Return of Kings

[Lewis]

They get sent them, usually if the professors agree that the paper is worthy to be peer reviewed (it costs money). So it would appear that wasn't the case here. And it's usually the case, as in the example I posted earlier, that masters theses have to amended significantly before they put to review.

They are amended constantly before they are assessed so that mistakes and methodological flaws can be detected earlier, rather than through follow-up letters and commentaries. So yeah, I bet it was put through a more robust assessment, after which three professors deemed everything to be in order.


I see you're now railing against the whole scientific method in an attempt to justify you being clearly wrong. :D They are asked to submit their own referees so the referees can also be checked (and are often named alongside the author for others to check). It's not so different to have referees on your CV, but you might not know much about that.

The peer review process is not 'the whole scientific method', so no, I am not doing that. Different journals use different review processes (the one I have recently submitted an article to for consideration did not ask me for any names, because it uses the double-blind peer review). You would know this if you were not stupid.

[QE Harold Flair]

They are amended constantly before they are assessed so that mistakes and methodological flaws can be detected earlier, rather than through follow-up letters and commentaries. So yeah, I bet it was put through a more robust assessment, after which three professors deemed everything to be in order.

Exactly, so the studies I presented have been throughj this process. Yours hasn't. Another reason the evidence I provided is more credible.




The peer review process is not 'the whole scientific method', so no, I am not doing that. Different journals use different review processes (the one I have recently submitted an article to for consideration did not ask me for any names, because it uses the double-blind peer review). You would know this if you were not stupid.

Okay, let's just say you are now criticising the whole peer review process. Every time I knock you down on something you claim, you make another more desperate claim. What article have you sent? Can I see?

[Lewis]

Exactly, so the studies I presented have been throughj this process. Yours hasn't. Another reason the evidence I provided is more credible.

If you read it more carefully, you will see that that refers to the process of writing a post-graduate thesis.


Okay, let's just say you are now criticising the whole peer review process. Every time I knock you down on something you claim, you make another more desperate claim

I'm not doing that either. I'm comparing the review processes of two journals to the review process of a university post-graduate programme.

[QE Harold Flair]

It's so desperate. Those studies I used are openly available to the scientific community and, as yet, have not been challenged by anyone (who has bothered to submit counter arguments to a journal). So at the moment, the 2002 and 2008 studies are the latest evidence.

You can compare them all you like - the only work that gets into discussion are those submitted to journals. There's a reason for that.

[Jimmy Floyd]

This debate is in itself an argument for feminism.

[Lewis]

What about unpublished PhD dissertations? The relevant literature in my immediate research area includes a few of those, because they are seen as having had a greater focus than the books that emerged from them, but I'll defer to your knowledge of how science operates.

[QE Harold Flair]

What about them? Until work enters the scientific literature it's not discussed in conferences and the like.

I thought you were doing something history/war related, anyway? Are you now backtracking from that to claim you're writing science papers?

[Pepe]

Most of what is discussed in conferences has not been through the peer-review process actually. Have you ever been to a scientific conference?

[Lewis]

You said 'the only work that gets into discussion are those submitted to journals', which would rule out unpublished doctoral work. Is that stuff not credible either then?

I don't remember saying that I was writing a science paper. Why don't you read things properly?

[John]

Exactly, so the studies I presented have been throughj this process. Yours hasn't. Another reason the evidence I provided is more credible.

Ignoring the seventy previous stopping points this shambles has had, this should have put an end to the whole thing. Conclusive proof that Harold doesn't understand the peer review process, the process of submission to a scientific journal, or basically anything else.

[Kikó]

He's been to science conferences actually.

[QE Harold Flair]

Ignoring the seventy previous stopping points this shambles has had, this should have put an end to the whole thing. Conclusive proof that Harold doesn't understand the peer review process, the process of submission to a scientific journal, or basically anything else.

So you're just going to ignore what was posted earlier? I fear it's a case of arguing against the man again.

[QE Harold Flair]

What is peer review?

Peer review is a scholarly form of review for journal articles. After an article is sent to an academic journal, the editor sends it to several peer reviewers--typically scholars in the field--for evaluation.

These peer reviewers examine the paper's methodology, literature review, and conclusions. They note the existence of bias or other flaws. The peer reviewers may accept the article, require re-writes from the authors, or reject the article.

If you are asked to find articles that are peer-reviewed, what you are really looking for are articles from a peer-reviewed journal.
NOTE: peer reviewed journals may also contain items that are not peer-reviewed, such as letters to the editor, opinion pieces, and book reviews.



Are dissertations peer reviewed?

No. While dissertations are closely supervised by a dissertation committee made up of scholars, they are still considered student work.
Dissertations are often included in scholarly writing, although they are used sparingly. If you are unsure if you can use a dissertation in your assignment or literature review, talk with your instructor or chair.


http://academicguides.waldenu.edu/peer-review

Looks like it's back to the drawing board, Lewis crew.

[Lewis]

Dissertations are often included in scholarly writing.

[QE Harold Flair]

So you just ignore the rest of it :D

Are you now willing to concede that the study you quoted was not peer reviewed, as you claim?

'If you are asked to find articles that are peer-reviewed, what you are really looking for are articles from a peer-reviewed journal.' - and idea why that might be? Tricky one.

[Pepe]

Ffs. :D

[Lewis]

What exactly do you think I've been arguing here?

[Boydy]

I was peer reviewed once. Brighton and Blackpool both said I was shit but Weston-Super-Mare said I was alright.

[QE Harold Flair]

What exactly do you think I've been arguing here?

You have been arguing that the 2009 paper is of equal credibility to the actual peer reviewed studies. You are, of course, wrong.

And you also made the claim that the 2009 study was peer reviewed, which is not the case. So that's more lies you've been caught up in.

[Jimmy Floyd]

I was peer reviewed once. Brighton and Blackpool both said I was shit but Weston-Super-Mare said I was alright.

That must have caused you some amusement.

[Lewis]

The fact it has not appeared in a journal (avoided the unpublished PhD question) is irrelevant. Unless you can find faults in its findings or methodologies, it is as credible as any related experiment. That is why dissertations 'are often included in scholarly writing'.

Post-graduate dissertations are subject to peer review in that they are forced to meet every one of the criteria listed in that definition of peer review. How do you think they are assessed if not by peer review?

[QE Harold Flair]

The fact it has not appeared in a journal (avoided the unpublished PhD question) is irrelevant.

Was never even submitted for a review. Yes, is is relevant I'm afraid. Are you now denying the facts laid out in the last links I posted?


you can find faults in its findings or methodologies, it is as credible as any related experiment. That is why dissertations 'are often included in scholarly writing'.

Yes they can be included, but they don't carry weight on their own until they are properly vetted through submission to a journal. That's because 'Peer review is ascholarly form of review for journal articles.' So you were, and are wrong, by definition.


Post-graduate dissertations are subject to peer review in that they are forced to meet every one of the criteria listed in that definition of peer review. How do you think they are assessed if not by peer review


Are dissertations peer reviewed?

No. While dissertations are closely supervised by a dissertation committee made up of scholars, they are still considered student work.

:happycry:

http://academicguides.waldenu.edu/peer-review

[Lewis]

Was never even submitted for a review. Yes, is is relevant I'm afraid. Are you now denying the facts laid out in the last links I posted?

It was continuously reviewed by her peers until it was submitted. It was peer reviewed. That Walden University have chosen to define the entire process in relation to journal articles, presumably to simplify the issue for students with no experience of either, is up to them; but yes, I dispute the 'facts' in those links. My book is currently being peer reviewed. How can that be when I haven't submitted it to a journal?


Yes they can be included, but they don't carry weight on their own until they are properly vetted through submission to a journal. That's because 'Peer review is ascholarly form of review for journal articles.' So you were, and are wrong, by definition.

Unless you can prove something wrong, or find flaws in its methodologies, everything is as credible as everything else. There is not some arbitrary scale of 'weight' applied to research depending on where it was published and who published it.


:happycry:

http://academicguides.waldenu.edu/peer-review

That would also apply to unpublished PhD dissertations completed by PhD students. Is doctoral work not credible either?

[QE Harold Flair]

It was continuously reviewed by her peers until it was submitted. It was peer reviewed. That Walden University have chosen to define the entire process in relation to journal articles, presumably to simplify the issue for students with no experience of either, is up to them; but yes, I dispute the 'facts' in those links. My book is currently being peer reviewed. How can that be when I haven't submitted it to a journal?

:chortle:

You're just completely ignoring what the definition of peer review is. Shall I post it again? I have no idea what your book is, or is about. Since you never seem to advance any details of it. In any case, a book is a different matter to a journal entry in science.


Unless you can prove something wrong, or find flaws in its methodologies, everything is as credible as everything else. There is not some arbitrary scale of 'weight' applied to research depending on where it was published and who published it.

Not if you have no qualifications to say either way. How do you determine who is right and wrong? You must, as I do, lean a bit on what the experts in the field think? And no peer reviewed refutation, as far as I can tell, has been adanced in the near decade since the last study.




That would also apply to unpublished PhD dissertations completed by PhD students. Is doctoral work not credible either?

I said it's not as credible. Or better to say it might be, but we wouldn't know until it was subjected to proper peer review. Again, if you feel they have it wrong then why don't you take it up with them?

[Lewis]

:chortle:

You're just completely ignoring what the definition of peer review is. Shall I post it again? I have no idea what your book is, or is about. Since you never seem to advance any details of it. In any case, a book is a different matter to a journal entry in science.

If something is reviewed by your peers than it has been peer reviewed. That 'peer review' has come to be associated with academic journals (and books, Walden University content writers) does not change the meaning of the words. And you're right. It's 100000 words long and has an eleven page bibliography. It's a far greater undertaking than some journal article, both for me and my peers currently engaged in reviewing it.


Not if you have no qualifications to say either way. How do you determine who is right and wrong? You must, as I do, lean a bit on what the experts in the field think? And no peer reviewed refutation, as far as I can tell, has been adanced in the near decade since the last study.

Think about the implications of what you have just said. Hardly anything would get published, because you would 'lean a bit on what the experts in the field think', so anything that sought to contradict or develop established research (such as a PhD thesis) would be dismissed as being the work of somebody less qualified. This is why people who actually conduct academic research would address the experiment instead, and argue against its findings or its methodologies, rather than dismiss it on the basis of who wrote it.


I said it's not as credible. Or better to say it might be, but we wouldn't know until it was subjected to proper peer review. Again, if you feel they have it wrong then why don't you take it up with them?

So what is more credible than a doctoral thesis?

[QE Harold Flair]

Her work has not entered the scientific literature yet. It's as simple as that.

You've also yet to say what your book is about. Despite being asked several times. You seem to have made claims to have been writing about the wars in history and now something scientific. Which is it?

And no I didn't say people in their fields lean on others, I'm saying laymen do. Which is what you and I are.



Are dissertations peer reviewed?

No. While dissertations are closely supervised by a dissertation committee made up of scholars, they are still considered student work.

[Lewis]

I haven't claimed to be writing about science (again with the reading skills), and I have posted about it in the university thread if you want to go and find out.

We are laymen when it comes to science, but somebody with a Masters degree is not. Particularly if that Masters degree was earned by conducting original research supervised and approved by experts in the field. The same goes for doctoral students, whose credibility you know you cannot write off, which is why you keep avoiding that question even though their work is subject to the same assessment (in America at least). Stop equating credibility with exposure, because no expert does so.

[QE Harold Flair]

So what do your claims about peer review in science count for, then? I think I will take the view of a university (and others) over you.

Now, for a fourth time, what is your book about?

The rest is all very nice, but you are wrong and I will directly quote it again if you make me. When I conclusively show you to be wrong you try and move on to something else.

[Lewis]

There is no universal system of peer review. Different publishers use different systems. I know how it works. You clearly do not, and quoting the guidance a university library offers its undergraduates to help them use their library is not proof of anything.

My book is about you being the stupidest man alive.

Quote what you like. You know that you cannot perform the required logical leaps to dismiss doctoral research (carried out by doctoral students), so you're just avoiding it, because you know that it would expose your entriely un-academic notions of credibility as being based on shit all.

[QE Harold Flair]

You attempted to dismiss a peer reviewed, original academic study on the basis that nobody had mentioned it elsewhere


The three professors who assessed (peer reviewed) it took it seriously



Are dissertations peer reviewed?

No. While dissertations are closely supervised by a dissertation committee made up of scholars, they are still considered student work.


https://45.media.tumblr.com/16e7401cdeb42ff555c52ba808be2cbb/tumblr_n09qy0uwMJ1t1xc0so1_400.gif

[ItalAussie]

What about them? Until work enters the scientific literature it's not discussed in conferences and the like.

I'm at a conference literally today presenting work that hasn't been published yet.

In fact, the majority of work presented at conferences is unpublished. Once it's published, everyone already knows it's out there.


EDIT: Wait, Harold is telling Lewis how academic citation and publishing works? Nice. Next you should explain to Jimmy what it's like to work in an office run by Koreans.

[QE Harold Flair]

Well this work doesn't appear to have been cited anywhere, by anyone. Or mentioned at all by anyone. That's fine, then. Okay unpublished work can be presented at conferences (it's not what I meant anyway, I meant your work won't be referred to by others as much), it was a minor point. Lewis is fundamentally wrong about what is considered peer reviewed work, as demonstrated by my continual quoting of what the university says. But we'll ignore that.

As for Lewis claiming to be an academic - he talks a lot but has failed to answer what his book is about or given any details when asked.

[ItalAussie]

Well this work doesn't appear to have been cited anywhere, by anyone. Or mentioned at all by anyone. That's fine, then. Okay unpublished work can be presented at conferences (it's not what I meant anyway, I meant your work won't be referred to by others as much), it was a minor point. Lewis is fundamentally wrong about what is considered peer reviewed work, as demonstrated by my continual quoting of what the university says. But we'll ignore that.

As for Lewis claiming to be an academic - he talks a lot but has failed to answer what his book is about or given any details when asked.
He's talked about it heaps in the uni thread, and throughout the entire process of writing and publishing. :cab:

He's posted about the entire process of his PhD and publication-writing in the uni thread, and while you're unlikely to take this as gospel, he and I have chatted quite a bit about the finer points of doing a PhD through messages along the way. If he's running a long game, it's a pretty dedicated one.

[QE Harold Flair]

Great, I've asked 4 times.

[Lewis]

I keep asking you whether doctoral dissertations (student work, and not peer reviewed according to your link for children) are credible, but you keep avoiding it.

[QE Harold Flair]

I've already answered you.

[Lewis]

I said it's not as credible. Or better to say it might be, but we wouldn't know until it was subjected to proper peer review. Again, if you feel they have it wrong then why don't you take it up with them?

Was that your answer? Because they tend to go through the same assessment procedures as the thesis you've been calling shit all weekend.

Doctoral work is not credible. Right.

[QE Harold Flair]

Was that your answer? Because they tend to go through the same assessment procedures as the thesis you've been calling shit all weekend.

Doctoral work is not credible. Right.

You really need to stop saying I say things which I don't. There's a level of credibility. When something is peer reviewed properly and in the public domain it's obviously open to much more criticism and peer review because it's available to everyone. Your woman's dissertation has only been seen by 3 qualified people, that we know of.

[Lewis]

Which is why I keep asking you to be consistent and dismiss unpublished doctoral dissertations as lacking credibility. They are only be seen by a couple of qualified people (using the same assessment procedures as the thesis), and their public exposure is limited to their university library holding a copy. They can't be credible either according to your definition.

[randomlegend]

An article which has been opened up to the scrutiny of the entire scientific community through being published would certainly carry more weight in my mind than a masters thesis which has been reviewed by a few supervisors.

That's the main point Harold is trying to make and I don't honestly see how it's so controversial.

He's not saying a Masters or Doctoral thesis are worthless - or not 'credible - just that they haven't been subject to the same level of scrutiny as published work.

EDIT: As an example, didn't the Andrew Wakefield MMR Autism stuff make it through peer review to be published in (I think) the Lancet? It wasn't until it was seen by a wider audience that it was exposed what a fucking disaster it was.

[Pepe]

If that masters thesis found results that oppose the findings of the peer-reviewed articles you cannot just ignore it because it is a master thesis though, which is what he was actually trying to do.

[randomlegend]

Of coursr not, but I think you can be wary of dismissing the findings of published research on the basis of a master's paper. She may appear to have addresses problems in the original research but it doesn't mean she didn't introduce new ones of her own.

[Pepe]

Exactly, which is why he was told that he could argue against the methodology of the research if he found something wrong with it instead of completely discarding it just because no one has referenced it since.

[randomlegend]

But he's not an expert in the field - he won't necessarily be able to see the issues. I think putting more faith in something published than unpublished - without dismissing either - is a perfectly reasonable position to take.

[Pepe]

Maybe, but he did dismiss one of them. I would say that a perfectly reasonable position would be to not act like you know what you're talking about if you don't.

[John]

But he's not an expert in the field - he won't necessarily be able to see the issues. I think putting more faith in something published than unpublished - without dismissing either - is a perfectly reasonable position to take.

That would be a reasonable position to take, but it isn't the one he did take. He dismissed the author of the unpublished study as 'Miss LinkedIn' and without even reading her work declared it 'shite'.

[randomlegend]

Yes, I just took issue with what appeared to be a suggestion that a masters thesis is just as weighty evidence as published work which has stood up to wider scrutiny, which I don't agree with.

[QE Harold Flair]

Which is why I keep asking you to be consistent and dismiss unpublished doctoral dissertations as lacking credibility. They are only be seen by a couple of qualified people (using the same assessment procedures as the thesis), and their public exposure is limited to their university library holding a copy. They can't be credible either according to your definition.

Except I haven't dismissed it as lacking credibility. I said it's not as credible. Stop blatantly trying to mosrepresent me.

[QE Harold Flair]

If that masters thesis found results that oppose the findings of the peer-reviewed articles you cannot just ignore it because it is a master thesis though, which is what he was actually trying to do.

I'm not 'ignoring it'. As a layman, like you and Lewis, I'm wondering why that hasn't been cited by anyone, and why nobody else has replicated those findings. Like I said, there are plenty of people, as evidenced even here, who would love to show that there are no innate differences.

[QE Harold Flair]

That would be a reasonable position to take, but it isn't the one he did take. He dismissed the author of the unpublished study as 'Miss LinkedIn' and without even reading her work declared it 'shite'.

I did dismiss it a little too much as first. I think it was because Tobes had previously linked what undoubtedly is a shite blog entry previous to that one. I've since made my position clear several times.

Of course let's not forget that I made Tobes completely backtrack on what the original argument was all about. We've since moved on to something pretty inconsequential to that.

[Pepe]

Well now that it's all been cleared up we can move on to something else. :thbup:

[QE Harold Flair]

It's a shame it took someone else having to say what I've been saying for 2 pages.

[Toby]

An article which has been opened up to the scrutiny of the entire scientific community through being published would certainly carry more weight in my mind than a masters thesis which has been reviewed by a few supervisors.

That's the main point Harold is trying to make and I don't honestly see how it's so controversial.


He is now, but he wrote it off entirely until Lewis lolled at him for a bit.

[Toby]

I did dismiss it a little too much as first. I think it was because Tobes had previously linked what undoubtedly is a shite blog entry previous to that one. I've since made my position clear several times.

Of course let's not forget that I made Tobes completely backtrack on what the original argument was all about. We've since moved on to something pretty inconsequential to that.

You did not, and 'we' haven't moved on to anything since you ignored my last response to you.

[Henry]

12 motherfucking pages. :D

[QE Harold Flair]

You did not, and 'we' haven't moved on to anything since you ignored my last response to you.

You conceded you were wrong as a point of fact (you tried to claim you simply overstated) on what we were originally discussing.

Do you want me to point it out again?

[Pepe]

12 motherfucking pages. :D

12 more coming now that Toby is back. :face:

[Toby]

You conceded you were wrong as a point of fact (you tried to claim you simply overstated) on what we were originally discussing.

Do you want me to point it out again?

Only to the same extent you've admitted you were wrong to "dismiss [the thesis] a little too much at first". The point I was wrong on was not the "original argument", as you are well aware. If you are not aware of that, we have literally spent 10 pages discussing nothing.

[QE Harold Flair]

Only to the same extent you've admitted you were wrong to "dismiss [the thesis] a little too much at first". The point I was wrong on was not the "original argument", as you are well aware. If you are not aware of that, we have literally spent 10 pages discussing nothing.

Fine, but the fact is I didn't even need the studies cited to prove my case.

Most of the shit has come from Lewis failing to comprehend what I've been saying. 4 times I told him the same thing.

[Lewis]

Except I haven't dismissed it as lacking credibility. I said it's not as credible. Stop blatantly trying to mosrepresent me.


I'm not 'ignoring it'. As a layman, like you and Lewis, I'm wondering why that hasn't been cited by anyone, and why nobody else has replicated those findings. Like I said, there are plenty of people, as evidenced even here, who would love to show that there are no innate differences.

So what was all this about (taken from the same page as the original link)?


Who is this author? That looks awfully like some uni student's project.


I will continue to laugh heartily at the extremely poor quality of your sources compared to mine.


Maybe her paper didn't cut the mustard. Still, we should let her know how interesting Tobes from TTH found it. That'll soften the blow of failure.


This is simply a uni student presenting a thesis - and it's obviously not gone anywhere.


These studies have not been refuted by anyone who matters.


Sounds like a complete crock of shit, I'm afraid.


Not that a linked in profile of a former uni grad is impressive.

What is more credible than a doctoral dissertation by the way?

[QE Harold Flair]

I've already answered that several times. Don't pretend I haven't.

Whatever I posted earliuer, I have told you 4 times since that the work is 'more credible'. You are deliberately ignoring what I tell you.

Most of your quotes don't even back up what you are saying. Most, which I stick by, cast a doubt on their credibility in relation to the studies I provided.

[Toby]

Fine, but the fact is I didn't even need the studies cited to prove my case.

You haven't proven anything in relation to the actual point, which was that sexism still affects people's careers choices.

[QE Harold Flair]

I've already answered that several times. Don't pretend I haven't.

Whatever I posted earlier, I have told you 4 times since that the work is 'more credible'. You are deliberately ignoring what I tell you.

[Pepe]

Not credible:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bf/Recherches_sur_les_substances_radioactives,_by_Mar ie_Curie_Wellcome_L0004975.jpg

[Lewis]

So you're saying that a journal article is 'more credible' than even a doctoral thesis?

[Pepe]

I want to see credibility rankings.

[Lewis]

1. Referenced in a YouTube video
2. Published by an academic journal
3. Mentioned in a blog
4. Mis-reported by a mainstream newspaper
5. Passed by a panel of academics

[QE Harold Flair]

So you're saying that a journal article is 'more credible' than even a doctoral thesis?

It depends what it is. In this instance, yes I am. I'd like to know your basis, as a layman, for denying it.

[Lewis]

How do you think doctoral dissertations are assessed?

[QE Harold Flair]

How do you think doctoral dissertations are assessed?

Why are you talking about doctoral dissertations? I expect they are assessed in the way which you, yourself, described for the 2009 paper.

[Lewis]

That is why. They are 'student work', which you consider to be less credible than journal articles on account of their assessment procedures. You are wrong to do so.

[randomlegend]

How do you think doctoral dissertations are assessed?

I genuinely don't know, but if it's by being assessed by a panel of academics as you've alluded to, then yeah I do think published work is weightier evidence.

Being opened up to scrutiny from the entire scientific community > being opened up to scrutiny from a small number of experts.

[Boydy]

It's only really opened up to scrutiny from the entire scientific community after it's published though.

[randomlegend]

Which is pretty much my point. Even proper bollocks research gets published (MMR -> autism paper as the example I gave), it's surviving the wider scrutiny after publishing which lends it weight over something like a doctoral thesis.

[Lewis]

Harold seems to think that the publishing process (peer review) itself confers more credibility than 'student work' and academic assessment (review by peers). If something is found to be balls after either then great, but you still have to question the actual study and not how it was assessed or who has seen it, which is his entire basis for doing so.

[QE Harold Flair]

That is why. They are 'student work', which you consider to be less credible than journal articles on account of their assessment procedures. You are wrong to do so.

No, I never said anything about them being less credible on account of their 'assessment process'. You're adding things I didn't say for your own arguments again. Imagine they both got the exact same assessment team and were both approved, but one was only seen by those 3 experts and the other was published and seen by thousands. Which one is then more credible? As a layman, which would you use to support your case?

[QE Harold Flair]

Harold seems to think that the publishing process (peer review) itself confers more credibility than 'student work' and academic assessment (review by peers). If something is found to be balls after either then great, but you still have to question the actual study and not how it was assessed or who has seen it, which is his entire basis for doing so.

No, the peer review continues after publishing. That's the point.

[Lewis]

You said that 'nobody takes it (the 2009 thesis) as credible enough to mention it', which doubts its credibility before exposure. That makes credibility about assessment procedures. Then you quoted me some student guidance that said nothing about post-publication commentary. That makes credibility about assessment procedures.

But if you're finally accepting that the assessment procedures for 'student work' are no less credible, and that credibility depends on how well studies hold up to further scrutiny, why dismiss a Masters thesis (subject to credible assessment remember) that peer reviews those studies? That is the peer review process in action, so you ought to take it seriously.

[QE Harold Flair]

which doubts its credibility before exposure

No, it doesn't. If nobody sees it as credible enough to mention before exposure then how would they have seen it? We only know of 3 people who've seen it. :happycry:

I'm saying that it hasn't been exposed to the wider scientific community and, as a layman like you, I have to think there's a reason for that. So as it currently stands, as laymen, we should take the other, published peer reviewed studies as more credible. I'm not sure how many more ways this can be spelled out.

I mean you're at it again. I'm not saying it has no credibility and dismissing it completely. I'm saying it has less credibility, simply by weight of those who have approved and seen the studies.

[Pepe]

In general, theses are as available to everyone as published papers. Either can be scrutinized by as many people.

[Lewis]

Look at what you are actually writing. 'If nobody sees it as credible enough to mention before exposure then how would they have seen it?' That says 'nobody' considers it credible regardless, because they (back to blogs again) have not mentioned it. You are equating credibility with exposure, which is about the lollest way possible to defend academic credibility, and proves that you have no idea how it works.

[randomlegend]

Pepe Unless I'm fundamentally misunderstanding, it's 'available' in the sense you can get a copy if you request it (which would mean you'd already need to know it existed).

That's hardly the same level of availability as something published in a major journal.

[Pepe]

Unless I'm fundamentally misunderstanding, it's 'available' in the sense you can get a copy if you request it (which would mean you'd already need to know it existed).

That's hardly the same level of availability as something published in a major journal.

Many theses are openly available to everyone nowadays, plus they are all indexed in the major databases. Have you checked how much access to a 'respectable' journal costs? There is a reason Lewis asks me to get papers for him.

[randomlegend]

There is a reason Lewis asks me to get papers for him.

And me!

Fair enough.

[QE Harold Flair]

In general, theses are as available to everyone as published papers. Either can be scrutinized by as many people.

Even better for me, then. Since no person seems to have used her study at all.

[QE Harold Flair]

Look at what you are actually writing. 'If nobody sees it as credible enough to mention before exposure then how would they have seen it?' That says 'nobody' considers it credible regardless, because they (back to blogs again) have not mentioned it. You are equating credibility with exposure, which is about the lollest way possible to defend academic credibility, and proves that you have no idea how it works.

No, it doesn't say that at all. Nobody, as yet, appears to have deemed it credible enough to support the theory that male/female behaviour is learned and not inherent. If you care that much (but you don't, remember?) then why don't you put it to the authors of the studies? Like I say, given the amount of people who push this agenda, don't you find that a little odd? So, as things stand, and given that you're a layman and so am I, the weight of the evidence is in favour of what I say. Because that is what is in the scientific literature and that is what has been opened to the scientific community thorugh the proper means. Deal with it.

[ItalAussie]

No, the peer review continues after publishing. That's the point.

That's not what "peer review" means. In academia, peer review is describing the publishing process.

[randomlegend]

Is this the worst thread of all time?

[ItalAussie]

Is this the worst thread of all time?

It's not something that any of us can be proud of. :D

[John]

Not even close.

There was one on the old board for good looking fourteen year old girls for a start.

[randomlegend]

I mean one which not only Magic posted in.

[QE Harold Flair]

That's not what "peer review" means. In academia, peer review is describing the publishing process.

I mean in effect, not technically.

[Lewis]

No, it doesn't say that at all. Nobody, as yet, appears to have deemed it credible enough to support the theory that male/female behaviour is learned and not inherent. If you care that much (but you don't, remember?) then why don't you put it to the authors of the studies? Like I say, given the amount of people who push this agenda, don't you find that a little odd? So, as things stand, and given that you're a layman and so am I, the weight of the evidence is in favour of what I say. Because that is what is in the scientific literature and that is what has been opened to the scientific community thorugh the proper means. Deal with it.

There it is again. It has not been cited elsewhere, so nobody has 'deemed it credible enough'. I don't care about the layman or any 'agenda'. The three professors who approved it in accordance with established academic standards deemed it 'credible enough', and, whether nobody or everybody reads it, it will remain 'credible enough' until somebody proves otherwise. That is how it works.

[QE Harold Flair]

Right, that's correct. Have you seen it anywhere? No? Why not? Just answer why you think that is.

[Lewis]

I don't know why people have ignored such a credible study, but fortunately its credibility was assured before then.

[QE Harold Flair]

Would it be more credible if 1000 experts saw no errors, do you think? As RL has indicated, some work which is 'credible' in the sense you claim will only be found not to be so through a proper peer review and publication process.

[Boydy]

Please, just stop. I'm begging you.

And you'll probably say 'you don't have to read it!' but I feel too invested after all this time to stop now.

[Toby]

Harold could really have just read it by now instead of spending all this time attempting to justify why he hasn't.

[Lewis]

Three experts failed to find any errors when they deemed it credible enough. I'm happy with that.

[QE Harold Flair]

Harold could really have just read it by now instead of spending all this time attempting to justify why he hasn't.

I could have but, like you, I'm a layman in the field. Her criticisms may or may not be valid, but as things stand the scientific literature shows my case to be the prevailing view.

If I read the 58 pages and then come back and said 'no, don't agree', would it really make any difference to you? Of course not.

[QE Harold Flair]

Three experts failed to find any errors when they deemed it credible enough. I'm happy with that.

I think we've been over this several hundreds of times. Nice avoiding of the question, though.

[Toby]

Not if that was all you said, no. Even laymen should be able to muster more than that. I will remember this layman line for next time you bang on about drugs though.

[QE Harold Flair]

Get to fuck, it would make no difference what I said. I've already proven my case on the main point, anyway. And given that it's conclusive that we do have different biology and that affects behaviour, it's hardly shocking that the evidence of these studies is in favour of that.

And fine by me, since I will only be debating other laymen.

[Toby]

You're still dodging responses to the "main point" in favour of all this bickering.

[QE Harold Flair]

Responses such as what? You've already conceded what I was saying.

[Lewis]

I answered it by referring to academic standards. What if a thousand experts don't find errors but one person does, and that one person is right? Do you go with the multitude and their 'weight', or do you go with whoever can actually prove the methodology and findings to be flawed?

[QE Harold Flair]

I answered it by referring to academic standards. What if a thousand experts don't find errors but one person does, and that one person is right? Do you go with the multitude and their 'weight', or do you go with whoever can actually prove the methodology and findings to be flawed?

Then that's great, but what are the chances of 1,000 experts checking it as opposed to 1, and the 1 finding it? Which is more likely? Think hard.

[Toby]

Responses such as what? You've already conceded what I was saying.

I'll end up repeating it as much as you've said "layman" if you continue this lying but, I have not.

[QE Harold Flair]

I'll end up repeating it as much as you've said "layman" if you continue this lying but, I have not.

I'm not lying. I am the one who constantly responds to everything. If you don't repost it then I have no idea what you're on about. Whatever it is, you've already conceded to my main point so I'm thinking it won't change much, unless it somehow shows that:

a) testosterone is not biologcal
b) that boys do not have substantially more testosterone than girls
c) that testosterone has no affects on behaviour


If you can show any of those are true then you have won this fascinating battle. Otherwise, you are done.

[Lewis]

What if a thousand say it's right, but a thousand and one say it's balls? What if a thousand read it, think it's balls, but say nothing? What if a thousand read it, agree with it, but decide to just say it's shite without engaging with it? What if a thousand people spontaneously-combust trying to download it?

One way of avoiding basing notions of credibility on wot Harold finks is by developing a system of universally-recognised academic qualifications, with thorough assessment procedures, that confer credibility by failing to find flaws in the methodologies and their findings. Then it's up to other people to prove otherwise.

[QE Harold Flair]

What if a thousand say it's right, but a thousand and one say it's balls? What if a thousand read it, think it's balls, but say nothing? What if a thousand read it, agree with it, but decide to just say it's shite without engaging with it? What if a thousand people spontaneously-combust trying to download it?

One way of avoiding basing notions of credibility on wot Harold finks is by developing a system of universally-recognised academic qualifications, with thorough assessment procedures, that confer credibility by failing to find flaws in the methodologies and their findings. Then it's up to other people to prove otherwise.


None of those what ifs mean anything. The chances of 1 random expert spotting something that another 1000 reandom experts miss is minute.

We already have a way of testing credibility, and of course dissertations are merely regarded as 'student work' until they have been submitted to actual peer review and not what you define as peer review to be to suit your own ends. I know you don't want to give up here but you've been thoroughly shown up.

I'll just remind you again, in case you forgot:



Are dissertations peer reviewed?

No. While dissertations are closely supervised by a dissertation committee made up of scholars, they are still considered student work.
Dissertations are often included in scholarly writing, although they are used sparingly. If you are unsure if you can use a dissertation in your assignment or literature review, talk with your instructor or chair.


http://academicguides.waldenu.edu/peer-review

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-VfP_1TLizQ0/UPcrM7USUlI/AAAAAAAAESQ/_45SkZ_5kc4/s1600/1298407_o.gif
(http://academicguides.waldenu.edu/peer-review)

[Pepe]

Has that statement been peer-reviewed? Why are you giving it so much credibility?

[QE Harold Flair]

Can you say that in Spanish? Maybe it will come out as you intended.

[Lewis]

No, the peer review continues after publishing. That's the point.


That's not what "peer review" means. In academia, peer review is describing the publishing process.


I mean in effect, not technically.

How exactly are you defining peer review at this moment in time?

[QE Harold Flair]

Ah yes, defeated on aspect so turn to the other. Not very scholarly. If it defines the publishing process, as in a work being submitted to a peer reviewed journal, then I'm still correct.

Regardless of this, we know that dissertations are not peer reviewed, so whatever else you have to say, you have been conclusively rubbished on that claim.

[John]

People who graduate from some courses at Walden University aren't even licensed to work in their fields. It's a partially accredited online university, so repeatedly offering up their word as the gospel on what is and isn't peer reviewed isn't doing you any favours.

Again, this is the sort of semantic shittery you're pulled up on all the time. Continually trying to redefine words and phrases so that you can go back later and retroactively change the meaning of something you've said.

[Pepe]

People who graduate from some courses at Walden University aren't even licensed to work in their fields. It's a partially accredited online university, so repeatedly offering up their word as the gospel on what is and isn't peer reviewed isn't doing you any favours.

That's the beauty of it. A masters thesis is shite but the first thing that comes up in a Google search is as credible as it gets (if it agrees with him.)

[QE Harold Flair]

People who graduate from some courses at Walden University aren't even licensed to work in their fields. It's a partially accredited online university, so repeatedly offering up their word as the gospel on what is and isn't peer reviewed isn't doing you any favours.

Again, this is the sort of semantic shittery you're pulled up on all the time. Continually trying to redefine words and phrases so that you can go back later and retroactively change the meaning of something you've said.

Find me a different take, then? Do you know better? I haven't redefined anything. I simply typed into google 'is a dissertation considered as peer reviewed' and that was the answer. Even though 'some people' who graduate from Walden aren't even licensed to work in their fields (how long have you been searching for that? :D), I'd expect their 'academic guides' section to be slighly more in the know than John from TTH.

[QE Harold Flair]

That's the beauty of it. A masters thesis is shite but the first thing that comes up in a Google search is as credible as it gets (if it agrees with him.)

The real shite here is that every time I prove my case it gets moved on to some other minute detail. And everyone falls silent on the fact I demolished Toby with sheer logic and evidence. The minute you think there's a chink in the Harold armour you're all here posting one after the other in support of each other. It's pretty pathetic, really.

[Toby]

I'm not lying. I am the one who constantly responds to everything. If you don't repost it then I have no idea what you're on about. Whatever it is, you've already conceded to my main point so I'm thinking it won't change much, unless it somehow shows that:

a) testosterone is not biologcal
b) that boys do not have substantially more testosterone than girls
c) that testosterone has no affects on behaviour


If you can show any of those are true then you have won this fascinating battle. Otherwise, you are done.

That isn't being debated, as you know. That you keep hammering away at that strawman suggests to me you don't have much response to the actual argument. My last post was this:


Fucking hell.

Let's break this down in a manner you might understand, to borrow the style of your earlier testosterone post.

FACT #1: The past century has seen the removal of cultural barriers for women and increased rights within society.
FACT #2: This has coincided with more women in the workplace, more women in jobs traditionally associated with men, and more men in jobs traditionally associated with women.
FACT #3: Measures to encourage women to take up career paths and areas of study in which men are more prevalent have succeeded in reducing the ratio of men to women. This is evidence that removal of cultural barriers encourages women to take on roles traditionally associated with men.
FACT #4: Girls and young women in modern society still believe that sexism affects their future career choices.

Your view that current gender ratios are a purely a reflection of natural preference simply doesn't stand up in the face of such a dramatically changing picture over the past few decades. The removal of cultural barriers has very clearly brought more women into traditionally male dominated careers. Therefore, in a culture without sexism - or in more realistic terms, further reduced sexism - it is plausible that more women would take on those roles, and more men would take on traditionally female roles. This is a very simple point, and yet you seem to struggle with the idea that there is nuance beyond MEN HAVE TESTOSTERONE YOU IDIOT.

Imagine Arsenal's 2003/04 team had lost Henry for the season, and had not gone unbeaten, but had won the title. They're still champions, only not by the same margin and not to such acclaim. Are they the best team in the country? Yes. Are they as good as they would have been with Henry? No. This thread would be like reacting to somebody saying, "imagine what it would have been like had they had Henry" with, "YOU FUCKING IDIOT, THEY'RE CHAMPIONS OF ENGLAND" and posting a load of Pires' goal tallies to demonstrate how good they were.

Now, to ask a simple question that I can repeat over and over if you do not answer it, do you believe that the known differences between males and females justify career gender ratios exactly as we currently see them? If you do not, we are in agreement that cultural factors play a part.

[Lewis]

Ah yes, defeated on aspect so turn to the other. Not very scholarly. If it defines the publishing process, as in a work being submitted to a peer reviewed journal, then I'm still correct.

Regardless of this, we know that dissertations are not peer reviewed, so whatever else you have to say, you have been conclusively rubbished on that claim.

To get something into a peer reviewed publication it normally gets reviewed by two people, who then send back a list of criticisms that you have to adequately explain prior to publication. That is also how dissertations ('student work') are assessed (normally more on some American programmes). I know that because that is how mine was assessed. Writing can only gain exposure after the peer review process has taken place. So either:

1. The peer review process itself confers credibility, in which case anything which has gone through similar assessment procedures is equally credible until proven otherwise
2. Credibility depends on the amount of people who read something without bothering to write a correction (logically-speaking, the credibility of which would depend on it being read by more people than the original article)

[QE Harold Flair]

That isn't being debated, as you know. That you keep hammering away at that strawman suggests to me you don't have much response to the actual argument.

That's exactly what was being debated. You cast doubt on wherehte innate biological differences had any part to play at all.


My last post was this:



Now, to ask a simple question that I can repeat over and over if you do not answer it, do you believe that the known differences between males and females justify career gender ratios exactly as we currently see them? If you do not, we are in agreement that cultural factors play a part.

Haven't I already said that socialisation does play a part? I don't deny something as obvious as evironment playing a part in who you become. You are the one who doubted any role for biological influence and, as demonstrated above, I conclusively proved that doubt to be unfounded.

[QE Harold Flair]

To get something into a peer reviewed publication it normally gets reviewed by two people, who then send back a list of criticisms that you have to adequately explain prior to publication. That is also how dissertations ('student work') are assessed (normally more on some American programmes). I know that because that is how mine was assessed. Writing can only gain exposure after the peer review process has taken place. So either:

1. The peer review process itself confers credibility, in which case anything which has gone through similar assessment procedures is equally credible until proven otherwise
2. Credibility depends on the amount of people who read something without bothering to write a correction (logically-speaking, the credibility of which would depend on it being read by more people than the original article)

Right, and where do we stand on these studies right now? Mine have been entered into a peer reviewed journal and yours hasn't. Mine are actually part of the scientific literature, your are now, as they are 'student work' and have not been published. I notice you didn't bother answering my question about probability.

[Toby]

The original argument was that sexism affects people's career choices. The stuff about biological differences came after and was not at all the main thrust of the argument. At least we have finally reached a point of agreement.

[QE Harold Flair]

It used to, yes. Now? I don't think so. There are no barriers to anyone wanting to do anything (in this country, at least). The environment now is full of 'ism' and 'phobia' and quotas. It's going the other way if anything.

Perhaps 'feminism' has made an environment where women feel that simply raising a family and having no career is no longer acceptable? Ever thought of that? It works both ways.

[Toby]

http://i.imgur.com/OmQ7dAW.gif

[QE Harold Flair]

Yes, we will go round in circles if you continually make the same points which I have already answered.

[Toby]

I meant more that we've come full circle with you pretty much repeating the original point that started this whole thing, as if anybody was unclear that was your position.

[randomlegend]

I don't honestly feel like either sex was under any gender-specific pressure regarding their choices when I was at school. Both genders did all sorts. The only thing really skewed would be that no girls did physics A-level (there were only about 5 overall) but I can't imagine anyone would have batted an eyelid if they had. Maths was about 50/50.

Presumably that means I fuck animals as well.

Can a couple of people peer-review that for me?

[QE Harold Flair]

I mark that an A* assessment.

[randomlegend]

I haven't had an A* since A-level, what a feeling :)

[QE Harold Flair]

Don't get too excited, my fellow peer reviewers are likely to be socially conditioned to the point of full emasculation.

[Henry]

https://pixabay.com/static/uploads/photo/2014/05/03/00/09/wall-of-bricks-336546_960_720.jpg

Sums it up well too.

[QE Harold Flair]

I'm fairly certain Henry in bold letters has thoroughly gone through this thread to come to that conclusion.

[Henry]

Not all of it, no. I'm not subjecting myself to that.

[Pepe]

I don't honestly feel like either sex was under any gender-specific pressure regarding their choices when I was at school. Both genders did all sorts. The only thing really skewed would be that no girls did physics A-level (there were only about 5 overall) but I can't imagine anyone would have batted an eyelid if they had. Maths was about 50/50.

Presumably that means I fuck animals as well.

Can a couple of people peer-review that for me?

Well if you couldn't feel it in your school or couldn't imagine it being the case then it must not exist.

[QE Harold Flair]

Well if you couldn't feel it in your school or couldn't imagine it being the case then it must not exist.

Latest results show that white boys are doing far worse than any other demographic. Are whites oppressed?

[Toby]

I don't honestly feel like either sex was under any gender-specific pressure regarding their choices when I was at school. Both genders did all sorts. The only thing really skewed would be that no girls did physics A-level (there were only about 5 overall) but I can't imagine anyone would have batted an eyelid if they had. Maths was about 50/50.

As I said when Harold suggested a similar thing: that's brilliant if true, and I mean that sincerely. Sadly it's not the case everywhere. I know plenty of girls who were discouraged from doing certain classes/courses because of perceived sexism, either from authority figures in their lives who put them off of it (the "oh but isn't that a boys thing?" sort of comments) or within the culture of that setting (so not wanting to be the only girl in a Physics class full of boys). It seems minor and yes, if they really wanted to do it they would overcome that, but as I said a while back I think it can be insidious and people maybe don't realise how much it is affecting their decisions until after the chance has gone.

Then again, maybe we just write it all off as people rewriting history to compensate for bad choices. It's obviously impossible to know for certain.

[QE Harold Flair]

I find that pretty hard to believe.

[Pepe]

Latest results show that white boys are doing far worse than any other demographic. Are whites oppressed?

Doing far worse in what? I do not think they are oppressed, no.

As for sexism, I think it still exists and it still affects career choices. However, it is on the way out. I think what needs to be done institutionally has mostly been done and now all that's left is to wait for time to do its thing.

[Toby]

I find that pretty hard to believe.

A stunning revelation.



As for sexism, I think it still exists and it still affects career choices. However, it is on the way out. I think what needs to be done institutionally has mostly been done and now all that's left is to wait for time to do its thing.

I'd largely agree with this.

[QE Harold Flair]

A stunning revelation.

Well unless it was said in a jokey sort of way. But who would that put off? Nobody.

And not wanting to go into a group full of the other sex isn't sexism. It's just wanting to be with people similar to you.

[QE Harold Flair]

Doing far worse in what? I do not think they are oppressed, no.

At school. And why not? If this were black girls you would think differently, wouldn't you?

[Toby]

Well unless it was said in a jokey sort of way. But who would that put off? Nobody.

Cool. Really interesting insight to the mind's of other people there.

[Lewis]

Right, and where do we stand on these studies right now? Mine have been entered into a peer reviewed journal and yours hasn't. Mine are actually part of the scientific literature, your are now, as they are 'student work' and have not been published. I notice you didn't bother answering my question about probability.

The point of academic assessment/peer review is that they strive to remove subjective shit like 'probability' from notions of credibility. Otherwise studies would just be stuck on 'livescience' and then approved if they can reach a thousand hits without somebody correcting them.

Why are you now trying to equate credibility with publication?

[QE Harold Flair]

Cool. Really interesting insight to the mind's of other people there.

If a joke like that put someone off it's becasue they're weak minded and lack determination.

[QE Harold Flair]

The point of academic assessment/peer review is that they strive to remove subjective shit like 'probability' from notions of credibility. Otherwise studies would just be stuck on 'livescience' and then approved if they can reach a thousand hits without somebody correcting them.

Why are you now trying to equate credibility with publication?

You know why, since I continually tell you. Why are you so disengenuous?

If it's published to the wider scientific community it gets a more vigorous examination. That's the point of the 1000 vs 1 argument. I'm not saying the 1 can't be right, but the 1000 experts are much more likely to be. This is basic stuff.

[Pepe]

At school. And why not? If this were black girls you would think differently, wouldn't you?

Not necessarily, no.

[QE Harold Flair]

Not necessarily, no.

Okay, then!

[Toby]

If a joke like that put someone off it's becasue they're weak minded and lack determination.

Yeah, I touched on that in the post you quote as I knew somebody would say it.

It's impossible to argue against such comments because there's no way of proving what sort of effect it has on people, beyond deciding whether or not to take their word for it. Like I've touched upon a few times now, I don't think it's the sort of thing where one joke blows their whole life plan to smithereens, but rather being part of a culture that discourages them from that well before they actively think about it. If you have parents or teachers or other authority figures in your life who believe in those sort of round peg gender roles, some of it is probably going to rub off on you, whether you realise or not. I think it's sometimes not until people get away from that sort of culture that they look back and realise the effect it had on them.

[QE Harold Flair]

Well like you say, it's impossible to prove. It means you can continue to label 'sexist' whatever you want. It's an ideological view. And again, I could just as easily make the claim that modern feminist thinking is 'going to rub off on you, whether you know it or not'. Maybe that's why you are the way you are? It works both ways, if true.

Now leaving that aside, and since you have conceded we are different biologically - isn't it only logical to say that those differences will manifest themselves in terms of society and career choices? I can't see an argument against this.

[Kikó]

I think the BBC was reporting that there is still a 14% pay difference between men and women in this country which increased to around 35% at board level. But then it's probably not due to ingrained sexism.

[Toby]

Well like you say, it's impossible to prove. It means you can continue to label 'sexist' whatever you want. It's an ideological view. And again, I could just as easily make the claim that modern feminist thinking is 'going to rub off on you, whether you know it or not'. Maybe that's why you are the way you are? It works both ways, if true.

Now leaving that aside, and since you have conceded we are different biologically - isn't it only logical to say that those differences will manifest themselves in terms of society and career choices? I can't see an argument against this.

You have continually ignored my arguments on that point so until you bother to engage with them I see no point going further.

[QE Harold Flair]

I think the BBC was reporting that there is still a 14% pay difference between men and women in this country which increased to around 35% at board level. But then it's probably not due to ingrained sexism.

The pay gap is a complete myth. Women on boards don't do as well, researchj shows. So that might explain why they get paid less. And the pay gap, so called, does not take into account the fact that men work longer hours, take less holidays, take less time off fopr their kids etc. I will unleash a Milo video on you if you don't stop this lie.

[QE Harold Flair]

You have continually ignored my arguments on that point so until you bother to engage with them I see no point going further.

How have I ignored them? There's a difference between disagreeing with your claim and ignoring it. How can I argue against something you say isn't knowable?

[Lewis]

You know why, since I continually tell you. Why are you so disengenuous?

If it's published to the wider scientific community it gets a more vigorous examination. That's the point of the 1000 vs 1 argument. I'm not saying the 1 can't be right, but the 1000 experts are much more likely to be. This is basic stuff.

Oh yes, the 1000 vs 1 argument. The foundation of all academic assessment. It actually says on my doctorate 'conditional until a thousand people have read it'.

[Henry]

Why are you people still engaging with this imbecile?

[QE Harold Flair]

Oh yes, the 1000 vs 1 argument. The foundation of all academic assessment. It actually says on my doctorate 'conditional until a thousand people have read it'.

I never said it's the foundation of anything.

[Toby]

How have I ignored them? There's a difference between disagreeing with your claim and ignoring it. How can I argue against something you say isn't knowable?

You haven't even acknowledged them, so it's not really disagreeing.

[QE Harold Flair]

Why are you people still engaging with this imbecile?

That's 3 times you've made posts like this. You either state why this is the case or go away.

[QE Harold Flair]

You haven't even acknowledged them, so it's not really disagreeing.

Yes, because I disagree with them.

[QE Harold Flair]

For Keeks, love Harold:


MYTH 5: Women earn 77 cents for every dollar a man earns—for doing the same work.

FACTS: No matter how many times this wage gap claim is decisively refuted by economists (http://www.consad.com/content/reports/Gender%20Wage%20Gap%20Final%20Report.pdf), it always comes back. The bottom line: the 23-cent gender pay gap is simply the difference between the average earnings of all men and women working full-time. It does not account for differences in occupations, positions, education, job tenure or hours worked per week. When such relevant factors (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/01/no-women-don-t-make-less-money-than-men.html) are considered, the wage gap narrows (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christina-hoff-sommers/wage-gap_b_2073804.html) to the point of vanishing.
Wage gap activists say women with identical backgrounds and jobs as men still earn less. But they always (http://www.aei-ideas.org/2014/04/once-you-impose-the-ceteris-paribus-condition-the-alleged-23-gender-pay-gap-starts-to-evaporate/) fail to take into account critical variables. Activist groups like the National Organization for Women have a fallback position: that women’s education and career choices are not truly free—they are driven by powerful sexist stereotypes. In this view, women’s tendency to retreat from the workplace to raise children or to enter fields like early childhood education and psychology, rather than better paying professions like petroleum engineering, is evidence of continued social coercion. Here is the problem: American women are among the best informed and most self-determining human beings in the world. To say that they are manipulated into their life choices by forces beyond their control is divorced from reality and demeaning, to boot.

Why do these reckless claims have so much appeal and staying power? For one thing, there is a lot of statistical illiteracy among journalists, feminist academics and political leaders. There is also an admirable human tendency to be protective of women—stories of female exploitation are readily believed, and vocal skeptics risk appearing indifferent to women’s suffering. Finally, armies of advocates depend on “killer stats” to galvanize their cause. But killer stats obliterate distinctions between more and less serious problems and send scarce resources in the wrong directions. They also promote bigotry. The idea that American men are annually enslaving more than 100,000 girls, sending millions of women to emergency rooms, sustaining a rape culture and cheating women out of their rightful salary creates rancor in true believers and disdain in those who would otherwise be sympathetic allies.

My advice to women’s advocates: Take back the truth.


http://time.com/3222543/5-feminist-myths-that-will-not-die/

[Lewis]

Why are you now trying to equate credibility with publication?


You know why, since I continually tell you. Why are you so disengenuous?

If it's published to the wider scientific community it gets a more vigorous examination. That's the point of the 1000 vs 1 argument. I'm not saying the 1 can't be right, but the 1000 experts are much more likely to be. This is basic stuff.

The basis for credibility, which must mean you've completely divorced the concept from academic assessment (aka peer review).

[simon]

Somebody end it. Please.

[Toby]

Address the bits you disagree with then.



Let's break this down in a manner you might understand, to borrow the style of your earlier testosterone post.

FACT #1: The past century has seen the removal of cultural barriers for women and increased rights within society.
FACT #2: This has coincided with more women in the workplace, more women in jobs traditionally associated with men, and more men in jobs traditionally associated with women.
FACT #3: Measures to encourage women to take up career paths and areas of study in which men are more prevalent have succeeded in reducing the ratio of men to women. This is evidence that removal of cultural barriers encourages women to take on roles traditionally associated with men.
FACT #4: Girls and young women in modern society still believe that sexism affects their future career choices.

Your view that current gender ratios are a purely a reflection of natural preference simply doesn't stand up in the face of such a dramatically changing picture over the past few decades. The removal of cultural barriers has very clearly brought more women into traditionally male dominated careers. Therefore, in a culture without sexism - or in more realistic terms, further reduced sexism - it is plausible that more women would take on those roles, and more men would take on traditionally female roles. This is a very simple point, and yet you seem to struggle with the idea that there is nuance beyond MEN HAVE TESTOSTERONE YOU IDIOT.

Imagine Arsenal's 2003/04 team had lost Henry for the season, and had not gone unbeaten, but had won the title. They're still champions, only not by the same margin and not to such acclaim. Are they the best team in the country? Yes. Are they as good as they would have been with Henry? No. This thread would be like reacting to somebody saying, "imagine what it would have been like had they had Henry" with, "YOU FUCKING IDIOT, THEY'RE CHAMPIONS OF ENGLAND" and posting a load of Pires' goal tallies to demonstrate how good they were.

[QE Harold Flair]

The basis for credibility, which must mean you've completely divorced the concept from academic assessment (aka peer review).

In this instance, where we are all laymen, yes.

Peer review, as defined, it was not. You keep ignoring this. Theses are not considered as being peer reviewed.

[QE Harold Flair]

Address the bits you disagree with then.

'Your view that current gender ratios are a purely a reflection of natural preference'

I never said they were. I said by and large you would expect something simi9lar to what we see now. I agreed there used to be sexism. I'm saying there isn't now. Or not sufficiently enough to make the claims you do. Of course some people will always be twats and, as humans, we are always going to have in groups and out groups, but that works both ways (the men on television are nearly always the 'idiots', for example). This isn't what I would call 'sexism'.

[Toby]

'Your view that current gender ratios are a purely a reflection of natural preference'

I never said they were. I said by and large you would expect something simi9lar to what we see now. I agreed there used to be sexism. I'm saying there isn't now. Or not sufficiently enough to make the claims you do. Of course some people will always be twats and, as humans, we are always going to have in groups and out groups, but that works both ways (the men on television are nearly always the 'idiots', for example). This isn't what I would call 'sexism'.

Okay, so your view is that biological differences largely account for gender ratios as they currently are. For how long has this been the case? Would you have said the same five years ago? Ten? At what point did we go from it being a problem to largely being okay? And what do you make of the fact that male:female ratios in certain areas (maths, for an example already used) decreasing?

[QE Harold Flair]

We can't say for sure. But I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be the case. And I can't put an exact date on it but I would say since equality was achieved in law, and shortly thereafter.

The maths ratio decreasing is probably a result of a drive to get more women into maths. So positive discrimination, really.

[Toby]

It's hardly 'positive discrimination' to simply encourage a group to take part. They aren't getting cash incentives (in this country at least) or being given preferential treatment in the admissions process. You say that point would have been reached shortly after equality was achieved in law but that is clearly a nonsense point, given how much things have changed since then.

I don't suppose it's something we'll ever agree on but I don't think it's an unfair view that gender ratios will continue to converge in most careers, whether they are currently dominated by men or women. I don't see any indication that we've reached a point where things won't change any further, so I think there's more evidence to suggest the trends will continue for now.

[Lewis]

In this instance, where we are all laymen, yes.

Peer review, as defined, it was not. You keep ignoring this. Theses are not considered as being peer reviewed.

Peer review (as the words suggest) is review by peers. That is how academic assessment works. What you mean is they are not published. Fine, if you want to base notions of credibility on that and what a thousand other idiots might think; but nobody who knows what they are dealing with (by which I mean research in general, not monkey science) would.

[Henry]

Somebody end it. Please.

I'm considering it, but then I did start it....

:D

[QE Harold Flair]

It's hardly 'positive discrimination' to simply encourage a group to take part. They aren't getting cash incentives (in this country at least) or being given preferential treatment in the admissions process. You say that point would have been reached shortly after equality was achieved in law but that is clearly a nonsense point, given how much things have changed since then.

I don't suppose it's something we'll ever agree on but I don't think it's an unfair view that gender ratios will continue to converge in most careers, whether they are currently dominated by men or women. I don't see any indication that we've reached a point where things won't change any further, so I think there's more evidence to suggest the trends will continue for now.

It's social engineering, isn't it? If you're encouraging a group to take part then you're inbalancing the natural inclination.

[Lewis]

I'm considering it, but then I did start it....

:D

Speaking of the original topic, 'Roosh' has decided to identify himself as a men's rights activist because 'MRA's [sic] were the first to throw me under the bus in the meetup outrage'.

[QE Harold Flair]

Peer review (as the words suggest) is review by peers. That is how academic assessment works. What you mean is they are not published. Fine, if you want to base notions of credibility on that and what a thousand other idiots might think; but nobody who knows what they are dealing with (by which I mean research in general, not monkey science) would.

How many more times shall we say the same thinbgs to each other? Find me one source which states that an unpublished dissertation is as credible as a published, peer reviewed article.

[QE Harold Flair]

Speaking of the original topic, 'Roosh' has decided to identify himself as a men's rights activist because 'MRA's [sic] were the first to throw me under the bus in the meetup outrage'.

Another victory for me as, if you remember, I stated the MRA wanted nothing to do with him.

It's been a good week. :chortle:

[Toby]

It's social engineering, isn't it? If you're encouraging a group to take part then you're inbalancing the natural inclination.

As you might have guessed, no I don't agree that it's imbalancing anything. Sexism is far guiltier of that, given that encouraging girls to take up STEM subjects needn't mean discouraging boys. We don't know the extent of the difference in "natural inclination", so it seems far safer to me to just ignore it and encourage everybody to do what they like. That false, or at best inadequately supported, beliefs about males being naturally superior in these areas have been around for so long - despite the evidence to the country, as summarised in the (peer reviewed) literature review I posted a while back - suggests to me some measures to say "hey girls are welcome too" isn't really the end of the world.

lol at calling social engineering, you dramatist.

[QE Harold Flair]

If I agree with your assertion that sexism exists in any real way towards women, yes. But, here in the UK, I don't. Encourage everybody to do what they like sounds quite a lot like what I believe - just let people get on with it. Encouraging everyone to do what they like is no different to encouraging nobody, surely? It will have the exact same effect. Girls and boys will still choose to do what they feel naturally drawn towards, either way.

I was hesitant to label it in such a way as it brings forth nazi-like images, but I couldn't think of a good alternative.

[Lewis]

How many more times shall we say the same thinbgs to each other? Find me one source which states that an unpublished dissertation is as credible as a published, peer reviewed article.

My source is me, because I have first-hand experience of all of this. Being a layman, why do you doubt me? Why not put your faith in the credibility of me and my recognised qualifications?

[QE Harold Flair]

My source is me, because I have first-hand experience of all of this. Being a layman, why do you doubt me? Why not put your faith in the credibility of me and my recognised qualifications?

So you say, but I have better sources. Peer review doesn't work the same in all fields. I'm not sure other fields require you to submit to peer reviewed journals. Perhaps you, as the non-layman, can set me straight on that?

And you also have no qualifications as the last I heard you were still studying and still trying to get work published. Is that correct?

[randomlegend]

encourage everybody to do what they like.

Encouraging people to do what they like and actively encouraging girls to do maths/physics/etc (I may be wrong but it seems to be the suggestion that this is happening) are two different things.

[Pepe]

In this instance, where we are all laymen, yes.

Peer review, as defined by the library of the quite excellent Walden University, it was not. You keep ignoring this. Theses are not considered as being peer reviewed by the library of the quite excellent Walden University.

:thbup:

[randomlegend]

Well if you couldn't feel it in your school or couldn't imagine it being the case then it must not exist.

Hence the peer review joke.

[Lewis]

So you say, but I have better sources. Peer review doesn't work the same in all fields. I'm not sure other fields require you to submit to peer reviewed journals. Perhaps you, as the non-layman, can set me straight on that?

And you also have no qualifications as the last I heard you were still studying and still trying to get work published. Is that correct?

People who write content for university web pages? Why are they better sources than me (I have a doctorate in History)?

Every field has peer review in its journals (how can you have this discussion without knowing that?), hence my experience of it. My student dissertation was also peer reviewed, and is currently only available via my old university library until July/August when it will finally gain credibility by costing money.

[Toby]

If I agree with your assertion that sexism exists in any real way towards women, yes. But, here in the UK, I don't. Encourage everybody to do what they like sounds quite a lot like what I believe - just let people get on with it. Encouraging everyone to do what they like is no different to encouraging nobody, surely? It will have the exact same effect. Girls and boys will still choose to do what they feel naturally drawn towards, either way.

I was hesitant to label it in such a way as it brings forth nazi-like images, but I couldn't think of a good alternative.

Everyone is encouraged. There are schemes all around the country promoting STEM courses. There's just an added focus on communicating to girls that it's not only for boys. And why not? That doesn't discourage boys in anyway. There's also no real evidence of cultural barriers to boys taking on STEM courses, whereas girls at the very least perceive sexism to stand in the way.


Encouraging people to do what they like and actively encouraging girls to do maths/physics/etc (I may be wrong but it seems to be the suggestion that this is happening) are two different things.

Not hugely, in my eyes. Doing that isn't discouraging anybody from doing anything else. It's just recognising that for whatever reason - I think it is cultural and the views of young people surveyed would in my view support that - girls need a bit more encouragement than boys. We do still live in a society where views like Harold's - that boys are naturally superior at things like maths - are commonly held, and so I don't think it's unreasonable that girls need a bit more encouragement to feel they can take part.

[randomlegend]

No, but if you are actively encouraging girls to do STEM subjects you can't then claim that the reason more of them are doing it is because before they were stopped by sexism. If you encourage people to do something they are more likely to do it, regardless of whether that is what they would have done given completely free choice.

I don't think boys are being discriminated against, I don't know why you keep addressing that.

EDIT: I don't have any problem with encouraging anyone to do those subjects, by the way. So long as there is no active positive discrimination (I don't think giving girls a bit of an extra push really counts), I don't see any harm.

I just don't particularly agree that the tendencies we've seen up until now are entirely due to sexism - it's definitely been a huge factor in the past and may remain a factor now but I do think it's entirely plausible (and likely in my opinion) that there are some inherent differences between men and women which play a part as well. It's the fact that that seems unpalatable to some people which I find bizarre - I don't understand why it's offensive to suggest men and women might be drawn to different things.

[QE Harold Flair]

People who write content for university web pages? Why are they better sources than me (I have a doctorate in History)?

They're a better source because 1) I know for certain they are not lieing about being a university, 2) it is a site specifically for advice on academic studies. Again, if you think they're wrong, why not write to them?


Every field has peer review in its journals (how can you have this discussion without knowing that?), hence my experience of it. My student dissertation was also peer reviewed, and is currently only available via my old university library until July/August when it will finally gain credibility by costing money.

I never said other field didn't have peer reviewed joutnals, did I? I said I didn't know if it was a requirement to submit your work to them, as is the cae (proven) in the field we are discussing. Perhaps the reason you're unemployed is because you can't debate anything without being disingenous?

[QE Harold Flair]

Everyone is encouraged.

Great, so boys will do what they wanted to do anyway, and so will girls. Sounds a lot like what would happen, anyway.

[QE Harold Flair]

Not hugely, in my eyes. Doing that isn't discouraging anybody from doing anything else. It's just recognising that for whatever reason - I think it is cultural and the views of young people surveyed would in my view support that - girls need a bit more encouragement than boys. We do still live in a society where views like Harold's - that boys are naturally superior at things like maths - are commonly held, and so I don't think it's unreasonable that girls need a bit more encouragement to feel they can take part.

At the higher levels, yes. IQ tests consistently show that men make up the geniuses and the idiots. This is factual.

[Toby]

No, but if you are actively encouraging girls to do STEM subjects you can't then claim that the reason more of them are doing it is because before they were stopped by sexism. If you encourage people to do something they are more likely to do it, regardless of whether that is what they would have done given completely free choice.

Sure, and if they all drop away when that added encouragement stops it may be an indication of natural inclination elsewhere. I do think there's a big difference though, between the sort of sexist attitudes I'm talking about, and the sort of encouragement that goes on. One is limiting free choice, the other is just saying, "hey, this is an option too".


I don't think boys are being discriminated against, I don't know why you keep addressing that.

I don't recall more than one post on the matter so not sure how it can be described as me "keeping" to do anything.

[QE Harold Flair]

Sure, and if they all drop away when that added encouragement stops it may be an indication of natural inclination elsewhere. I do think there's a big difference though, between the sort of sexist attitudes I'm talking about, and the sort of encouragement that goes on. One is limiting free choice, the other is just saying, "hey, this is an option too".

But if you only say that to girls......

[Toby]

At the higher levels, yes. IQ tests consistently show that men make up the geniuses and the idiots. This is factual.

Again the reasons for this are disputed by those studying it. As laymen we should respect that there is no scientific consensus.

[randomlegend]

Sure, and if they all drop away when that added encouragement stops it may be an indication of natural inclination elsewhere. I do think there's a big difference though, between the sort of sexist attitudes I'm talking about, and the sort of encouragement that goes on. One is limiting free choice, the other is just saying, "hey, this is an option too".

I don't quite buy that - I think if you encourage someone to do one thing then whatever you aren't encouraging them to do will seem less worthwhile - but it's probably not a big deal.



I don't recall more than one post on the matter so not sure how it can be described as me "keeping" to do anything.

It's in the last couple of posts so it was at the front of my mind.

[Toby]

But if you only say that to girls......

As I said, I see no evidence of cultural barriers discouraging boys from considering STEM careers.

Now, if you want to talk about encouraging them to consider working as primary school teachers or to take up dancing...

[Toby]

I don't quite buy that - I think if you encourage someone to do one thing then whatever you aren't encouraging them to do will seem less worthwhile - but it's probably not a big deal.


It's not limiting free choice though. That'd be like saying advertising by Coca-cola limits my free choices over what I drink.

[QE Harold Flair]

Again the reasons for this are disputed by those studying it. As laymen we should respect that there is no scientific consensus.

Well they would be, wouldn't they? There HAS to be a reason!

[randomlegend]

It's not limiting free choice though.

Then neither is telling someone it's not for them...

[QE Harold Flair]

As I said, I see no evidence of cultural barriers discouraging boys from considering STEM careers.

Now, if you want to talk about encouraging them to consider working as primary school teachers or to take up dancing...

I see no evidence of cultural barriers discouraging girls. What evidence do you have? And I would encourage anyone to do what they want - not encourage them to specifically do whatever you think they should.

[Toby]

Then neither is telling someone it's not for them...

I disagree.

If I say, "you can have coke if you want", it just means it's a choice available to you. If I (or, more to the fact, somebody of influence or authority in a young person's life) say, "choose a drink but remember that coke is really only for the other children" it just serves to reduce the choices available. Sure, that's an extreme example and it won't go exactly like that where it's a command they must follow, but I don't think it's fair to say they're exactly the same.

[Toby]

I see no evidence of cultural barriers discouraging girls. What evidence do you have? And I would encourage anyone to do what they want - not encourage them to specifically do whatever you think they should.

I posted survey results already. Most of the rest is anecdotal, since it's by nature quite an anecdotal thing.

I don't think the people you rail against as 'feminists' are typically those promoting STEM classes.

[John]

Find me a different take, then? Do you know better? I haven't redefined anything. I simply typed into google 'is a dissertation considered as peer reviewed' and that was the answer. Even though 'some people' who graduate from Walden aren't even licensed to work in their fields (how long have you been searching for that? :D), I'd expect their 'academic guides' section to be slighly more in the know than John from TTH.

Six clicks, maybe. That's what not being fully accredited means. Some of their courses are not recognised by the governing bodies of those fields, and so the people who graduate from them will not be licensed.

They may well be more in the know than John from TTH, but I'll take the word of Ital from TTH and Lewis from TTH, who have been through the process of peer review over the word of an online college. Does the fact that experts in various fields have decided the work done by that college is entirely unworthy of recognition give you no pause? Does that not make them any less credible.

They run a couple of their own journals, by the way, so it's quite possible their library was defining the terms for their own use.

[QE Harold Flair]

I posted survey results already. Most of the rest is anecdotal, since it's by nature quite an anecdotal thing.

I don't think the people you rail against as 'feminists' are typically those promoting STEM classes.

No, the feminists I rail against are the type who get air time to spread their lies, such as the gender wage gap, which is a proven lie and yet still persists even when shown to be so. I don't remember the survey you refer to - what was it about?

[randomlegend]

I disagree.

If I say, "you can have coke if you want", it just means it's a choice available to you. If I (or, more to the fact, somebody of influence or authority in a young person's life) say, "choose a drink but remember that coke is really only for the other children" it just serves to reduce the choices available. Sure, that's an extreme example and it won't go exactly like that where it's a command they must follow, but I don't think it's fair to say they're exactly the same.


That's absolute bollocks. If someone (particularly an authority figure,as you mentioned when it suited your argument) says "Do you want a drink? How about coke? Not enough people like you are drinking coke. It's really great! It'll do all these great things for your future!" then of course it has a significant influence.

They aren't just saying "you can have coke if you want". Even if they were "Do you want a drink? You can have coke if you want" will have a big impact on someone's choice.

Like I said, I doubt it causes any big issue (in my opinion it will be good if more people of both genders are guided towards STEM subjects), but I think it's disingenuous to pretend it can't have an impact in a similar way.

[QE Harold Flair]

Six clicks, maybe. That's what not being fully accredited means. Some of their courses are not recognised by the governing bodies of those fields, and so the people who graduate from them will not be licensed.

They may well be more in the know than John from TTH, but I'll take the word of Ital from TTH and Lewis from TTH, who have been through the process of peer review over the word of an online college. Does the fact that experts in various fields have decided the work done by that college is entirely unworthy of recognition give you no pause? Does that not make them any less credible.

They run a couple of their own journals, by the way, so it's quite possible their library was defining the terms for their own use.

Maybe you can answer this question in an honest fashion - would you expect a random selection of 1000 experts to spot mistakes, or 1? If you submitted your work to 1000 experts in your field or 3 (assuming there was no difference in their credentials), which acceptance would you deem more worthy?

[Lewis]

They're a better source because 1) I know for certain they are not lieing about being a university, 2) it is a site specifically for advice on academic studies. Again, if you think they're wrong, why not write to them?

Why don't they write to me? What is 'lieing about being a university' in reference to?


I never said other field didn't have peer reviewed joutnals, did I? I said I didn't know if it was a requirement to submit your work to them, as is the cae (proven) in the field we are discussing. Perhaps the reason you're unemployed is because you can't debate anything without being disingenous?

How did you think articles about other subjects got published? What is it a 'requirement' for? It's almost as if you have no idea what you're talking about.

I don't know why I'm unemployed, but I would more than appreciate it if you could put a word in at whatever it is you do that allows you to post on here until five in the morning and then spend the rest of the day watching YouTube debates and talking shit.

[QE Harold Flair]

Why don't they write to me? What is 'lieing about being a university' in reference to?

It's in reference to you claiming to have a doctorate, which may or may not be true. And why would they write to you? You're insignificant. They are an accredited university with, if you're to be believed, incorrect information.


How did you think articles about other subjects got published? What is it a 'requirement' for? It's almost as if you have no idea what you're talking about.

Requirement as in being taken seriously. As you can tell by the zero references to the study you cite, nobody seems to have bothered paying it any attention at all. Perhaps it was submitted to a journal but was rejected? We just don't know, do we?


I don't know why I'm unemployed, but I would more than appreciate it if you could put a word in at whatever it is you do that allows you to post on here until five in the morning and then spend the rest of the day watching YouTube debates and talking shit.

Well I don't claim to be a doctor of anything. I would have thought you would have people chasing you with such qualifications.

[Toby]

That's absolute bollocks. If someone (particularly an authority figure,as you mentioned when it suited your argument) says "Do you want a drink? How about coke? Not enough people like you are drinking coke. It's really great! It'll do all these great things for your future!" then of course it has a significant influence.

They aren't just saying "you can have coke if you want". Even if they were "Do you want a drink? You can have coke if you want" will have a big impact on someone's choice.

Like I said, I doubt it causes any big issue (in my opinion it will be good if more people of both genders are guided towards STEM subjects), but I think it's disingenuous to pretend it can't have an impact in a similar way.

I don't agree it's as pushy as that, and I think there are plenty of industries trying to pull them elsewhere.

Even if what you suggest it's like were accurate, I'd rather things were biased towards "you should do this" than " you should do something else". There's definitely more choice in the latter, as far as I see it.

I'm also not sure what the "when it suits you" bit is about. I'm not sure why you feel the need to be so snippy about it.

[John]

Maybe you can answer this question in an honest fashion - would you expect a random selection of 1000 experts to spot mistakes, or 1? If you submitted your work to 1000 experts in your field or 3 (assuming there was no difference in their credentials), which acceptance would you deem more worthy?

The thousand. But that's not what's happening here, is it? Once it's in a journal anyone can read it, and the fact that a student seven years down the line blew massive holes in the methodology that the 'experts' who'd apparently been reading it over the years either hadn't noticed or didn't care enough to point out should make you question everything you're claiming here. Once it's been through the 'peer review' process you simply don't know who's reading it. Other experts haven't come out to blow holes in it, but they haven't come out in support of it either, so the only 'credible people' you can say for certain have even read it are those involved in reviewing it, a similar number to that which you can say for certain have read and approved of the 'student work'.

[QE Harold Flair]

The thousand. But that's not what's happening here, is it? Once it's in a journal anyone can read it, and the fact that a student seven years down the line blew massive holes in the methodology that the 'experts' who'd apparently been reading it over the years either hadn't noticed or didn't care enough to point out should make you question everything you're claiming here. Once it's been through the 'peer review' process you simply don't know who's reading it. Other experts haven't come out to blow holes in it, but they haven't come out in support of it either, so the only 'credible people' you can say for certain have even read it are those involved in reviewing it, a similar number to that which you can say for certain have read and approved of the 'student work'.

On what basis do you say she 'blew massive holes in the methodology'? Why hasn't anyone else come to that view in the 7/8 years since? Why wasn't this groundbreaking refutation published? It's not as if this isn't a widely publicised field. As things stand, the scienfific literature supports my view. Simple as that.

[John]

On what basis do you say she 'blew massive holes in the methodology'? Why hasn't anyone else come to that view in the 7/8 years since? Why wasn't this groundbreaking refutation published? It's not as if this isn't a widely publicised field. As things stand, the scienfific literature supports my view. Simple as that.

On the basis that she blew massive holes in the methodology. The potential for a colour bias was unaddressed, and the chimps were assessed in groups with only one of each toy, leaving open the both the possibility that social factors were still playing a part and that they just played with what was available. Those two come to mind immediately, but weren't the only two as I remember.

Presumably it wasn't published because the author didn't put it forward for publication. You'd have to email her and ask her why that is.

Not going to address the fact that your thousand to one argument is specious, since you can't know who's actually reading what?

[Lewis]

It's in reference to you claiming to have a doctorate, which may or may not be true. And why would they write to you? You're insignificant. They are an accredited university with, if you're to be believed, incorrect information.

They have merely chosen to define peer review as relating exclusively to journals, which makes sense when helping eighteen year olds navigate proper referencing for the first time, so their incorrect information is not really my concern. The students that move onto post-graduate study and have their own work peer reviewed will learn.


Requirement as in being taken seriously. As you can tell by the zero references to the study you cite, nobody seems to have bothered paying it any attention at all. Perhaps it was submitted to a journal but was rejected? We just don't know, do we?

So how did you think other fields got their work taken seriously? Blogs?

It wasn't rejected by the university, so I will defer to universally-recognised qualifications and their assessment procedures, and will remain happy to do so until somebody proves it to have been bollocks.


Well I don't claim to be a doctor of anything. I would have thought you would have people chasing you with such qualifications.

What do you do that allows you to post until sunrise on a weekday?

[randomlegend]

I'm also not sure what the "when it suits you" bit is about. I'm not sure why you feel the need to be so snippy about it.

Don't be such a girl ;)

Just you only brought in the authority figure when you moved onto the sexism side of the argument when in reality they'd be present for both.

[Toby]

Don't be such a girl ;)

Just you only brought in the authority figure when you moved onto the sexism side of the argument when in reality they'd be present for both.

In most cases a STEM ambassador isn't going to be as close to a child as their parent/teacher/grandparent. That's not to say it never would, but in most cases it's going to be a relative stranger coming to their class, or somebody they meet at a science fair, or something they read on a poster. Whereeas the sexism thing is more likely an insidious thing from those close to them.

[randomlegend]

I would have thought teachers (and possibly parents) would be pushing it too, though.

[Toby]

I would have thought teachers (and possibly parents) would be pushing it too, though.

Some are but it's as much a campaign to change their behaviour as it is the children.

This survey has loads in it:https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.girlscouts.org/content/dam/girlscouts-gsusa/forms-and-documents/about-girl-scouts/research/generation_stem_full_report.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjchunE6e3KAhXFthoKHSE-BbQQFggbMAA&usg=AFQjCNHi6WBrL6edxPOmLxd5E7Y4P-TokQ&sig2=3jaCHiEd2VLy8m38ZKbU5w

[randomlegend]

I really do find it hard to believe that that's still a prevalent attitude amongst teachers. If it is then that's very, very sad.

Parents are a whole different kettle of fish.

Edit: I'll look when I'm not on my phone. We can continue this riveting discussion later.

[QE Harold Flair]

On the basis that she blew massive holes in the methodology. The potential for a colour bias was unaddressed, and the chimps were assessed in groups with only one of each toy, leaving open the both the possibility that social factors were still playing a part and that they just played with what was available. Those two come to mind immediately, but weren't the only two as I remember.

The authors did warn of some degree of caution over the colour but concluded the results were still significant enough (especially when coupled with the 2002 study). As for social factors, what social factors exist in the monkey world? Male dominance? If so, is male dominance the result of a biological difference, then?


Presumably it wasn't published because the author didn't put it forward for publication. You'd have to email her and ask her why that is.

I think it's more encumbent upon you.


Not going to address the fact that your thousand to one argument is specious, since you can't know who's actually reading what?

Which is why I provided the caveat that they were all equally qualified, since we have no reason to believe the 3 professors who signed off her work are any more or less worthy than the thousands who read the journal entry.

[QE Harold Flair]

They have merely chosen to define peer review as relating exclusively to journals, which makes sense when helping eighteen year olds navigate proper referencing for the first time, so their incorrect information is not really my concern. The students that move onto post-graduate study and have their own work peer reviewed will learn.

And confirmed that dissertations are not considered peer reviewed.....


So how did you think other fields got their work taken seriously? Blogs?

Well lots of people write books off the back of their dissertations. Something you ought to know. I don't know if this holds more weight in other areas than it would in scientific fields


It wasn't rejected by the university, so I will defer to universally-recognised qualifications and their assessment procedures, and will remain happy to do so until somebody proves it to have been bollocks.

A large number of theses submitted for journals are rejected.



What do you do that allows you to post until sunrise on a weekday?

None of your business. When I make claims to expertise in a field you can question me.

[Toby]

I really do find it hard to believe that that's still a prevalent attitude amongst teachers. If it is then that's very, very sad.


I should probably have said most rather some. I'd think it will be on the way out.

[QE Harold Flair]

Some are but it's as much a campaign to change their behaviour as it is the children.

This survey has loads in it:https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.girlscouts.org/content/dam/girlscouts-gsusa/forms-and-documents/about-girl-scouts/research/generation_stem_full_report.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjchunE6e3KAhXFthoKHSE-BbQQFggbMAA&usg=AFQjCNHi6WBrL6edxPOmLxd5E7Y4P-TokQ&sig2=3jaCHiEd2VLy8m38ZKbU5w

It's surely a flaw to ask girls what they think about their own perceived discrimination. If they've been told for years they're discriminated against then that's exactly what they will think. That's kind of using your own argument against you.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-vEEk8OmIcnI/VX87FNABctI/AAAAAAAAE1A/BUKhMIQivkc/s1600/Ali%2BG%2Bis%2Bit%2Bcuz%2BI%2Bis%2Bblack%2B%253F%2 B.jpg

[QE Harold Flair]

oh and lol at 'The Girl Scouts Research Institute'.

[John]

The authors did warn of some degree of caution over the colour but concluded the results were still significant enough (especially when coupled with the 2002 study). As for social factors, what social factors exist in the monkey world? Male dominance? If so, is male dominance the result of a biological difference, then?

So they knew colour could be a factor but went ahead with different coloured toys anyway, rather than spending the tenner it would have cost to get a teddy that was the same colour as the truck they were using? That marks them out as particularly thorough and worthy scientists.

This is fun. So when I say yes, male dominance is down to the 'biological factor' that they're bigger and stronger, you say 'Aha, another victory', even though it's utterly irrelevant to all of your point, my point, the current discussion, or the original discussion? Transparent to the point of absurdity.


I think it's more encumbent upon you.

How so? I'm not the one dismissing her work without having read it because it hasn't been through the particular version of the peer review process that an online college has told you is the most credible one.


Which is why I provided the caveat that they were all equally qualified, since we have no reason to believe the 3 professors who signed off her work are any more or less worthy than the thousands who read the journal entry.

A meaningless caveat. Beyond the people who originally reviewed both pieces of work, all of whom will be 'credible people', and the bloggers who've written about the earlier studies, none of whom are 'credible people', it's impossible to know who's reading the work.

[QE Harold Flair]

So they knew colour could be a factor but went ahead with different coloured toys anyway, rather than spending the tenner it would have cost to get a teddy that was the same colour as the truck they were using? That marks them out as particularly thorough and worthy scientists.

Since the results chimed completely with another study that didn't have those concerns, it probably made little or no diference.


This is fun. So when I say yes, male dominance is down to the 'biological factor' that they're bigger and stronger, you say 'Aha, another victory', even though it's utterly irrelevant to all of your point, my point, the current discussion, or the original discussion? Transparent to the point of absurdity

Well yes I could claim victory but only if I make a point that's hard to refute. Is what I said hard to refute or are you just going to complain because you've cornered yourself? Biological difference is what these studies and the claimed refutation are all about.


How so? I'm not the one dismissing her work without having read it because it hasn't been through the particular version of the peer review process that an online college has told you is the most credible one.

I'm not expert enough to consider it properly and neither are you.




A meaningless caveat. Beyond the people who originally reviewed both pieces of work, all of whom will be 'credible people', and the bloggers who've written about the earlier studies, none of whom are 'credible people', it's impossible to know who's reading the work.

Well we know the name of the journals, don't we? It wouldn't be hard to find out if they're credible.

[Toby]

It's surely a flaw to ask girls what they think about their own perceived discrimination. If they've been told for years they're discriminated against then that's exactly what they will think. That's kind of using your own argument against you.

Cool.

[QE Harold Flair]

http://i63.tinypic.com/2dkydes.gif

[John]

Since the results chimed completely with another study that didn't have those concerns, it probably made little or no diference.

If they didn't notice the potential issue with colour before the study then they're useless, and if they did notice it and chose not to rectify it then they're even more useless.

Is that dismissal of the concern, that it was irrelevant because their results matched someone else's anyway, theirs or yours?


Well yes I could claim victory but only if I make a point that's hard to refute. Is what I said hard to refute or are you just going to complain because you've cornered yourself? Biological difference is what these studies and the claimed refutation are all about.

If the male dominated nature of their 'society' has in any way impinged upon the study, whether that male dominance is itself a result of biological differences or not, then the study is no longer purely about how brain chemistry affects the choices males and females make, because the females aren't making their own choices. That not only rubbishes the study on its own terms, but it makes it a complete irrelevance to your argument on those same issues in a society which you insist is not male dominated, and in which women are free to make their own choices in all things.


I'm not expert enough to consider it properly and neither are you.

Of course, but we're slightly different levels of non expert. I've graduated from university, having completed modules on psychology and biology.


Well we know the name of the journals, don't we? It wouldn't be hard to find out if they're credible.

What? Learn to read.

[Toby]

As was discussed already, the two results really don't "chime completely". One showed females having a slight preference for arguably feminine toys and males showing very little preference for anything, while the other showed males showing preference for trucks over stuffed toys and the females showing very little preference for either.

The 2008 study actually says:


Our findings stand in contrast to the findings in vervet monkeys’ interactions with human toys, which were less similar to findings in children than are our results in rhesus monkeys (Alexander and Hines, 2002). While Alexander and Hines (2002) reported that male vervets interacted with masculine toys more than did female vervets, their males interacted with all toys at higher frequencies making this putative sex difference hard to interpret as it may simply reflect a bias in males to interact at higher rates with any object.

More germane to the issues raised here is whether male and female vervets showed a preference for one toy type over the other. Alexander and Hines (2002) did not directly measure preference, but created a proxy for preference by calculating the proportion of interactions with a specific toy type to correct for the males’ overall higher interactions with all toys. This “preference” measure revealed a sexually differentiated pattern contrary to that generally seen in human children. Unlike girls, female vervets showed a strong “preference” for feminine toys, whereas male vervets, unlike boys, showed no toy “preference” (Alexander and Hines, 2002). The difference in findings between our study and those in vervets may reflect species differences, the exemplars of toy categories chosen, or that we used an explicit preference test more comparable to those used in human studies. Using methods more comparable to human studies, and even though we used group rather than individual preference testing, we obtained results strikingly similar to those in humans, suggesting that differences between our study and Alexander and Hines’ (2002) likely reflect methodological and not species differences.

[Henry]

And you also have no qualifications as the last I heard you were still studying and still trying to get work published. Is that correct?

What qualifications do you have? GCSE's?

[QE Harold Flair]

What qualifications do you have? GCSE's?

I'm not the one who has made claims about the report having read it. I'm going with the published, prevailing view.

[Lewis]

And confirmed that dissertations are not considered peer reviewed.....

Their own experience of having their dissertations peer reviewed would presumably trump what somebody has written.


Well lots of people write books off the back of their dissertations. Something you ought to know. I don't know if this holds more weight in other areas than it would in scientific fields

It would hold equivalent weight if they are subject to similar peer review, which they are.


A large number of theses submitted for journals are rejected.

Really? Have you got a link for that?


None of your business. When I make claims to expertise in a field you can question me.

You've been making rubbish cracks about unemployment all through this, so why not just say what is it you do? It must be pretty ace if they let you sleep in and post on here all day, so you should be proud of it.

[QE Harold Flair]

You've been making rubbish cracks about unemployment all through this, so why not just say what is it you do? It must be pretty ace if they let you sleep in and post on here all day, so you should be proud of it.

I'm not going over old ground with the rest, but I only brought this up because there aren't many people with doctorates who can't get a job.

[Boydy]

I don't have figures to hand but I'd imagine there are quite a few given there are vastly more doctorates awarded every year than there are academic job positions.

[Henry]

I'm not the one who has made claims about the report having read it. I'm going with the published, prevailing view.

I don't care, but seeing as you pose as an intellectual round these here parts, I think we should know that you've at least passed a few exams.

[QE Harold Flair]

I don't care, but seeing as you pose as an intellectual round these here parts, I think we should know that you've at least passed a few exams.

How do I 'pose as an intellectual'?

[Lewis]

I'm happy with my E-Victory and everything, but it could end up being a hollow one if this refusal to answer a straight question about your own employment status causes everyone to doubt your own credibility.

[Henry]

How do I 'pose as an intellectual'?

By holding forth on varied topics, often controversial ones.

[QE Harold Flair]

By holding forth on varied topics, often controversial ones.

Oh, okay then.

[Henry]

Oh, okay then.

So answer the question. It begins to look as if you've got something to hide. Ditto on the employment issue.

[QE Harold Flair]

I'm happy with my E-Victory and everything, but it could end up being a hollow one if this refusal to answer a straight question about your own employment status causes everyone to doubt your own credibility.

You've suffered numerous e-defeats. I'm bored of having the exact same coversation with you every time, and you shifting the goalposts when you're shown up.

[QE Harold Flair]

So answer the question. It begins to look as if you've got something to hide.

I'll answer the question when you answer as to why you saw fit to send genuine (your words) death threats to a 13 year old boy and saw fit to cyberstalk said boy and deface his website. Deal?

[Lewis]

You've suffered numerous e-defeats. I'm bored of having the exact same coversation with you every time, and you shifting the goalposts when you're shown up.

What if your peers (TTHers) read the thread and decide? It's not 1000 vs 1, but still.

[QE Harold Flair]

I hope you didn't even chortle to yourself at that effort.

[Henry]

I'll answer the question when you answer as to why you saw fit to send genuine (your words) death threats to a 13 year old boy and saw fit to cyberstalk said boy and deface his website. Deal?

You only bring that up when you've been rumbled and are getting super-defensive. So the logical conclusion is that you left school at 16 with feck all and since then have had a patchy employment record. Right now you're unemployed, living with parents and spend your time pretending to be smart (but edgy) on TTH, convincing no-one.

Am I close?

[QE Harold Flair]

You only bring that up when you've been rumbled and are getting super-defensive. So the logical conclusion is that you left school at 16 with feck all and since then have had a patchy employment record. Right now you're unemployed, living with parents and spend your time pretending to be smart on TTH, convincing no-one.

Am I close?

No, I bring it up because my education is none of your business unless I choose to make it so. If I bring a claim to be an expert in a field then feel free to question me, and I would feel duty bound to give an answer.

And no, you're nowhere near close. I mean seriously, who still does that faux psychology shit at your age? :D

[Henry]

It's not any sort of psychology. It just fits the facts, some of which Lewis already pointed out.

If you weren't embarrassed by it, you'd have no problem telling us your education level.

[QE Harold Flair]

The only fact Lewis pointed out is that I'm sometimes up late, like him. And I'm sometimes here during the day.

I thought you were a big supporter of privacy? I'm about 20 years too old for you to push around, I'm afraid.

[Henry]

I mean, I don't claim any sort of formal expertise in any subject. I do think I can claim a good laymans understanding in science, technology, history and stuff like that - but only because I read a lot and have some educational grounding in it.

Your immediate resort to confrontation and banality, lack of humility and inability to consider points of view other than your own betrays you as someone whose highest level of understanding has been gleaned from the YouTube videos you post.

[QE Harold Flair]

I've already considered the views of others in this thread, and conceded a minor point or two. I'm not going to change my mind to be nice.

I mean if it makes you feel better I could say 'that's interesting, however' before I start posts. My case has been proven, and evidence provided.

[John]

Evidence which you either haven't read or didn't understand, yes. If you go back to a couple of hours you'll find that both myself and Toby have made posts that either conclusively refute things you've said, or ask specific questions of you, which you've ignored.

If you can't answer the bell then that's fine, but ignoring the posts doesn't help you in any way.

[five time]

Harold is probably a bin man lol