Feminist Professor Thinks "Rigor" is Evil

[Cerebus]

Biases generally shift the peak to the left or the right. The male and female curves seem to peak at the same point for any group tested. If its a bias its a strange one, as it results in both a pool of super high results from men, and a similar sized pool of super low results from the same overall pool of men.

Ah, we can get caught up in terminology here, as this discussion naturally uses 'bias' in two ways. One has a specific statistical meaning which indeed would 'bias the mean'. Let's instead of 'bias' say 'testing artefact' that alters the distribution. There are all sorts of statistical effects that alter variance as well as mean in distributions. I don't find it impossible that one could introduce a testing bias that would alter the variance for one sample set tested but not the other.

Consider this. We're discussing the testing apparatus right? So, we have two production lines, producing nominally identical parts. On examining the results of statistical tests of the finished products we find an identical mean, but a difference in spread. How did this happen? It turns out that Fred, on production line A, used Fred's calipers to record finished measurements. On production line B, Burt used whichever calipers came to hand first - his or Fred's or Charlie's. The testing regime introduced a hidden testing artefact that we didn't know about until we examined it because we saw a variance difference in the results.

I'm not saying there is such an artefact in the IQ test differences between men and women, just that it should be questioned because it's a possibility, and considering the complexity and subtlety of all the issues surrounding IQ testing it is not unlikely that socialised male/female differences have crept into the testing process in the same way that cultural biases do and have proved near impossible to completely eradicate from tests. I don't know if they have, but I'd want to be very cautious about drawing such broad conclusions from IQ tests when IQ tests have, over the years, demonstrated so many flaws.

I'm instinctively suspicious because I've known quite a lot of very, very bright men and women over the years, and they have given me no reason to believe that there's any qualitative difference in the intelligence of the women versus the men. Thus a claim that there is a quantitative difference fails to pass the smell test.

Conversely, the claim that the dumbest men are dumber than the dumbest women fits my own experiential prejudices exactly. 

[james_s]

Conversely, the claim that the dumbest men are dumber than the dumbest women fits my own experiential prejudices exactly. 

I could believe it, I've seen even some relatively smart men do some stunningly stupid things.

[Ampera]

Conversely, the claim that the dumbest men are dumber than the dumbest women fits my own experiential prejudices exactly. 

I could believe it, I've seen even some relatively smart men do some stunningly stupid things.

I've seen the same happen conversely. I've seen some women with the critical thinking skills and logical deduction skills of a frozen baked potato. I've also seen men with the common sense and ability to not kill themselves of a burnt eggplant.

[coppice]

I'm instinctively suspicious because I've known quite a lot of very, very bright men and women over the years, and they have given me no reason to believe that there's any qualitative difference in the intelligence of the women versus the men. Thus a claim that there is a quantitative difference fails to pass the smell test.

Why would you expect to see a difference? The statistics only say something about the purely intellectual ability of a handful of outliers at the super dumb and super smart positions along the scale. You wouldn't observe that difference in daily life, when its blended with other qualities. You need to look at a task which completes isolates the merit of purely intellectual qualities. Something like chess might do that at the high end of the scale, but I can't think of any day top day activity which might highlight the lower end of the scale. You only see the broadening of the curve in well controlled studies. Your analysis stinks. 

[Cerebus]

Conversely, the claim that the dumbest men are dumber than the dumbest women fits my own experiential prejudices exactly. 

I could believe it, I've seen even some relatively smart men do some stunningly stupid things.

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realise that you'd met me. 

[Cerebus]

I'm instinctively suspicious because I've known quite a lot of very, very bright men and women over the years, and they have given me no reason to believe that there's any qualitative difference in the intelligence of the women versus the men. Thus a claim that there is a quantitative difference fails to pass the smell test.

Why would you expect to see a difference? The statistics only say something about the purely intellectual ability of a handful of outliers at the super dumb and super smart positions along the scale. You wouldn't observe that difference in daily life, when its blended with other qualities. You need to look at a task which completes isolates the merit of purely intellectual qualities. Something like chess might do that at the high end of the scale, but I can't think of any day top day activity which might highlight the lower end of the scale. You only see the broadening of the curve in well controlled studies. Your analysis stinks. 

Nothing wrong with the analysis, it just doesn't suit your prejudices. As to my subjective 'smell test' - well, I've known a lot of children/"Young Adults" associated with the National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC), a lot of Mensa* members and quite a few people too smart to fall for the Mensa membership pitch. Really stupid people are comparatively easy to find but that's not the same as people whose intellectual capacity is severely reduced, and at that end of the spectrum my experience is comparatively limited, and my ability to discriminate relatively blunt.

It's as well to remember that we are talking about effects that are out beyond 4 standard deviations in IQ tests. Believing that something as tricky to construct as IQ tests have meaningful testing power out at the 4 sigma level is more of an act of faith than anything else.

* For those not familiar with the organization, it has to ostensible mission "to identify and to foster human intelligence for the benefit of humanity; to encourage research into the nature, characteristics, and uses of intelligence; and to provide a stimulating intellectual and social environment for its members" - in practice it is largely a self-congratulatory membership organization for people who score highly on IQ tests.

[coppice]

Nothing wrong with the analysis, it just doesn't suit your prejudices.

I go with the data. You're the one using gut feel.

* For those not familiar with the organization, it has to ostensible mission "to identify and to foster human intelligence for the benefit of humanity; to encourage research into the nature, characteristics, and uses of intelligence; and to provide a stimulating intellectual and social environment for its members" - in practice it is largely a self-congratulatory membership organization for people who score highly on IQ tests.

Mensa is an organisation for people so smart they put up signs in the foyer at college saying "Mensa meeting. Room 401. 4th floor.". That used to floor us.

[Cerebus]

I go with the data. You're the one using gut feel.

Who is to say that rapid intuitional analysis of information isn't a sign of higher superior intelligence? 

[coppice]

I go with the data. You're the one using gut feel.

Who is to say that rapid intuitional analysis of information isn't a sign of higher superior intelligence? 

It usually just shows an indifference to confirmation bias.

[BillB]

Mensa is an organisation for people so smart they put up signs in the foyer at college saying "Mensa meeting. Room 401. 4th floor.". That used to floor us.

Discussions like this always remind me of true genius, with full credit to Gary Larson and The Far Side...

[james_s]

Mensa is an organisation for people so smart they put up signs in the foyer at college saying "Mensa meeting. Room 401. 4th floor.". That used to floor us.

Funny, although it's certainly possible to be extremely smart and still lack anything resembling common sense. The thing about intelligence is it's very difficult to quantify. Say somebody can calculate pi to 300 digits in their head but they can't figure out which end of a soldering iron to hold or they get lost trying to get to the other side of their home town, are they smart or dumb?

[Bud]

I had a friend who was a computer guru and had all imaginable certifications from Microsoft, Cisco and such, but did not know how to boil a potato.

[Circlotron]

I like to think of smarts as an area-under-the-curve thing. It may be very narrow and tall (and consequently lacking in other places) or it may be low and very broad. Or maybe concentrated in several areas.

[Circlotron]

This guy has a pretty good take on universities. 

https://youtu.be/LjN8xP0i6Ak

[Ampera]

Yeah I actually kinda like that guy. He seems to have some pretty good ideas.

[TerraHertz]

Ah ha. Just had an insight into the origins of Prof. Riley's position on the concept of 'rigor.'

But first... apparently trying to tell a forum of engineers that there's always a political background and lineage to current social developments (eg Prof Riley), seems like trying to roll a large stone uphill. (While also risking getting struck by lightning.) In this case the problem is you are so used to using logic as a problem solving tool, you think you can work out her 'why' by examining the details of her teaching.
Sorry, not going to work. Because there's a whole world of unspoken political theory behind what she's doing, and you can't deduce it from her papers and talks. You have to know your history.

What she's doing, is applying the Marxist Frankfurt School's concept of Critical Theory, to the engineering concept of Rigor.

Now, 'critical theory' in their meaning is a code phrase. It doesn't mean at all what the English words would suggest.
What it does mean is a bit complicated, and I don't want to write a wall of text explaining. For one thing, you'd almost all just skip it. Not to mention the insults.
Instead, some educational videos.

Warning. These are all 100% political. And kinda boring. Bonus: if you have never been exposed to this stuff before, your head will explode. I'm pretty sure only a few here will bother to watch. That's OK. Just wanted to mention it, for those who are interested.

POLITICAL YOUTUBE VIDEO REMOVED

There is no point in debating any of this here, and it isn't allowed anyway. I'm happy enough with that.
If you need more viewpoints, youtube brings up numerous other related videos.

Anyway, once you understand critical theory, you'll also know why Prof Riley is doing it.

[Seekonk]

Even the computers are becoming this way. I tried to give feedback the other day on ebay. Tried to shake up giving the same response each time and entered .......Great Vendor.  It came back...... Profanity Not Allowed.

[bd139]

Easy to workaround that stuff. "seller is a cucking fockwomble".

[EEVblog]

Warning. These are all 100% political.

And politics is not welcome on this forum, so I'm removing your videos.

[EEVblog]

There is no point in debating any of this here, and it isn't allowed anyway. I'm happy enough with that.

Then why did you post it?
You have a history of continuing to post political stuff on this forum, please stop it. Moderator tolerance will only extend so far.

[Cerebus]

Warning. These are all 100% political.

And politics is not welcome on this forum, so I'm removing your videos.

To be fair to TerraHertz, the very subject of Dr Riley's insane ramblings is innately political. Riley's thesis is all about sexual politics and you're the one who started the discussion of it with the first post.

So we find ourselves in the position where you go (implicitly) 'here's a political topic to discuss' and explicitly "politics is not welcome". You can see how that might make it a bit difficult to discern where the boundary between acceptable and unacceptable political discussion lies.

As you've removed the links I can't tell if the videos linked are "left wing nutjob explains Marxist critical theory", or "right wing nutjob explains Marxist critical theory", or "respected historian explains Marxist critical theory". If the latter, and if as Terrahertz claims, they cast genuine light on Riley's formulation of her ideas then that would have been useful. Obviously if it was either of the first two, then that would just produce heat, not light.

Edited to add:
OK, TerraHertz has indirectly restored the links. Fine, if he wants to ask Dave for a kicking, that's down to him.

I don't think they added anything to the debate, they are all from anything but a neutral view. Let's put it like this, the first one has minutes of slow zooms into caricatures of some "German intelligentsia" at the beginning. I'm pretty sure that "German intelligentsia" is meant to be read with a secondary meaning. Another is by Bill Whittle, a quick search reveals him to be a "Conservative" from the USA. Another is by Michael Hoskinson, another American "Conservative". You get the drift, you're not in for a set of lectures on the history of political thought from a college professor.

[TerraHertz]

Then why did you post it?

Them: tinyurl com/y7ozslun
Because they are precisely on point. You seemed quite interested in figuring out what Dr Riley was about, and so I thought you and others might like to know. Those videos relate real history and events. It's not arguable at all whether it happened. It did. The actual theories those guys promulgated are quite evil, but their lack of worth is not relevant to an understanding of what happened. And that is how we have people like Dr Riley. I don't see why you're being hostile about it. Do you really wish to remain ignorant of the history? Or dispute it's relevant? You raised the topic, that is effectively a question, then don't want to hear an answer or let anyone else see it. Did anyone else even try to explain how her views could arise?

This whole long thread (which is really ALL politics regardless that you created it and pretend it isn't) and now you delete information that puts it in a sensible context and makes Dr Riley understandable. I was actually hoping to do you a favor, by putting an end to it. Having made it clear even I thought further discussion was pointless. FFS, it's drifted off into gender differences. 

Given pointers to the original causes of Dr Riley and her batshit theories (for anyone who cared) hopefully it could be enough closure. Seriously, I figured you must be getting uncomfortable with the thread, but didn't want to lock one you started.

I really, really am tired of people like her.  Who by the way, are succeeding because of people who refuse to see them for what they are, or acknowledge that to fail to actively oppose evil, is to aid it. Note that I do agree this forum is best with almost no politics. But there's a line somewhere between avoiding politics, and aiding evil by inaction or silence.

Do you like her philosophy? You don't seem to. Then why try to stop others learning what poisonous roots it grew from?

Are you sure you're not just being shitty because it didn't occur to you her ideas and ability to force them on students, are the result of a chain of events that go way back? Sigh. Youtube videos linked don't even cost you any bandwidth. Also these are quite boring, so I really didn't expect anyone would hotly want to discuss them.

Or do you maintain she's just some rather dumb academic with questionable ideas, there's no harm in her spreading such views to students, and there's no historical political background at all?

Btw, this is my 6th post in a 13 page long thread. I'm not exactly being noisy.

[EEVblog]

Do you like her philosophy? You don't seem to. Then why try to stop others learning what poisonous roots it grew from?

Because it gets into deep politics and we don't do that here. Don't post that stuff.

Are you sure you're not just being shitty

I'm being "shitty" because you are probably the #1 political poster on the forum, and here you go again, you just can't help yourself. Stop it, ok? Don't try and push the argument back onto me, I'm not going to take the bait.

Btw, this is my 6th post in a 13 page long thread. I'm not exactly being noisy.

You have a very deep history of posting all sort of borderline stuff on this forum, to point several times that I have considered banning you because you don't seem to want to listen that we don't need nor want your political/conspiracy/government stuff here.

[EEVblog]

To be fair to TerraHertz, the very subject of Dr Riley's insane ramblings is innately political. Riley's thesis is all about sexual politics and you're the one who started the discussion of it with the first post.

So we find ourselves in the position where you go (implicitly) 'here's a political topic to discuss' and explicitly "politics is not welcome". You can see how that might make it a bit difficult to discern where the boundary between acceptable and unacceptable political discussion lies.

I posted it because he have discussed Dr Riley before on here, so it's updating people who might have followed that.
And well, gee, I don't know, maybe I thought people want to discuss the issue of this related to engineering education perhaps?
It doesn't have to be that political and lead to posting videos of broad political theories and whatnot which will of course head the discussion in only one direction. Especially is someone like Terraherz is enagaged on this stuff, he has a deep history here of not stopping about this stuff.

[tautech]

Then why did you post it?

Them: tinyurl com/y7ozslun

I wanted to watch those vids but Dave pulled them.
Have you a link or maybe PM them please ?
TIA