Bit of a worry, since the cognitive left/right divide is well-known to be a myth. There are some divides, but the whole brain is active in most processes.

Well whatever the reason, the results are the same - men do better on certain tasks than women.

[ItalAussie]

Well whatever the reason, the results are the same - men do better on certain tasks than women.

And once you eliminate stereotype threat, the differences drastically reduce. There's plenty of studies that show there is no statistical support for inherent gender differences of aptitude in mathematical reasoning, which is direct problem-solving.

Some articles from high quality journals:
http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1744-9081-8-33.pdf
http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/amp/60/9/950/
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278262611001977
http://edr.sagepub.com/content/18/8/17.short
http://pss.sagepub.com/content/24/5/770.short
http://www.pnas.org/content/109/41/16474.short
http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-27702-3_41

These are articles we've cited in academic outreach documents for various reasons. There's dozens more (and over a wider range of problem classes, although our focus is naturally on studies that concentrate on mathematical aptitude), but I assume you don't want an entire bibliography. You can certainly take this as a representative sample of the state of contemporary literature on the topic.

And of course, while the plural of anecdote is not data, I can tell you that in my Oxford PhD cohort for applied maths, we had an exactly 50/50 ratio. And the best student of all of us was female too. I was pretty good even by department standards, but she left me in the dust. Still does. :D

[QE Harold Flair]

I don't wish to eliminate 'stereotype threat'. That sounds like a junk term invented to explain something you want explained. At what point does it simply become about women just not wanting to do certain jobs? Is there a 'stereotype threat' with men and nursing or is it just that men do not tend to want to do that job?

[Lewis]

I really don't know why anybody cares. Some subjects are dominated by women. Some aren't. The last time I saw some statistics on this (they could be out of date now) women have things like Psychology, English, and Sociology locked down. I think they even shaded a couple of scientific subjects as well, which people seem to forget when using 'science' and Physics as if they're the same thing.

It's subjects like English that actually benefit from more perspectives as well. I'm sure 'science' does, but surely Physics isn't particularly influenced by what bits you're approaching it with. Humanities are (might be scope for a blind taste test on whether a bird wrote what you're reading).

EDIT: When I say 'locked down' I mean in terms of PhD awards. If they can't then hack academia, or have their research career de-railed by having kids, then oh I'm sorry the world hasn't stopped for you love.

[Pepe]

There does seem to be more women than men in the Biomedical Engineering labs next to ours but I haven't counted everyone so I might be wrong. My lab is all male though.

[Pepe]

It's subjects like English that actually benefit from more perspectives as well. I'm sure 'science' does, but surely Physics isn't particularly influenced by what bits you're approaching it with. Humanities are (might be scope for a blind taste test on whether a bird wrote what you're reading).

Ms. Pepe, who is into 16th century literature, says there is a current trend of some people suggesting that all/most of the female writing of the period was actually done by men.

[ItalAussie]

I really don't know why anybody cares. Some subjects are dominated by women. Some aren't. The last time I saw some statistics on this (they could be out of date now) women have things like Psychology, English, and Sociology locked down. I think they even shaded a couple of scientific subjects as well, which people seem to forget when using 'science' and Physics as if they're the same thing.

It's subjects like English that actually benefit from more perspectives as well. I'm sure 'science' does, but surely Physics isn't particularly influenced by what bits you're approaching it with. Humanities are (might be scope for a blind taste test on whether a bird wrote what you're reading).

EDIT: When I say 'locked down' I mean in terms of PhD awards. If they can't then hack academia, or have their research career de-railed by having kids, then oh I'm sorry the world hasn't stopped for you love.

I have no real idea about what goes on in the humanities. But it does seem like the kind of field which is advantaged from the presence of more perspectives. This is just speculation for me though, as it's way outside of my expertise or experience. While perspectives are still somewhat important in science, the first priority is to engage as many intelligent, enthusiastic and interested minds as possible. Science basically works as a function of volume. :nodd:

To your edit though, there's a lot more support for things like pregnancy in academia now. Everyone basically understands that if an academic has a child, there's going to be a gap in their publication record which is totally reasonable. To my knowledge, most grants have provisions for suspension without penalty to allow for maternity situations, which is fair. I know a few people who were in this situation while I was in the UK, ranging from post-doc to professor. Nobody wants to lose a first-class mind just because they have to take a few months making sure their progeny stay alive.

[Pepe]

When does paternity leave roll in? I want some of that.

[ItalAussie]

When does paternity leave roll in? I want some of that.

I seem to recall that some of the Scandinavians have that, and there's no real stigma for taking it either. It makes sense really, at least for any group claiming to be pro-family.

[Lewis]

By all means make it easy during/around the pregnancy, if only because the department doesn't want to lose somebody good; but the fact women have to have the kids is just an unfortunate reality isn't it? If it stalls your career (in spite of support) then what can you actually do?

I don't think outreach programmes are necessarily bad, but I think they should focus on socio-economics. I see job adverts in my field (lol) that 'particularly welcome' lady applications, and I've seen them that simply say that they will give the position to a bird if there are 'equally qualified' candidates (which ought to be impossible). I don't believe in quotas, but I do accept that there might be some scenarios in which the proverbial black lesbian in a wheelchair gets stiffed. The entirely white, entirely middle class female History PhD students I shared a department with do not suffer from structural disadvantages.

[Henry]

Harold in ignoring scientific findings that don't support his prejudices shocker!

[Lewis]

Ms. Pepe, who is into 16th century literature, says there is a current trend of some people suggesting that all/most of the female writing of the period was actually done by men.

They're cleverly establishing that theory so they can dispute it fifteen years from now and keep themselves in work.

[Lewis]

I think academia is one field where anonymous CVs would really prove beneficial. It's probably a good idea anyway on balance, but I've always thought it wouldn't make much difference for those suit and tie jobs that private schools dominate (which the debate seems to focus on) because your CV would still have all your skiing holidays and unpaid internships on. It seems like the most simple change you could make for immediate results whilst covering yourself from accusations of *ism.

[Toby]

How would that work, given an academic CV presumably references the papers and publications you've written?

[QE Harold Flair]

Harold in ignoring scientific findings that don't support his prejudices shocker!

Henry in emotive, ignoring the obvious, left-wing loony shocker!

[Henry]

Henry in emotive, ignoring the obvious, left-wing loony shocker!

Scientific findings aren't emotive.

[QE Harold Flair]

The scientific findings find, repeatedly, that men are better at some things than women, and vice-versa.

[Toby]

The only actual "scientific findings" posted here suggest it's learned rather than inherent though. You posted one promotional article with no references whatsoever.

[Lewis]

How would that work, given an academic CV presumably references the papers and publications you've written?

That is a point (although names aren't necessarily on CV listings, and like balls do they go and look them all up during the initial stage[s]). What I was trying to get at is avoiding any gender/race identification (by whatever means) would be beneficial, and, whilst it would presumably reveal itself in any interview, by that point they have already established the pool.

[QE Harold Flair]

I can see this going well.

[QE Harold Flair]

The only actual "scientific findings" posted here suggest it's learned rather than inherent though. You posted one promotional article with no references whatsoever.

Knock yourself out:


Strategy flexibility in mathematical problem solving was investigated. In Studies 1 and 2, high school juniors and seniors solved Scholastic Assessment Test-Mathematics (SAT-M) problems classified as conventional or unconventional. Algorithmic solution strategies were students' default choice for both types of problems across conditions that manipulated item format and solution time. Use of intuitive strategies on unconventional problems was evident only for high-ability students. Male students were more likely than female students to successfully match strategies to problem characteristics. In Study 3, a revised taxonomy of problems based on cognitive solution demands was predictive of gender differences on Graduate Record Examination-Quantitative (GRE-Q) items. Men outperformed women overall, but the difference was greater on items requiring spatial skills, shortcuts, or multiple solution paths than on problems requiring verbal skills or mastery of classroom-based content. Results suggest that strategy flexibility is a source of gender differences in mathematical ability assessed by SAT-M and GRE-Q problem solving
Gender Differences in Advanced Mathematical Problem Solving - ResearchGate. Available from: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/12649655_Gender_Differences_in_Advanced_Mathematic al_Problem_Solving [accessed Oct 28, 2015].

Differences! I'm scared!

[Toby]

Yes, men outperforming women in tests is pretty well established, as Ital's links acknowledge.

[QE Harold Flair]

So what's your problem?


The only actual "scientific findings" posted here suggest it's learned rather than inherent though

http://www.webmd.com/balance/features/how-male-female-brains-differ?page=2

Research on that!

[Toby]

So what's your problem?


You're a science man - are you not aware that men tend to have brains which are better at problem solving than women?

.....




http://www.webmd.com/balance/features/how-male-female-brains-differ?page=2

Research on that!

Another web article with no references, great.

[QE Harold Flair]

.....

Yes, and this is a correct statement. Bear in mind that the context was mathematics.


Boys generally demonstrate superiority over female peers in areas of the brain involved in math and geometry. These areas of the brain mature about four years earlier in boys than in girls, according to a recent study that measured brain development in more than 500 children. Researchers concluded that when it comes to math, the brain of a 12-year-old girl resembles that of an 8-year-old boy. Conversely, the same researchers found that areas of the brain involved in language and fine motor skills (such as handwriting) mature about six years earlier in girls than in boys.
So, do these sex (http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/rm-quiz-sex-fact-fiction) differences even out over time?
Females and males maintain unique brain characteristics throughout life. Male brains, for instance, are about 10% larger than female brains. But bigger doesn't necessarily mean smarter.
Disparities in how certain brain substances are distributed may be more revealing. Notably, male brains contain about 6.5 times more gray matter -- sometimes called 'thinking matter" -- than women. Female brains have more than 9.5 times as much white matter, the stuff that connects various parts of the brain, than male brains. That's not all. "The frontal area of the cortex and the temporal area of the cortex are more precisely organized in women, and are bigger in volume," Geary tells WebMD. This difference in form may explain a lasting functional advantage that females seem to have over males: dominant language skills.

Geary suggests that women use language skills to their advantage. "Females use language more when they compete. They gossip, manipulate information," he says. Geary suggests that this behavior, referred to as relational aggression, may have given females a survival advantage long ago. "If the ability to use language to organize relationships (http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/bhc-healthy-sex-life/default.htm) was of benefit during evolutionary history, and used more frequently by women, we would expect language differences to become exaggerated," he tells WebMD. Women also use language to build relationships, theorizes Geary. "Women pause more, allow the other friend to speak more, offer facilitative gestures," he says.
When it comes to performing activities that require spatial skills, like navigating directions, men generally do better. "Women use the cerebral cortex for solving problems that require navigational skills. Men use an entirely different area, mainly the left hippocampus -- a nucleus deep inside the brain that's not activated in the women's brains during navigational tasks," Geary tells WebMD. The hippocampus, he explains, automatically codes where you are in space. As a result, Geary says: "Women are more likely to rely on landmark cues: they might suggest you turn at the 7-11 and make a right at the church, whereas men are more likely to navigate via depth reckoning -- go east, then west, etc."

[Lewis]

My old supervisor was once asked to come up an 'employability strategy' for the department, and, for whatever reason, he found himself researching that sort of stuff and coming to the same conclusions ('Evolution!'), determining that the education system was 'designed by and for women'. They told him not to bother in the end.

[randomlegend]

And once you eliminate stereotype threat, the differences drastically reduce. There's plenty of studies that show there is no statistical support for inherent gender differences of aptitude in mathematical reasoning, which is direct problem-solving.

Some articles from high quality journals:
http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1744-9081-8-33.pdf
http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/amp/60/9/950/
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278262611001977
http://edr.sagepub.com/content/18/8/17.short
http://pss.sagepub.com/content/24/5/770.short
http://www.pnas.org/content/109/41/16474.short
http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-27702-3_41

These are articles we've cited in academic outreach documents for various reasons. There's dozens more (and over a wider range of problem classes, although our focus is naturally on studies that concentrate on mathematical aptitude), but I assume you don't want an entire bibliography. You can certainly take this as a representative sample of the state of contemporary literature on the topic.

And of course, while the plural of anecdote is not data, I can tell you that in my Oxford PhD cohort for applied maths, we had an exactly 50/50 ratio. And the best student of all of us was female too. I was pretty good even by department standards, but she left me in the dust. Still does. :D

There's not much point linking a load of articles which require paid access in order to view their findings.

[Lewis]

He's done that deliberately so we can't don him shitless.

[randomlegend]

Highlights

► Mathematically gifted subjects outperformed controls in mental rotation. ► In the same sample and task, male subjects outperformed female subjects.

That's from the only findings I can actually see, other than the lol first article.

[Lewis]

It's happening anyway(!). Stick your paywall.

[ItalAussie]

There's not much point linking a load of articles which require paid access in order to view their findings.

Those papers I posted still have abstracts available for free, and they're a small representative sample of the larger literature on the topic. I wanted to be clear that the studies we generally refer to are proper academic studies from high impact journals: PNAS and Brain & Cognition, rather than fitbrain.com and webmd. Any comprehensive literature search backs that up (as noted, it's just a small subsection of a much larger existing biography which we've used in outreach analysis), and it's clearly indicates by trends in the last two decades, when steps have been taken to mitigate the effects of socially-conditioned roles in education (colloquially known as "stereotype threat") which has seen overall gender performance trends skew markedly towards equality.

This isn't even controversial among scientific literature, and hasn't been for the best part of several decades. Nobody's seriously arguing about this.

[QE Harold Flair]

Aren't you just arguing about the left/right brain thing, though? The fact men's and women's brains are different is not beyond dispute, and neither is the fact that men do better in some tasks and women in others.

[ItalAussie]

By all means make it easy during/around the pregnancy, if only because the department doesn't want to lose somebody good; but the fact women have to have the kids is just an unfortunate reality isn't it? If it stalls your career (in spite of support) then what can you actually do? I think the best thing you can do is try and create a culture where it's alright to take time out for child-rearing. Fortunately, this is increasingly the case in academia - certainly much more so than it was fifty years ago. To be honest, we complain, but I think academia is pretty good about parenting compared to a lot of industries.


I don't think outreach programmes are necessarily bad, but I think they should focus on socio-economics. I see job adverts in my field (lol) that 'particularly welcome' lady applications, and I've seen them that simply say that they will give the position to a bird if there are 'equally qualified' candidates (which ought to be impossible). I don't believe in quotas, but I do accept that there might be some scenarios in which the proverbial black lesbian in a wheelchair gets stiffed. The entirely white, entirely middle class female History PhD students I shared a department with do not suffer from structural disadvantages.I agree with some of that, except in the case where there is a noted historical disparity due to cultural influences which are still not entirely overcome, like women and mathematics. But I do think it should be targeted, rather than scattergun.


I think academia is one field where anonymous CVs would really prove beneficial. It's probably a good idea anyway on balance, but I've always thought it wouldn't make much difference for those suit and tie jobs that private schools dominate (which the debate seems to focus on) because your CV would still have all your skiing holidays and unpaid internships on. It seems like the most simple change you could make for immediate results whilst covering yourself from accusations of *ism.


That is a point (although names aren't necessarily on CV listings, and like balls do they go and look them all up during the initial stage[s]). What I was trying to get at is avoiding any gender/race identification (by whatever means) would be beneficial, and, whilst it would presumably reveal itself in any interview, by that point they have already established the pool.
I'm definitely inclined to agree with this. It'd be really difficult to anonymize academic applications, but there's definitely a benefit to be gained there in the off-chance that they could pull it off. The problem is that you reach a point in academia where your publications are the first thing on your CV that really gets factored into hiring decisions, so even at the early stages they'll at least be looking over the list.

[ItalAussie]

Aren't you just arguing about the left/right brain thing, though? The fact men's and women's brains are different is not beyond dispute, and neither is the fact that men do better in some tasks and women in others.

It's simple. The entire corpus of contemporary research literature (a representative sample of which I linked previously) indicates that there is no evidence to support the existence of gender-based difference in mathematical or scientific aptitude between males and females. This isn't considered a controversial statement.

[QE Harold Flair]

It's simple. The entire corpus of contemporary research literature (a representative sample of which I linked previously) indicates that there is no evidence to support the existence of gender-based difference in mathematical or scientific aptitude between males and females. This isn't considered a controversial statement.

Didn't the only line I've seen from your first link admit that men scored higher? 'In the same sample and task, male subjects outperformed female subjects.'

Do you think, on the whole, women make better nurses than men?

[Boydy]

Is it not the case that tests on people who have been socially conditioned will reflect the results of that social conditioning?

[QE Harold Flair]

Is it not the case that tests on people who have been socially conditioned will reflect the results of that social conditioning?

You could literally say that about anything if you wanted to hide behind it. Perhaps you've been socially conditioned to be a soppy twat? So why should I listen to you?

Moving on - another factor is that men are simply more intelligent at the higher end of the scale. That's another stark fact.

[Boydy]

Why do you get so aggressive when I was only asking a simple question?

[QE Harold Flair]

Why do you get so aggressive when I was only asking a simple question?

Because it's a non-question. Besides, 'Social conditioning' these days would be very much in the opposite direction, if anything.

[ItalAussie]

You could literally say that about anything if you wanted to hide behind it. Perhaps you've been socially conditioned to be a soppy twat? So why should I listen to you?No you can't. There are specific statistical methodologies to account for these factors. This is quantitative, data-driven research.


Moving on - another factor is that men are simply more intelligent at the higher end of the scale. That's another stark fact.
None of this is supported by actual academic literature. You keep insisting on old wives' conclusions that have been rejected by actual studies.

[ItalAussie]

Didn't the only line I've seen from your first link admit that men scored higher? 'In the same sample and task, male subjects outperformed female subjects.'

Do you think, on the whole, women make better nurses than men?
You can only read one line? If you read the whole thing, you'll find that there's no statistical evidence for gender-based difference. It's a study on mitigating the effects of anxiety driven by mathematics. Key line within the conclusions: "Furthermore, our study showed no gender difference in mathematics performance, despite girls reporting higher levels of MA (mathematical anxiety)." And to save you some time, this is consistent with all of the other studies.

As to nursing, my impression is that I doubt it, although I'm not personally involved in nursing education at any level, so I don't know of any particular studies. I do know that a few years back, Queensland Health were running short on nurses and specifically ran a campaign to destigmatize it as a female discipline. Numbers balanced there too. Stereotype threat cuts both ways.

[QE Harold Flair]

You can only read one line? If you read the whole thing, you'll find that there's no statistical evidence for gender-based difference. It's a study on mitigating the effects of anxiety driven by mathematics. Key line within the conclusions: "Furthermore, our study showed no gender difference in mathematics performance, despite girls reporting higher levels of MA (mathematical anxiety)." And to save you some time, this is consistent with all of the other studies.

As to nursing, my impression is that I doubt it, although I'm not personally involved in nursing education at any level, so I don't know of any particular studies. I do know that a few years back, Queensland Health were running short on nurses and specifically ran a campaign to destigmatize it as a female discipline. Numbers balanced there too. Stereotype threat cuts both ways.

I was just going on what RM said, after he said you can't read most of the links you posted. When I asked the nursing question, it was an 'on average' question, because I've no doubt that men inclined to go into nursing are just as good as women. But not many men do go into nursing, because most men are not cut out for it. That's the point. Same goes for the higher levels of most academic subjects. That's why men are vastly over-represented in Nobel prizes - men are simply more intelligent at the higher levels.

[phonics]

That's why men are vastly over-represented in Nobel prizes - men are simply more intelligent at the higher levels.

Christ. They weren't even allowed to vote in certain countries till the 70s but you think they'll hand out Nobel Prizes to them.

[ItalAussie]

I was just going on what RM said, after he said you can't read most of the links you posted. When I asked the nursing question, it was an 'on average' question, because I've no doubt that men inclined to go into nursing are just as good as women. But not many men do go into nursing, because most men are not cut out for it. That's the point. Same goes for the higher levels of most academic subjects. That's why men are vastly over-represented in Nobel prizes - men are simply more intelligent at the higher levels.

You're making up your own conclusions regarding nursing. That's literally the exact opposite of scientific inquiry. Well done.

As to the Nobels, that's not the reason for the apparent disparity at all. It's because until the last twenty years or so, academia (and particularly the sciences) were incredibly unbalanced (a point we've discussed and explained extensively in this thread). The number of high level accolades for female scientists is well-known to be consistent with the proportion of females active within high-level science at the time the work was performed. And, as that number has been equalizing in the last twenty years or so, you'd expect it to flow through to the Nobels in another twenty or so years. It takes time to filter through the academic ranks, from the bottom up - and the Nobel Prizes are the uppest echelon, and hence take the longest time to adjust.

[simon]

I was just going on what RM said, after he said you can't read most of the links you posted. When I asked the nursing question, it was an 'on average' question, because I've no doubt that men inclined to go into nursing are just as good as women. But not many men do go into nursing, because most men are not cut out for it. That's the point. Same goes for the higher levels of most academic subjects. That's why men are vastly over-represented in Nobel prizes - men are simply more intelligent at the higher levels.

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/1pSyjKjkLww/hqdefault.jpg

[QE Harold Flair]

No you can't. There are specific statistical methodologies to account for these factors. This is quantitative, data-driven research.

Like what? Did you wear pink? Give me a break. This is vfery much a chicken and egg question - which came first? The 'conditioning' or simply that the person supposedly being conditioned just preferred those things?



None of this is supported by actual academic literature. You keep insisting on old wives' conclusions that have been rejected by actual studies.



Baroness Susan Greenfield is one of Britain's best-known female scientists; she's a professor of neurophysiology at the University of Oxford, a former director of the Royal Institution and an accomplished writer and broadcaster on scientific matters.
So when she very publicly bemoans the lack of women reaching the higher echelons of the scientific establishment, people tend to sit up and take notice.
In a newspaper article last month, she expressed her concern that only ten per cent of science professors in this country are women.

Her comments struck a chord, attracting a host of comments agreeing that women scientists were generally getting a raw deal.
This raises an important and controversial question. Is there really a glass ceiling holding back the careers of talented female scientists? Have decades of anti-sexual discrimination legislation really counted for nothing in the laboratories of Britain?

Or might there be another explanation for why we find such a marked shortage of women, not just in the highest levels of science but in big business, the professions, and politics, too?
It is my contention - based on a lifetime of academic research - that there is an explanation and I advance it all too aware of the howls of feminist outrage I am about to unleash.

So, here goes: one of the main reasons why there are not more female science professors or chief executives or Cabinet ministers is that, on average, men are more intelligent than women.
Nor do the shocks to the noisy advocates of equal opportunities stop there, I'm afraid.

For not only is the average man more intelligent than the average woman but also a clear and rather startling imbalance emerges between the sexes at the high levels of intelligence that the most demanding jobs require.

For instance, at the near-genius level (an IQ of 145), brilliant men outnumber brilliant women by 8 to one. That's statistics, not sexism.
In this context, Professor Greenfield's indignation that only one in ten science professors is female doesn't seem all that bad. It also goes some way to explaining why, in almost 110 years of Nobel Prize history, only two women have ever won the Prize for physics, only four have won the Prize for chemistry and why no women at all have ever won the coveted Fields Medal for mathematics in eight decades of trying.
In recent years, the forces of political correctness have made the reporting of this sort of statistic virtually impossible.
Yet as a psychologist who has dedicated his career to the study of intelligence - and, in particular, to how it differs between the sexes - I can tell you that in my academic circles these IQ figures are barely disputed.
Ever since the Frenchman Alfred Binet devised the first intelligence test in 1905, study after study has confirmed the same result. When it comes to IQ, men and women - at least once they've gained adulthood - simply are not equal.
Boys and girls may start out with the same IQ but by 16 or so boys are starting to inch ahead. The ever-growing success of girls at GCSE, A-level and now at university would seem to refute this - but the blame lies with our exam system, with its emphasis on coursework, which rewards diligence more than it does intelligence.
The undeniable, easily measurable fact remains that, by the time both sexes reach 21, men, on average, score five IQ points higher than women.
Before discussing how and why this might be, I ought to explain what psychologists mean by intelligence. It's made up of a range of cognitive abilities that include reasoning, problem-solving, spatial ability, general knowledge and memory.

In all of these, men outperform women - although women hold their own when it comes to verbal reasoning and have a definite edge in foreign language skills and spelling.
We must look to the field of evolutionary psychology for an explanation of why men have emerged as the more intelligent sex.
As the hunter part of a hunter-gatherer society, men were faced with complex, life-threatening problems that needed solving on a daily basis. For example, how to kill that elusive deer?
The hunters that used all their mental capabilities to come up with the answers, successfully killing animals day after day, were clearly the most intelligent.
They were the high-status males of their day and - provocative as it is to say so - must have possessed far sharper minds than those of women engaged in the relatively simple tasks of gathering berries and raising children.


These high-status males would also have been the most eligible mates, and it would be their genes - chief among which would be those controlling male brain size - that would be passed on to the next generation.
The result is that men today still have physically bigger brains than women, even after adjustments for their different-body size. Might this underpin the five-point difference in IQ between the sexes?
Of course, in normal daily life, there's not much real difference between a man with an IQ of 105 and a woman with an IQ of
100. The real difference only emerges as we rise up the IQ scale to the sort of level that the really top jobs require and as we drop lower down the scale - because men, as it turns out, have a much wider range of intelligence than women.
As a result, there are not only far more men with high IQs than there are women, but there are also, as I'm sure any woman would tell you, far more stupid men around than there are stupid women.
There is, as yet, no simple or, indeed, totally convincing explanation as to why this is, but while the abundance of stupid men has always caused social problems, it is the relative abundance of highly intelligent men that has caused problems for several generations of emancipated, liberated, ambitious women.

As a result, when these women get close to the top, they are simply out-numbered by highly intelligent and often ruthlessly ambitious men.
As our hunter-gatherer example has already suggested, men and women have also evolved different kinds of intelligence.
The demands of hunting - devising tactics and strategies, anticipating likely outcomes - favoured the development of reasoning, together with mathematical and spatial abilities, which is why, thousands of years later, men continue to be overrepresented in fields such as maths and physics.
However, when it comes to verbal intelligence, women match men because, in our hunter-gatherer past, women needed verbal abilities to negotiate their relationships with both men and women and to teach and socialise their children.
This explains why they are every bit as successful as men at writing novels, say, or even newspaper columns. Their superior foreign language skills explain why if you walk into a university language lecture theatre, you won't find many men.

But there's another reason why, at the very highest and most demanding of levels in society, men have a natural advantage - and it's one we've seen in countless natural history TV documentaries.
Take, for example, the case of rutting stags or fighting chimps and you get the generally aggressive idea. Thanks to high levels of the male sex hormone testosterone, men are far more competitive and motivated for success than women.
For a man - at least as far as his hormone system is concerned - succeeding, competing and beating his rivals is very much still a matter of life and death.
Consequently, ambitious, high-achieving men typically work harder, compete more aggressively and become totally immersed in their careers, while even the most high-achieving women will often admit to finding themselves distracted by their genetically preconditioned aptitude for nurture and support.
For them, it is often a question of what to get for supper, or whether the children have got clean shirts for school. These are small distractions, admittedly, but at the very highest level they have an effect.
As an academic, it's my job to tell the truth, to explain the scientific evidence before us, irrespective of how unfashionable my conclusions are.
Big ideas such as Galileo's theory that Earth revolved around the Sun, rather than vice versa, or Darwin's theory of evolution, met with vociferous opposition when first advanced.
And, certainly, the ideas I've laid out here have already got some highly respected people into very serious trouble.


In 2005, the distinguished economist Lawrence Summers was forced to resign as President of Harvard University after expressing the view, at a seminar on diversity in the academic workplace, that in some fields the innate cognitive differences between the sexes might make the search for a perfect 50:50 gender balance impossible.
He didn't accept that the lack of women at senior level was all due to glass ceilings, anti-social hours or lack of opportunity and encouragement.

Instead, he went with what the science is clearly telling us - that at the really top level in maths and science, when we're not dealing with average intelligence but near genius, there are simply more men around who can do the job.
For that simple statement of truth, he was eventually forced out of his post.I take some comfort from the fact that Lawrence Summers' hormonally-driven male competitive instincts kicked in and he has now bounced back to become a senior economic adviser to President Obama.
But what if he and I are right - as I am 100 per cent convinced we are? If men are innately better at certain subjects than women, then why should society struggle so hard - and so expensively - to try to engineer a perfect balance between the sexes?
By all means, take steps to ensure that boys and girls get the same opportunities in education, but let's also accept that those same opportunities will not produce the same outcomes. Men will always outnumber women in certain fields and vice versa.
My argument isn't based on crude chauvinist doctrine (although I'm quite sure my opponents will disagree) but on decades of research, relatively simple statistics and an understanding of the law of averages.
Of course, just because men, on average, are more intelligent then women, doesn't mean there are no individually brilliant women around.
If I'm right, it doesn't mean there will be no female professors of physics; it just means we should accept that there will be fewer of them. Nor does it mean that a woman will never win the Fields Medal for mathematics; it just means that we live in a world where such an event is very, very unlikely.
I realise my views are unfashionable, just as I realise the juggernaut of sexual equality and political correctness will take an awful lot of stopping.
But I say to the social engineers who dream up ever-more-ingenious ways of getting more women into top positions; don't be surprised if you find your nobly motivated ambitions foundering on the immovable rock of human nature.

[phonics]

Don't bother, Ital.

[ItalAussie]

The corpus of scientific literature is remarkably consistent on its conclusions. I'll trust that over a Daily Mail article like the one you posted here.

The fact that you don't like it is pretty irrelevant, Harold; it's not a controversial topic, and nobody's actually arguing over it in real life.

[QE Harold Flair]

Christ. They weren't even allowed to vote in certain countries till the 70s but you think they'll hand out Nobel Prizes to them.

Women have had the same rights as men for 40 years. I'd say that enough time for some to have come through. I prefer the actual facts, which show that men are much more represented at the very highest levels of intellgence. Nothing particularly controversial about mere facts, I wouldn't have thought.

[Raoul Duke]

I wish you'd just ban the gimp. Does nothing but turn this place into the Daily Mail-lite, brought to you in conjunction with Misunderstanding Information For Dummies.

Nearly every thread is clogged up with this bullshit.

[QE Harold Flair]

The corpus of scientific literature is remarkably consistent on its conclusions. The fact that you don't like it is pretty irrelevant, Harold; it's not a controversial topic, and nobody's actually arguing over it in real life.

Prove me wrong, then. Are men vastly over-represented on the genius levels of I.Q or not? There's probably an evolutionary reason for this - much in the same way there is for women being the more caring and better communicators, in general. It's nothing to be scared of - there are differences and that's okay. Try not to get emotional about facts.

[ItalAussie]

Also, using brain size as a measure of anything? :D

Brain size is no measure of cognitive faculty. If they were, then there's a dozen animals that would have greater cognitive ability than humans. Brain size in mammals tends to increase linearly with respect to average individual volume, and this is born out in humans.

[Lewis]

Oof. Tobias. Mate.

[ItalAussie]

Prove me wrong, then. Are men vastly over-represented on the genius levels of I.Q or not? There's probably an evolutionary reason for this - much in the same way there is for women being the more caring and better communicators, in general. It's nothing to be scared of - there are differences and that's okay. Try not to get emotional about facts.

Knowing about this stuff is literally my job. Do you want me to post a bunch more studies like above? I've spent actual time in my actual job finding dozens and dozens. Or would you prefer to stick with the Daily Mail?

What you're doing here is the exact opposite of science. You're replacing a widespread survey of existing studies within respected academic sources with cherry-picked articles from non-academic sources that support your entirely unscientific hunches. You're literally doing the opposite of science.

[Luca]

This is a completely independent point, but all of this "tending towards significance" nonsense you see in papers really is frustrating; almost as infuriating as the obvious post-hoc p-hacking that goes on. If p = 0.085 is tending towards significance, why is p = 0.049 never tending towards insignificance?

Oh, Ital (and Lewis): what do you think about the #icanhazpdf movement, and the wider issue of journal pricing?

[QE Harold Flair]

Also, using brain size as a measure of anything?

He didn't. He said males have bigger brains but this is not relevant to intelligence. Read it properly.

Brain size is no measure of cognitive faculty. If they were, then there's a dozen animals that would have greater cognitive ability than humans. Brain size in mammals tends to increase linearly with respect to average individual volume, and this is born out in humans.[/QUOTE]


Yet as a psychologist who has dedicated his career to the study of intelligence - and, in particular, to how it differs between the sexes - I can tell you that in my academic circles these IQ figures are barely disputed.

He just hasn't met you, yet. Not that you are in his field, of course.

[phonics]

I wish you'd just ban the gimp. Does nothing but turn this place into the Daily Mail-lite, brought to you in conjunction with Misunderstanding Information For Dummies.

Nearly every thread is clogged up with this bullshit.

Done. Gave up admin rights to do it and all. Emoji crossfingers it sticks.

[Lewis]

The journals that cover my subject[s] are mostly shit, so I don't suppose they could make money any other way.

[randomlegend]

#freethebish

[QE I'm back]

Done. Gave up admin rights to do it and all. Emoji crossfingers it sticks.

Yea, good luck with that.

[ItalAussie]

He just hasn't met you, yet. Not that you are in his field, of course.IQ tests are well-known to experience the same demographic issues (the colloquial "stereotype threat" described in the papers above), and that the differences - which do exist, because of such factors - become statistically insignificant once you apply (well-understood) statistical techniques to allow for the effects of social demographic factors.

I'm just repeating myself here, so I'm just going to point out again that if you do any kind of large-scale literature survey within respected academic sources, you'll find it is commonly agreed that there is no evidence for intrinsic differences in "intelligence" (by which we'll use IQ, even though it's not much of a measure), as well as scientific and mathematical aptitude (more precise, and therefore more useful, quantities). This is born out experimentally in that efforts to adjust the effect of social influences on demographic have produced exactly the results that these conclusions would predict: mitigating social barriers has led to the numbers evening out over the last two decades.

If you're not interested in reading the corpus of research literature, and you continue to ignore that the real-life outcomes are consistent with the conclusions, then this is as far as the conversation can usefully go. But that's the lay of the scientific land, at any rate.


This is a completely independent point, but all of this "tending towards significance" nonsense you see in papers really is frustrating; almost as infuriating as the obvious post-hoc p-hacking that goes on. If p = 0.085 is tending towards significance, why is p = 0.049 never tending towards insignificance?

Oh, Ital (and Lewis): what do you think about the #icanhazpdf movement, and the wider issue of journal pricing?I'm pretty sure you're right that "tending towards significance" is nonsense. I can't think of a statistical methodology where that's a sensible concept. :D

Journal pricing is a fascinating topic. Academic publishing is one of the most profitable industries in the world. I'm pretty sure that Elsevier and Springer are both in the top five major corporations globally for profit margins. Which makes sense - we give them articles for free, review them for free, supply editors for free, and then pay to buy the journal. Short of type-setting, I'm a little unclear as to what the journals actually do.


EDIT: Maaaaaaybe you could tend towards significance in time series analysis, if you're finding consistent results over time stepping, then taking more time steps could narrow your error range. But in that case, you'd just take enough time steps to get significance, surely. Unless it's a particularly difficult experimental setup or something. Still, it's far from ideal.

[Lewis]

I was reading an article the other day that I remembered reading as a chapter in an essay collection (he had re-written it a bit to be fair), which was itself derived from a book the geezer wrote. So there you go. They allow people to inflate their list of publications.

[Luca]

I'm pretty sure you're right that "tending towards significance" is nonsense. I can't think of a statistical methodology where that's a sensible concept.

The idea of it (and it has become more pervasive over time, at least in the fields I'm in) just doesn't make sense. Given that the boundaries themselves (0.05/0.01/etc.) aren't strictly defined (read: completely arbitrary, and often selected to fit the results), the areas around them are more or less meaningless. I can't decide whether it's harmless optimism bias or something more sinister.

Statistical methodology in academic articles really is a huge sore spot; so many researchers are just chasing a p-value without a wider sense of the statistical validity behind what they're doing. I understand that for most, this comes with the territory; they study financial economics/psychology/medicine, and know stats from 1/2 graduate level intro courses and whatever they've picked up from reviewing literature. It would probably not be a bad idea to have an actual, dyed-in-the-flesh statistician on every quantitative journal's peer review board, regardless of discipline (obviously not for things that you/Lewis do, but where it's sensible).


Journal pricing is a fascinating topic. Academic publishing is one of the most profitable industries in the world. I'm pretty sure that Elsevier and Springer are both in the top five major corporations globally for profit margins. Which makes sense - we give them articles for free, review them for free, supply editors for free, and then pay to buy the journal. Short of type-setting, I'm a little unclear as to what the journals actually do.

Springer is a private company, but a cursory search on Elsevier puts their operating margin at 30%, which is 10-15% more than comparable peers. And that's for the whole RELX group, which includes their (probably lower-margin) magazine operations. So yeah, they're making a killing.

[ItalAussie]

Springer is a private company, but a cursory search on Elsevier puts their operating margin at 30%, which is 10-15% more than comparable peers. And that's for the whole RELX group, which includes their (probably lower-margin) magazine operations. So yeah, they're making a killing.
If it's not Springer, then it's someone else. Can't remember which one though. They're all basically coining money.

And yeah. Ideally, every lab in every field would have a duty statistician to come in and sort out the data analysis with an understanding a little bit beyond "p < 0.05 good, p > 0.05 bad".


EDIT: Here's a cut from an article a few years back:

In an article that many of you will now have seen, Heather Morrison demonstrated the enormous profits of STM (Scientific, Technical and Medical) scholarly publishers. The figures are taken from her in-progress dissertation which in turn cites an article in The Economist. It all checks out. I emphasise this because I found the figures so hard to believe. Here they are again: profits as a percentage of revenue for commercial STM publishers in 2010 or early 2011:

Elsevier: £724m on revenue of £2b — 36%
Springer‘s Science+Business Media: £294m on revenue of £866m — 33.9%
John Wiley & Sons: $106m on revenue of $253m — 42%
Academic division of Informa plc: £47m on revenue of £145m — 32.4%

[phonics]

Yoga class cancelled due to 'cultural appropriation'

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/university-yoga-class-suspended-over-cultural-appropriation-dispute-a6744426.html

I don't even know where to start

[Boydy]

:D

I saw that yesterday. It's just ridiculous.

[randomlegend]

:D

The person who made that complaint must be trolling.

[Pepe]

That is excellent. :D

Yoga is shit anyways. Wanker magnet.

[Lewis]

This (http://everydayfeminism.com/2015/11/foodie-without-appropriation/) was good the other day. It's no wonder so many of these cunts have depression and anxiety problems when literally every human [inter]action is a minefield.

[Pepe]

When I use the term 'wanker', am I appropriating your culture? Should I stop?

[Boydy]

I saw that 'foodie' (that word is the mark of a cunt) one the other day too. The title was so fucking ridiculous I didn't read the article.

[Pepe]

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/11/23/u-kansas-professor-leave-after-comments-race-result-5-complaints

The 'open letter' is quite the read.

[Lewis]

Richard Dawkins likes giving it to the 'Safe Space' wankers. He should really take up that particular crusade (arf) full-time now nobody cares about atheism.

[Luca]

That foodie thing is the most self-absorbed thing I've ever read. Absolutely odious.

[Davgooner]

Why the fuck did you write it then?

[Cord]

I had some American sort ring up to ask me if the university I work for has a 'queer safe space' over the summer. At the time my answer of 'erm, dunno' might have come across as the dribblings of an uninterested incompetent, but it's become clear that it was instead a brilliant strategic career saving move by one of the finest minds of his generation. A mind that will soon be in charge once everyone else who understands their job has been fired for venturing an opinion in the presence of students.

[Spoonsky]

That is excellent. :D

Yoga is shit anyways. Wanker magnet.

Yoga is great. It is also, unfortunately, a wanker magnet. So it goes.

[Yevrah]

'Foodie' might be the worst of all the wanky post internet age terms we've been subjected to.

It physically makes my skin crawl when I hear it.

[Toby]

Pretty sure "Foodies" - including the self-applied title - were around long before the internet.

[Spoonsky]

Whether it pre-dated the internet or not, it's definitely had a reconnaissance.

https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=foody

I agree that it makes my skin crawl in a way that few other words do.

[Luca]

I don't really mind the word "foodie" so much (it certainly doesn't make my skin crawl), but getting all pissy about cultural appropriation because I like a bit of pho but am not John Arne's neighbour is absurd.

[Toby]

Whether it pre-dated the internet or not, it's definitely had a reconnaissance.

My go-to image for it would still definitely be the Frasier Crane / Miles from Sideways sort of middle-aged man, rather than gobby internet blogger.

[Spoonsky]

Look what Zimidy's done. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/life/calling-this-naive-student-a-rapist-aint-helping-anyone/?utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook

[randomlegend]

I don't even know what cultural appropriation is. I hope I do lots of it.

[niko_cee]

I suppose the students have to find something to replace all the drinking they aren't allowed to do anymore.

[Jimmy Floyd]

It's the SOASification of the world, and I for one welcome our new genderless overlords.

[Jimmy Floyd]

That said, I've just read that Oxford may cancel student balls themed on The Great Gatsby and 1920s New Orleans respectively because they remind women and ethnic minorities of 'a time of less equality'.

[CJay]

Whether it pre-dated the internet or not, it's definitely had a reconnaissance.

Err...

[Jimmy Floyd]

The kids are using that instead of 'renaissance' now so not as to appear Western-centric.

[Lewis]

It's art (https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/11/24/u-kentucky-will-cover-and-relocate-mural-whose-depiction-black-people-has-upset-many?utm_source=Inside+Higher+Ed&utm_campaign=5228eb4c4d-DNU20151124&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1fcbc04421-5228eb4c4d-199137749#.VlQyn56RBo8.twitter) now.


This is a good first step toward creating a place where some people don’t have to be reminded about something as horrible as slavery.

It's a university, lad.

[Pepe]

A university without Thomas Jefferson statues (https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/11/23/thomas-jefferson-next-target-students-who-question-honors-figures-who-were-racists?utm_content=buffercd6c9&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=IHEbuffer).

[Jimmy Floyd]

It's not a massive logical step from that to simply pretending - 'denying', let's say - that certain parts of history actually happened.

[Toby]

There was a brief moment there where I wondered if Chelsea's reserve goalkeeper had actually been quoted on slavery.

[phonics]

Its getting a bit ridiculous. Its almost at the point of not teaching WW2 for fear of scaring Jewish kids.

[Lewis]

Jews (like 'Asians') aren't invited to the Victim Olympics. They're too successful.

[Pepe]

Many 'Asian Americans' are definitely joining the pity parties since they keep getting asked what's the best Chinese restaurant around.

[Lewis]

Get involved on our behalf. Insist that non-Americans get a slice of the 'Latino' victim pie.

[Pepe]

https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2015/12/09/debate-over-lynch-memorial-hall-name-racist?utm_content=buffer641ea&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=IHEbuffer

Surely they are just trying to see how much shit they can get away with, right?

[Lewis]

Some of the stories about demands for staff to admit they're racist are good. It's like Mao's China. Literally all the academics and administrators have to do is tell them to fuck off. If you feel that 'unsafe' at an Ivy League university, leave. Nobody with a brain will sympathise with them, but plenty of people with brains will take their vacated places.

[Pepe]

Did that place in Texas ask you for a diversity statement? Seems like all the cool places are asking for one these days.

https://www.cmu.edu/gcc/handouts/Diversity%20Statement.pdf

:harold:

[Lewis]

I've never been asked for anything like that, but I reckon I could spin my working class Northern credentials into severe victimhood.

[Boydy]

Bit of class consciousness from you there. You're turning.

[Lewis]

I would get a reference from Andy Burnham and everything.

[QE Harold Flair]

Dear, of dear. This is what happens when feminist foghorns are on the BBC. Note how they demand the camera be taken off someone telling the truth and then complain about their right to speak while interrupting and shouting over others. Disgraceful.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZeOFqtaqLE

[Alan Shearer The 2nd]

Kate Smurthwaite (what a horrific name) is insufferable.

[Lewis]

It really is a joke that Connie St Louis is still employed, let alone doing media appearances. What would get her sacked?

[Yevrah]

Everyone in that video is absolutely dreadful.

[QE Harold Flair]

Milo is a fucking don, but he was basically harangued here. He is a provocateur sometimes but at least he admits it and doesn't cry about it like those horrendous frauds and loudmouths he was contesting.

The highlight was the fraudulent professor who is a proven liar demanding that they take the camera off him.

He's written an article in Breitbard about the show today;


A day in the life of Milo Yiannopoulos:
Wake up. Switch on my Lil Wayne playlist. Do my hair. Put on an impeccably tailored suit. Do my hair some more. Have my driver take me to a TV station, where I’m scheduled to appear in a controversial cultural debate. Face calls for my arrest, and be accused of wanting to assassinate someone. You know, the usual!
I honestly don’t know why this keeps happening. People are like, obsessed with me or something. I’m not sure I can deal with the attention for much longer. See what you guys think.


The latest incident happened on BBC’s The Big Questions, a Sunday morning debate show where I had the pleasure of coming face-to-face with Connie St. Louis, the “science journalism professor” who attained infamy last year after her astonishing series of lies about the Nobel prize-winning scientist Sir. Tim Hunt were lapped up by the media. The resulting controversy dragged on for months, with Hunt — who initially lost several of his positions — slowly being publicly exonerated as her brazen untruths quickly unravelled. (https://medium.com/@LouiseMensch/the-tim-hunt-debacle-c914395d5e01#.tcvpdxhdr)
I was on The Big Questions to discuss a serious topic: does the internet reveal men’s hatred of women? The answer is no, it doesn’t. In fact, the reverse is true, with research from the Pew Research Center (http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/10/22/online-harassment/) and the Demos think tank (http://www.demos.co.uk/press-release/demos-male-celebrities-receive-more-abuse-on-twitter-than-women-2/) both showing that men are more likely to be the targets of online hatred. According to Pew, 44 per cent of male web users have experienced some form of online harassment, compared to 37 per cent of female web users. Demos, meanwhile, found that high-profile men on social media were more than twice as likely to receive abuse when compared with high-profile women.
Men are more likely than women to be physically threatened (26 per cent for men versus 23 percent for women), called offensive names (51 versus 50 per cent) and purposefully embarrassed (38 versus 36 per cent). These are the most common forms of online nastiness by far, and the ones feminists like Smurthwaite typically complain about. Women are more likely to be stalked, but — you know where this is going, don’t you? — a lot of that stalking is done by women.

It’s far more socially acceptable to abuse men. They’re seen as being able to take it. Ironically, feminists who constantly whine about online harassment are reinforcing old ideas about weak, fragile women. They’re making themselves into damsels in distress.
Modern feminism had created an environment in which it’s open season on men, with hashtags such as #KillAllWhiteMen and memes about “male tears” endorsed even by journalists major media groups. Is it any wonder, with such female chauvinism proliferating on social media, that some men reciprocate with harsh words? Anyway, as I say, the problem online isn’t men. It’s women. (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/08/10/mean-girls-why-the-only-people-women-should-fear-online-are-other-women/)
The most you could say as a feminist while sticking to the facts is that online abuse isn’t a strongly gendered issue. Social media certainly doesn’t reveal men’s hatred for women: rather, it reveals women’s hatred for men, women — and themselves.
It’s interesting that female trolls are almost entirely ignored by the media. When, at the end of July 2013, Labour MP Stella Creasy and the campaigner Caroline Criado-Perez “were subjected to a torrent of violent abuse on Twitter,” it was only the male trolls who initially got the spotlight. The woman who went to jail — for longer than the bloke, because she had form (https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/JCO/Documents/Judgments/r-v-nimmo-and-sorley.pdf) — was ignored until her plea and sentencing (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/twitter-trolls-isabella-sorley-and-john-nimmo-jailed-for-abusing-feminist-campaigner-caroline-criado-9083829.html).
A Google News search query shows (https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#tbm=nws&q=Sorley+arrest++22+October+creasy) that no media outlets reported on the woman’s arrest, despite heavily featuring the simultaneous arrests of men. They only reported on her conviction. 318 articles cover the male arrests (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10227486/Man-arrested-over-Twitter-abuse-of-Stella-Creasy-MP.html); none cover hers.
Of course, none of this matters to feminists, who have a narrative to maintain. St. Louis and Smurthwaite decided that instead of addressing my points, they’d engage in slander instead. In a bizarre claim, St. Louis alleged that I had been unverified on Twitter because I’d called for someone’s “assassination.” Naturally, she couldn’t produce any evidence for this extraordinary statement, the same way evidence of some of the claims on her CV didn’t exist — a serial fabricator to the end. I asked her multiple times to elaborate on her allegation. She avoided the question.
Perhaps I’m being unkind. Maybe the dotty old bird has mistaken me for Charles C. Johnson, who was kicked off Twitter a while ago after a metaphor was mistaken for a death threat. I’m not sure if St Louis is affected by age, or whether it’s the dreadlocks tumbling across those appalling glasses of hers, but last I checked I’m not a ginger blogger from California. In fact, if I woke up ginger I’d probably kill myself.
To tell the truth, I don’t know how or why St. Louis mistook me for Chuck Johnson. I guess we white people all look the same.

If you want to know why just 7 per cent of British women and 18 per cent of American women consider themselves feminists, you don’t have to look much further than these two clownish examples. Smurthwaite is of course a professional provocateur and troll who likes to play the victim when she loses debates. But St. Louis is a more sinister figure.
Firstly, there’s the embroidery and sexing-up she’s done to her CV (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3143945/Lecturer-accused-sexist-Nobel-Prize-professor-keeps-job-despite-Mail-revealing-dubious-claims-career-told-update-CV.html). St. Louis has in the past claimed that she has written for the Independent, Daily Mail and Sunday Times. These claims are false. Digital archives for the three newspapers, stretching back over 20 years, show no bylined articles by St. Louis. She claims membership of the grand-sounding “Royal Institution” as a science qualification: the Royal Institution is a museum.
She claimed to have won a prize for the series Life As A Teenager. The real winner of that prize was the series producer, Erika Wright (http://unfashionista.com/2015/10/25/absw-complaint-against-connie-st-louis-over-tim-hunt-erika-wright-and-her-c-v/), whom St. Louis later badmouthed. She claimed to have secured “the first interview with Bill Gates” in the UK. Another lie: that was conducted by Roger White in 1993 (http://genome.ch.bbc.co.uk/schedules/radio4/fm/1993-05-03). Some mark the first print appearance in the UK of Bill Gates even earlier, in September 1988, when journalist Alan Cane of the Financial Times met with him for the newspaper’s “Monday Interview.” (https://louisemensch.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/alan-cane-bill-gates-j.jpg?w=1000&h=644)
St. Louis was elected to the WFSJ (World Federation of Science Journalists) in 2015. As part of her election she had to submit a 6 Page CV, this had many glaring discrepancies (https://archive.is/2NZtg). She writes: “I am a regular contributor to ABC News Worldview TV programme.” Yet ABC News Worldview has not aired for five years. Factiva shows that her last contribution to ABC News Worldview was in May of 2006.
She has claimed to be a “scientist.” Well, only in the very loosest sense. The last time St. Louis saw the inside of a lab was in whatever far-flung alien lie factory that birthed her. She does not “present and produce a range of programmes” for Radio 4, as she used to claim on her CV. And so it goes on, and on, and on (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3141158/A-flawed-accuser-Investigation-academic-hounded-Nobel-Prize-winning-scientist-job-reveals-troubling-questions-testimony.html).
City University, at which St. Louis is — get this — the director of the MA in science journalism, had to remove her resume from their website (https://web.archive.org/web/20150313170449/http://www.city.ac.uk/people/academics/connie-st-louis) for an “update” which in fact simply excised many of these false claims (https://www.city.ac.uk/people/academics/connie-st-louis) after a report from the Mail on Sunday.
And then, of course, there’s St. Louis’s grotesquely untruthful witch-hunt against Sir Tim Hunt. It is by now the stuff of journalistic legend: St. Louis lied and lied and lied about Hunt, a Nobel prize winner who works on cancer. She said that Hunt had “ruined” a lunch with sexist comments, omitting critical context that showed that Hunt was actually laughing at his own expense.
She claimed that an awkward silence descended on the room when in fact, as an EU official later reported, “I didn’t notice any uncomfortable silence or any awkwardness in the room as reported on social and then mainstream media.”
St. Louis’s claims about Hunt have now been totally and utterly debunked. It’s now crystal clear: she lied. (https://storify.com/LouiseMensch/the-witch-hunt-on-sir-tim-hunt) If Tim Hunt was expected to step down over sexist remarks that never existed, why is St. Louis still in her post, training the next generation of journalists?

I’m not going to lie, St. Louis freezing up when I called her to the mat about lying on her CV was priceless. Mostly, thankfully, because her dishonest campaign has failed utterly (http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2015/12/21/sir-tim-hunt-didnt-leave-britain-in-defeat-after-feminist-fibs-he-won/). Hunt is off to Japan with his wife, who has accepted a top job there. I did have to wonder, though: considering that country’s fascination with huge, terrifying fire-breathing lizards, why St. Louis doesn’t live there already.
The other feminist on the panel today was Kate Smurthwaite (or, as I like to call her, sweetie darling). Smurthwaite spent the majority of the show in the classic feminist quantum superstate of aggressor and victim: a strong, independent woman who don’t need no man… right up until someone says something she doesn’t like, and then it’s time to call in the patriarchy for help.
Like St. Louis, Smurthwaite wasn’t interested in addressing my arguments, so instead issued a not-so-subtle call for my arrest and imprisonment — over tweets she doesn’t like. “I think when we see a few high profile individuals – perhaps including some in this studio – locked up, it’ll be time for others to back off, and I very much look forward to that day.”


I consider it a great compliment, of course, that my opponents want me locked up. It’s the sort of thing that only happens to people telling truths that others don’t want to hear, or rugged heroic rebels fighting authoritarian regimes. Despite my unwavering conservatism, I’ve always thought Che Guevara was kind of hot. Also, the thought of being in handcuffs alongside a disproportionate number of black men isn’t entirely unappealing.
Without lavishing Smurthwaite, whose comedy career, such as it was, has been replaced by a subsistence funded by talk show appearance fees, more attention than she warrants: it’s worth pointing out that feminists are not above criticism just because they say so. If they brand you leader of a hate group, you have the right to object. And to laugh at them!
Smurthwaite doesn’t have the right not to be offended — nor to dodge the issue when observers rightly point out that she deliberately mischaracterises ridicule and criticism as “abuse” and “harassment.” She’s a perfect example of the sort of spoilt brat middle-class white girl who claims to stick up for women but whom most women absolutely loathe.
What do her tantrums on TV prove? One, that she’s unstable and therefore totally unsuited to her job. Two, that she’s an abject bloody failure as a comedian, preferring to feign offence rather than offer a witty comeback or a juicy put-down.
Notice the pattern in the debate today: St. Louis literally begging for them to take the camera off me. Smurthwaite angry at the show for having me on at all, and not allowing her to just monologue on the problems of being a woman in the first world and make up stories about other guests. A moderator who only allowed interruptions one way, ignoring stats and figures pertinent to the question in favour of, “Well, it’s not what happened, what we feel happened.”
Several guests grudgingly, repeatedly conceding how much more famous I am and coming up with bullshit reasons why that might be. St. Louis called me “desperate” for social media fame and Spiked’s Ella Whelan said I was an “egomaniac.” No arguing with that last one, I guess — but it’s telling that both women declined to acknowledge that I am a senior staff editor and star columnist at one of the largest and most influential media companies in America. (They do that to delegitimise you.)
And, of course, the brilliant, insane suggestion from Smurthwaite that I should be thrown in prison for cracking jokes on Twitter about feminists. I can see the trial now: I’ll be forced to sign a communist-style confession under duress. It’ll go: “I have committed great and heinous crimes against womanhood with my hilarious, obviously not a bit true, except they do ring a bit true, don’t they, essays…” Boy they really want me to shut up. Good luck with that!

But anyway, I said I wasn’t going to bang on about it, so enough about shrill, lesbianic armpit hair enthusiasts. And hey! before you have a go at me for the word “shrill,” just listen to the debate for yourself. There was a lot of screeching. My opponents were probably incensed by my calmly-delivered facts (such as the fact that more people would want their child to have cancer than feminism — 22,000 votes, the public made up its mind, not my fault!).

It got so bad that host Nicky Campbell had to call for 10 seconds of silence. I don’t know for sure, but I think that may have been a first for the programme. Or any programme, frankly. I was mortified, obviously.I don’t know why I make people so excited, really I don’t. Maybe it’s because I’m so hot.


http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/01/17/someone-just-accused-me-of-plotting-an-assassination-attempt/

[Davgooner]

Is he that blonde mug? He's just a professional troll surely.

[Yaysus]

Milo :drool:

[phonics]

Doesn't cry about it.

https://o.twimg.com/2/proxy.jpg?t=HBiTAWh0dHA6Ly9lY3guaW1hZ2VzLWFtYXpvbi 5jb20vaW1hZ2VzL0kvNDE3dlUzNWNkOEwuX1NSNjAwJTJjMzE1 X1BJV2hpdGVTdHJpcCUyY0JvdHRvbUxlZnQlMmMwJTJjMzVfUE lBbXpuUHJpbWUlMmNCb3R0b21MZWZ0JTJjMCUyYy01X1NDTFpa WlpaWlpfLmpwZxSsCxT2BRwUhAYUlAMAABYAEgA&s=yhWLSZN5AFq8uUTJu1gQVERWN7u4lEKutxBrnxXlPvs

[QE Harold Flair]

I'd say he's exposing them rather than 'crying' about it.

[Lewis]

Is he that blonde mug? He's just a professional troll surely.

He can be very good when he wants to be, but then he comes out with 'feminism is cancer' and turns off all the non-divs.

[QE Harold Flair]

'Modern feminism' is how he couches it, and he's correct. Ask Germaine Greer.

[Lewis]

Even if you specify 'modern feminism' (which he doesn't) it still doesn't make much sense.

[QE Harold Flair]

He does, very often. And when he doesn't that's still what he's referring to. He has often said the first 2 waves of feminism were necessary and worthy.

It makes perfect sense. Saying something is a cancer is pretty obvious unless you're being rather obtuse.

[Yevrah]

He does, very often. And when he doesn't that's still what he's referring to. He has often said the first 2 waves of feminism were necessary and worthy.

It makes perfect sense. Saying something is a cancer is pretty obvious unless you're being rather obtuse.

That's (reasonably) fine, but going from that to posting a poll on his blog (was it?) asking whether you'd rather your child had feminism or cancer is the point at which the credibility ship has long since left the harbor and all we're left with is a complete twat.

Seriously, everyone in that video came across as an awful, awful human being with absolutely no integrity in their work whatsoever.

That they're employed to air their views is really quite sad.

[Lewis]

He does, very often. And when he doesn't that's still what he's referring to. He has often said the first 2 waves of feminism were necessary and worthy.

It makes perfect sense. Saying something is a cancer is pretty obvious unless you're being rather obtuse.

He either misunderstands feminism (and its waves, which are hardly unified movements) or his definition of what is 'necessary and worthy' is wrong, so 'feminism is cancer' just makes him look like a berk.

[QE Harold Flair]

That's (reasonably) fine, but going from that to posting a poll on his blog (was it?) asking whether you'd rather your child had feminism or cancer is the point at which the credibility ship has long since left the harbor and all we're left with is a complete twat.

He likes to poke the easily offended, I think. I don't blame him.

[QE Harold Flair]

He either misunderstands feminism (and its waves, which are hardly unified movements) or his definition of what is 'necessary and worthy' is wrong, so 'feminism is cancer' just makes him look like a berk.

Why don't you have a go at that 'ask an expert' thing and write in to challenge him?

[John]

What is he an expert in?

[QE Harold Flair]

That's besides the point. I was just referencing the title of that thread. I think, ultimately, I'd just like to see Lewis taken apart on his nonsense and wholly wrong critique of the man. I do it often, but I'm Harold so I'll never get credit for it.

[Lewis]

Set it up. If he's too mean I'll get my dad to fill him in.

[QE Harold Flair]

He'd like that if your dad's black. Seems unlikely.

[Lewis]

https://privilegegrant.com/

That is so good. Get on it, Spoon.

[Boydy]

That's actually quite good despite it trying to be a bit troll-y.

[QE Harold Flair]

Even if it is trolly, he's raising a point which needs to be raised.

There's going to be a lot of gnashing of teeth over this from the hysterical feminists and BLM twats. Should be good.

[Boydy]

I know, that's what I was saying.

As I've said before, I think class is the biggest determinant of your life chances. Although, unlike some, I still think there are valid points to be made for feminism and anti-racism.

Apparently if you're on the left and think like me you're a 'brocialist' or a 'manarchist' though. I really do wish they'd stop with the shitty portmanteaus.

[Jimmy Floyd]

I can never work out what those people would actually like society to be like. Let's say we reached a hypothetical situation of perfect equality among the genders, races, orientations etc. The differences would still be there (unless the human race just became millions of Janelle Monae), and those people would still be boring on about the historical privilege of certain groups over certain others. So what do they actually want?

As far as I can see it's just attention seeking.

EDIT: Actually, and this isn't meant to be trolling/whatever, you could argue that the logical conclusion of their position is some form of genocide.

[phonics]

https://www.thefire.org/fired-lsu-professor-files-first-amendment-lawsuit-challenging-speech-code-championed-by-feds/

[QE Harold Flair]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYbTl4kDmaQ

[Toby]

What's the gist of the argument there?

[phonics]

He had his blue tick taken away for encouraging harassment of other users. Not sure how that's censorship in the slightest.

[Toby]

I knew about that but perhaps naively assumed the video had something more substantive.

[phonics]

I knew about that but perhaps naively assumed the video had something more substantive.

Like I'm going to watch one of Harolds videos. That one is 40 minutes fucking long.

[Toby]

Well, exactly. That's why I asked him to summarise.

[Lewis]

He had his blue tick taken away for encouraging harassment of other users. Not sure how that's censorship in the slightest.

His TWITTER IS AFTER THE RIGHT stuff is balls (as is his taking credit for their share price falling), but he wasn't encouraging harassment. If he was then half of his opponents have encouraged his murder, which they obviously haven't.

[QE Harold Flair]

He never encouraged anyone to harrass others.

Meanwhile, ISIS and feminists who use tags such as 'killallwhitemen' are allowed continued free reign. If Milo was really guilty they would have banned him completely. It's odd, I thought you were a champion of free speech.... @ Phonics

Twitter is clearly, as Hitchens rightly notes, a 'left wing mob'.

[Toby]

Is there somebody using #killallwhitemen that also has a blue tick?

[phonics]

Meanwhile, ISIS and feminists who use tags such as 'killallwhitemen' are allowed continued free reign. If Milo was really guilty they would have banned him completely. It's odd, I thought you were a champion of free speech.... @ Phonics

Once again you seem to not understand free speech. I feel like Father Ted explaining the size of cows to Dougal.

ISIS accounts are banned as soon as they're reported. I think they're at something like 4000 deleted ISIS accounts per day. So I'm not sure what free reign they have.

I think we're still around 2% of Twitter users accounting for 90% of tweets hence why they place is full of nutjobs (on both sides) because most sensible people just get on with their day.

[QE Harold Flair]

So tell me where he encouraged others to harrass women?

[phonics]

I didn't say women. I said other users. You said women, which I find very odd. Why would you jump to women?

[QE Harold Flair]

Because he's notoriously accused of being anti women because he's anti-modern feminism. But okay, where has he encouraged others to harrass people? I'd like to know how inconsistent you are.

[Jimmy Floyd]

This 'Milo' plank is a right idiot. Does Harold have a thing for blonde men?

[Lewis]

He said that somebody 'deserved to be harassed', which people seem to think is what done it. If so that would be incredibly lame.

[QE Harold Flair]

This 'Milo' plank is a right idiot. Does Harold have a thing for blonde men?

He's not blonde. He's just very good.

[Davgooner]

He's done well at apparently making a living out of convincing white men they're being persecuted.

[phonics]

He said that somebody 'deserved to be harassed', which people seem to think is what done it. If so that would be incredibly lame.

Yeah, a Twitter exec suggested it was that one

678620045388488704

[QE Harold Flair]

He's 100% correct about that statment. And no, that is not quite telling others to harrass them, is it?

[phonics]

Ok and?

It's a blue tick Harold. Who. Gives. A. Fuck.

It's not censorship in any way shape or form.

[QE Harold Flair]

Of course it is. That blue tick means he can be verified instead of the countless other Milo impersonators.

I'll take this as an admission that you were wrong, anyway.

[phonics]

Do what you want. You're so mentally deranged it genuinely wouldn't matter if Milo (what an absolutely odious cunt by the way, I don't think I've ever been so spot on with a first impression as the time I met him) himself told you it's not censorship.

[QE Harold Flair]

I never said anything about him being censored. The fact you think he's odious only elevates him higher.

[QE Harold Flair]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FlEiW1qjeo


:drool:

[Spoonsky]

Harold, do you ever do any activism-type stuff in real life? Or is it just reserved for us?

[QE Harold Flair]

This is real life?

[Spoonsky]

IRL. You know what I mean.

[phonics]

I never said anything about him being censored.

You posted a video called 'How Twitter is censoring conservatives like Milo Yianwhatevopolis' with no other comment. And then I said it wasn't censorship and you said and I quote


Of course it is.

[QE Harold Flair]

I didn't title the video. It is censorship of a kind, anyway. By taking away the verification you're not giving him the platform to speak as it could be anyone. It's very sneaky and underhanded.

[Spoonsky]

Harold, will you answer the question?

[QE Harold Flair]

No, it's none of your business.

[niko_cee]

Are you part of the manosphere Harold?

[QE Harold Flair]

No idea what you mean.

[Lewis]

The Cecil Rhodes statue is staying because the college shat the bed (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/universityeducation/12128151/Cecil-Rhodes-statue-to-remain-at-Oxford-University-after-alumni-threatens-to-withdraw-millions.html) over wealthy donors jumping ship.


The report warns that there will now "almost certainly" be "one or two redundancies" in its Development Office team because of the collapse in donations. And it has cancelled an annual fundraising drive that should have taken place in April. The report also warns that Oriel's development office could now make an operating loss of around £200,000 this year.

Decent people losing their jobs because cowardice as well. Gutted.

[GS]

It's all a bit lol from the student mob, this. You'd think they'd be embarrassed, but they're probably convinced that the other lads down the union think they're legends.

[Jimmy Floyd]

Decent people losing their jobs because cowardice as well. Gutted.

It's a pity nobody has yet leaked how many innocent deaths Edward Snowden is reckoned to have caused. I hear it's a lot.

[Spoonsky]

Do you think what Snowden did was wrong?

[Jimmy Floyd]

Yes.

I mean I don't really give a shit about the evil government lizards being exposed, or whatever, but the nature of his actions have led to thousands of innocents being put in danger and he must have known that before he did it unless he's completely thick, which is very possible.

Also, he's being shielded by Putin. Judge a man by his friends.

[Kikó]

It's best not to know our government spying on us. Ignorance is bliss.

[Pepe]

Let them spy, right? I got nothing to hide!

[Jimmy Floyd]

They're going to spy regardless. They've been spying since about 3,000 BC.

[Pepe]

We cool then.

[Kikó]

That's actually very reassuring.

[Lewis]

He should have gone to sympathetic politicians with it (I don't buy his shit that they would have offed him in the shower). Doing what he did just makes him look like another Jesus-complex tosser.

[Kikó]

Sometimes you've got to go beyond what's comfortable. He has ruined his life effectively for what he thought was right.

[Pepe]

I move that all immigrants be allowed in, since they will keep coming anyway.

[Lewis]

Sometimes you've got to go beyond what's comfortable. He has ruined his life effectively for what he thought was right.

Wouldn't that have been the case had he just gone to Congress with them? His life seems alright at the minute, pontificating on surveillance from Kim Philby's flat.

[Kikó]

He has to live in Russia.

[Spoonsky]

There's no way that any politician that collaborated with him would avoid having their careers destroyed. Bernie Sanders probably would have been the most sympathetic (the only vote against the Patriotic Act fwiw), so I guess it's a good thing he didn't go that route.

[Lewis]

Ron Paul would have been the obvious one with his profile and imminent retirement.

[Pepe]

There's no way that any politician that collaborated with him would avoid having their careers destroyed. Bernie Sanders probably would have been the most sympathetic (the only vote against the Patriotic Act fwiw), so I guess it's a good thing he didn't go that route.

I don't think that is true.

[Spoonsky]

You're right, not sure where I got that from. This guy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russ_Feingold) was the only vote against it in the Senate, Bernie voted against it too but he was in the House at the time and was far from the only one.

[Toby]

And it's the Patriot Act.

[Jimmy Floyd]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/35449878/hymn-for-the-weekend-is-being-criticised-for-mis-using-indian-culture

What the fuck is 'cultural appropriation'? It sounds a lot like segregation to me.

[QE Harold Flair]

As I say, this is the future. This has all been encouraged within our universities and colleges and, where as the young people in those institutions would have been the ones fighting for free speech, they're often now the ones fighting for the curtailing and shutting down of free speech. Which is what the far left really wants.

[Pepe]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/35449878/hymn-for-the-weekend-is-being-criticised-for-mis-using-indian-culture

What the fuck is 'cultural appropriation'? It sounds a lot like segregation to me.

http://everydayfeminism.com/2015/06/cultural-appropriation-wrong/

[Lewis]

It's another term for human development.

[Alan Shearer The 2nd]

It's bollocks. The type that hark on about it are always the professionally offended that will look for a negative twist on anything.

[Pepe]

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/02/02/oxford-activists-issue-new-demands-after-university-announces-it-wont-remove-statue


The Rhodes Must Fall protesters said they would not back down from their call to remove and relocate the Rhodes statue and outlined seven new “demands.” These include “a decolonized curriculum” and “an immediate end to the outright racism people of color face on campus.” The group is calling for “implicit bias training” for academic staff and workshops on race for all incoming students. They are calling for “a reckoning. We want Oxford to acknowledge and confront its role in the ongoing physical and ideological violence of empire. This requires an apology and increased scholarships for black students from southern Africa.”

:harold:

[Lewis]

'Our demands are non-negotiable.'
'.....'
'Fuck.'

[Jimmy Floyd]

'Campus' as a concept is what needs banning. Nobody 'on' it has ever experienced the real world.

[Pepe]

'Our demands are non-negotiable.'
'.....'
'Fuck.'

That's what happened to all of those Oberlin DEMANDS, yes.


'Campus' as a concept is what needs banning. Nobody 'on' it has ever experienced the real world.

Totally agree with this. These kids have lived all their lives inside schools (especially in America, when you can't even walk anywhere), so of course all they care about is campus-related shit, that is their universe. A bit of 'real world' would do them (and us) a lot of good.