Posted on 09/11/2018 4:18:16 AM PDT by RoosterRedux
A former professor at the University of Georgia claims that a math journal deleted a statistic study he did on the achievement gap between men and women at similar levels of intelligence after a backlash from board members who found the study too controversial for their politically correct values.
The results of Professor Theodore Hill’s research is not exactly a positive one for men. According to his research, there are more men at the top and the bottom of the intelligence distribution. This phenomenon was first studied by Charles Darwin, who called it the Great Male Variability Hypothesis. While there are more men than women that win the Nobel Peace Prize, there are also more men living on the streets, in prison, and addicted to drugs. Professor Hill’s research aimed to create a theoretical model that explained this trend.
After the research was accepted by the Mathematical Intelligencer, Professor Hill’s co-author, Sergei Tabachnikov, a math professor at Penn State, began to face a backlash from his colleagues. Shortly thereafter, the Mathematical Intelligencer rescinded their acceptance of the research.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
identity politics trumps truth.
How so typically liberal...they don’t like the outcome, so they want to change the rules.
Truth has been eliminated. PC trumps everything. Solid, indisputable fact is suppressed because some highly-privileged politically-correct government-certified victim group doesn’t like to hear the truth.
XX, XY. There are two sexes. Every chromosome in a person tells you which sex. A new individual life begins at conception. Statistically, on average, men are better at some things that women.
I’ve noticed that the “scientific” magazines have all gone over to the left, and are no longer scientific magazines, but nerdy versions of the atlantic and the guardian.
I don’t suppose somebody has a copy they could post or mail around?
Sure, it is controversial for people, but anyone who looks around can see the truth.
Men cluster intellectually around the top and bottom of the IQ scale at greater numbers than women do, and women have a more even distribution across the spectrum.
All one has to do is look at the elevated accomplishments of men historically and persistently today, even in a society that is doing all it can to “even the playing field” not by elevating women but by dragging down men.
And then one can look on YouTube (if real life won’t suffice) and see ample evidence of men clustering around the bottom of the IQ and accomplishment scale. Most men have a degree of this in us inherently, we all do things over the course of our lives that when we look at them in retrospect, are embarrassing.
That’s how it is. Anyone with an eye for watching can see it, and the fact that someone is distressed that men might have a slightly higher concentration at the top (but the bottom is okay, they all think we should be down there anyway) is what drives this.
Distressingly, there are elements of society that think it is somehow a good thing to encourage women to be as base, evil, and stupid as we men occasionally are. If you don’t believe me, what we see in the entertainment business and on YouTube (again, if reality isn’t obvious enough) as a proxy verifies that.
Happens in Global Warming studies all the time.
Wording can be copyrighted but ideas can't be copyrighted. The researcher just needs to redo some of the research (with humans numbers will always differ in some degree) - then do a rewrite.
I used to have a subscription to Scientific American, but in the late Nineties, I stopped reading it.
It is discouraging if you take the time to read the occasional article from Popular Mechanics, how incredibly PC driven it has become with its embrace of global warming crap and such.
Yup. If the PC crowd has taken over Math, then the concept of Truth is gone in all fields. It's "whatever", Dude.
Research demonstrating a lack of acceptance of other liberal sacred-cows, such as dangers of second hand smoke and man-made global warming, probably face similar backlash.
I never met a woman who found Bevis and Butthead funny.
I get a picture of a math teacher displaying a math problem on the board and someone in the room saying, “That’s sexist.”
Men cluster intellectually around the top and bottom of the IQ scale at greater numbers than women do, and women have a more even distribution across the spectrum.
—
And that IQ spread actually helps the survival of the species. Women provide the normative middle contributing to a stable society. Men at the upper edges of the IO range are the pathfinders to advancement and invention. Those at the lower range historically were likely the heavy lifters doing the most physically demanding tasks.
An elementary mathematical theory based on “selectivity” is proposed to address a question raised by Charles Darwin, namely, how one gender of a sexually dimorphic species might tend to evolve with greater variability than the other gender. Briefly, the theory says that if one sex is relatively selective then from one generation to the next, more variable subpopulations of the opposite sex will tend to prevail over those with lesser variability; and conversely, if a sex is relatively non-selective, then less variable subpopulations of the opposite sex will tend to prevail over those with greater variability. This theory makes no assumptions about differences in means between the sexes, nor does it presume that one sex is selective and the other non-selective. Two mathematical models are presented: a discrete-time one-step statistical model using normally distributed fitness values; and a continuous-time deterministic model using exponentially distributed fitness levels.
You sir, are going to burn in some PC hell-fire for uttering such blasphemy.
As the Aussies often say (in the good way, not the bad one): Good on ya!
The antidote for PC is truth.
you’re gonna start that I.Q. argument again.
in engineering school few women were enrolled. You cannot be a successful electrical engineer without a higher I.Q. than the average.
Supposedly “science-based” liberals would demand pi be set to 3.2 if the real number was somehow non-PC (maybe “irrational” is too similar to “hysterical.”)
The patriarchy strikes again REEEEEEE!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.