Academic Activists Send a Published Paper Down the Memory Hole

[Ancalagon]

Link

In the highly controversial area of human intelligence, the ‘Greater Male Variability Hypothesis’ (GMVH) asserts that there are more idiots and more geniuses among men than among women. Darwin’s research on evolution in the nineteenth century found that, although there are many exceptions for specific traits and species, there is generally more variability in males than in females of the same species throughout the animal kingdom.

Evidence for this hypothesis is fairly robust and has been reported in species ranging from adders and sockeye salmon to wasps and orangutans, as well as humans. Multiple studies have found that boys and men are over-represented at both the high and low ends of the distributions in categories ranging from birth weight and brain structures and 60-meter dash times to reading and mathematics test scores. There are significantly more men than women, for example, among Nobel laureates, music composers, and chess champions—and also among homeless people, suicide victims, and federal prison inmates.

Once we had written up our findings, Sergei and I decided to try for publication in the Mathematical Intelligencer, the ‘Viewpoint’ section of which specifically welcomes articles on contentious topics. The Intelligencer’s editor-in-chief is Marjorie Wikler Senechal, Professor Emerita of Mathematics and the History of Science at Smith College. She liked our draft, and declared herself to be untroubled by the prospect of controversy. “In principle,” she told Sergei in an email, “I am happy to stir up controversy and few topics generate more than this one. After the Middlebury fracas, in which none of the protestors had read the book they were protesting, we could make a real contribution here by insisting that all views be heard, and providing links to them.”

First, the National Science Foundation wrote to Sergei requesting that acknowledgment of NSF funding be removed from our paper with immediate effect. I was astonished. I had never before heard of the NSF requesting removal of acknowledgement of funding for any reason. On the contrary, they are usually delighted to have public recognition of their support for science.

The ostensible reason for this request was that our paper was unrelated to Sergei’s funded proposal. However, a Freedom of Information request subsequently revealed that Penn State WIM administrator Diane Henderson (“Professor and Chair of the Climate and Diversity Committee”) and Nate Brown (“Professor and Associate Head for Diversity and Equity”) had secretly co-signed a letter to the NSF that same morning. “Our concern,” they explained, “is that [this] paper appears to promote pseudoscientific ideas that are detrimental to the advancement of women in science, and at odds with the values of the NSF.” Unaware of this at the time, and eager to err on the side of compromise, Sergei and I agreed to remove the acknowledgement as requested. At least, we thought, the paper was still on track to be published.

But, that same day, the Mathematical Intelligencer’s editor-in-chief Marjorie Senechal notified us that, with “deep regret,” she was rescinding her previous acceptance of our paper. “Several colleagues,” she wrote, had warned her that publication would provoke “extremely strong reactions” and there existed a “very real possibility that the right-wing media may pick this up and hype it internationally.” For the second time in a single day I was left flabbergasted. Working mathematicians are usually thrilled if even five people in the world read our latest article. Now some progressive faction was worried that a fairly straightforward logical argument about male variability might encourage the conservative press to actually read and cite a science paper?

So what in the world had happened at the Intelligencer? Unbeknownst to us, Amie Wilkinson, a senior professor of mathematics at the University of Chicago, had become aware of our paper and written to the journal to complain. A back-and-forth had ensued. Wilkinson then enlisted the support of her father—a psychometrician and statistician—who wrote to the Intelligencer at his daughter’s request to express his own misgivings, including his belief that “[t]his article oversimplifies the issues to the point of embarrassment.” Invited by Professor Senechal to participate in the proposed Round Table discussion, he declined, admitting to Senechal that “others are more expert on this than he is.” We discovered all this after he gave Senechal permission to forward his letter, inadvertently revealing Wilkinson’s involvement in the process (an indiscretion his daughter would later—incorrectly—blame on the Intelligencer).

 

[Ancalagon]

Factually correct but politically incorrect, therefore it had to be disappeared. Not once, but twice. Read the article to find out the second time it was disappeared.

This is what liberalism has brought to science - you are only allowed to say things that I agree with.

 

[konfab]

Factually correct but politically incorrect, therefore it had to be disappeared. Not once, but twice. Read the article to find out the second time it was disappeared.

This is what liberalism has brought to science - you are only allowed to say things that I agree with.

They are digging their own graves with this. Discrediting credible research will only decrease the value of the peer reviewed journals. I think the likes of arXiv are going to flourish because of this.

 

[Ancalagon]

They are digging their own graves with this. Discrediting credible research will only decrease the value of the peer reviewed journals. I think the likes of arXiv are going to flourish because of this.

If you read the comments on the article, someone mentions. How can you trust peer reviewed research when it is so politicized?

FOX news could easily use this to argue that we shouldn't trust peer reviewed research.

 

[Aquila ka Hecate]

Factually correct but politically incorrect, therefore it had to be disappeared. Not once, but twice. Read the article to find out the second time it was disappeared.

This is what liberalism has brought to science - you are only allowed to say things that I agree with.

Whether it is factually correct or not I couldn't say. I had previously thought that variability (range) was greater in the female, but I'm quite happy to be proven wrong, with suitable research.

This no-platforming and silencing of dissenting opinion is incredibly dangerous for humanity's knowledge base.

The very essence of science includes rational discourse and robust dialogue..something the jackbooted snowflakes appear not to recognise.

 

[Ancalagon]

Whether it is factually correct or not I couldn't say. I had previously thought that variability (range) was greater in the female, but I'm quite happy to be proven wrong, with suitable research.

This no-platforming and silencing of dissenting opinion is incredibly dangerous for humanity's knowledge base.

The very essence of science includes rational discourse and robust dialogue..something the jackbooted snowflakes appear not to recognise.

It seems like it is fairly well accepted that variability is greater in males, according to research.

But yes, more no-platform. The Lefties love it - they will no platform anyone. Many many examples.

The Lefties have even said that "free speech" is a tool used by the alt-right to promote their views.

I don't think they properly recognize the danger this poses. You could use this example to deny any scientific work, from vaccines to climate science. All because it is clear that publishing science requires that you publish something that people already agree with.

 

[Aquila ka Hecate]

It seems like it is fairly well accepted that variability is greater in males, according to research.

But yes, more no-platform. The Lefties love it - they will no platform anyone. Many many examples.

The Lefties have even said that "free speech" is a tool used by the alt-right to promote their views.

I don't think they properly recognize the danger this poses. You could use this example to deny any scientific work, from vaccines to climate science. All because it is clear that publishing science requires that you publish something that people already agree with.

I agree with much of what you have said - but, as I am a lefty myself, I would be inclined to replace that word with loonie.

 

[Nick333]

Whether it is factually correct or not I couldn't say. I had previously thought that variability (range) was greater in the female, but I'm quite happy to be proven wrong, with suitable research.

This no-platforming and silencing of dissenting opinion is incredibly dangerous for humanity's knowledge base.

The very essence of science includes rational discourse and robust dialogue..something the jackbooted snowflakes appear not to recognise.

Oh really? I distinctly remember you pointing out the greater variability in male intelligence to me some years ago.

 

[Ancalagon]

I agree with much of what you have said - but, as I am a lefty myself, I would be inclined to replace that word with loonie.

Fewer and fewer lefties are not loonies anymore!

Academic freedom is under threat, and this time, it is not from the Bible thumpers (although they still have a part to play).

When a white college professor can say he wants to kill all whites and not get fired, there is something wrong.

 

[Aquila ka Hecate]

Oh really? I distinctly remember you pointing out the greater variability in male intelligence to me some years ago.

Hmm..I seem to remember that I'd thought it was the other way around and you corrected me.
It's no matter - it seems the research supports a greater range in males.

 

[Ancalagon]

Hmm..I seem to remember that I'd thought it was the other way around and you corrected me.
It's no matter - it seems the research supports a greater range in males.

That's sexist!

Men and women are absolutely the same, interchangeable. No biological differences! Biological difference is a social construct!

A woman can do anything a man can do and the only reason there are not enough women in tech is because of SEXISM! Definitely not anything to do with innate biological differences. Definitely sexism! Get your pointy fingers out and point at the evil horrible men who perpetuate this evil sexism every year because they are so threatened that women might do better than them.

Ugh. Soon academic journals will reject anything that says prostate cancer occurs more often in men and breast cancer more often in women - SEXIST!

 

[Aquila ka Hecate]

That's sexist!

Men and women are absolutely the same, interchangeable. No biological differences! Biological difference is a social construct!

A woman can do anything a man can do and the only reason there are not enough women in tech is because of SEXISM! Definitely not anything to do with innate biological differences. Definitely sexism! Get your pointy fingers out and point at the evil horrible men who perpetuate this evil sexism every year because they are so threatened that women might do better than them.

Ugh. Soon academic journals will reject anything that says prostate cancer occurs more often in men and breast cancer more often in women - SEXIST!

We've already got transwomen complaining about not being sent reminder notices to go for their pap smears.

 

[Ancalagon]

We've already got transwomen complaining about not being sent reminder notices to go for their pap smears.

Flip that gynae will get a fright!

 

[thestaggy]

However, a Freedom of Information request subsequently revealed that Penn State WIM administrator Diane Henderson (“Professor and Chair of the Climate and Diversity Committee”) and Nate Brown (“Professor and Associate Head for Diversity and Equity”) had secretly co-signed a letter to the NSF that same morning.

The ''feels'' brigade strikes again.

 

[Cius]

Extreme lefties are as bad as extreme righties, just in slightly different ways.

 

[ACloete]

That's sexist!

Men and women are absolutely the same, interchangeable. No biological differences! Biological difference is a social construct!
.....!

Are you serious, man?!

 

[Ancalagon]

Are you serious, man?!

I think that sarcasm went right over your head.

 

[Techne]

I think that sarcasm went right over your head.

Or sadly, we are living in a mentally sick society where those statements are not met with absolute ridicule and/or laughter. Instead, some may even consider them serious.