Saturday, September 26, 2015

Science is racist, sexist, and probably Islamophobic

If it's not careful, the Pew Research Center may have soon be given a new name, something along the lines of The Cathedral's Fifth Column. The center's latest report concerns "what the public knows and does not know about science" for which Pew administered a 12-question survey to a nationally representative sample of 3,278 people in the US. The data yield a succession of hatefacts:

- Men outscored women on every single question. To avoid narrative collapse, it must be maintained that girls are deprived of an educational environment conducive to realizing scientific literacy before they reach adulthood, because the reason adult men achieve so much more in scientific fields than adult women do is that men are more scientifically competent than women are.

- Men with undergraduate and post-graduate degrees outscored women of every level of educational attainment. Perhaps more surprisingly, men with some college but not even an undergraduate degree scored as well as women with post-graduate degrees and better than women at every level of educational attainment below that, included those with undergraduate degrees. Occam's Razor slices to the bone.
Landing on the moon was racist

- Non-Hispanic whites outscored both blacks and Hispanics on every single question.

- Hispanics outscored blacks on 10 of the 12 questions.

- A summary of results from several surveys administered over the last few years shows women to be at parity with men when it comes to "questions related to the life sciences" but to perform significantly worse than men when it comes to "questions related to earth sciences and energy issues" and "questions related to other physical sciences". It's almost as though women are relatively more concerned with human interactions and nurturing (the life sciences) than they are with physics and chemistry (the lifeless sciences), while the reverse is the case for men. Who could have guessed?!

- In the spirit of poor, uneducated whites outscoring affluent, educated blacks on college admissions exams, the report notes that "racial and ethnic group differences in mean numbers of correct responses on that scale occur even when controlling for education level."

- Bill O'Reilly's recorded ignorance about what causes ocean tides understandably sends a lot of ridicule his way. If perchance you find yourself in the presence of a smug SWPL or two who tries to tether you to Fox News for your dismissive attitude towards Bernie Sanders, feel free to note that "the largest differences between blacks and whites occurs on a question about the ocean tides: 83% of whites compared with 46% of blacks correctly identify the gravitational pull of the moon as one factor in ocean tides." Squirm, SWPL, squirm!

27 comments:

sykes.1 said...

My own field of environmental engineering is being taken over by White women. A Dark Age is in the offing.

PS. All the ones I know are totally convinced that human carbon dioxide emissions are causing catastrophic global warming and that the current warm pause is historically unprecedented. Milankovitch cycles, the Vostok ice columns showing temperature leading carbon dioxide, the Medieval, Roman and Minoan warm periods, Viking farms (now gone) in Greenland, cold excursions killing ten times as many humans (a one-time tropical beast) than hot excursions. Nothing registers with them. Only the narrative. They even believe they are discriminated against and make less money than men!

Anonymous said...

The WN/MRA/PUA/redpill narrative is just as BS as the leftist/feminist/anti-White narrative. Feminists and anti-Whites are always complaining that they get discriminated 100% of the time and that all White men are evil. Conversely the WN/MRA/PUA/redpill crowd only mention statistics when it favors straight White prole men. Everybody who is truthful knows that the vast majority of the most learned individuals in science are men. But what no-one ever says (besides me) is that most of the profoundly retarded are also men. The 12 question survey was designed to only separate the most scientifically competent from everybody else. You can't separate the middling-to-below average people (who are mostly women) from the diagnosed retards (mostly men) because both groups will have scores that are close to 0.

I also noticed that you only mentioned White performance vs Black vs Hispanic. It's very convenient of you to not mention Jews and Asians, whom I bet have an average score that is at least equal to, if not higher than Whites. And it is also very convenient that you don't break down Whites by social class. I am willing to bet that Whites who live in Belmont, who earn at least 200,000 per year, who live in families where all of the adults have bachelors degrees, who grew up in two parent families will outscore Whites who live in WV trailer parks, who are on welfare, who dropped out of high school, and grew up in one parent families.

Anonymous said...

And btw the average man scored 8.6. I scored 11. So much for the MRA narrative that all straight White prole men are the next Isaac Newton and all White women/Colored people/gay White men/upper middle class White men know zero facts about science.

panjoomby said...

@ anonymous: true!

"But what no-one ever says (besides me) is that most of the profoundly retarded are also men."

males are more variable on almost every characteristic - more men at the top & more men at the bottom - larger standard deviation.

it's an accepted psychometric fact - well-known by the few who work in psychometrics:)

Anonymous said...

The other, obviously less sexy and intelligent Anonymous, posted the following:

"It's very convenient of you to not mention Jews and Asians..."

If you'd bother to read the PEW report, or take the quiz yourself and check the data, you'd realize that the reason he didn't mention those two groups is because that data was not given, and likely not collected. He didn't leave it out, so don't accuse him of brushing data that doesn't exist under the rug.

Tell me, do you have a quantitative grasp of the kind of sampling you'd have to do to capture an impression of a distinct and highly variable subgroup that makes up at most 1% to 2% of the population?

A sample size of approximately 4,000 in this case can get you a reasonable enough confidence interval to cover the American population, but not small sub-populations. Considering the topic, that polling method is expensive and time-consuming enough as it is. If you wanted to figure out the comparative rankings of, for the sake of argument, black lesbian trans poodle-owners, well then you'd need to specifically target and sample that sub-population rather than expect it to show up in a sample of 4,000 Americans.

Anonymous said...

The unteranonymous above me said: "And btw the average man scored 8.6. I scored 11."

I scored 12. You're obviously deficient.

Seriously for a moment, the questions on that poll were, if anything, too simplistic. I'd expect a reasonably intelligent high-schooler to be able to easily puzzle out the correct answers, even absent any real knowledge. I'd like to see how a sample of Americans performed on questions relating to non-intuitive modern science, especially on topics with real-life consequences (Toxic hazards, nutrition, infectious diseases, basic physics behind common injury mechanisms, etc.).

Though, as an aside, I wonder if the pollsters had to overcome a statistician's twitch in order to write the answers for the scatterplot question.

Anonymous said...

@anonymous at 9/27/15, 10:13 AM

Your definition of "reasonably smart" is probably somebody with an IQ of 125. The test really doesn't measure the differences between the profoundly retarded, moderately retarded, mildly retarded, and the non-retarded but below average. Again, MRAs behaving just like feminists. Only pointing out statistics that favor them. MRAs and feminists may hate each other but the truth is, they are mirror images of each other.

Anonymous said...

If the presentation of test is biased because the test does not "measure the differences between the profoundly retarded, moderately retarded, mildly retarded, and the non-retarded but below average", would you like to suggest another test without this deficiency?

Audacious Epigone said...

Anon,

"But what no-one ever says (besides me) is that most of the profoundly retarded are also men."

No, that's quite well known among HBD realists. A quick look through the archives and I see it's been featured prominently here in 2011, for example.

As the second Anon points out, it doesn't look like you've actually taken a look at survey or the report (the only racial/ethnic breakdown was n-H white, n-H black, and Hispanic for reasons Anon2 makes clear). These questions clearly were not designed to separate the "most scientifically competent" from everybody else. They're fairly easy items that I'd expect most high schoolers near the tops of their classes to ace without much difficulty.

Panjoomby,

And we laymen enthusiasts try to incorporate it into our thinking as well, I promise!

Audacious Epigone said...

Sykes,

Blogger is doing some updates regarding a privacy notice mandated in several European countries that recently went into effect. Cleaned up your contribution, thanks for your patience.

silly girl said...

What do the retarded folks have to do with a survey of regular people?

Do we think retarded people were among the respondents? Seriously?

Also, I am a woman and always get all these kind of easy questions correct, and so do lots of women, but so what? One data point is worthless and the MRA folks do not maintain that all women score poorly, rather than the overall average of women is much lower than the overall average of men. The most embarrassing is that highly educated women do so poorly. What is their excuse?

The problem is women voting. They are more likely to vote and less likely to know what is going on. That is a problem for democracy. Also, women voting is a pain in the butt for all of us women who do know what is going on, because we have to take time to go vote. If the other fool women couldn't vote, I could do something else with my time and let the guys be inconvenienced and take responsibility for voting, etc. Voting, like leadership, is just one more damned thing I have to do and I am busy with other things. It is the burden they guys are supposed to bear because they have more energy and inclination to it.

Current example of why comfy pampered women shouldn't lead: Angela Merkel

That woman is promoting the wholesale invasion of her country by marauding enemies of the German people. Woman is evil in her incompetence and disloyalty.

Sorry for ranting.

silly girl said...

Okay, I took the quiz. I got them all. However, the astrology question and the vaccine questions are not really science questions. This was around an eighth or ninth grade level quiz at most. I would expect bright 7th graders to get at least 10 of them.

Anonymous said...

@Audacious

I wasn't talking about people who believe in the fact that race and gender are real. I am talking about the ideologues with an agenda, and I am talking about the left wing agenda as well as the right wing agenda.

Left wingers have this narrative that all straight White men are evil and stupid, and that their supposed evilness is what's keeping the Colored people, the White women, and the gay White men from achieving greatness. Right wingers have their own narrative, that all straight White men are IQ 160 geniuses and the existence of "dumb" Coloreds, White women, and gay White men prevents the straight White men from all achieving greatness. Both parties of ideologues will cherry pick data that conforms to their respective narratives. Both sides are inherently evil.

@silly girl

That is a shitty reason for taking away women's right to vote. Just because a group of people have less ability and interest in voting and politics ON AVERAGE, doesn't mean that they should be categorically banned from voting. That's like banning White men from short distance running, or banning Black men from swimming. Or banning everybody who isn't Asian and male from joining high school math clubs. Or banning everybody who has a 2 digit IQ from voting. Where does it end? Once you ban women from voting because the average woman is less interested in politics than the average man, you could theoretically ban everybody from voting.

Audacious Epigone said...

Silly Girl,

Yes, this is not good. And don't apologize.

Anon,

There isn't any cherry-picking going on here though. That the data in this report merely validates existing uncouth stereotypes doesn't invalidate it. We are aware of normal distributions and the overlap that exists in results like this. Qualifying as much does not render the averages meaningless.

silly girl said...

"Just because a group of people have less ability and interest in voting and politics ON AVERAGE, doesn't mean that they should be categorically banned from voting."

Hell yes, it does.

Holy innumeracy, Batman!

The average is all that matters. We are talking about the whole group. You can't give the right to vote to just some women.

Voting is not like college admissions where each student is selected individually based on criteria.

Voting rights for women means that the whole group gets to vote. They are known to vote at a higher rate and be less informed. It is a case of enthusiastic incompetence. Women voting imperils the whole nation.

Cheese and rice, people.

silly girl said...

page 4, fig. 3

https://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/p20-568.pdf

classic pattern we have all seen a zillion times

Dunning Kruger strikes again

Anonymous said...

@silly girl


If only the group matters, and not the individual, you'd also have to ban everybody under 50 from voting, since the average person who is in the 50+ age group is more informed about politics than the average person who is under 50. You would also have to ban anyone who has less than a bachelor's degree, because they, as a group, have less information that the people who have at least a bachelor's degree. If you take this line of logic to its conclusion then only IQ 170+ men who have PhD's who are age 70 or older should vote. And even within that group, some are more educated than others, some are smarter than others, and some are older than others.

Basically what you're asking for is a return to totalitarian dictatorship. Interestingly enough, I have prodded enough WNs/MRAs/red-pillers and some of them have admitted that they do indeed prefer to live in a White version of North Korea than the present day United States. If you want to live that way, you can go ahead. But if you are trying to force the entire world to live like you want them to, I have no choice but to fight against your agenda.

Anonymous said...


"Basically what you're asking for is a return to totalitarian dictatorship."

Right, because the US Constitution as originally adopted plus the Bill of Rights established a de jure and de facto totalitarian dictatorship.

The USA minus women's suffrage was not a totalitarian dictatorship. Crack a book sometime. Heck, just check Wikipedia.

Anonymous said...

That first comment of the thread appears to be rather prophectic wrt what followed.

Audacious Epigone said...

Anon,

It's fallacious to presume that expanding suffrage is necessarily a way to inhibit "totalitarian dictatorship". To the contrary, it often aids in the consolidation of a single person's power. This isn't a novel observation--the Gracchi brothers were aware of the power of appealing to the populares. So was Julius Caesar.

Anonymous said...

@audacious

It's also fallacious to presume that restricting suffrage is going to inhibit totalitarian dictatorship. Once you restrict White women and Colored people from voting, what is to stop certain classes of White men from losing their rights?

The basic problem with the left wing agenda is that their end game is "everything is okay" and "everything is the same" and "there are no things that are better than other things". This inevitably leads to the acceptance of stuff like pedophilia, incest, bestiality, cannibalism, etc.

The basic problem with the right wing agenda is that their end game is "equality never exists" "every thing must be better than something and worse than something else" "some classes of people are not as worthy of life as others". Because after they come for the Colored people and the White homosexuals, they will come for White women, Southern Europeans, left handed White people. After that they will attack White men with certain religious, political, or social beliefs, etc. They may even come after White men who are too short, too fat, too thin, etc. Every time society is made more homogeneous the powers that be will find some sort of division amongst the people who remain and go after those who they perceive to be "different".

So you see why I support civil rights for Coloreds and homosexuals, even if I have low opinions of some subsets of them. And you see why my father supports the fact that both genders have suffrage, even though he is not a woman.

Joshua Sinistar said...

Voting is stupid period. Democracy destroyed Ancient Greece. Ancient Greece had some of the most intelligent men in human history as citizens. Socrates, Aristotle, Archimedes and Pythagoras all coexisted at around the same time, but then they went to democracy and voting and within a space of a few years were easily conquered and subjugated. Socrates paid with his life, he must have been outvoted by the mindless mob. Ancient Rome was the most successful and powerful Empire in the Ancient World. Its Legions crushed every opponent that dared to challenge them. However, what enemy armies couldn't do, democracy did. Ruthless shortsighted demagogues invited itinerant and stupid barbarians to Rome to vote for Bread and Circuses, basically the same free shit these boobs in Washington D.C. are doing today, and soon the treasury was emptied as the barbarians started voting in each other. The Legions became filled with barbarians with no loyalty to Rome, and when invaders came to loot, the barbarian Legions looted alongside them, since they were closer related to them than the Romans. Think it will be different here? Dream on.

Audacious Epigone said...

Joshua,

Compelling.

M said...

Controlling for education is probably not that effective, as White men tend to be the most likely to underachieve their general level of intellectual interest and intelligence on education (whereas with Black people, if they're smart and intellectually inclined, they are a bit more likely to go to college and pick up that information).

silly girl said...

@Joshua

Thank you.

Bob said...

Too many of commenters here have been bitten again by the left-right fallacy. The political space has at least two dimensions. See

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pournelle_chart
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_compass
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nolan_Chart

The left-right fallacy lumps you in with some truly despicable people, while estranging you from people you might mostly agree with.

Anonymous said...

I got the cell phone one right but the answer is wrong. The calls are made and received via sound waves. The cell phone and the network operate on radio waves.


























I got the cell phone answer correct but the quiz answer is wrong! One communicates and receives cell phone calls via sound waves. It is the cell phone that uses radio waves to communicate with the network. The cell phone towers with which your cell phone communicates use radio waves to communicate deeper into the network too.