Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Reelya]

Science isn't free from politics. But the blend between science and politics varies from maths on one end (fairly free of politics) to sociology one the other (heavily infused with politics).

The thing is, if your science reinforces dominant beliefs then you're going to get the funding, if it goes against the dominant beliefs then you're going to have a  tough time getting funding. How right or wrong you are is secondary to that.

And it's not just the right-wing who do this. In spheres where left-wingers dominate, you're not allowed to research actual phenomena, if those phenomena confront the left with uncomfortable truths.

e.g. Larry Summers, president of Harvard was asked about why so few women advance to high levels in science, and because of one alternative suggestion he cited among a number of points, he had to resign. What did he say exactly?

What he said was just looking at the existing data. Men and women score the same average score on e.g. IQ tests. So that should be equal. However - it's well known that men have a higher standard deviation on many types of test scores. That means women cluster more to the middle, while men are over-represented at both the top and bottom of the distribution. If you look at e.g. people who score greater than 150 IQ or less than 50 IQ, there is a huge surplus of men in these samples compared to women (of course, the 50-150 IQ sample has a complementary surplus of women, which might explain why there are more female undergraduates). Women's IQ has an SD of ~14, whereas men have an SD of ~15. That might sound small but at the range of 150+ IQ (or below 50) it means about 5 times as many men as women. Men are more likely to be either geniuses or cretins. So ... if you have a job which requires 150+ IQ (or a prison full of < 50 IQ people), you'd expect 80% of the group to be male, and that's just off known statistical variations, before any sort of bias is even considered.

This is what the data tells us. You'd expect the raw data to be part of the science. But ... you're not allowed to do the research into this. You'll either get fired or you'll get a mob attacking you when you try and give a talk at a university, as the author of "the bell curve" did.

[redwallzyl]

Science isn't free from politics. But the blend between science and politics varies from maths on one end (fairly free of politics) to sociology one the other (heavily infused with politics).

The thing is, if your science reinforces dominant beliefs then you're going to get the funding, if it goes against the dominant beliefs then you're going to have a  tough time getting funding. How right or wrong you are is secondary to that.

And it's not just the right-wing who do this. In spheres where left-wingers dominate, you're not allowed to research actual phenomena, if those phenomena confront the left with uncomfortable truths.

e.g. Larry Summers, president of Harvard was asked about why so few women advance to high levels in science, and because of one alternative suggestion he cited among a number of points, he had to resign. What did he say exactly?

What he said was just looking at the existing data. Men and women score the same average score on e.g. IQ tests. So that should be equal. However - it's well known that men have a higher standard deviation on many types of test scores. That means women cluster more to the middle, while men are over-represented at both the top and bottom of the distribution. If you look at e.g. people who score greater than 150 IQ or less than 50 IQ, there is a huge surplus of men in these samples compared to women (of course, the 50-150 IQ sample has a complementary surplus of women, which might explain why there are more female undergraduates). Women's IQ has an SD of ~14, whereas men have an SD of ~15. That might sound small but at the range of 150+ IQ (or below 50) it means about 5 times as many men as women. Men are more likely to be either geniuses or cretins. So ... if you have a job which requires 150+ IQ (or a prison full of < 50 IQ people), you'd expect 80% of the group to be male, and that's just off known statistical variations, before any sort of bias is even considered.

This is what the data tells us. You'd expect the raw data to be part of the science. But ... you're not allowed to do the research into this. You'll either get fired or you'll get a mob attacking you when you try and give a talk at a university, as the author of "the bell curve" did.

as i recall the author of the Bell curve was basicly a fake scientist. Also IQ is a terrible was to mesure intelligece as its culturaly biased.

[Rose]

No rage thread, so I'm raging here.

I tried to draw something in color....

and it's so bad. Like really really bad.

I think I need some tutorials or something.

[NJW2000]

Whatever the morality of the guy's firing is, I'd definitely say that IQ as a measure of genius is suspect. Mostly because I don't know mine and suspect it of not being sufficiently high to assuage my EQ (Ego Quotient).

[Draignean]

as i recall the author of the Bell curve was basicly a fake scientist. Also IQ is a terrible was to mesure intelligece as its culturaly biased.

While I agree with the spirit of the latter sentence, your meaning is undercut by managing five typos in a thirteen word statement.

[redwallzyl]

as i recall the author of the Bell curve was basicly a fake scientist. Also IQ is a terrible was to mesure intelligece as its culturaly biased.

While I agree with the spirit of the latter sentence, your meaning is undercut by managing five typos in a thirteen word statement.

sorry, i was typing like 5 seconds before class on a phone with non english spellcheck.

[bloop_bleep]

Whatever the morality of the guy's firing is, I'd definitely say that IQ as a measure of genius is suspect. Mostly because I don't know mine and suspect it of not being sufficiently high to assuage my EQ (Ego Quotient).

Richard Feynman had an IQ of merely 125, yet he did fantastically in mathematics and physics competitions, often scoring highest in the country, and was one of the most influential scientists to work on the Manhattan Project.

[Dunamisdeos]

No rage thread, so I'm raging here.

I tried to draw something in color....

and it's so bad. Like really really bad.

I think I need some tutorials or something.

I want to make arts for Armok Vision. It would be crudely colored indeed, however.

Anyway it's fine just go ahead and keep trying. I bet you can youtube a tutorial on basic technique.

[The Scout]

My Dulexotine and Gabapentin decided randomly to inflict extreme drowsiness upon me. After being good for almost 6 months, taking either makes it physically difficult to not randomly doze off.

[Ultimuh]

My Dulexotine and Gabapentin decided randomly to inflict extreme drowsiness upon me. After being good for almost 6 months, taking either makes it physically difficult to not randomly doze off.

Those sounds strangely like Pokemon names.
And the drowsiness is definitively done with a Hypnosis attack or something.

[The Scout]

My Dulexotine and Gabapentin decided randomly to inflict extreme drowsiness upon me. After being good for almost 6 months, taking either makes it physically difficult to not randomly doze off.

Those sounds strangely like Pokemon names.
And the drowsiness is definitively done with a Hypnosis attack or something.

Who would've guessed that eating Pokemon makes them pissed? Slowpoke and Mr.Mime come to mind, but driving like this is hell.

[Ultimuh]

Yeah, it is most unwise to drive in that state.

[hector13]

It's also considered driving under the influence if you get stopped by la polizia.

[Reelya]

Whatever the morality of the guy's firing is, I'd definitely say that IQ as a measure of genius is suspect. Mostly because I don't know mine and suspect it of not being sufficiently high to assuage my EQ (Ego Quotient).

Regardless of how questionable IQ is as a measure of intellect or genius, it is a pretty good heuristic for how good you are at doing standardized testing in general: the type of testing you're going to be exposed to over and over in an academic career. IQ was derived from basic academic tasks in the first place, so that shouldn't be a surprise.

But the observation that men have a higher standard deviation in IQ tests here is really relevant, because it's not limited to IQ tests, it's a higher standard deviation on many types of tests. Men having a higher standard deviation on test scores in general means more males clustered at the bottom and top of many, many metrics which are used to ascertain ability. If you take particular slices of ability level, it's not gender-neutral, the gender balance shifts as you take specific slices.

The point is, this is a measurable thing and it should be part of understanding the world, but ideologically you have to pretend it doesn't exist.

[hector13]

So... IQ measures your ability to take tests?