RSS
From the BBC:
Cern scientist Alessandro Strumia suspended after comments
8 hours agoA senior scientist who said physics “was invented and built by men” has been suspended with immediate effect from working with the European nuclear research centre Cern.
Prof Alessandro Strumia, of Pisa University, made the comments during a presentation organised by the group.
He said, in comments first reported by the BBC’s Pallab Ghosh, that physics was “becoming sexist against men”.
Cern said on Monday it was suspending Prof Strumia pending an investigation.
It stated that his presentation was “unacceptable”. …
Prof Strumia, who regularly works at Cern, was speaking at a workshop in Geneva on gender and high energy physics.
He told his audience of young, predominantly female physicists that his results “proved” that “physics is not sexist against women. However the truth does not matter, because it is part of a political battle coming from outside”.
He produced a series of graphs which, he claimed, showed that women were hired over men whose research was cited more by other scientists in their publications, which is an indication of higher quality.
He also presented data that he claimed showed that male and female researchers were equally cited at the start of their careers but men scored progressively better as their careers progressed.
When the BBC contacted Prof Strumia he said: “People say that physics is sexist, physics is racist. I made some simple checks and discovered that it wasn’t, that it was becoming sexist against men and said so.”
The only conceivable solutions for the problem of male scientists mentioning the existence of affirmative action for female scientists are
– more affirmative action for females
– more severe punishment of males for revealing affirmative action exists
Well, I’m sure Chinese Social Media will have another burst of laughter at how the West is now undergoing its own Cultural Revolution, actually stranger in some ways than Mao’s original one…
https://gmachine1729.com/2018/09/25/a-chinese-theoretical-physicist-on-freedom-of-speech-lack-thereof-in-civilized-society/Replies: @J.Ross, @Lot, @Lot
To be fair, working for CERN does not make you a real physicist.
If the government decides to create ten thousand baseball teams, playing third base for one of them does not make you a professional third baseman.
Well, it sort of does, but not really.
RKU – aren’t you on the record opining that Mao was mostly good for China?
https://www.counterpunch.org/2012/09/18/pol-pot-revisited/
Here's the Jewikipedia version of the article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocideReplies: @amen, @vinteuil
vinteuil – aren’ t you the guy whose name is hijacked all the time?
The truth will set you free.
Here is Strumia’s presentation. I don’t find nothing that is untrue in it:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1c_NyUhOZ8erdqU2AGZJZtNfFeA91Kefj/view
I don’t condone his suspension, but one must choose one’s words carefully. Marie Curie, whose work on radioactivity fundamentally changed physics, died decades before Strumia was born, and it’s almost inconceivable that his contributions to physics will ever surpass hers. Sometimes PC gets it right.
Also, explain how it fundamentally changed physics.Not really. BTW, do you ever get anything right?Replies: @AndrewR
I thought Mme Curie was more of a chemist?Replies: @AndrewR
Curie is the Ada of physics.Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
Sincerely YoursReplies: @AndrewR
https://twitter.com/CityBureaucrat/status/1046922478734458887
Like Haven Monahan, the search for Chad Ludington will be fruitless, I suspect.
https://twitter.com/CityBureaucrat/status/1046926013714849803
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/oct/01/physics-was-built-by-men-cern-scientist-alessandro-strumia-remark-sparks-fury
Who is John Galt?
He is the White Man. It’s time for him to go on strike.
Testes descending all over the place. Feminists secretly thrilled.
Looking forward to the HEP (High Energy Physics) NYT-reading blogosphere declaring its "disgust" at Strumia's reactionary faux pas followed by declarations of conformity and oath of fealty to the Long March we all (in our solidarity, together) must collectively engage in.
And we thought Galileo had it bad.
The descending testes you see are actually economic migrants parachuting in.
Looking forward to the HEP (High Energy Physics) NYT-reading blogosphere declaring its “disgust” at Strumia’s reactionary faux pas followed by declarations of conformity and oath of fealty to the Long March we all (in our solidarity, together) must collectively engage in.
I can see why boys would object to the statement. But it’s still inaccurate. Physics, at least the laws thereof, was discovered by men.
Also, people are going to read it as triumphalist, even when not obviously meant as such, because that’s the way their minds work.
Just like Arab women are covered up because Arab men really can’t control their sex drive. And blacks and guns… need I say more?
Emmy Noether DID have something to say about where conservation laws come from.
It was something rather important.
There was (and will) be more good stuff coming from the female side in this work, I have no doubt.
You COULD argue that Physics was kickstarted by the ultra-geek alchemist-mathematician-politician Isaac Newton.Replies: @Pericles, @Anon 2
Botany maybe, but Physics is uniquely Mathy, especially Einstein forward, and Math is man's invention; his greatest.
You may be thinking of Pol Pot, shown by Unz Independent Scholar Israel Shamir to be the innocent victim of Anglo-Zionist-Vietnamese defamation:
https://www.counterpunch.org/2012/09/18/pol-pot-revisited/
Here’s the Jewikipedia version of the article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide
The presentation
http://drive.google.com/file/d/1c_NyUhOZ8erdqU2AGZJZtNfFeA91Kefj/view
is excellent. The only “controversial” point is the graph on page 23 saying that citation counts fit the Larry Summers model (similar to the graph that got Damore fired). There is also a page of links to documentation of Female Privilege in STEM.
https://i.postimg.cc/bwtbx1XP/male_female_bell_curve.png
Better to provide an archive.is link. In this case, many people already have:
http://archive.is/download/tJ02H.zip
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-06292-0/figures/3Replies: @academic gossip
Also, people are going to read it as triumphalist, even when not obviously meant as such, because that's the way their minds work.
Just like Arab women are covered up because Arab men really can't control their sex drive. And blacks and guns... need I say more?Replies: @El Dato, @Desiderius, @International Jew
A peremptory statement, my dear fellow.
Emmy Noether DID have something to say about where conservation laws come from.
It was something rather important.
There was (and will) be more good stuff coming from the female side in this work, I have no doubt.
You COULD argue that Physics was kickstarted by the ultra-geek alchemist-mathematician-politician Isaac Newton.
as a great instrument maker, i.e., an experimental physicist.
For example, he invented a reflecting telescope, which turned out
to be vastly superior to the refracting telescope Galileo used.
He did many experiments in optics, e.g., showed that all the colors
of the rainbow can be recombined to produce a white beam,
a feat that, even with all our progress, would still be a
challenge for our undergraduates.To reduce Newton to a geek betrays a profound ignorance of history.
Also, people are going to read it as triumphalist, even when not obviously meant as such, because that's the way their minds work.
Just like Arab women are covered up because Arab men really can't control their sex drive. And blacks and guns... need I say more?Replies: @El Dato, @Desiderius, @International Jew
I don’t know, Reg.
Botany maybe, but Physics is uniquely Mathy, especially Einstein forward, and Math is man’s invention; his greatest.
Anyone here experienced in PR with any ideas on getting that bad boy a nice wide readership?
Not a PR expert, but there's always the Remora Strategy of having MSM write outraged exposes of these scandals that contain links that lead some people to read the vile documents and...
Wow, a Stereotypical Physicist. It is possible to be so smart that you are clueless.
Oh, and watch your back if you like to share such views in public, friend.
https://www.counterpunch.org/2012/09/18/pol-pot-revisited/
Here's the Jewikipedia version of the article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocideReplies: @amen, @vinteuil
Like all communist leaders, Pol Pot and Mao were just misunderstood.
Mao was surely better for China than the leftist academics are for us.
https://www.counterpunch.org/2012/09/18/pol-pot-revisited/
Here's the Jewikipedia version of the article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocideReplies: @amen, @vinteuil
Jeezus. I missed that one.
Thanks — English is clearly not his first language, but his citations line of argument is interesting — he says at the end: PS: many told me “don’t speak, it’s dangerous”
It’s offensive precisely because it’s true.
The meeting will now come to order — “LOL”
Best to avoid clicking links to google drives, as the owner of the file can see who downloaded it, possibly the name and email if they are logged into a google service.
Better to provide an archive.is link. In this case, many people already have:
http://archive.is/download/tJ02H.zip
I went through the presentation desk. My impressions:
— The fact that he is not a native speaker of English didn’t work in his favor, both because of some difficult to decipher sections, and because humor in your non-native languate is tricky and not advised.
— Tactically, it would have been better to separate the commentary and sarcastic asides from the “science,” because that would leave fewer soft spots for activists, the media, and social media to attack.
— The science part of the presentation, which was extensive, consisted of data mining of a number of large databases that I didn’t realize existed. They comprised databases related to physics job openings and hirings, physics publications including sex identification and rank order among authors, citations of journal articles in other journal articles, and more.
The database stuff was analyzed and graphed in various ways to try to show that there was no anti-woman bias; rather there was favoritism, when proper controls were applied. In particular he endeavored to show that there is no citation bias, and that even if there were he triangulated on things in such a way that any citation bias wouldn’t disprove his points.
Of interest to people here is that he did some IQ stuff. He assumed equal IQ between the sexes (which is the the official concensus, but there is a growing underground concensus that women are one- to two-fifths an SD below men in IQ, so about 98 vs. 102, but he assumed 100 to 100), and he assumed a 15 percent difference in variance, which jibes with the current consensus of women to men SDs of 14 and 16. Using these assumptions he looked at the number of men and of women at various sigma levels above 100, where physics geniuses would be, and found many fewer women, as would be expected, and then compared this to the citation and publication stuff, and the graphs matched very nicely.
Shamir had a hard time deciding what would shock the bourgeoisie the most: denying the Cambodian genocide or blaming it on Jews.
It found it linked from the Guardian article on the same topic, which is a few thousand readers right there.
Not a PR expert, but there’s always the Remora Strategy of having MSM write outraged exposes of these scandals that contain links that lead some people to read the vile documents and…
Why was this being discussed at Cern? Nevermind, it’s 2018.
I’m have a hunch that this audience was not very representative of the young physicists who (want to) work at Cern.
See the sort of physics presentation preferred by the young women, and everything fits.
This also fits a fresh meta-analysis on Nature: Gender differences in individual variation in academic grades fail to fit expected patterns for STEM (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-06292-0). From the abstract:
Don’t let the last sentence fool you, it’s there to avoid the censorship. Look at figure 3 for the actual result.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-06292-0/figures/3
Also, people are going to read it as triumphalist, even when not obviously meant as such, because that's the way their minds work.
Just like Arab women are covered up because Arab men really can't control their sex drive. And blacks and guns... need I say more?Replies: @El Dato, @Desiderius, @International Jew
The laws themselves, having existed since 25,000,000,000 BC, were indeed discovered. What was invented was the mathematical formalisms that make the laws intelligible. Thus, before anyone could say e=mc^2 it took someone to invent the notion of “energy”. Talk to random people and you won’t get any consistent or tractable definition of “energy”. It took careful thought to hit on the notion that measuring things in units of kilogram meters squared per second per second was useful for grasping stuff we see in the real world.
From the blog of Luboš Motl, a Czech theoretical physicist. You can skip to 2:30 to see the show trial; I think that embedding the video is prohibited, so you’ll need to go to Youtube. This is from his post on this story, linked below.
Sexmission also touches familiar eighties notes: corporations replace national governments, "genetics" is invoked but they don't really do anything with it, and a lot of stuff about the individual thinking for himself considering that this particular sci-fi sex comedy comes from a ComBloc country in the grip of brutal oppression. I guess they figured, as long as it's not Catholic, stuff was kosher.
Hitman Harry Aleman was a member of his high school physics club. His claim to fame was that he was tried TWICE for the same crime and convicted, double jeopardy whats that?
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1998-05-10-9805100179-story.html
Working for CERN as a janitor does not make you a physicist. Working for CERN as a physicist, as Professor Strumia does, does.
You misspelled courageous.
Oh, and watch your back if you like to share such views in public, friend.
I miss eighties tv/movie feminism, when they still bore in mind that they were heterosexuals angling for a better deal, and not bitter aliens joylessly exterminating a pest.
Sexmission also touches familiar eighties notes: corporations replace national governments, “genetics” is invoked but they don’t really do anything with it, and a lot of stuff about the individual thinking for himself considering that this particular sci-fi sex comedy comes from a ComBloc country in the grip of brutal oppression. I guess they figured, as long as it’s not Catholic, stuff was kosher.
Gwendolyn Christie is taller than most men. Ergo, women are taller than men.
Also, explain how it fundamentally changed physics.
Not really. BTW, do you ever get anything right?
Haha coincidently I recently wrote a blog post that involved a Chinese theoretical physicist, his words on freedom of speech, AND the Cultural Revolution.
https://gmachine1729.com/2018/09/25/a-chinese-theoretical-physicist-on-freedom-of-speech-lack-thereof-in-civilized-society/
What these politically illiterate Chinese apparently expect us to not know is that the Emperor distracting people from his faults by empowering them to criticize each other is a pretty old and pretty widespread idea.
There's a great sequence in an Aeon Flux episode that perfectly illustrates it. The Dictator is interviewed on TV about the disappearance of his nominal superior. Without actually answering the question he quips, "I have nothing to hide," and proves this by removing his clothes. Like the Ice Bucket Challenge on FaceBook, a completely meaningless commitment to Assisian innocence, symbolized by nudism, sweeps the dictatorship's credulous citizens. When next he is interviewed, it is by a nude journalist -- and the Dictator's clothes are back in place. Peter Chung proves not all Chinese are as silly as your physicist.
"“I noticed how little difference there is between men and women"
"“It would be a pity if these Chinese supplant all other races... For the likes of us, the mere thought is unspeakably dreary.”
http://totallyhistory.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Albert-Einstein.jpgReplies: @gmachine1729
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1c_NyUhOZ8erdqU2AGZJZtNfFeA91Kefj/viewReplies: @pyrrhus
Truth is no defense, Comrade! It only makes the crime worse….
CERN Press Release:
https://press.cern/press-releases/2018/08/long-sought-decay-higgs-boson-observed
Higgs Boson disintegrates. Women and minorities hit hardest.
In addition, we get more opportunity to employ the wonderful term baizuo.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-06292-0/figures/3Replies: @academic gossip
Their “insufficient” is a misinterpretation. Usual bell curve stuff on data with a ceiling (grades) will give the observations they describe.
For school grades, higher average causes lower variability. That girls exert more effort to get grades makes their average higher and variability lower. If in STEM their effort is less effective (relative to boys’ effort) than in non-STEM, then their grade distribution must be more similar to boys’ than in non-STEM.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1998-05-10-9805100179-story.htmlReplies: @Alden, @Cortes
I’ve heard of him. He’s been mentioned in books about Chicago corruption and crime.
-- The fact that he is not a native speaker of English didn't work in his favor, both because of some difficult to decipher sections, and because humor in your non-native languate is tricky and not advised.
-- Tactically, it would have been better to separate the commentary and sarcastic asides from the "science," because that would leave fewer soft spots for activists, the media, and social media to attack.
-- The science part of the presentation, which was extensive, consisted of data mining of a number of large databases that I didn't realize existed. They comprised databases related to physics job openings and hirings, physics publications including sex identification and rank order among authors, citations of journal articles in other journal articles, and more.
The database stuff was analyzed and graphed in various ways to try to show that there was no anti-woman bias; rather there was favoritism, when proper controls were applied. In particular he endeavored to show that there is no citation bias, and that even if there were he triangulated on things in such a way that any citation bias wouldn't disprove his points.
Of interest to people here is that he did some IQ stuff. He assumed equal IQ between the sexes (which is the the official concensus, but there is a growing underground concensus that women are one- to two-fifths an SD below men in IQ, so about 98 vs. 102, but he assumed 100 to 100), and he assumed a 15 percent difference in variance, which jibes with the current consensus of women to men SDs of 14 and 16. Using these assumptions he looked at the number of men and of women at various sigma levels above 100, where physics geniuses would be, and found many fewer women, as would be expected, and then compared this to the citation and publication stuff, and the graphs matched very nicely.Replies: @academic gossip, @Pericles
The citation analysis is from the SPIRES database of high-energy physics papers. He may have used machine learning routines to classify authors as male or female for some of the large scale statistical analysis. At least that was the case in his recent bibliometrics paper
http://arxiv.org/abs/1803.10713
I wish he had explained better what calculation he did. If there is no apparent normal distribution of NumberOf_Citations (or its logarithm or something) and he imposed one in order to match up IQ and N_cit then it’s not as impressive a fit. The general message that the upper tail of citation counts is heavier for men and dominated by them is a fact about his data. Whether it supports the Larry Summers variance-based explanation of that dominance depends on how he constructed the graphs. I’m skeptical of explanations that don’t use a higher mean for males. We deal here with the distribution of “net research effectiveness” not IQ as such.
The simple guess is that the citations data is a truncated normal distribution bounded by zero at the left. He only shows the right half of the distribution. Is there a meaningful statistical problem with overlaying left truncated and nontruncated normal distributions if you are only interested in the far right hand data?
At any rate, questions like this are how his presentation should be dealt with, not by banning it and ostracizing him.
By the way, Steve, I’m getting this from your link to the chartdeck:
If there is some description of citation counts as a process driven by truncated normal distributions of ability, that accurately matches the M/F data when the process parameters are taken from the Larry Summers variance story, that would be good evidence. It's hard to understand from the slides whether that's what Strumia found.The Summers story is fine as a talking point (if worded carefully) but what drives the tail differences in reality is probably a difference in means. "Mean of what quantity" is also part of the explanation. The difference in IQ means is small and might be zero (though evidence suggests otherwise). The average sex difference in a combination of all traits relevant to STEM can be larger than for IQ, and probably is. I think the tails of these distributions are also fatter than in a normal distribution, which increases the importance of mean rather than variance as the source of differences in performance. More on Summers-ism here:https://www.unz.com/isteve/masked-middlebury-mob-gets-away-with-it/#comment-1903503Replies: @res
https://gmachine1729.com/2018/09/25/a-chinese-theoretical-physicist-on-freedom-of-speech-lack-thereof-in-civilized-society/Replies: @J.Ross, @Lot, @Lot
Hmm, he is correct in a pretty useless way, and conveniently unaware of complicating examples. He is dodging the issue of Chinese political backwardess by demanding that George Washingon mow his lawn. That what the Constitution says, right? In fact, George Washington, lazy slave-owning bastard that he was, hiding sneakily behind death, will not mow your lawn. So I guess John Locke was an idiot.
What these politically illiterate Chinese apparently expect us to not know is that the Emperor distracting people from his faults by empowering them to criticize each other is a pretty old and pretty widespread idea.
There’s a great sequence in an Aeon Flux episode that perfectly illustrates it. The Dictator is interviewed on TV about the disappearance of his nominal superior. Without actually answering the question he quips, “I have nothing to hide,” and proves this by removing his clothes. Like the Ice Bucket Challenge on FaceBook, a completely meaningless commitment to Assisian innocence, symbolized by nudism, sweeps the dictatorship’s credulous citizens. When next he is interviewed, it is by a nude journalist — and the Dictator’s clothes are back in place. Peter Chung proves not all Chinese are as silly as your physicist.
Eh, sorry, what’s a good link?
https://www.reddit.com/r/Physics/comments/9k9mq9/a_prominent_theoretician_at_cern_alessandro/
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1c_NyUhOZ8erdqU2AGZJZtNfFeA91Kefj/view?usp=drivesdk
This was from Twitter. Who knows who's behind it or how long it will be live, so it was a good idea to put it up on Unz for posterity. Maybe if Ron sees this he can troubleshoot it.Replies: @Sammler
Citation counts are nothing like a truncated normal. There are too many people who are dozens of standard deviations above the mean. Power law or log-normal would be natural guesses.
If there is some description of citation counts as a process driven by truncated normal distributions of ability, that accurately matches the M/F data when the process parameters are taken from the Larry Summers variance story, that would be good evidence. It’s hard to understand from the slides whether that’s what Strumia found.
The Summers story is fine as a talking point (if worded carefully) but what drives the tail differences in reality is probably a difference in means. “Mean of what quantity” is also part of the explanation. The difference in IQ means is small and might be zero (though evidence suggests otherwise). The average sex difference in a combination of all traits relevant to STEM can be larger than for IQ, and probably is. I think the tails of these distributions are also fatter than in a normal distribution, which increases the importance of mean rather than variance as the source of differences in performance. More on Summers-ism here:
https://www.unz.com/isteve/masked-middlebury-mob-gets-away-with-it/#comment-1903503
I looked at the following cases and see the corresponding ratios at a threshold of 145.Means 102/98 with SD 15, ratio 2.4
Mean 100 with SDs 16/14, ratio 3.8Of course both together make the biggest difference.Means 102/98 with SDs 16/14, ratio 9.1Though perhaps you are correct after factoring in your following sentence:That is much harder to assess.P.S. And no discussion like this should leave out the role of individual and group preferences (e.g. people vs. things).Replies: @academic gossip
Talent goes where talent is appreciated. China is already in the process of reversing the brain drain to the U.S. (https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/2163001/chinas-brain-drain-us-ending-thanks-higher-salaries-and-donald). At some point, as men are purged from STEM in the West, China and those countries not afflicted with Mad Cow ideology will likely be beneficiaries.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1998-05-10-9805100179-story.htmlReplies: @Alden, @Cortes
Handy with a paint brush, too, just like another murderous German.
https://gmachine1729.com/2018/09/25/a-chinese-theoretical-physicist-on-freedom-of-speech-lack-thereof-in-civilized-society/Replies: @J.Ross, @Lot, @Lot
You’re a toady for a dictatorship with that trash.
https://gmachine1729.com/2018/09/25/a-chinese-theoretical-physicist-on-freedom-of-speech-lack-thereof-in-civilized-society/Replies: @J.Ross, @Lot, @Lot
“Even those reduced to working like horses never give the impression of conscious suffering. A peculiar herd-like nation … often more like automatons than people.”
““I noticed how little difference there is between men and women”
““It would be a pity if these Chinese supplant all other races… For the likes of us, the mere thought is unspeakably dreary.”
Lol then by your logic in China there are hundreds of millions of toadies for that dictatorship.
"“I noticed how little difference there is between men and women"
"“It would be a pity if these Chinese supplant all other races... For the likes of us, the mere thought is unspeakably dreary.”
http://totallyhistory.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Albert-Einstein.jpgReplies: @gmachine1729
Cool, I could hardly care. Neither could most Chinese. And by the way, there are plenty of Chinese physicists, and some who made history too. Like Chen-Ning Yang with Yang-Mills theory and parity violation. Plenty too who contributed directly and enormously to where China is today. All that says a lot more than a few quotes of Einstein from back in the 1920s.
The funny thing is that Einstein would probably have been horrified to hang out with a group of Litvak Jews in pre-ww2 Poland, since they had a lot of the qualities that he detested.Replies: @Anon 2
Here’s the slides of the talk that got him fired:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1c_NyUhOZ8erdqU2AGZJZtNfFeA91Kefj/view
Certified shitlord.
https://gmachine1729.com/2018/09/23/苏联的伟大，中共文明继承-величие-советск/
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1c_NyUhOZ8erdqU2AGZJZtNfFeA91Kefj/view
Certified shitlord.Replies: @gmachine1729, @gmachine1729
Хаха так аутизм
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1c_NyUhOZ8erdqU2AGZJZtNfFeA91Kefj/view
Certified shitlord.Replies: @gmachine1729, @gmachine1729
Maybe the West raised Russian nationalist returnee can take a look at my Russian translation of a Chinese poem extolling the historical place of the Soviet Union? 😉
https://gmachine1729.com/2018/09/23/苏联的伟大，中共文明继承-величие-советск/
“fundamentally changed physics”
I thought Mme Curie was more of a chemist?
Emmy Noether DID have something to say about where conservation laws come from.
It was something rather important.
There was (and will) be more good stuff coming from the female side in this work, I have no doubt.
You COULD argue that Physics was kickstarted by the ultra-geek alchemist-mathematician-politician Isaac Newton.Replies: @Pericles, @Anon 2
Who WAS a tranny or something?
Scientist said physics “was invented and built by men”. … Rebutted by naming one single woman.
Curie is the Ada of physics.
-- The fact that he is not a native speaker of English didn't work in his favor, both because of some difficult to decipher sections, and because humor in your non-native languate is tricky and not advised.
-- Tactically, it would have been better to separate the commentary and sarcastic asides from the "science," because that would leave fewer soft spots for activists, the media, and social media to attack.
-- The science part of the presentation, which was extensive, consisted of data mining of a number of large databases that I didn't realize existed. They comprised databases related to physics job openings and hirings, physics publications including sex identification and rank order among authors, citations of journal articles in other journal articles, and more.
The database stuff was analyzed and graphed in various ways to try to show that there was no anti-woman bias; rather there was favoritism, when proper controls were applied. In particular he endeavored to show that there is no citation bias, and that even if there were he triangulated on things in such a way that any citation bias wouldn't disprove his points.
Of interest to people here is that he did some IQ stuff. He assumed equal IQ between the sexes (which is the the official concensus, but there is a growing underground concensus that women are one- to two-fifths an SD below men in IQ, so about 98 vs. 102, but he assumed 100 to 100), and he assumed a 15 percent difference in variance, which jibes with the current consensus of women to men SDs of 14 and 16. Using these assumptions he looked at the number of men and of women at various sigma levels above 100, where physics geniuses would be, and found many fewer women, as would be expected, and then compared this to the citation and publication stuff, and the graphs matched very nicely.Replies: @academic gossip, @Pericles
Lol, “tactically” … Look, we’re talking about HURT FEELINGS here, it doesn’t matter what the professor said or how he said it or whether he was right or wrong.
I don’t think many people here would doubt the contributions of Chinese over the centuries. Compare Einstein’s view of the Chinese with that of Bertrand Russell, who went to China to teach. He found the students extremely intelligent and eager to learn.
The funny thing is that Einstein would probably have been horrified to hang out with a group of Litvak Jews in pre-ww2 Poland, since they had a lot of the qualities that he detested.
a Polish Jew. Among other things, they wrote a famous book together,
called "The Evolution of Physics" (1938)
Mao was the modern Emperor Qin Shi Huang: a mean, sociopathic SOB who caused a lot of misery, but also saved China from people and situations that were even worse and unified the place. I think the CPC, all things concerned, have taken a reasonably mature, relatively realistic approach to their historical treatment Mao with the 70/30 split. Though I am sure the irony of modern China resembling what Chiang Kai Shek wanted (Chiang has been rehabilitated as a positive nationalist and modernizing figure in their media, BTW-he is probably more admired in the PRC than Taiwan these days) more than Mao is lost on nobody in charge in Beijing.
There’s a case to be made that Tsarist Russia might have been able to modernize without the Bolsheviks: it was the world’s fastest growing economy before WWI. But China was just such a mess, for so long, that tragically Mao really was the least worst option they had by the 1940s.
I guess all I can say is that if Mao was the least worst the Chinese could do for themselves, just a couple of generations ago, then, for God's sake, let them all stay in China.
Emmy ***ing Noether.
Always ignored. Sigh…
Unfortunately, taking the most sane attitude, that you don’t care who makes the discoveries as long as someone makes them doesn’t fall of fertile ground in 2018 America.
Emmy was very high-T, though.
Mao did a great number of evil things, but two things he got right was mass literacy programs and getting experience with “big science” through projects like the atom bomb. The East Germans and Soviets sent a lot of technical advisors down to get things started and train people, so by the time things got wholly insane in the 60s, China at least wasn’t fully on the ground still.
The Cultural Revolution did a lot of damage because the college system was shut down, but couldn’t wipe out the basis of a newly mass educated generation completely. So, when Deng decided it was time to overhaul things and lay the basis of a modern, advanced economy, he had an easy pool of talent to send off to the US, Japan, and Singapore to learn science and engineering. A generation later, and China easily can kickstart things like the BGI or mass high speed rail transport. And with industrial jobs heading off to Vietnam and Indonesia these days, China is now using science and tech related startups and ventures to employ the masses. Don’t know how it’ll turn out, but better than what we’ve tried with our working and middle classes.
I know for sure that a large number of Soviet accomplishments (like the great industrialization projects or even little things like a writing reform and a calendar reform introduced already in early 1918) were prepared before the war under the Tsar. I also know that most good communist reforms which worked in Hungary (extension of compulsory education to 8 years, i.e. until 14 years of age, etc.) had been prepared before the war by the evil fascist capitalist (etc.) government.
That's always the issue with communist accomplishments, others would've done them, too, but without the mass murder and catastrophic social engineering experiments. (Not to mention the regular engineering experiments like building huge steel mills in Hungary which lacked both quality coal and quality iron ore. A project was conceived by the commies alone.)Replies: @nebulafox
Yet he still never made the switch from characters to an alphabet
Also, explain how it fundamentally changed physics.Not really. BTW, do you ever get anything right?Replies: @AndrewR
Aww poor baby needs a nap…
I thought Mme Curie was more of a chemist?Replies: @AndrewR
Chemistry and physics are not entirely separate…
I suspect Salvini has emboldened Strumia. And good for them both, and us.
The preservation of Chinese characters hasn’t hurt Japan (although kana do make Japanese much easier to learn than Chinese)
Curie is the Ada of physics.Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
To be fair, Marie Curie is a most impressive figure. The fact that less than 20 years after the discovery of radioactivity she was using it in healthcare on a mass scale shows how much of a ‘doer’ as well as a thinker she was.
Fair play to her – what a woman. Figures like that are rare, be they male or female.
Today a canadian woman was awarded the Physics Nobel.
Maybe it’s why word light mediums like manga are so popular there
I didn’t forget her.
Emmy was very high-T, though.
Seems a very fishy story to me. Chad as a first name is of recent popularity. To be at Yale with Kavanaugh, this guy would need to be over 50.
Note that Wikipedia uses the past tense. There does not seem to be any persons of that surname now.
Like Haven Monahan, the search for Chad Ludington will be fruitless, I suspect.
He simplified the writing nevertheless, which Taiwan and Hong Kong still haven’t done. The latter despite being under British rule. Anyway, it doesn’t look like either Taiwan or Hong Kong (let alone mainland China) needs a simplified writing. They are good as they are.
I found the same link as Anatoly, the Google Drive link someone on Reddit left:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1c_NyUhOZ8erdqU2AGZJZtNfFeA91Kefj/view?usp=drivesdk
This was from Twitter. Who knows who’s behind it or how long it will be live, so it was a good idea to put it up on Unz for posterity. Maybe if Ron sees this he can troubleshoot it.
You’re the one who reasons like a child, idiot.
Although probably Chiang Kai-shek would’ve done those, too.
I know for sure that a large number of Soviet accomplishments (like the great industrialization projects or even little things like a writing reform and a calendar reform introduced already in early 1918) were prepared before the war under the Tsar. I also know that most good communist reforms which worked in Hungary (extension of compulsory education to 8 years, i.e. until 14 years of age, etc.) had been prepared before the war by the evil fascist capitalist (etc.) government.
That’s always the issue with communist accomplishments, others would’ve done them, too, but without the mass murder and catastrophic social engineering experiments. (Not to mention the regular engineering experiments like building huge steel mills in Hungary which lacked both quality coal and quality iron ore. A project was conceived by the commies alone.)
But while Chiang got a surprising amount done considering what a mess the place was-and was also a better general than people give him credit for-the cards he held were simply too limited at the time where he could have pulled a Russia. He never had the control he needed, and at the moment he had the prospect of getting it, the Japanese invaded. (By contrast, by 1941, the USSR was far more advanced and formidable than it was in 1914, purges aside. The Germans made the mistake of assuming they were dealing with a similar power that they saw at Tannenberg.) By the 1940s, when the war was over and the civil war restarted, the KMT had gotten so rotten and exhausted that it needed a completely fresh start in Taiwan to turn things around, with Mao's programs providing an additional scare factor. The KMT of the 20s and of the 40s and of the 60s were very different animals.
There is something hideous about your open, proud servility.
“physics ‘was invented and built by men’ ”
Well gol-lee gee whiz! I mean…WASN’T it?
Speaking of gender in science, we now have the third woman Nobel Prize winner in physics.
Amazingly, though, she was only an Associate Professor at Waterloo, even though she was near 60. I’m sure we are going to hear how she was outrageously denied a full professorship despite her groundbreaking achievements. Because of course we all know that today women in physics are never given the promotions they deserve, due to the rampant misogyny.
Seriously, though, what does it say about her personal accomplishments if the people who knew her work best didn’t see fit to give her a full professorship, even these days?
I’m thinking that the Nobel committee is delivering on its promise to deliver more diversity. This is what it takes to do that.
Yes, look at her accomplishments on Google Scholars. She was the first author of a paper with more than 4500 citations. This often means that she was a good graduate student, and did all that her advisor said her. After that paper, she never published nothing so good. And compare with her PhD advisor Gerard Mourou. He has 7 papers with more than 1000 citations, as a last author. This implies that he develops very good projects as a scientist. And the other laureate, Arthur Ashton, the third laureate, also published more than 7 papers as last author. She never developed successful projects. Her best paper as a last author is only cited thirty times. LOl
https://www.reddit.com/r/Physics/comments/9k9mq9/a_prominent_theoretician_at_cern_alessandro/
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1c_NyUhOZ8erdqU2AGZJZtNfFeA91Kefj/view?usp=drivesdk
This was from Twitter. Who knows who's behind it or how long it will be live, so it was a good idea to put it up on Unz for posterity. Maybe if Ron sees this he can troubleshoot it.Replies: @Sammler
FWIW, truncated normal distribution is quite a bad model for number of citations. There’s a high peak near zero (trust me, I know this firsthand ;( ) and a long decaying tail. Maybe chi-squared with 1 df (ie, normal squared), or gamma distribution with smallish df.
If there is some description of citation counts as a process driven by truncated normal distributions of ability, that accurately matches the M/F data when the process parameters are taken from the Larry Summers variance story, that would be good evidence. It's hard to understand from the slides whether that's what Strumia found.The Summers story is fine as a talking point (if worded carefully) but what drives the tail differences in reality is probably a difference in means. "Mean of what quantity" is also part of the explanation. The difference in IQ means is small and might be zero (though evidence suggests otherwise). The average sex difference in a combination of all traits relevant to STEM can be larger than for IQ, and probably is. I think the tails of these distributions are also fatter than in a normal distribution, which increases the importance of mean rather than variance as the source of differences in performance. More on Summers-ism here:https://www.unz.com/isteve/masked-middlebury-mob-gets-away-with-it/#comment-1903503Replies: @res
You have made many good comments in this thread, but I think you are wrong on this.
Using Emil’s tail effect visualizer: http://emilkirkegaard.dk/understanding_statistics/?app=tail_effects
I looked at the following cases and see the corresponding ratios at a threshold of 145.
Means 102/98 with SD 15, ratio 2.4
Mean 100 with SDs 16/14, ratio 3.8
Of course both together make the biggest difference.
Means 102/98 with SDs 16/14, ratio 9.1
Though perhaps you are correct after factoring in your following sentence:
That is much harder to assess.
P.S. And no discussion like this should leave out the role of individual and group preferences (e.g. people vs. things).
6 points 3.7 m/f (14)
7 points 4.6 m/f (18)
8 points 5.8 m/f (22)
10 pts 8.9 m/f (35)As you can see, there is a crossover near 6 to the "averages more important" regime.I think that in reality the tails are fatter than a normal distribution, or alternatively for purposes of analysis, ability/propensity is normal but the threshold for high mSTEM is lower. Either assumption would increase the importance of average differences and diminish the effect of variance differences. Another problem for the Summers hypothesis, that I mentioned in the earlier thread linked above, is that on tests like the math SAT the male and female distributions differ in the way that they do for height and weight, and not like IQ. Males dominate across the spectrum. There aren't more low-scoring men, just as there aren't more men of very short stature (and it doesn't look like this comes from more females taking the test). I think the same dominance would be seen if you reweighted the IQ subtests to predict math-physics-engineering ability instead of general intelligence, because it is widely believed that traits where men strongly outscore women (e.g. spatial problem-solving) are more important for mSTEM.
If you look inside the talk Strumia mentioned Madame Curie as an example. An example for women doing hard work and having made groundbreaking results and having got the deep respect in the community they deserved.
Strumia criticises that for ideological reasons now mediocre women outperform better qualified men for just having a vagina.
Sincerely Yours
Show us on the doll where the bad man touched you.
Okay, so you really don't know whereof you speak, you tedious clown.
Mao brought literacy and science and that’s exactly what our left wants to destroy.
Haha, reminds me of how a top Chinese engineer who is a Maoist, said (Reference: http://mzd.szhgh.com/pingshu/2013-12-29/41223.html)
My translation:
I actually first learned of this from some video, it was funny he was like
It’s just amazing how in China it’s perfectly socially acceptable to say stuff like this that would be blasphemy beyond proportion in the West. I was certainly LFMAO.
https://fredgan.wordpress.com/2010/06/23/毁于文革中的部分全国珍贵文物古迹名录/
Why is it that the Commies seem to crawl out of the woodwork, like evil cockaroaches, every century or so. There are even Commies commenting under Dr. Ron Paul's articles now. Get yourself down to Venezuala, GMachine, prontomundu! They've got that Communism up and running down there. Saluto! Enjoy!
Interesting enough, popular media as it’s represented by the Big Bang Theory actually get’s it right.
Dr. Sheldon Cooper: is a theoretical particle Physicist
Dr. Leonard Hofstadter: is an experimental Physicist
Howard Wolowitz: is an Aerospace Engineer
Dr. Rajesh Koothrappali: is an Astrophysicist
Dr. Amy Farrah Fowler: is a Neuroscientist, she received her PHD in neurobiology,
Dr. Bernadette Maryann Rostenkowski-Wolowitz: received her PHD in microbiology working for a large pharmaceutical company.
Note the the males are in hard sciences the females in the somewhat softer biological sciences. And I don’t have any issue with the ethnicity’s represented either, I believe that plays out as well.
Even though a member of tribe produces this show, as this is the last season for for this sitcom, I think the SJW’s need to start a protest before they end production. As this wrong must be corrected.
Somewhat OT but Arthur Ashkin, who just won 1/2 of the current Physical Nobel, is 96. He is the oldest person to get a Nobel, and the oldest laureate.
Donna Strickland is the third woman to win the Nobel prize in Physics. Ashkin is the first 96 year old. He is not the third Jew to win the prize.
Stop this Mao worship nonsense will you. Since you can read Chinese why don’t you check out this link for a start:
https://fredgan.wordpress.com/2010/06/23/毁于文革中的部分全国珍贵文物古迹名录/
Dr. Sheldon Cooper: is a theoretical particle Physicist
Dr. Leonard Hofstadter: is an experimental Physicist
Howard Wolowitz: is an Aerospace Engineer
Dr. Rajesh Koothrappali: is an Astrophysicist
Dr. Amy Farrah Fowler: is a Neuroscientist, she received her PHD in neurobiology,
Dr. Bernadette Maryann Rostenkowski-Wolowitz: received her PHD in microbiology working for a large pharmaceutical company.
Note the the males are in hard sciences the females in the somewhat softer biological sciences. And I don't have any issue with the ethnicity's represented either, I believe that plays out as well.
Even though a member of tribe produces this show, as this is the last season for for this sitcom, I think the SJW's need to start a protest before they end production. As this wrong must be corrected.Replies: @Steve Sailer
It’s not to my taste, but Big Bang Theory is a pretty admirable mass market sitcom.
I know for sure that a large number of Soviet accomplishments (like the great industrialization projects or even little things like a writing reform and a calendar reform introduced already in early 1918) were prepared before the war under the Tsar. I also know that most good communist reforms which worked in Hungary (extension of compulsory education to 8 years, i.e. until 14 years of age, etc.) had been prepared before the war by the evil fascist capitalist (etc.) government.
That's always the issue with communist accomplishments, others would've done them, too, but without the mass murder and catastrophic social engineering experiments. (Not to mention the regular engineering experiments like building huge steel mills in Hungary which lacked both quality coal and quality iron ore. A project was conceived by the commies alone.)Replies: @nebulafox
I already mentioned that Russia probably would have modernized without the Bolsheviks and all their bloodshed. It’s not like there no industrialization in China pre-Mao: there Germans, apart from training the KMT army (that would come in handy in the late 30s during the war), invested tons into the economy. Chiang played his crappy hand better than anybody gave him credit for, and ironically enough, the PRC’s media seems to realize this more than anyone.
But while Chiang got a surprising amount done considering what a mess the place was-and was also a better general than people give him credit for-the cards he held were simply too limited at the time where he could have pulled a Russia. He never had the control he needed, and at the moment he had the prospect of getting it, the Japanese invaded. (By contrast, by 1941, the USSR was far more advanced and formidable than it was in 1914, purges aside. The Germans made the mistake of assuming they were dealing with a similar power that they saw at Tannenberg.) By the 1940s, when the war was over and the civil war restarted, the KMT had gotten so rotten and exhausted that it needed a completely fresh start in Taiwan to turn things around, with Mao’s programs providing an additional scare factor. The KMT of the 20s and of the 40s and of the 60s were very different animals.
not too quick on the uptake, are you?
We have no evidence, unless we can assess the talents of these guys, that any of them know what they are talking about. Just like we would not know if the ten thousand fake third basemen were any good. That supports Strumia’s claim – he is either a midget criticizing fellow midgets or a full-grown man criticizing a mix of midgets and full-grown men.
Think a little harder next time.
Were you talking about the women? I couldn't tell. It wasn't obvious.
Next time, write more clearly.
Social acceptability is not an impediment to free speech. Being sent to a pig farm in Manchuria to rot for statements about the your wonderful dear leader is.
Another Commie liar heard from. Butcher Mao was not interested in “serving” anybody. He was master of all, and his hope to increase steel production by diverting farm labor toward home steel furnaces turned his aforementioned world into starvation hell. He did send lots of Chinamen to heaven, just due to the fact that grass and bark provide only so much nutrition.
Why is it that the Commies seem to crawl out of the woodwork, like evil cockaroaches, every century or so. There are even Commies commenting under Dr. Ron Paul’s articles now. Get yourself down to Venezuala, GMachine, prontomundu! They’ve got that Communism up and running down there. Saluto! Enjoy!
I just bet you were. I had no idea MAO was a gay man. He never set off my gaydar, but then it was an old analog tube rig.
Sincerely YoursReplies: @AndrewR
I didn’t read the speech because it wasn’t easily findable from the link. Apparently you cared more than I.
The funny thing is that Einstein would probably have been horrified to hang out with a group of Litvak Jews in pre-ww2 Poland, since they had a lot of the qualities that he detested.Replies: @Anon 2
Re: Einstein would have been horrified to hang out with Polish Jews
Actually, one of Einstein’s collaborators in the 1930s was Leopold Infeld,
a Polish Jew. Among other things, they wrote a famous book together,
called “The Evolution of Physics” (1938)
Emmy Noether DID have something to say about where conservation laws come from.
It was something rather important.
There was (and will) be more good stuff coming from the female side in this work, I have no doubt.
You COULD argue that Physics was kickstarted by the ultra-geek alchemist-mathematician-politician Isaac Newton.Replies: @Pericles, @Anon 2
Re: Newton was an ultra geek?
Actually during his lifetime Newton was known primarily
as a great instrument maker, i.e., an experimental physicist.
For example, he invented a reflecting telescope, which turned out
to be vastly superior to the refracting telescope Galileo used.
He did many experiments in optics, e.g., showed that all the colors
of the rainbow can be recombined to produce a white beam,
a feat that, even with all our progress, would still be a
challenge for our undergraduates.
To reduce Newton to a geek betrays a profound ignorance of history.
I looked at the following cases and see the corresponding ratios at a threshold of 145.Means 102/98 with SD 15, ratio 2.4
Mean 100 with SDs 16/14, ratio 3.8Of course both together make the biggest difference.Means 102/98 with SDs 16/14, ratio 9.1Though perhaps you are correct after factoring in your following sentence:That is much harder to assess.P.S. And no discussion like this should leave out the role of individual and group preferences (e.g. people vs. things).Replies: @academic gossip
Summers was trying to explain imbalances in the research leadership of math-intensive STEM, not general intelligence. The average differences in mSTEM ability and mSTEM research leadership propensity (ability + obsessive interest + other factors) are bigger than the IQ differences, and when the average differences grow the variance becomes comparatively less important.
To illustrate, I’ll calculate it using your model: an IQ type ability or propensity scale with population average 100 and standard deviation approximately 15, distinct normal distributions for men and women, mSTEM threshold of 145. But now with M-F average differences larger than 4. Below are the male/female ratios above the threshold, first with equal variances (m and f SD’s = 15) and then unequal (male SD 16, female 14, as in your computation).
5 points 3.0 m/f (11.4)
6 points 3.7 m/f (14)
7 points 4.6 m/f (18)
8 points 5.8 m/f (22)
10 pts 8.9 m/f (35)
As you can see, there is a crossover near 6 to the “averages more important” regime.
I think that in reality the tails are fatter than a normal distribution, or alternatively for purposes of analysis, ability/propensity is normal but the threshold for high mSTEM is lower. Either assumption would increase the importance of average differences and diminish the effect of variance differences.
Another problem for the Summers hypothesis, that I mentioned in the earlier thread linked above, is that on tests like the math SAT the male and female distributions differ in the way that they do for height and weight, and not like IQ. Males dominate across the spectrum. There aren’t more low-scoring men, just as there aren’t more men of very short stature (and it doesn’t look like this comes from more females taking the test). I think the same dominance would be seen if you reweighted the IQ subtests to predict math-physics-engineering ability instead of general intelligence, because it is widely believed that traits where men strongly outscore women (e.g. spatial problem-solving) are more important for mSTEM.
Marie Curie was an experimental physicist, not a theoretical physicist. This teeth knashing is mostly about theoretical physics, and no female theoretical physicist has won since 1963, and she is only one to win one, there a lot more female experimentalists. Furthermore it was her Ph.D advisor Henri Becquerel, who made the major discovery: radioactivity. She and Pierre just happened be his doctoral students at the time. Ernest Rutherford’s contributions in experimental physics are far greater, despite only winning one Nobel Prize.
So wrong I don't even know where to begin.
Maria Skłodowska-Curie did her doctoral research under Gabriel Lippmann, not
Becquerel, and was awarded her doctorate in June 1903, a few months before
her Nobel Prize. Pierre Curie, who was 8 years her senior, was already well known
as a physicist for his research into magnetism, crystallography, and piezo-
electricity when he married her. It was Maria Curie who became fascinated by
the newly discovered phenomenon of radioactivity, and seeing her enthusiasm
Pierre Curie gradually abandoned his own research into magnetic phenomena,
and joined her in her study of radioactivity, in which one of the instruments
he developed with his brother accidentally turned out to be very useful.
Even though she was primarily an experimentalist, she made a major contribution
to the theory of radioactivity (and coined the term ' radioactivity').Replies: @Unladen Swallow
Yes, I am. You, on the other hand, don’t write very clearly.
Were you talking about the women? I couldn’t tell. It wasn’t obvious.
Next time, write more clearly.
I ain’t touching any doll of yours. Why is it so sticky?
Okay, so you really don’t know whereof you speak, you tedious clown.
Re: Maria Curie and Pierre Curie were Becquerel’s doctoral students
So wrong I don’t even know where to begin.
Maria Skłodowska-Curie did her doctoral research under Gabriel Lippmann, not
Becquerel, and was awarded her doctorate in June 1903, a few months before
her Nobel Prize. Pierre Curie, who was 8 years her senior, was already well known
as a physicist for his research into magnetism, crystallography, and piezo-
electricity when he married her. It was Maria Curie who became fascinated by
the newly discovered phenomenon of radioactivity, and seeing her enthusiasm
Pierre Curie gradually abandoned his own research into magnetic phenomena,
and joined her in her study of radioactivity, in which one of the instruments
he developed with his brother accidentally turned out to be very useful.
Even though she was primarily an experimentalist, she made a major contribution
to the theory of radioactivity (and coined the term ‘ radioactivity’).
The bigger point is that you are attacking a guy because he said men generally have made a substantially greater contribution to physics than women because he isn't Marie Curie as if that disproves him. Men have made a greater contribution than women to science, and many male physicists have been more important than Marie Curie like Planck, Einstein, Bohr, Rutherford, and von Laue ( just listing people before WW1 ). A notable exception doesn't disprove the general statement or rule.Replies: @AndrewR
So wrong I don't even know where to begin.
Maria Skłodowska-Curie did her doctoral research under Gabriel Lippmann, not
Becquerel, and was awarded her doctorate in June 1903, a few months before
her Nobel Prize. Pierre Curie, who was 8 years her senior, was already well known
as a physicist for his research into magnetism, crystallography, and piezo-
electricity when he married her. It was Maria Curie who became fascinated by
the newly discovered phenomenon of radioactivity, and seeing her enthusiasm
Pierre Curie gradually abandoned his own research into magnetic phenomena,
and joined her in her study of radioactivity, in which one of the instruments
he developed with his brother accidentally turned out to be very useful.
Even though she was primarily an experimentalist, she made a major contribution
to the theory of radioactivity (and coined the term ' radioactivity').Replies: @Unladen Swallow
Pierre was the theorist, not Marie. Fine, Becquerel wasn’t their advisor, but they followed up his discoveries and simply took the next logical steps. Marie’s thesis was based on Becquerel’s research, not Lippman’s, her and Pierre’s advisor. Rutherford’s contributions were much greater by any objective measure, despite having “only” one Nobel Prize ( in Chemistry no less).
The bigger point is that you are attacking a guy because he said men generally have made a substantially greater contribution to physics than women because he isn’t Marie Curie as if that disproves him. Men have made a greater contribution than women to science, and many male physicists have been more important than Marie Curie like Planck, Einstein, Bohr, Rutherford, and von Laue ( just listing people before WW1 ). A notable exception doesn’t disprove the general statement or rule.
The bigger point is that you are attacking a guy because he said men generally have made a substantially greater contribution to physics than women because he isn't Marie Curie as if that disproves him. Men have made a greater contribution than women to science, and many male physicists have been more important than Marie Curie like Planck, Einstein, Bohr, Rutherford, and von Laue ( just listing people before WW1 ). A notable exception doesn't disprove the general statement or rule.Replies: @AndrewR
And you’re defending a guy for something he apparently did not say. He did not say “Men have made a greater contribution than women to science, and many male physicists have been more important than Marie Curie like Planck.”
Female researchers at CERN are not all not serious:
Large Hadron Rap
This video has bothered me. Why was she allowed to make it?
CERN was always a source of pride for us Europeans. And now this.
“Might have?” No kidding? I take it you follow Karlin’s blog?
Really? Seriously?
I guess all I can say is that if Mao was the least worst the Chinese could do for themselves, just a couple of generations ago, then, for God’s sake, let them all stay in China.
I’d make a safe bet that with all the dinner galas and parties that go on in D.C., all these politicians raise a glass quite often. This is just another package of hypocrisy delivered by fire-hose for the public to drown within.
What he said was that men built physics. And that is essentially true, as it is true with most fields of study. Why you are unable to comprehend this rather obvious fact, or feel the need to white-knight for feminist harpies who would happily cut your balls off, I neither know nor care. Nor, I suspect, does anyone else here. It’s just one more example of the obtuseness you generally seem to display.
Who hurt you?
As for the topic at hand, “obtuse” would describe the belief that the silly, hyperbolic way you’d talk with your friends on a boys night out is appropriate in a mixed-gender professional context. Your idea that the only people who object to what he said are “feminist harpies” who want to cut all men’s “balls off” is an example of your obtuseness. Context matters, and he failed to show sufficient care in choosing his words in a professional setting. I don’t sympathize with him too much. That you do doesn’t speak well to your professional competence, assuming anyone will even hire you.
I have a quite nice job, by the way. What do you do for a living that I should give damn about your opinion, you droning idiot?
Quoth the soyboy.
No, I guess it matters to socially castrated cucks like you.
Context matters as a matter of not getting fired. It does not matter as a matter of telling the truth.
I have a quite nice job, by the way. What do you do for a living that I should give damn about your opinion, you droning idiot?