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.

Meet Richard Dawkins- the new Alt-Right Icon

 Oh boy.

Richard Dawkins have a few words on trans issues and woke in general.

This will seriously blow minds on "the Left". Most people, it seems like, have very deep, embedded tribalistic urges. You have to accept *all* dogmas in order to belong to the tribe. If you do not -well, it must mean you are member of the *other* tribe- you know, the evil ones we have to destroy, so you are an enemy. (Punch a Nazi, Kill a TERF, #killallwhitemen - you know the drill.) Weirdly enough these things do not trigger any wide-spread Left-wing protestations, as even Ukrainian soldiers wearing actual Nazi insignia are no problem (now it's "complicated") -but showing an OK sign absolutely means you *are* a Nazi. But this is besides the point -all part of the tribe-thing. 

The problem comes when people who are on the Left have issues with the new, identity-politics based "Left", and point out the inconsistencies, the lies, and the straight out idiocy. They immediately become hated, right-wing figures, regardless of what ideas they really hold. See: Rowling.

There are a lof of these views, sometimes mutually contradictory, but the "woke" could always gaslight, suppress and intimidate people on all sides to accept them on face value - see how things like "gender is a spectrum", "sex is a spectrum", "white privilege", the redefining of what sexism and racism means, the "gender pay gap", "racist math", BLM issues, issues about domestic violence, etc. are absolutely dominated by their narrative. Anyone deviating from the officially accepted dogma will be labelled as a heretic or worse. These people took over academia, even the STEM sciences (just read Scientific American and Nature articles), policy making - and everything else. They became truths. 

All dissenting voices are now on the fringe, and can be ignored, since only alt-right Nazis have these opinions. There is no need for a conversation. In fact, just engaging in a conversation with these Nazis only validates their views, so we have to ban them, censor them, and make sure they are destroyed in every conceivable way. Of course it is illiberal, but we, liberals, cannot tolerate intolerance. Obviously. It shows an incredible lack of self-awareness for them not to recognize that they are the intolerant ones in this paradox, who were tolerated by the liberal majority and now took over the narrative. This sort of mentality is not new -if they could, they would still make ice statuses of people like in the good ole' days. Heck, just look at Reddit. 

For a post that asked exactly what "hateful ideas" Rowling propagated I was permanently banned from r/fantasy for being a Nazi who has no business to be on reddit. Yes, the mod did call me a Nazi. OK, I guess, Dawkins is a Nazi, too, because boy, he had some opinions for sure. He did not just ask.... He said some pretty hateful things. Like sex is binary. And men have no place competing against women in sports. That female spaces should not be invaded by men. You know - worse than Hitler. When I literally made his points in r/scienceuncensored, my account was banned for promoting hate. (My post was about not accepting the strict distinction between gender and sex, and that trans women are not women.)

Anyhow

Richard Dawkins is a special case - he is very much the darling of the Right-hating hard-core "leftists", because he never was shy about confronting religious and other dogmas. Since despite of all the evidence, this new "Left" prides itself being evidence-based, science-based and rational, they will absolutely claim someone who is a humanist and an unwavering rationalist to be their champion.

Except he isn't. He seems to confront -as any true humanists and liberal should- dogmas from all sides.

This is a welcome news for many different reasons. First, finally people, who are visible, and have very real credentials in hard sciences are standing up for the truth. I mean I, too, am a biologist, but my voice means nothing; if I engage in this issue, I will lose a lot of friends on one hand, and if I do it publicly, I can be very easily cancelled and end up like Richard Bilkszto who was bullied until he committed suicide. Intellectual giants, like Dawkins, cannot be dismissed, cancelled or tarred and feathered so easily.

Second, it feels nice to be vindicated. For years now I have felt I may be going insane. I held opinions that I felt were based on reality, which were taken as hateful, alt-right views by "the establishment". To name a few: women are not oppressed by men - there is no Patriarchy today, there is a victim-olympics going on currently with all the critical theories (4th wave of feminism and CRT particular), that Academia has been overtaken by ideologs, that trans women are NOT women, that sex is binary (and race is not), yet somehow we can change sex (but not race), that gender is an idiotic construct that was invented in the "Grievance Studies" line of "sciences", that freedom of speech is important even if conservatives are the ones being silenced, and so on and so forth - and these things are very much going against what Nature, Sci American, Guardian, WaPo, Hollywood, policy makers, etc., etc. push. I guess this is what it feels like to be gaslighted. You are still very much the left-leaning liberal who feels that he had not changed, yet suddenly now his views place him squarely into the freely punchable group. (And that also now he is suddenly evil because of his immutable characteristics of being white and male... something he did not feel ten years ago.) Having Dawkins express the same thoughts I hold means I may not actually going insane, but that the inmates truly are running the asylum. May not be a good thing if you look at the big picture (one guy going nuts vs the whole world), but at least it is conforming to me.

So yes. I guess the tides are turning. There will be still people who fall victim of the woke mob, but now there are credible voices raised. Let's see what happens now.

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. 

Let's blame the whistleblowers, shall we?

 So there were several instances when the obvious bias of certain media outlets, or even whole "scientific fields" (I am not sure how gender studies constitute as science, but whatever) have been revealed by people who submitted fake articles and got published.

The Independent has published an outrageously, obviously over the top article about comedy and free speech (rather a call to curtail it). Got published, no problem. This is very important as it exposed how certain (if not all) media outlets do nothing but pushing agendas. When it was realized it was a hoax, people were outraged at the perpetrators -rather than actually at the obviously biased media outlet. No hard questions about how this may or may not be an endemic issue with all media printed or otherwise. Nothing to see here. After all, it is not as if it is something important, right? We only get our news from them, after all, they only shape our reality.

Same with the Grievance Studies affair- the authors managed to publish a whole chapter of Mein Kampf as a feminist manifesto, they argued for chaining white students, and talked about rape culture in dog parks -and were enthusiastically welcomed by the academic publishers. They passed through peer review, and it seems like social sciences embraced these articles wholeheartedly.

When it became clear these were fake articles, again, the outrage was not directed at the publishers (and the academics who peer-reviewed them), there were no hard questions ask how these academic fields can be biased to this cartoonish level where the Mein Kampf is actually publishable -no, the outrage was directed against these horrible hoaxers.

To this day there are no consequences of these events. None at all. The people who are responsible for these hoaxes are trying to push a conversation about them, they do appear on programs, podcasts and whatnot, but these are very much isolated from the "mainstream". The mainstream media, the mainstream conversation resolutely ignores them. If anything they only blame them for exposing this agenda-driven "science" to the whole world, giving ammunition for right-wingers, climate change deniers and so on to question the integrity and validity of science (as the above linked Atlantic article does, too). So to recap: it is not an issue if you pervert science. It is only an issue when you publicise it.

And this, again, is ignored completely.