@NAChristakisさん20180909：Theodore P. Hill論文（Quillette）

Nicholas A. Christakis @NAChristakis

Here is some very new evidence to add to this thread: girls do better than boys in both STEM and non-STEM subjects – except at the very top (and bottom, in STEM) (N = 1.6 million) nature.com/articles/s4146… via @stevestuwill @NatureComms pic.twitter.com/R5nZCr6ea5

拡大

Nicholas A. Christakis @NAChristakis

A balanced and subtle thread by @JeffreyASachs and @soashworth about the issues in the acceptance and post-acceptance suppression of this paper: twitter.com/jeffreyasachs/…

Jeffrey Sachs @JeffreyASachs

My eyes started to glaze over at page 30, but this seems open and shut. The accusations in the Quillette piece are true and Hill’s article was scotched because of political concerns. That’s not acceptable. twitter.com/clairlemon/sta…

2018-09-18 09:59:38

Nicholas A. Christakis @NAChristakis

Here is an updated URL with these documents. dropbox.com/s/lnm3csfna4se…

Nicholas A. Christakis @NAChristakis

And now the august @RetractionWatch weighs in and expresses concerns about the inappropriate post-publication disappearance of the #forbiddenpaper, saying it is a violation of extant ethical guidelines retractionwatch.com/2018/09/17/wha… pic.twitter.com/xdjYCxPrAe

拡大

Nicholas A. Christakis @NAChristakis

Here are the emails re the #forbiddenpaper re possible variability in men/women in math ability, via @QuilletteM @clairlemon. dropbox.com/s/estihpbvdbiy… A key issue here is the process by which paper's acceptance was *rescinded*. Hill appears to have receipts. @hardsci @chocolitt88

Nicholas A. Christakis @NAChristakis

Now, Gelman @StatModeling tries to unravel the timeline & offers his thoughts (as do his readers) on the paper on math ability variance in men/women whose publication was rescinded andrewgelman.com/2018/09/14/ech… Hopefully, Hill & @QuilletteM will follow-up w more details? NB @clairlemon

Nicholas A. Christakis @NAChristakis

Two of the math professors involved in the ostensible suppression of this paper (quillette.com/2018/09/07/aca…) release statements. No party has yet released evidence such as emails (but I suspect those will out): Wilkinson (math.uchicago.edu/~wilkinso/Stat…) & Farb (math.uchicago.edu/~farb/statement)

Nicholas A. Christakis @NAChristakis

The science should be vigorously debated. But the whole *process* here also seems "egregious." @sapinker agrees twitter.com/sapinker/statu… & @hardsci rightly wants receipts twitter.com/hardsci/status… I suspect this will be covered by reputable outlets that will contact all the parties

Steven Pinker @sapinker

Egregious: A math paper that tries to explain a fascinating fact (greater male variability) is censored. Again the academic left loses its mind: Ties equality to sameness, erodes credibility of academia, & vindicates right-wing paranoia. quillette.com/2018/09/07/aca… via @QuilletteM

2018-09-10 00:03:46

Sanjay Srivastava @hardsci

I will remain openminded awaiting more information, which is more than I can say for every single credulous tweet of this story I've seen so far

2018-09-08 08:18:51

Nicholas A. Christakis @NAChristakis

Mathematician Tim Gowers offers a sensible critique of controversial paper (I'd quibble w a couple of his assertions & empirical observations). But he doesn't offer an opinion about the process by which this paper came to be suppressed. gowers.wordpress.com/2018/09/09/has… via @stevenstrogatz

Nicholas A. Christakis @NAChristakis

Examining the variation in distributions, across categories, can shed light on lots of scientific conundrums, such as the response to treatment in RCT's. humannaturelab.net/publications/t… The second moment of a distribution is no less important than the first. pic.twitter.com/zXuc5RJjxg

拡大

Nicholas A. Christakis @NAChristakis

Three out of four children with severe developmental delay are boys. And average IQ of boys and girls is indistinguishable.

Nicholas A. Christakis @NAChristakis

The conceptual and methodological resistance to studying the variance instead of the mean of a distribution is also related to this absurd event of modern Lysenkoism. edge.org/response-detai… | @csmarcum @CharlieSeguin @GabrielRossman

Nicholas A. Christakis @NAChristakis

This paper is deemed so dangerous (evaluating an idea propounded by Darwin) that many people and entities went to great lengths to prevent anyone from reading it. arxiv.org/pdf/1703.04184… The story is here: quillette.com/2018/09/07/aca… #forbiddenpaper