The title is in reference to this video. Watch it for context.
Two well-meaning, mild-mannered mathematicians, Theodore P. Hill and Sergei Tabachnikov, were crucified for introducing the Greater Male Variability Hypothesis (GMVH), a possible explanation for why males are overrepresented in all extremes, such as CEOs, criminals, Nobel laureates and suicide statistics. This idea had been kicked around before ,by Havelock Ellis in 1894, and even before that in Darwin's work, suggesting that in general, there is more variability in traits among males of a species. In essence, we have more idiots and more geniuses, and this holds true for the vast majority of traits.
This is a concept we at the Red Pill aren't exactly strangers to. Sperm is cheap, eggs are valuable. It makes more sense to have more, potentially damaging variation among the more disposable half of the population, than risk the future of the tribe. But "academic activists" saw it differently. Only the science they deem "appropriate" and "politically correct" can be published, indeed, the paper in question was disappeared, gestapo style, from the journal it was meant to be published in, an unprecedented move in academia. Because of this Theodore Hill's (at this point, Mr Tabachnikov had removed his name from the paper and caved to the pressure) paper was nearly black-balled from every other journal and was at risk of never seeing the light of day.
We often speak of facts not caring about your feelings and how we must look at all the data before forming an opinion. Well now, "political correctness" is gearing to remove dissenting data from the source. We cannot argue against them, after all, when data in support of our arguments is destroyed before even seeing the light of day.
This has set a most dangerous precedent. This is just one paper, that we only know about because the man himself, Theodore Hill, never gave up and pushed to get his research out there. Here's his article detailing this whole ordeal. Now, extrapolate. Imagine more academics go the way of Mr Tabachnikov and simply cannot handle the pressure and potential hit to their reputation. In fact, what have we already missed out on because the information was suppressed, being deemed "too controversial".
Stay frosty brothers, wrongthink is actively being rooted out at the source. Don't talk about the red pill.
-Strife
P.S. For those interested, the GMVH is simplified in this article and it also links a lot of other related data.
FirstnameLastnamePKA 5y ago
I mean isn't this common sense? With two X chromosomes non-dom traits which are displayed on one X might be counteracted by the other X. Meanwhile men have an X Y combo, meaning non-dom X traits couldn't be overridden. Probably really oversimplifying
Prison4SideofBeef 5y ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeMZGGQ0ERk
mattizie 5y ago
Meh. The free market will sort it out. His problem was providing an answer to people who had no need for it, and didn't want to hear it.
It doesn't matter if it's feminism, socialism, climate change or Keynesian economics, over time the truth will win out, and those that made decisions based on the truth will win big.
[deleted] 5y ago
[deleted]
EdmondDaunts 5y ago
It is important to make a distinction between pure science and science applied to real world actions.
It Is perfectly fine for varied ideas to flourish and be examined as long as the limitations and applicability of the conclusions are known.
When science becomes advocacy this changes. Then, common sense and accountability are bypassed because of reasons.
It’s collectivist thinking. You don’t eat food that isn’t deemed safe yet you push ideals and speculation on society.
It’s the eternal battle between theorists and empiricists. Theorists have been winning for a long time.
344354as 5y ago
From the linked article:
> At a faculty meeting the week before, the Department Head explained that sometimes values such as academic freedom and free speech come into conflict with other values to which Penn State was committed.
Fucking hell. Says it all really.
tempolaca 5y ago
If what it says in this page is truth: https://quillette.com/2018/09/07/academic-activists-send-a-published-paper-down-the-memory-hole/
Then trust in the scientific community should be revoked. Feminism has infiltrated and now decides what's published and what's not, scientific method be damned. I say this as an academic, with great sadness.
There was a reason women weren't allowed on colleges for centuries, after all.
Incidentally, the field of epistemology studied this phenomena. Resistance of new or controversial ideas always existed. And there's only one way for the truth to win, historically: Wait and let the censors die out. Centennials, the generation following millenials, are notoriously anti-feminism and anti-PC. They will restore the balance in science, when millenials die out.
gELSK 5y ago
// , You should make a post out of this, tempolaca. The content here may actually be more useful than the original post.
​
If you don't, I will.
Chaddeus_Rex 5y ago
That is why I have always said, those who have too much trust in the "avademic commu ity"/"peer reviewed research" or "Science!" are fools.
I am in academia, "peer review" is generally a crock of shit, it is stringly based on the name (big names can publish shit science in big papers", there is much bias for a certain viewpoint, papers are accepted based on "plausibility" by peers, etc. The peer review process was arbitrary and was rejected in much of Europe when it was established because it was viewed as an 'exclusive' club that hurt science. Many scientists want to move to a more democratic system of publishing, where anyone can publish a peper but those that survive are those with 'good' science as MANY scientists have 'upvoted' it, not just a few editors who dont know shit about science anyways.
killabeesindafront 5y ago
“Academia is to knowledge what prostitution is to love; close enough on the surface but, to the nonsucker, not exactly the same thing”
Chaddeus_Rex 5y ago
Great quote. Perfectly summarizes my point in a sentence.
Your_Coke_Dealer 5y ago
Science is a methodology to verify and standardize the otherwise lawless and observational practice of research. The problem is twofold: science has become corrupted with politics and money like many other processes, and science has been pedestalized in a form of “scientism”, where academic gatekeeping and appeal to authority has put science beyond a figurative wall to the layman, even where it is not too complex for a college-educated person of another field to understand.
Chaddeus_Rex 5y ago
Yes. Science is a methodology and should be treated as such. It has its flaws. Those who place more trust in "peer review" process or "scientific publications" instead of their own observations of the world (beyond something incredobly specific like molecular biology, medicine, chemistry or physics) are fools. This is another redpill that many here on TRP are loathe to take.
Your_Coke_Dealer 5y ago
Like capitalism, it’s merely the least terrible system we have.
MoDuReddit 5y ago
Yes. because when you have one bad employee, you shut down the company.
​
/s
Chaddeus_Rex 5y ago
Repost from above:
That is why I have always said, those who place too much trust in the "academic community"/"peer reviewed research" or "Science!" are fools.
I am in academia, "peer review" is generally a crock of shit, it is strongly dependent on the name/reputation (big names can publish shit science in big papers", there is much bias for a certain viewpoints, papers are accepted based on "plausibility" by peers, etc. The peer review process was arbitrary and was rejected in much of Europe when it was established because it was viewed as an 'exclusive' club that hurt science. Many scientists want to move to a more democratic system of publishing, where anyone can publish a paper but those that survive are those with 'good' science as MANY scientists have 'upvoted' it, not just a few editors who dont know shit about science anyways.
MoDuReddit 5y ago
Completely agree, even on utter failure of peer review with the introduction of paid publications.
Trust is earned. Physics has never disappointed me since Newton. Social Sciences can't go a decade without being the laughing stock of the scientific community.
​
As for the evolution of Science, I agree, the 1800's model must be updated. There have already been great improvements, such as online storage of large data-sets that would be otherwise unverifiable by other scientists. The text of the paper might fit in 100kB, but the 100T dataset used for the statistical analysis is a bit harder to store and download.
Imperator_Red 5y ago
Straw man much? It’s more than one bad employee. It is an entire culture of corruption. There are entire academic departments influencing policy and influencing academia as a whole that have no business even existing.
MoDuReddit 5y ago
Completely agree. Those departments have long since abandoned scientific practices, as evidenced by the latest duplication fiasco of the social "sciences".
​
And yet, I'm pretty sure the Engineering and Physics department can't get away with sending rockets to the moon based on feelings.
[deleted] 5y ago
[deleted]
MoDuReddit 5y ago
We went to a new comet just last week.
Chaddeus_Rex 5y ago
They can and they are working on it
tempolaca 5y ago
Great phrase. No, they don't but sure as hell they'll try.
tempolaca 5y ago
How do you know it's only one? if this happen with one study, how do you know it doesn't happen in others? Science is about looking for truth. If we found that truth is so easily compromised in the name of some unrelated concept like equality, then you poisoned the entire academic institution.
MoDuReddit 5y ago
​
No more rockets to the moon.
No more cars.
No more internet.
No more medicine.
​
Why? Because...
​
Your_Coke_Dealer 5y ago
Science itself is fine. It’s become mired in things unrelated to its practice. And I have personally seen technological development stunted by politics (unrelated to feminism) as well while in university.
Compare to politics and it’s relationship to lobbying: the political system itself is fine at its core, but the lobbying needs to go if politics is to engage in representative democracy as intended
MoDuReddit 5y ago
I understand what you mean. The meta-system around science must not gamify it's users to do shit.
If politician's are rewarded for lobbying and doing shady business, it's human nature to do it. Same for science, I mean, look at the pharmaceutical industry. They've been feeding useless chemo's on cancer patients with multi-thousand dollar drugs... all based on p value hacking.
MattyAnon Admin 5y ago
This is happening. Noone is going to publish anything that could be interpreted as being critical of women. The journals ignore it, so there is no point funding the research before that - even if there is an organisation willing to.
For each tale that Theodore Hill relates, there are a hundred more where the author simply capitulates and gets on with more productive lines of enquiry, such as how free speech is vital but places like TRP must be quashed.
Science cannot be trusted to back us up. Research into male-female relations and sexual strategy is inherently biased by a gynocentric society that cares about truth only when it makes women look good.
TRP is referred to as psuedoscience, but at least it isn't afraid to speak.
Did you know I have a blog? https://www.trp.red/b/mattyanon
Chaddeus_Rex 5y ago
Repost:
That is why I have always said, those who place too much trust in the "academic community"/"peer reviewed research" or "Science!" are fools.
I am in academia, "peer review" is generally a crock of shit, it is strongly dependent on the name/reputation (big names can publish shit science in big papers", there is much bias for a certain viewpoints, papers are accepted based on "plausibility" by peers, etc. The peer review process was arbitrary and was rejected in much of Europe when it was established because it was viewed as an 'exclusive' club that hurt science. Many scientists want to move to a more democratic system of publishing, where anyone can publish a paper but those that survive are those with 'good' science as MANY scientists have 'upvoted' it, not just a few editors who dont know shit about science anyways.
[deleted]
tempolaca 5y ago
There are many unconvenient scientific studies. Like the one that says blacks have in average 10 or less IQ points than whites, and asians have 5 more. This doesn't means shit, as IQ is not a valid test as a measurement of intelligence, but it can be used by racists movements as justification for violence or discrimination. But it's not false.
From the article, this letter from the fucking NSF is horrific:
This a from a Darwin theory. We are truly living in dystopian times.
MoDuReddit 5y ago
I know for a fact that many universities' anthropology departments gave up decades ago, on studying anything related to genetics groups and humans. No, not humanities, the biology ones, think Bones. They're the only ones in the world with a good reason to look into "races": they study humans, FFS!
lvanden 5y ago
Doesn't peterson say that if you dont believe in IQ then you might aswell not trust any psychology theory that comes out because its one of the most researched theory or something like that.
Your_Coke_Dealer 5y ago
“Most researched” is a misleading term. Let’s compare it to Reddit terms: you could interpret it as “most upvoted”, “best” or as “most controversial”, as research may find flaws or quirks in a tested theory rather than simply verify it
lvanden 5y ago
I cant remember what he said exactly ill have to find the video
Imperator_Red 5y ago
Actually, it is. The only reason that people don't like it is precisely the reason that you are attacking - because they don't like what it shows. If IQ gave even results across all races and genders, literally no one would be attacking its validity as a measure of intelligence.
[deleted] 5y ago
[deleted]
Imperator_Red 5y ago
This is exactly what it measures.
It has been shown in study after study to be strongly correlated with success in life.
Cannot respond. Makes no sense.
[deleted] 5y ago
[deleted]
Jabroni421 5y ago
The thing is, employers cannot use IQ tests as a basis of employment, it’s illegal. If it were legal they would. Colleges would likely do the same. Someone at some point decided IQ tests were too real (maybe a better predictor of ability than a college diploma?).
[deleted] 5y ago
[deleted]
Jabroni421 5y ago
You can predict this, yes. The top three predictors for lifetime success are IQ, having a two parent household, and conscientiousness (aka measures of “grit”). IQ and conscientiousness can be measured in children.
[deleted] 5y ago
[deleted]
Jabroni421 5y ago
Prediction =/= garauntee. Do you logic?
tempolaca 5y ago
Have you ever taken an IQ test? I did. I suck at it. Don't have the patience to solve those stupid riddles.
The second time I took it, obviously I did way better. It means I got more smart? no. It's bullshit. The test only measure your ability to take the test.
moltenw 5y ago
I'm curious about this as well since I havent taken one, probably never will... but it makes sense that you can "prepare" for the IQ test format, at least.
What does it even measure? your innate "smartz"? If I am very good at academics for example, and get a high score, is my "true" IQ really measured? or am I just a tryhard at solving those types of problems?
Not to mention that with more knowledge and different tries, the IQ test results would surely differ, right?
I mean, a measurement of your intelligence? Sure, but I don't exactly see how it can put a simple "label" on you intelligence wise depending on how you score.
Perhaps someone can englighten me?
StrifePrevails 5y ago
It may well be, the only problem is that there's no "black" race. Using Africa as an example, the peoples there are more genetically diverse than anywhere else on earth. To the point that there's a good chance that a random white European is more genetically similar to someone from West Africa than that African is to someone from Southern Africa.
The reason this confusion exists is because "black" communities outside of Africa (African Americans for example) are pretty homogeneous and create this concept of all dark skinned people being the same. There's a reason the best short distance runners and the best long distance runners can all be of African descent after all. Now given enough time, I'm completely willing to believe that most other continents have enough diversity on their own that the "race" qualifier can't apply anymore.
Incel9876 5y ago
There's a black race, and despite variations between them, they are obviously less intelligent than other races, and nobody has ever been able to devise an intelligence test that shows differently. Even admixtures with other races only raises the IQ so much, ex. African Americans.
Imperator_Red 5y ago
Unfortunately this is true. I wish it wasn't but it is. There is no evidence that IQ tests are "culturally biased" in any way. This is just another thing that people say because they don't like the results. I'm not sure how Raven's progressive matrices can be culturally biased. Nor do I quite understand how a test developed by a white American could be culturally biased against a black American who scores poorly, but not be culturally biased against a person living in China who scores well.
AllahHatesFags 5y ago
Feminism has now become a religion or better yet a cult and is now a plague upon the advancement of the human race much as Catholicism was during the Middle Ages. Any scientific finding that disagrees with the tenets of the faith is heresy and must be stamped out. They are fanatics and cannot be reasoned with.
GL_QUAD 5y ago
Well, yes. This is a well-known fact, dating from the times of the pioneers of intelligence testing (today known as IQ tests).
FYI, the first standardized intelligence tests (Army Aplha^1 and Army Beta^1) were deployed in 1917. The Stanford-Binet intelligence scales (Binet, Terman), on which these tests are based, are from 1916.
As individual measurements from hundreds of men & women were put together and explored (this is descriptive statistics 101), it was shown that the data follows a normal distribution; furthermore, standard deviation and distribution spread in men was higher (that is, a more spread-out bell curve to both extremes, i.e. more geniuses and idiots).
As far as "academic activists" are concerned, in my book, they can go fuck themselves.
^1 ) This has nothing to do with TRP terminology; the Aplha version was intended for literate army applicants, the beta counterpart for illiterate ones (nothing that extraordinary, as this was early 20th century).
[deleted]
AutoModerator 5y ago
Just a friendly reminder that as TRP has been quarantined, we have developed backup sites: https://www.trp.red and our full post archive (and future forums) https://www.forums.red/i/TheRedPill. Don't forget to register on TRP.RED and reserve your reddit name today. Forums.Red is currently locked but will be opened soon.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
Imperator_Red 5y ago
Good post in general, but I must quibble with this sentence. It is a common misconception that evolution acts to benefit the "tribe" or occasionally the "species," but this is not true. Evolution acts to benefit the individual. Sometimes evolution acts to benefit our kin, but this is still benefiting the individual, or more accurately the genes carried by the individual, as our kin share much of our DNA.
This may sound like semantics but I think it is actually very important to get it right, as viewing evolution in terms of group benefit can lead to incorrect assumptions.
I would also point to this example as being a leading reason for why I personally cannot simply accept the pronouncements of climate science as being gospel.
chrisname 5y ago
Evolution operates at the gene level, not the individual level. Look into the selfish gene theory. Kin/group selection is certainly a thing and is probably why low status people get depressed, stop eating and commit suicide. It frees up resources for more productive members of the tribe. Doesn't benefit the individual at all (he's dead) but tribe members are interrelated, so many of his genes will be more likely to be passed on than if he kept consuming resources while having virtually zero chance of mating. Genes don't care about the individual, only their own propagation.
destraht 5y ago
I wrote a few college papers on this sort of thing almost twenty years ago. I was looking at for example microfiche from the early 70's BBC with a title something like "The Earth weeps for its lost harvests" that went on a scare about how the Earth would be frozen and it would be really bad. There were apparently a few cool years in there, or so they thought. Then it was hard railed on about global warming, then it was a more general "climate change". They created an apocalyptic religion and their temples are called universities. Back then I could still squeak through with a B while still being a pain in the professor's ass, but its probably a lot harder now. I can't know for sure but it seems much more difficult now. I wouldn't suffer myself through being there again, so who knows.
Right up there as a smoking gun for it all being a pile of shit is The Report from Iron Mountain on the Possibility and Desirability of Peace (Wikipedia], (PDF). It is supposedly a hoax (as all good things are said to be) but it really freaked people out because it hit very close to a fear point and it seemed plausible as hell. In the report it touched on alternative methods for maintaining control through waste such as ecology, space race and an extraterrestrial menace. It seems to have just settled as war being the generally useful goto, same as old.
As far as the climate goes, they generally don't seem all that interested in considering solar output and the effects of large scale weather modification for military and agriculture purposes. Setting the military purposes of cloud seeding to induce droughts and floods over a territory, just look at the well documented use of cloud seeding for agriculture. There are services where you can sign up to have make it rain. They just fly a plane during certain times of the year when there is a lot of moisture and they dump particles into the atmosphere. Hey pretty neato, except that if its being done all over the place then it will have an affect on rainfall patterns far from the target location.
If you write off all of the known cloud seeding business out there as being snake oil then you still have to come around to trusting the "scientific community" to be on the up and up, and they've proven to be lying pieces of shit on many occasions. The same kinds of people who are quarantining this subreddit are in control of the data. Ehh, I don't trust them.
MoDuReddit 5y ago
So let me get this straight. Some people are complaining that they've been fucked by academia for daring to publish some real science.
And your take away from this is "Global Warming is a myth, all scientist are super dumb, wake up sheeple?"
destraht 5y ago
Sexuality and climate are big money and control and the major institutions have been had and its all gamed. Almost certainly if they were doing real science at this point they'd be pariahs just as well and needing to work from the outside. You are probably a smart fellow and so might have noticed that people haven't been playing fairly.
MoDuReddit 5y ago
Major quible, you are completely, 100% wrong. Your humanization of pieces of code (DNA) ignores the blunt reality of our existence:
​
we are nothing more than vessels for our genes.
​
Imperator_Red 5y ago
I never humanized DNA.
Did you miss when I wrote this? “Sometimes evolution acts to benefit our kin, but this is still benefiting the individual, or more accurately the genes carried by the individual.”
My explanation was completely, 100% right. Work on your reading comprehension.
MoDuReddit 5y ago
False. Evolution a population numbers game, The individual is nothing.
​
There is only 1 benefit, as far evolution is concerned: increased likelihood of passing genes. Everything else is us, poor macro-organism, projecting our wishes upon the world.
​
There are no assumptions with evolution. It's all about population distribution of genes. Haplogroups, races and "mixing" are nothing more than a blink of an eye, in evolutionary terms.
​
​
Science isn't gospel. It's documented, peer-reviewed, replicated tests, experiments, methods and theories that have yet to be disproved. If you don't trust science, that's fair, but I'd like to hear you come up with a better method to assess reality objectively.
​
Imperator_Red 5y ago
False. Shows you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. On day one of any class related to evolution they will explain that it is all about the genes carried by an individual organism, or in the case of kin selection, other organisms related to the individual.
I know this. I never said anything to imply that I disagree with this. You are just prancing around the internet putting words into peoples' mouths so you can start fights.
Lol what? I said that not understanding a certain concept can lead to people making false assumptions about how evolution works. Legitimately no idea what you are talking about. As I read every successive line and see that it is dumber than the last, I begin to regret replying. I am already this far though so I will push on.
You are just spewing out words at this point.
I have to hand it to you. You are the best straw man generator that I have seen on Reddit in some time, and that is really an accomplishment. I (and many others) don't trust the people doing the documenting, peer-reviewing, and replicating, not the entire idea of science itself. This is because we have documented, replicated proof of their bias, corruption, and self-serving agenda over an extended period of time and across many fields. It's almost like we made observations about reality, formulated hypotheses based on these observations, gathered data, and developed theories. If only there was a word to describe this process.
Wow, that was exhausting.
MoDuReddit 5y ago
Thank you, Appreciated. You know, not many people with published papers have the patience (or boredom at work) to try to explain science to a conspiracy theorist on reddit, right?
I have provided explicit answers, all of which are backed by science. I might be wrong, but all you've done are appeals to emotion. Show me wrong with clear arguments and I'll even buy you a beer.
This is exactly why you don't understand how science works. YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO NOT TRUST. Papers are published in journals and are public so that everyone can read them, understand them and refute them, if necessary. The fact that you use anti-evolution arguments debunked 200 years only tells me that you're actually religiously motivated.
You don't trust science? Fine. Go back to medieval Europe and live on your own filth without soap, vaccines or computers. It's so nice to say that science doesn't work on your trillion transistor computer with 200 million lines of code and materials from uganda to japan.
You are correct and shit should be called out. Of course since your only interest is undermine science, you'd never know that just this last year, 2 fields of science have been practically destroyed... by scientists who called on their bulshit!
But according to you, nope, throw the baby away with bath water.
It's called the Scientific Method^tm. I suggest Karl Popper's "Just what the hell is Science??" book, quite a nice read, light but deep.
You should work out and eat more healthfully if typing on a computer tires you,
Imperator_Red 5y ago
Hahaha did you even watch the video or read the post? The journal retracted a paper it had intended to publish based on harassment from other leftists academics. And your response is "read the journals." What. A. Clown.
Again with this bullshit. I'm done with you.
MoDuReddit 5y ago
Yes, the science was unable to come out due to politics. Your rational response to this event is to ignore science.
I have no further argument. So many babies thrown out the window because of the bath water...
woyspawn 5y ago
Why are two mathematicians writing a paper outside their field of expertise?
You don't need a fucking maths PhD to calculate a sampled variance. They are either lousy mathematicians, were assigned to an unrelated department or published something unrelated to their department in which case it won't be endorsed by their home institution.
xenigala 5y ago
Read the author's explanation of what happened: https://quillette.com/2018/09/07/academic-activists-send-a-published-paper-down-the-memory-hole/ This guy is a professor emeritus at Georgia Tech and just had his memoirs published by the American Mathematical Society, so he has solid credentials. I find his account believable.
This article was a mathematical model demonstrating how greater male genetic variance could evolve, those sort of evolutionary models are published in applied math journals. It is also interesting for mathematicians because there is a striking gender disparity in high-level mathematics.