5 ms·

You misunderstand the argument. It's like having a bag 1 filled with equal quantities of capsicums, cherries, and apples, then selecting the top reddest 25% o

You misunderstand the argument. It's like having a bag 1 filled with equal quantities of capsicums, cherries, and apples, then selecting the top reddest 25% of bag 1 and moving them to bag 2. You will have much less variability of fruit type in bag 2 because you used color selection to fill it (apples and capsicums come in three colors at will be selected 1/3rd the rate of cherries). That's the whole point of sexual vs natural selection.

quotemstr 8y ago
I'm glad the OP posted his comment, since it presents a window into the kind of thinking that will go on to form the narrative scar tissue surrounding this affair. By now, the response pattern from the activist camp to inconvenient manuscripts should be clear to anyone who has been paying attention. If attempts to silence authors pre-publication don't work, and if post-publication censorship ends up being ineffective, the activist rhetorical tactic of last resort is blatant misrepresentation of a manuscript's contents. They're loathe to use this tactic, since it costs them massive credibility every time they plainly lie about something everyone can read, but it's still better (from their POV) than cognitive dissonance.
- brenschluss 8y ago
  I am examining the paper and attempting to understand it based on its arguments. You are critiquing my argument based on what I am saying, not my method. I argue that you are attempting to frame my critique of the paper based on the desired narrative you wish to pursue, rather than any kind of rigorous or inquisitive method. If you agree with this analysis, then you will probably continue to disparage my efforts as some kind of attempt as "censorship", furthering your desired narrative. If you disagree, then I heartily welcome a discussion of the paper.
  - quotemstr 8y ago
    Besides, the merit of this paper's argument is irrelevant. It could be totally wrong and the treatment it's receiving would still be abhorrent. Getting into the weeds on population genetics might be interesting, but it doesn't make a difference when it comes to the idea that we should debate results, not censor them.
    - mirimir 8y ago
      Yes, that is the point here. If the article had been rejected everywhere, debating its soundness would be relevant. But this paper was accepted, and actually published, so that's irrelevant.
      - nervlord 8y ago
        no, it was not. It was withdrawn, did you read the article or did you see "omg states facts that i am uncomfortable with" and decide to go no further?
        mirimir 8y ago
        No, it wasn't. Only the author can "withdraw" a paper. This paper "vanished" after Benson Farb (Amie Wilkinson's husband) bullied NYJM. Also, "Did you read the article?" violates HN norms. Edit: OK, I see that Elsevier uses "withdrawn" as you say,[0] but its criteria are scarcely applicable to the paper in question. Even without getting into the merits, this paper was apparently actually published. Just online, I admit, but they gave him a damn page number! > Article withdrawal > Only used for Articles in Press which represent early versions of articles and sometimes contain errors, or may have been accidentally submitted twice. Occasionally, but less frequently, the articles may represent infringements of professional ethical codes, such as multiple submission, bogus claims of authorship, plagiarism, fraudulent use of data or the like. Articles in Press (articles that have been accepted for publication but which have not been formally published and will not yet have the complete volume/issue/page information) that include errors, or are discovered to be accidental duplicates of other published article(s), or are determined to violate our journal publishing ethics guidelines in the view of the editors (such as multiple submission, bogus claims of authorship, plagiarism, fraudulent use of data or the like), may be “Withdrawn” from ScienceDirect. Withdrawn means that the article content (HTML and PDF) is removed and replaced with a HTML page and PDF simply stating that the article has been withdrawn according to the Elsevier Policy on Article in Press Withdrawal with a link to the current policy document. 0) https://www.elsevier.com/about/policies/article-withdrawal https://www.elsevier.com/about/policies/article-withdrawal
brenschluss 8y ago
> You will have much less variability of fruit type in bag 2 because you used color selection to fill it Yes, I completely agree with you! You will have much less variability. However, that's not what the paper argues. The paper argues that you would have more variability. I'd appreciate you taking a look at the original paper (specifically, the bottom of page 2 [edit: and Figure 1]) and understanding my original argument.
- zeth___ 8y ago
  Right, and now compare it to the original bag. You have increased variability between generations by reducing the variability in the second generation.
  - brenschluss 8y ago
    I agree with you that there is a difference in variability between generations. I agree with you that the variability has been reduced in the second generation. It seems that we both disagree with the original paper, then, as it states "If sex A is relatively selective and will mate only with the top most desirable quarter of sex B, then all of the next generation will be offspring of the more variable subpopulation B1"

quotemstr 8y ago

I'm glad the OP posted his comment, since it presents a window into the kind of thinking that will go on to form the narrative scar tissue surrounding this affair. By now, the response pattern from the activist camp to inconvenient manuscripts should be clear to anyone who has been paying attention. If attempts to silence authors pre-publication don't work, and if post-publication censorship ends up being ineffective, the activist rhetorical tactic of last resort is blatant misrepresentation of a manuscript's contents. They're loathe to use this tactic, since it costs them massive credibility every time they plainly lie about something everyone can read, but it's still better (from their POV) than cognitive dissonance.

brenschluss 8y ago
I am examining the paper and attempting to understand it based on its arguments. You are critiquing my argument based on what I am saying, not my method. I argue that you are attempting to frame my critique of the paper based on the desired narrative you wish to pursue, rather than any kind of rigorous or inquisitive method. If you agree with this analysis, then you will probably continue to disparage my efforts as some kind of attempt as "censorship", furthering your desired narrative. If you disagree, then I heartily welcome a discussion of the paper.
- quotemstr 8y ago
  Besides, the merit of this paper's argument is irrelevant. It could be totally wrong and the treatment it's receiving would still be abhorrent. Getting into the weeds on population genetics might be interesting, but it doesn't make a difference when it comes to the idea that we should debate results, not censor them.
  - mirimir 8y ago
    Yes, that is the point here. If the article had been rejected everywhere, debating its soundness would be relevant. But this paper was accepted, and actually published, so that's irrelevant.
    - nervlord 8y ago
      no, it was not. It was withdrawn, did you read the article or did you see "omg states facts that i am uncomfortable with" and decide to go no further?
      - mirimir 8y ago
        No, it wasn't. Only the author can "withdraw" a paper. This paper "vanished" after Benson Farb (Amie Wilkinson's husband) bullied NYJM. Also, "Did you read the article?" violates HN norms. Edit: OK, I see that Elsevier uses "withdrawn" as you say,[0] but its criteria are scarcely applicable to the paper in question. Even without getting into the merits, this paper was apparently actually published. Just online, I admit, but they gave him a damn page number! > Article withdrawal > Only used for Articles in Press which represent early versions of articles and sometimes contain errors, or may have been accidentally submitted twice. Occasionally, but less frequently, the articles may represent infringements of professional ethical codes, such as multiple submission, bogus claims of authorship, plagiarism, fraudulent use of data or the like. Articles in Press (articles that have been accepted for publication but which have not been formally published and will not yet have the complete volume/issue/page information) that include errors, or are discovered to be accidental duplicates of other published article(s), or are determined to violate our journal publishing ethics guidelines in the view of the editors (such as multiple submission, bogus claims of authorship, plagiarism, fraudulent use of data or the like), may be “Withdrawn” from ScienceDirect. Withdrawn means that the article content (HTML and PDF) is removed and replaced with a HTML page and PDF simply stating that the article has been withdrawn according to the Elsevier Policy on Article in Press Withdrawal with a link to the current policy document. 0) https://www.elsevier.com/about/policies/article-withdrawal https://www.elsevier.com/about/policies/article-withdrawal

brenschluss 8y ago

> You will have much less variability of fruit type in bag 2 because you used color selection to fill it Yes, I completely agree with you! You will have much less variability. However, that's not what the paper argues. The paper argues that you would have more variability. I'd appreciate you taking a look at the original paper (specifically, the bottom of page 2 [edit: and Figure 1]) and understanding my original argument.

zeth___ 8y ago
Right, and now compare it to the original bag. You have increased variability between generations by reducing the variability in the second generation.
- brenschluss 8y ago
  I agree with you that there is a difference in variability between generations. I agree with you that the variability has been reduced in the second generation. It seems that we both disagree with the original paper, then, as it states "If sex A is relatively selective and will mate only with the top most desirable quarter of sex B, then all of the next generation will be offspring of the more variable subpopulation B1"