The p-hacking of female hunters -the curious case of selective generalization

 This has been one of the issues that bugged me to the max.

Lord of the Rings, Witcher, Kingdom Come Deliverance - stories based on Northern and Central European folklore, history, are obviously racist because they are white. And we all know that Europe was soooo multicultural; heck even the Vikings were not blonde, Nordic warriors. 

And the proof of this very multicultural Medieval Europe, which somehow disappeared, and replaced by an all-white one?

Well, the Vikings travelled a lot, and had some black slaves, apparently. There were a couple of black people visiting Europe even before the Industrial Age. So this absolutely means that your average European village looked like a Starbucks in Beverly Hills when it comes to ethnic composition. (And you are absolutely justified to race-swap not even fictional characters but real ones as well. Obviously.) The arguments for a very multicultural Middle Ages rests on a very strange straw man: namely, there were NO black people in Europe AT ALL. (Also, back then people did not see race. Sure, buddy, nobody noticed the obvious differences.) If you can find just one, well, that means it must have been a very common occurrence. So enter the black Viking Jarls, the racially diverse villages in Central Europe and so on and so forth. By this token, the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy also had a very multi-racial army during WWI, since they had him... 

Well, guess what -nobody actually argues for absolute "racial purity". But having a few odd outliers does not mean you are free to claim that black people were just everywhere in Europe during the Middle Ages, and you can't cry racism if they are not present in the media representing this period. Might as well demand that the Franz Joseph to be played by a black man in a movie adaptation now.

Same with women hunters. Never mind that women and men are different. Just look at how the great US women's soccer team fared against boys. Yes, it was funny. No, you can't explain it away. This is a trend that is unbroken -just look at "trans" women competing against actual women.

So they find one female skeleton with a pointy stick, and suddenly - WOMEN HUNTED, TOO. (Weirdly enough this does not work the other way: regardless of having women rulers and whatnot do not mean that DA PATRIARCHY does not exist. After all, the couple of female rules - Cleopatra, Nefertiti, Hatshepsut, Sammuramat, Victoria, Elizabeth, Amina, Tzu-hsi, Maria-Theresa, etc., etc., must mean "Men, move over, women had power, too"... And jokes aside it kinda does.)

Because the conclusion of the original "peer reviewed" article fits with their ideology, the reality behind it -and the flawed methodology- does not matter. Whenever leftist people mock conservatives about their anti-intellectualism, their anti-science stances, when it comes to masks, vaccines and whatnot, this comes to mind. This is straight-out flat-Earth belief, and it is propagated to the highest levels in our culture. Just as the above case, this is a straw man. Nobody claims that gender roles were ever as insanely strict as if we were ants. Well only those people do, who try to argue for teams of women hunting mammoth. 

If this is not dangerous, I am not sure what is. They are corrupting science, and this corrupted, baseless "scientific" literature, which is based on self-selected peer-review is used to influence the "real world".   

On a side-note: I increasingly have the feeling that our institutions were hijacked by well-meaning, intellectually challenged activists who have absolutely no schooling, no concepts of basics of history, biology, no critical thinking skills, just a burning desire to change the world for the better. And it is not just a community college paper in backwater North Dakota we are talking about. It is the NYT, Guardian, politicians, and so on -people who are now steering the boat. And this thought makes me really desperate. I can handle the thought of our intellectual elite to be superior but dishonest. I cannot handle the fact that they are, in fact, stupid as fuck.

So apparently men are to blame for the Mating Gap

 As an upcoming book states, there is a lack of eligible men for these women to have babies with. (There are so many gaps now - there is an opportunity for a dirty joke here for sure.)

Obviously. The author is a professor of anthropology at Yale, after all, so she must know.

Now before we go further I want you to imagine the following scenario (and I know it is going to be a controversial and strenuous analogy, but bear with me). A historian wants to understand the reasons of the collapse of the Third Reich, so what does he (or she) do? Read all the interviews, speeches, memoirs about what Hitler thought the reasons were, and then writes a book that "the Jews were behind it".

This is literally the methodology. As the author says, she gathered egg freezing stories from 150 American women and analyzed them. 

And obviously the results are (drum roll):

• Men who are reluctant to partner with high-achieving women, leaving these women single for many years.
• Men who are unready for marriage and children, often leading to relationship demise.
• Men who exhibit bad behavior, including infidelity and ageism, which often leads to relationship instability and rupture.

So, as we know, it is all men's fault. The first point is patently false -there are lots and lots of studies showing the opposite, as in women are reluctant to engage with men under their own status while the opposite is not true. Heck, even the Guardian (which was very enthusiastic about writing about this issue highlighted in the book) wrote about it. 

I am fairly certain if you ask incels why they can't get a partner you will get a similar list, but obviously those basement-dwelling jerks would be wrong. For some reason people tend to rationalize why they are not to blame. Who knew. So it is very striking to base your methodology on accepting anything your subjects say on face value. And also not correcting for the fact that egg freezing is something that is only a serious reality for about 1% of the population. This is the very definition of Grievance Studies at work -it is men who cheat, it is men who refuse to settle down, it is men who are ageist and refuse to date higher status/earning women. All of which is patently false, or ignores the current reality of how the "new" society (patterns in education, economics, etc.) -and feminism itself-  disenfranchised men, and made marriage less than attractive. Or simply ignores the fact that women seem to have unrealistic expectations.

There are other voices that provide explanation about the "death of marriage" -and it ain't those blasted men who refuse to grow up and cheat with everyone with a vagina. They come both from the left and right.

Now, there are three things to be mentioned here. 

One is that the patently anti-scientific grievance-based social "science" is still in the rage, even in the highest institutions. (Although the fact that George Bush managed to graduate from Yale puts a lie to the supposed high standards of this institution...) This does not bode well for the future as often these questionable "studies" form the basis of policies and provide an endless supply of angry, radicalized upper-middle class crowd, which, when they get into a position of power (which they do due to their privilege of having connections), they will go full into activism mode. We have seen this at Disney (crashing and burning popular franchises), but even (perhaps) in the banking sector. (Obviously a collapse this magnitude is not going to be a single-cause one, but it would not be surprising if we learned that the leaders were happily doing their little activism projects while their ship was sinking -due to their poor, activism-driven decisions...) I am very interested (well, desperate really) to see this sort of activism sweeping into the fields of "hard" sciences (which it already has begun), because when engineers, scientists and doctors are not chosen based on merit, you will have a catastrophe at your hands - as we have seen with ideologically-driven experiments, like Communism, Nazism, and so on and so forth. And you can't make a logical argument against identity-politics deciding who should become, say, a neurosurgeon. After all, you can't argue that it is fine to have crappy writers, politicians, economists, businessperson, etc. chosen based on their identity (the whole equity, diversity and inclusion stuff) but you can't have it with professions where it actually matters... It either matters everywhere or nowhere. So enjoy your diversity hire engineer designing the airplane you are sitting on. It seems like the inmates are taking over the asylum. 

So that is one big problem. The second issue is that these hacks completely discredit sciences. I know it is just social sciences, not hard sciences, but these obvious distortions coming from academia will tarnish every other fields of science -immunology and climatology included- giving fodder to the other group anti-intellectuals on the Right. (Because make no mistake: identity politics is by definition anti-intellectual.)

The third: if you want to help these very rich, powerful women, who find that there are very few richer and more powerful men for them to date, well, perhaps, you should not engage in misguided finger-pointing... Not surprisingly these powerful men tend to date  younger women (as in the case of DiCaprio, many of them sequentially), without a financial risk to the fruits of their hard work. It certainly makes you feel better about yourself, and you can imagine yourself as fighting the good fight (because actually fighting the good fight, for example for the women of Africa, the Middle East and the rest, would be hard), but it will not help those women you profess to be wanting to help. It will make them even more miserable.

So for the love of god, please stop lying. And do not tarnish sciences like this.