5 ms·

Folks are passing the slides, which don't actually have data (EDIT: supportive of his preference or σ=1.15 arguments, he does summarize and offer a bit of data

Folks are passing the slides, which don't actually have data (EDIT: supportive of his preference or σ=1.15 arguments, he does summarize and offer a bit of data about how women claim to be marginalized in the field). Folks there say the slides are not reflective of quite how angry and off-putting the talk was. It was not presented calmly. Here are the slides: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1c_NyUhOZ8erdqU2AGZJZtNfFeA91Kefj/view https://drive.google.com/file/d/1c_NyUhOZ8erdqU2AGZJZtNfFeA9... WARNING: These slides are not very good or compelling and invoke, "Cultural Marxism" as a causal agent for why women want to and feel entitled to a fair shot at STEM positions by merit. You can be modestly sure anyone who says, "Cultural Marxism" (a direct invocation of the specter of Nazi propagandists' "cultural bolshevism") isn't arguing with the best of intentions. Folks invoking that nonsensical saw aren't about to present a huge quantity of well sourced and organized evidence. Usually that phrase is associated with statistics about the number of Jewish investors in the US, how CoCs are destroying culture, how dangerous Muslims are to "European cultures," or how women and socialism caused the fall of the Roman empire.

nabla9 8y ago
I agree with you about "Cultural Marxism", the author clearly is not presenting neutral facts. However he also poses a theory based on existing data. --- For those who don't know: "Cultural Marxism" a term with two meanings: Obscure and irrelevant meaning and more common based on conspiracy theories. If you have been reading about "Cultural Marxism" and have thought it's something you can just drop into dissuasion, maybe check your facts. It's about as neutral and academic term as "capitalist pig" or "Illuminati".
- wmil 8y ago
  It's not really accurate to call it a conspiracy theory. It's really just an attempt to name a group of ideas. The "conspiracy theory" charge is just push back because it's easier to criticize ideas if you can name them.
  - KirinDave 8y ago
    Personally I think that it's much better to point to it's near-indisitinguishability from "Cultural Bolshevism" which was an anti-jewish & anti-worker-union movement in Germany prior to WW2. It's a real problem for anyone seriously attempting to use the term. It makes me wonder why people cling to it as a classification (when literally hundreds of other options exist), which are more descriptive and don't try and invoke the specter of authoritarian Russian regimes. What's actually "marxist" about it?
- KirinDave 8y ago
  I should clarify he doesn't present data for his pivotal claim (a gaussian IQ distribution and Damore's preference argument). He does present a bunch of data that to me reads like a bunch of good examples of gender discrimination in his field. And maybe he's a super genius at math and I'm not, but I don't see a lot of the statistical machinery I would expect to see to carry the weight of the σ=1/1.15 claim that we're currently seeing as a proposed caused for the data.
  - nabla9 8y ago
    > reads like a bunch of good examples of gender discrimination in his field. You don't need good arguments or good data to have argument based on data. What you need is common context based on science and statistics that helps you to point out that what he presents is rubbish. Data is not ok, conclusions are wrong, not enough significance. Mathiness and using mathematical models is good because you can say more exactly what you mean so that others understand your argument and can point out the errors.
    - KirinDave 8y ago
      Maybe his talk had more coherency than his slides. I imagine the talk must have been, "Why does this inequality persist." "But what if it's not unequal." "Note this inequality paradox of M theory (dun dun dun what's the M)" "Women in the field ARE treated equally if they deserve it." "Women getting into the field don't deserve it." "Because they are entitled cultural marxists." "Gender studies is literally the problem." "Please see these comics which I'm sure you haven't seen on reddit, tumblr, twitter and gab about a hojillion times."
      - KirinDave 8y ago
        I'm taking quite the beating on moderation for this, but I'm genuinely curious if someone thinks I've actually misrepresented the contents of the talk. I actually read the slides carefully, talked with some folks on Twitter, and tried to lay it out. Other than the bit about the comics I think I wrote an outline here devoid of the specific statistical arguments we already covered.

nabla9 8y ago

I agree with you about "Cultural Marxism", the author clearly is not presenting neutral facts. However he also poses a theory based on existing data. --- For those who don't know: "Cultural Marxism" a term with two meanings: Obscure and irrelevant meaning and more common based on conspiracy theories. If you have been reading about "Cultural Marxism" and have thought it's something you can just drop into dissuasion, maybe check your facts. It's about as neutral and academic term as "capitalist pig" or "Illuminati".

wmil 8y ago
It's not really accurate to call it a conspiracy theory. It's really just an attempt to name a group of ideas. The "conspiracy theory" charge is just push back because it's easier to criticize ideas if you can name them.
- KirinDave 8y ago
  Personally I think that it's much better to point to it's near-indisitinguishability from "Cultural Bolshevism" which was an anti-jewish & anti-worker-union movement in Germany prior to WW2. It's a real problem for anyone seriously attempting to use the term. It makes me wonder why people cling to it as a classification (when literally hundreds of other options exist), which are more descriptive and don't try and invoke the specter of authoritarian Russian regimes. What's actually "marxist" about it?
KirinDave 8y ago
I should clarify he doesn't present data for his pivotal claim (a gaussian IQ distribution and Damore's preference argument). He does present a bunch of data that to me reads like a bunch of good examples of gender discrimination in his field. And maybe he's a super genius at math and I'm not, but I don't see a lot of the statistical machinery I would expect to see to carry the weight of the σ=1/1.15 claim that we're currently seeing as a proposed caused for the data.
- nabla9 8y ago
  > reads like a bunch of good examples of gender discrimination in his field. You don't need good arguments or good data to have argument based on data. What you need is common context based on science and statistics that helps you to point out that what he presents is rubbish. Data is not ok, conclusions are wrong, not enough significance. Mathiness and using mathematical models is good because you can say more exactly what you mean so that others understand your argument and can point out the errors.
  - KirinDave 8y ago
    Maybe his talk had more coherency than his slides. I imagine the talk must have been, "Why does this inequality persist." "But what if it's not unequal." "Note this inequality paradox of M theory (dun dun dun what's the M)" "Women in the field ARE treated equally if they deserve it." "Women getting into the field don't deserve it." "Because they are entitled cultural marxists." "Gender studies is literally the problem." "Please see these comics which I'm sure you haven't seen on reddit, tumblr, twitter and gab about a hojillion times."
    - KirinDave 8y ago
      I'm taking quite the beating on moderation for this, but I'm genuinely curious if someone thinks I've actually misrepresented the contents of the talk. I actually read the slides carefully, talked with some folks on Twitter, and tried to lay it out. Other than the bit about the comics I think I wrote an outline here devoid of the specific statistical arguments we already covered.