Exh ppprtaxgee

There was a study that found that men who are mentors correlate to better results in their Academia careers, but the Twitter mob complained, so Nature caved in and retracted the paper, pledging an even stronger 'commitment to diversity and inclusion' for 2021

Pathetic, but fully not surprising. See here. Here is a good article about https://quillette.com/2020/11/23/retracting-a-controversial-paper-wont-help-female-scientists/

The paper outrights says "One potential explanation could be that, historically, male scientists had enjoyed more privileges and access to resources than their female counterparts, and thus were able to provide more support to their protégés.".

I love the women are wonderful effect

The paper has two main points. The first point is that, people react less positively to sex differences that favor males than to those sex differences that favor females. As an example, people view hypothetical research that claims that men draw better or lie less than women as more offensive, triggering, and counter productive than hypothetical research that makes the equal-but-opposite claims

Moreover, they view the male-favoring claims as less important and less plausible

I have definitely noticed that when sex differences are ‘allowed’ to be pointed out , those sex differences always falls in favor of women, unless of course you are in conservative circles.

So that is responsible for pushing a big part of this generation’s men towards conservativism and antifeminism views. 

Some who have been there themselves, find that “progressive” circles more times than I care to count stifle ALL discussion of sexual and gender differences unless those differences put women onto a pedestal, and desiring to talk about sex differences without propping up women causes you to drift towards “alt-right” viewpoints very fast.

This is because that is the only spot that is open to having a conversation about these differences. 

Now neither of these groups actually care to have productive discussion, but being shunned from one extreme pushed a lot of people to the other unhealthy extreme. 

It’s a harsh and divisive mentality and the exact people who do not want to acknowledge any sex differences that benefit men will act stunned when men gravitate away from their talking points.

I see Liberal 2.0ers not able to speak about an inherent differences, UNLESS it's favors their in-groups (shocking right?)

For instance, you are permitted by the Liberal 2.0ers to suggest that blacks are better at sports similar to how they permit the idea of women being more pure (which women really are, but that beside the point)

It's not so that uncommon behavior (most humans wrongly and ignorantly believe their group and allies are better), but when someone claims to rightfully believe that everyone is literally equal, and then make others to also at least seem to believe it, then it is at minimum hypocritical to do a 360 and claim that certain people(s) are better than other people(s), but others could not possibly be better at other things, because that's bigotry, don't ya know.

If there are areas in which blacks are on average better than others, and things which women are just better at (including by their virtue) why in heaven’s name would that only be the case for those pre-approved groups? I want someone to give me an answer because I need to do mental gymnastics to analyze that

The broken code. https://twitter.com/leoquantico/status/1341156741879377920?s=20

I guess in some ways maybe,  evolution stops at the neck.

By now it's rather clear that the number one effect of idpols is to push people who are constantly blamed or demonized by said idpols in the direction of the far right. Idpol advocates have not had any success in reducing the racism’s weight or prejudice’s weight, they have only radicalized the population, whether to be in favor of or against their ideas.

It's happening (though much less advanced and differently) in western Europe. As those speeches and ideas grow more and more among the Liberal 2.0 elite, the far right keeps getting bigger and the political spectrum then tilts to the right. 

Blue-collar whites are likely more racist now than in they were in the 1980's, and this will only get worse. It is even happening to the traditionally progressive leaning middle-class, who are not ‘pure’ enough, or not ‘progressive’ enough for the militant Liberal 2.0, and they then get constantly bashed for this or that.

In Eastern Europe, they are rightfully so scared of this woke nonsense ,that they have an excuse to vote for far-right conservative nutjobs to avoid any of this woke nonsense spreading to their countries. I might even be able to rationalize them making those type of votes in Eastern Europe  

I am a Leftist who supports Libertarian Marxism and some fringe ideas from Luxemburgianism People’s Democracy Marxism Leninism . 

However if I lived in Europe (like France), and then I had to choose between our modern-day self loathing Liberal 2.0 heavily influenced by American idpols, and a staunchly conservative nationalist, I would vote for the latter without giving it a second thought. (this is good analysis in general). I have rooted (from my home in the US), for such right wingers in Europe before.

THOUGH, then again, I wouldn't vote for the rightoids either. This is because Rightoid idpol is still idpol 

However, as part tankie , I do demand peer reviewed studies that PROVE that this type of Liberal 2.0 idpol wokeness like mentioned in this post and that alone has changed the specific voting patterns before I will even entertain the idea (of me voting for Peter Thiel’s New Right in the US and Conservatives in Europe). 

Almost its like that the voting patterns won’t really be different at all when politicians are being pushed apart at the same rate anyways, in any event it’s quite reductive of them to ignore the endless cultural factors that fuel radicalism and only focus solely on election results instead of that

Who would have thunk it that ,by claiming that (white) men are the number one evil of the 21st century, and that everything (white) men have ever done is garbagr, this would somehow piss (white) men off?

I don’t think it is the goal of Idpol advocates to reducing the weight of racism and prejudice.

If the Idpol advocates did reduce racism and prejudice, they would then risk losing their funding. To improve the prospects of their careers, they have to do the opposite of that, which is to increase the perceived amount of racism and prejudice. They do this by either faking it, or they do it by inciting it. Or they do it by expanding the definitions.

Like how Seattle, Washington have spent $100,000 per homeless person (I love that number, that's like seven solid years on welfare a person) through awareness campaigns, consultants, conferences, and bureaucrats in order to solve homelessness, and the main success that all of those experts have had thus far is further increasing the amount of homeless in Seattle, Washington. 

Precisely, solving problems rationally and with compassion will never make politicians and the media anywhere near as much money as performative activism and ongoing arguments.

A lot of idpol feels like cointel 2.0

The modern radical-right grew a bit out of the response to things like occupy wall street where things like the proto Liberal 2.0 stack started to be pushed to the forefront of any Anti Capitalist movements. 

The modern radical-right itself was somewhat also Anti-Capitalist (unless we say that people such as Sargon or Styx are the center of the radical-right which is not the case) and has only kept becoming even more Anti Capitalist. The American Left (synth left) on the other hand are now cogs in the Neoliberal machine and they love this role

It's alt-right or /r/menslib (and then alt-right if you're "lucky")

Or heaven forbid if any person intimates that a inconvenient percentage of misogynist sexist pigs ignorant and unenlightened people still instinctively haven’t completely written off at least some semblance of traditional gender roles.

I was a (proto) Liberal 2.0er myself years back, and I find that “progressive” circles tend to stifle any discussion of sexual and gender differences unless said discussion rightfully puts women on a pedestal (after centuries of oppression women deserve to be put on that pedestal), and wanting to have a discussion about sex differences without going overboard, women in short time shuttle you towards “radical-right” viewpoints because that is the only location that is open to discussing these toxic unhelpful ideas differences.

"progressive" circles tend to attract uninformed people with a black/while type of thinking; either you are 100 percent with them and their "member of group X is always the victim (or the oppressor), in every situation, 24/7" or you are automatically labeled as incel/neo nazi.(though they get pushed that way afterward so maybe those labels are prophetic)

Basically m the SAME exact author, using the SAME exact methods did study which showed that ethnic diversity good.., not one complaint was made. That author does this about women, BOOOM, science flips its lid. Abuse to (and doxxing of) the author, calls for cancellations, and after the fact that they are attempting to find flaws in her reasoning. And this isn’t anything new, these strains of toxic feminists strike again:

https://quillette.com/2018/09/07/academic-activists-send-a-published-paper-down-the-memory-hole/

Above is actually telling just how zealous and fast that those Liberal 2.0 feminists did this and how organized they were.

https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLytTJqkSQqtr7BqC1Jf4nv3g2yDfu7Xmd

Here is a video on women are wonderful in addition to the first video on gender blind auditions

However, for any person questioning why the paper was retracted, it's research methodology was quite terrible.

1) Their dataset wasn’t gendered, it just had the names. They used a computer program to gender the names, but it had a higher than average failure rate.

counterpoint: AlShebli and her research team addressed this critique by downloading the most up to date version of the dataset, which improved on a lot of the previous name-disambiguation errors. They also re-ran all of their analyses (which is an arduous task) and updated then their results accordingly.

2) Their dataset was contaminated by some junk data. Unless we assume that there are a bunch of immortals running around that are mentoring people.

3) They define mentorship based solely on co-authorship, and defining it like that is not a good measure to do so.

counterpoint: Second, reviewers stated their concern that AlShebli’s research team treated co-authorship as synonymous with mentorship. To show that senior co-authors had in fact provided mentorship, AlShebli and her research team sent a survey to a random sample of 2000 of the scientists.

Of these 2000 scientists , 167 responded. This is a minimal response rate, which suggests reports may not generalize across the larger sample. Notwithstanding the limitation of this, 72–85% of respondents agreed that they have received guided instruction on each of the skills that were listed in this survey. 

95% percent of them agreed that they had received guidance on or more of the skills. 

These findings lend some (though limited) credence that the senior co-authorsof this paper did in fact provide mentorship to their junior co-authors. 

In addition to that, AlShebli’s research team also went to great lengths to openly state in the article’s title that they investigated “informal mentorship in academic collaborations,” along with the text: “we study mentorship in its broader sense, which may involve multiple senior collaborators who may or may not hold a formal supervisory role.”

4) Their definition of "quality of scholar" is in similar ways also lacking. It is based only on citations of paper within a five year timespan

5) Their entire study fails to give thought to the fact that sexism or institutional barriers etc may exist. They do not look into these considerations, and they don’t consider the effects of the different already known biases based on gender.

Third, the reviewers expressed their concern over the paper’s lack of attention to the societal factors that might contribute to the gendered results, like men’s greater historical career advantages and access to resources. AlShebli’s research team thus also put in the paper an explicit acknowledgement of these factors in the general discussion which they wrote on page six:

pg 6 “it should be noted that there are societal aspects that are not captured by our observational data, and the specific mechanisms behind these findings are yet to be uncovered. One potential explanation could be that, historically, male scientists had enjoyed more privileges and access to resources than their female counterparts, and thus were able to provide more support to their protégés.”

Source is here (but we need a better source than Quilette)

I believe that a very fair article on the topic. The criticism, is that the paper got all of the heat because of their findings and not because of the flaws of the paper, but that doesn’t really seem too outragous to me. Keep in mind, that the same authors wrote a very similar paper with Diversity and that Diversity paper did not cause any drama at all.. but then again, it also had the "correc" finding that diversity does correlate with impact.

That website though also defended phrenology so it is very hard for me to trust .The history does seem even more bad than that after I researched it a bit.

A co-author on some particular study is a huge stickler about how date ranges are given too much weight in studies about pedagogy and supervision. 

For example,  it's vital that your research is up to date however in a lot of different fields there is core research or case studies that used even today in supervision but may be a few decades years old. 

There many other context and research principles that help to make a study decent, which happens by focusing squarely on the publication date which is for undergrad literature reviews.

In my opinion, assessing for quality is the part of systematic reviews that is tricky. There are very many factors that could be used, like recently it took one researcher a few months of revisions to make an assessment for the quality of qualitative case studies for studies and even then I do fail to see how the 11 criteria they selected are finalized yet.

I have heard from someone getting their Ph.D. in social psych. They expressed casually how there is this very harsh internal criticism that is among psychologists along with real concerns about being seen in this way that those psychologists go through pretty radical lengths to do "good science." 

The field is so worried with this effort that they have established a sort of very fine methodologies and approaches, and have approached the double edged sword that is their "replication crisis," which actually is present in a lot of other fields (including STEM fields) yet this was the one that was under pressure and therefore started digging internally.

I'm likely not doing the subject the justice it deserves but it tracks with much of what I see - this endless disparaging of the psychology field from people who have no understanding of it and a psychology field that is super aware of how the perspectives of other people impact them and the social cost to them as academics.

Psychology as a research field has done such fine work for society that people do not credit anywhere near enough. Criticism of psychology like “ This just proves psychology is shit science.” can be frustrating and make it wrongly seem that as a field it doesn't have the pedigree that fields like philosophy or political science have. I just really feel for those who study it.

Sociology/Psychology is such an vital field in the political,realm, I feel more people should know about that. 

There is a reason why some people constantly interprets the data wrong, make terrible research, don't have enough results to back up their claims, use too small to use sample size, are wary of education, can't differentiate between a good info source and a bad info source and can't even make rational counter arguments. 

Those subjects are learned more at the university level compared to the high school level, so obviously they are wary of Universities too. They can't even google things without bias, like them saying "I googled 'soy is harmful for men' and..." as if that's a real accomplishment. It is not, they just failed the most basic part,. That's how they end up at b.s unscientific sites too.

Average people too, somewhat oftentimes, are offended by psychology and they discard the idea without a read. 

Like it’s still just a theory but in "nurture assumption" by Harris, she argues that children's personalities aren’t determined by how they are raised, but instead they are determined by their peer group. 

Say that to someone and they could discard that idea completely only because it means "they didn't actually raise their children" (but that is not true, she never said that good parenting is invaluable). 

You get asked questions like "But if I was a bad parent, beat them each day and screamed at them wouldn't they turn out to be worse?" and then you have to explain to them that being abused is not a personality.

A more type of "reddit" example, for instance, violent video games, movies, etc totally do affect people (children are even more vulnerable). 

I have yet to read any scientific study which found that the two are not related. But say that on r/Gamers, and they will put your head on a pike, just because you said that "violent video games = violence".

What is really said is merely that playing violent video games does not cause violence but it does make a person insensitive to violent visuals and it makes it more likely that a person will make violent decisions. 

It won't turn a regular child into a mass shooter but we cannot claim that there isn't some effect.

That Diversity study they did though has a key difference.

That difference is, ethnicity is directly accounted for in their database, it's not a guess that the authors make that are based on names. Neither do they extrapolate mentorship based on some questionable measure either.

But yep, publication bias for null results is known to be an issue. A study that shows that current inclusivity efforts should be overturned, is always going to attract more attention, than a study that does not do that

I should note that the Diversity study has only about 15,000 accesses (compared with the 460,000 accesses for the woman study), in spite of it being published much much longer. It's not like it is really accepted, it is just ignored.

But some say that ethnicity was determined by the "Name Ethnicity Classifier tool" (an algorithm that is used to guess people's ethnicities based on their names). The general methodology for that paper is very very similar, not shocking when that paper has the same lead author.

The key takeaway here really for me is not the methology used but instead the question of if this would have had this backlash if the result had shown that female-female mentorship has a positive effect? I seriously doubt it.

It wouldn't have had anything close to the same attention, and that would mean that people who criticize it now would never have seen it

There's a huge difference between "bad research that confirms expected results is accepted" and "bad research that confirms expected results is ignored". The latter is more likely than the former.

In addition to that, we can not judge this research in a vacuum. The implications and real life consequences of a null and a positive result are just not the same, and so the response to such a result will thus be different.

This makes a lot of sense in case of a consensus or an outrageous claim. Like the example I gave.

But why should we expect to find out that female-female mentorship is "better” than male-female mentorship?

Seeing how mentors are likely older and the fact that older men might have more access to networking and resources than female mentors would have access to, I believe that the result also is not really surprising.