A Math Paper Is Sent Down the Memory Hole

It should be no surprise to anyone that Political Correctness has managed to conquer subjects such as English Literature or Sociology. The more subjective and speculative the subject is, the easier it is for ideology to exert its Death Grip. So you’d think that Mathematics – the most objective subject in existence – would be uniquely preserved as a bastion of traditional academic values. Well . . . you’d be wrong. In fact, Math is particularly dangerous to academia’s occupiers, because it can be used to objectively prove the ideologically unacceptable.

American Mathematician Ted Hill recently discovered this to his cost when his paper [An Evolutionary Theory of the Variability Hypothesis, August, 2017] applying mathematics to make sense of the “Genetic Male Variability Hypothesis” (“GMVH”), was subject to nakedly Orwellian treatment, partly caused by a Jewish Mathematician.

Hill was fascinated by the hypothesis, commented on even by Darwin, that in all species there is more genetic variability in males than in females. As Hill has pointed out in a recent article on his adventures in the online magazine Quillette, this is why men are over-represented at the extremes of distributions such as birth weight or Math scores. More males have outlier high IQ – meaning more male science Nobel laureates. However, more males also possess outlier low IQ, resulting in greater numbers of male prisoners and vagrants [Academic Activists Send a Published Paper Down the Memory Hole, By Theodore P. Hill, Quillette, September 7, 2018].

The Emeritus Professor at Georgia Institute of Technology, was intrigued to discover that nobody was clear why this sex difference existed. So, Hill and Russian Sergei Tabachnikov, of Pennsylvania State University, worked out a model and posted a preprint in an open access Math archive in May 2017.

The pair submitted their paper to The Mathematical Intelligencer, specifically to its “Viewpoint”, the purpose of which is to present “controversial” studies. The editor-in-chief, Prof Marjorie Wikler Senechal, was enthusiastic about publishing it: ‘Discussing this issue dispassionately and with a mathematical model will be an important contribution towards rationality’ she wrote [Hill has put all the correspondenceonline]. She even suggested mentioning the trouble that Harvard President Larry Summers had got into in 2005 — he was fired — for wondering out loud if GMVH helped to explain the lack of females studying Math and Physics. [Why Feminist Careerists Neutered Larry Summers, By Stuart Taylor, The Atlantic, February 2005]. Hill’s paper was revised various times and then scheduled for publication in the first 2018 issue.

In August 2017, while the paper awaited publication, Tabachinov posted the accepted paper on a pre-print site. But at exactly the same time, a moral panic erupted about the lack women in Silicon Valley and Google’s James Damore was sacked for correctly implying that it was partly due to GMVH in an internal memo [Google Fires Engineer Who Wrote Memo Questioning Women in Tech, by Daisuke Wakabayashi, New York Times, August 7, 2017]. Within days, the full force of the Witch-Finder Generals was unleashed on the two naïve nerds.

On August 16, someone from Penn State’s “Women in Mathematics” contacted Tabachinov to glibly claim that she was in favour of the open discussion of controversial issues but some people will just see it as using the authority of Math to support “potentially sexist” ideas. Campaigners then started to deluge Tabachinov’s department.

The department’s Head said though they valued free speech this sometimes conflicted with other crucial values. Colleagues told him that the paper was “bad and harmful” and that he should withdraw his name to “restore peace in the department” and avoid losing “political capital”. The paper was even compared to “scientific racism”. The email correspondence reveals Tabachinov’s disbelief at what was unfolding around him: “You are participating in a witch-hunt, trying to silence a colleague” he wrote to a colleague whose name has been redacted. “I am infinitely saddened by these events.”

The paper’s funding body — the National Science Foundation (NSF), which was acknowledged in the article — then demanded their name be removed from it. A Freedom of Information request revealed that a professor from “Women In Mathematics” — Diane Henderson “Chair of the Climate and Diversity Committee” — had written to them saying that the paper “appears to promote pseudoscientific ideas that are detrimental to the advancement of women in science, and at odds with the values of the NSF” — words the NSF’s letter pretty much repeated. Righteous Henderson has previously been a lead author on a Math paper riddled with calculation errors, as she’s been forced to acknowledge.

And on the same day, the editor of The Mathematical Intelligencer wrote to Hill saying that colleagues feared “extremely strong reactions” to the accepted paper and there was a “very real possibility that the right-wing media may pick this up and hype it internationally.” Therefore, they would not publish the paper.

And things got even worse. A math professor called Amie Wilkinson complained to the journal about the paper, vilifying it and the journal on Facebook, and getting her statistician father to highlight supposed problems with it, to give her greater credibility. Wilkinson seems to have an axe to grind about there not being that many women in Math: “There were zero women on the research faculty, not even in the postdoctoral level” she told her university newspaper of her grad school days. [Q&A: Amie Wilkinson, Chicago Maroon, March 12, 2013]. She is also involved in the Association for Women in Mathematics, an interview with her aptly titled: “Defying Doubts, Pursuing Passions” [Amie Wilkinson: Defying Doubts and Pursuing Passions, By Grace Wu, AWM, April, 18 2013]. Wilkinson has since put out a statement defending free speech and playing down her involvement in suppressing Hill’s paper, claiming she wanted the paper rebutted, not removed. Her Facebook correspondence, published by Hill, reveals this to be a complete lie. She stated that Senechal, “ended up rescinding the paper (good, although why did she accept it in the first place)”.

Then, facing the possible end of his career over the growing furore, Tabachonov — who was raised in Soviet Russia — withdrew his name from the article. Ironically, in corresponding with one of the paper’s reviewers, Tabachonov had written that, ‘It will be a very sad state of affairs if reasonable people won’t be able to rationally discuss scientific matters, even if these matters are politically charged. The worst thing for a scientist is self-censorship.’

Hill — a Vietnam veteran, presumably quite used to fighting Marxists — would not withdraw the paper. And soon there seemed to be some good news. A sub-editor of the online New York Journal of Mathematics, having read the paper online and, having heard about Hill’s shocking treatment, got in touch to say that he’d be interested in publishing it. It was sent out for peer review, received positive reports, and was published on November 6, 2017.

The now sole author sent out the link to colleagues, but three days later the article simply vanished from the website – “down the memory hole.” Jewish Mathematician Benson Farb, who was on the journal’s editorial board, had demanded that the journal’s editor-in-chief, Mark Steinberger, remove Hill’s paper at once, calmly explaining that it was “ridiculous . . . pseudo-science . . . politically-charged” and “a non math piece of crap.” He also requested that the sub-editor be fired for “rail-roading a politically charged paper (full of pseudo-science) . . . through the editorial process.”

It turned out that Farb’s wife was none other than . . .  Amie Wilkinson. So this pioneering feminist mathematician not only went running to Daddy to stop the naughty boy’s paper being published but to Hubby as well.

Stirred-up by Farb, half the journal’s board then told Steinberger that they would resign and “harass the journal until it died” unless Hill’s paper was unpublished. Hill’s subsequent complaint against the nepotistic Maths power couple — both professors at the the “free speech” champion University of Chicago — for unethical conduct was dismissed out of hand, because they were apparently “exercising their freedom” . . . to prevent the publication of ideas that had passed the semi-sacred peer-review process.

Hot-headed Farb – like his wife clearly shaken up by recent criticism due to the Quillette article – put out a statement on 11th September 2018 publicly accusing the dying Steinberger, who passed away 4 days later, of being unethical for not including a retraction note when Hill’s paper was removed . . .  despite the fact that it was Farb that pressured this then presumably ill mathematician to un-publish the paper in the first place.

In January, we reported the case of the London Conference on Intelligence. At the time there was a media witch hunt against academics who had dared attend this conference to calmly debate vital issues, including race differences in intelligence. There was, however, a predictable backlash because the entire field of psychology is polluted by Social Justice Warriors. For toxic scholars to have penetrated pure Mathematics as well is a very worrying development.

But, on the plus side, alternative media has allowed the hypocrisy, pseudoscientific nature, and rabid ideological fervour of “scholars” like Amie Wilkinson to be humiliatingly exposed. They are left of the defensive, publishing glib press releases proclaiming their supposed belief in freedom of debate while their online messages scream for it to be shut down. And the public are more aware than ever before just what a cess pool of ideology-dressed-up-as-science their high-education-bound tax dollars are funding.

In February 2012, Wilkinson’s husband, who refers to scholarship he disagrees with as “crap,” said, in his University of Chicago commencement address, “As British physicist J. J. Thomson said: ‘Research in applied science leads to reforms, research in pure science leads to revolutions.’

Let’s hope he’s right . . . though the opposite of the kind of revolution he and his wife would like.




27 replies
  1. Fenria
    Fenria says:

    If GMVH didn’t exist and actually was pseudo-scientific nonsense, none of this left wing outrage over a paper about it would even take place. It would be treated as if someone had submitted a paper proposing the existence of earth dwelling extra-terrestrials and roundly ignored as such. The fact that even the suggestion of GMVH gets so many feathers ruffled in the first place shows that it is an uncomfortable truth, and there is nothing worse than living in a time where more than half the population, in the most extreme of childlike tantrums, refuse to confront and investigate uncomfortable truths. Truly, humanity has become some sort of bland, dull banana, ever predictable. Can we ever expect critical thinking from the masses?

    • Curmudgeon
      Curmudgeon says:

      ” Can we ever expect critical thinking from the masses?”
      At the risk of offending a number of posters on this site, I have often found more “critical thinking” among the “uneducated” masses than academia.
      The SJWs in academia have been brainwashed. Many PhD theses, in soft disciplines like history or philosophy, are regurgitation of the views of the reviewers, or closely aligned to those views. The candidates understand that, in order to ensure success, it’s OK to have an appendage outside the box, but not the whole body. In the hard science areas, I’ve lost count of the number of PhDs that I have met, that know everything there is to know about their area of expertise, but little else. These intelligent people are trapped in the system and need to conform in order to survive.
      On the other hand, the “uneducated” masses are unburdened by the system, and in some way, have been affected by the “system”, usually by one of the economic models that have been abject failures. A large number of them have excellent bullshit detectors. These people would fit nicely into Hillary’s basket of deplorables. While they may be one issue driven, their view on the issue is most often shaped by real life experience, not academic theory.
      This essay is an excellent example of everything that is wrong with the education system, in “Western liberal democracies” today, right from the ground up. It’s not education, it is indoctrination, just as Trotsky would have liked it..

      • George Kocan
        George Kocan says:

        Years ago, I heard a magician interviewed on a radio show, The Amazing Randy. He had set himself the task of exposing mentalist-style frauds, especially those claiming to solve murders and other crimes. He also wrote a book, in which he reported that the easiest people to fool were college graduates.

  2. Charlie
    Charlie says:

    Math is racist when it points out that 14% of the American population commits 78% of the violent crime. It’s also racist when it proves that dark skinned races are not up to the task of creating or inhabiting orderly societies.

      • Charlie
        Charlie says:

        “then review some of the correlates of melanin in people, including aggression and sexual activity. Both within human populations (e.g., siblings), and between populations (e.g., races, nations, states), studies find that darker pigmented people average higher levels of aggression and sexual activity (and also lower IQ).”

        I must have a Phd in it by now. I’m living it.

  3. Rerevisionist
    Rerevisionist says:

    Hill — a Vietnam veteran, presumably quite used to fighting Marxists …”
    See https://big-lies.org/jews/articles-on-jews.html#ja-vietnam (total file is long).
    The casual dismissal of US war crimes plays into the hands of Jews, who of course want whites portrayed as ignorant and violent — often of course true enough. See https://www.big-lies.org/russell-bertrand-war-crimes-in-vietnam-1967.pdf
    The link in the piece says ‘… Briefly, the theory says that if one sex is relatively selective then from one generation to the next, more variable subpopulations of the opposite sex will tend to prevail over those with lesser variability; and conversely, if a sex is relatively non-selective, then less variable subpopulations of the opposite sex will tend to prevail over those with greater variability. …’ which doesn’t sound much.

    • Pierre de Craon
      Pierre de Craon says:

      I do not dispute your primary contention—that the “casual dismissal of US war crimes plays into the hands of Jews”—but I know firsthand from my own experience in Vietnam (1967/68) that the JAG office of my unit, the Fourth Infantry Division, vigorously prosecuted soldiers for war crimes on a day-in-day-out basis. Very few of their prosecutions ended in acquittals.

      I have no idea, of course, whether your idea (or Mathis’s) of what constitutes a war crime is the time-honored one of unseemly, cruel, or vicious conduct by an actual soldier in combat or the rather more visionary one (espoused by Bertie Russell, inter alia) of blaming the little guys for the stupid or immoral policies of the political big shots in Washington, Tel Aviv, and everywhere else the Jew holds sway.

      • Rerevisionist
        Rerevisionist says:

        Your support for Roman Catholicism presumably leads you to support the remains of the French Empires. You might acknowledge that. And you might acknowledge the Jewish basis for the ‘Roman’ Catholic Church.
        I’m pleased the Occidental Observer allowed this comment, and I’d recommend people to read Russell’s book, to which I added some commentary which took me, and presumably many of us, to understand – Russell being (imho) essentially disgusted and horrified, but corralled by Jews – Chomsky, Deutscher, Sartre, Anders, Schoenman, Kolko, etc etc – and neutralised. All discussion of Jewish money-making was censored – just as in WW1 and WW2. It’s fascinating though horrific to read, when Jew-aware. Russell’s comment on the non-existence of the ‘Viet Cong’, invented by the Jewish media, is just one point hardly ever made. ‘Pierre de Craon’ is partly right on thinking Russell was ‘visionsry’, although the correct phrase is ‘Jew-naive’. Russell had no clue about Jews – something absolutely typical of ‘educated’ Victorians in Britain. I’d suggest that’s the reason why Russell was tolerated. He of course also was naive about ‘nuclear weapons’, a massive fraud Jews thought helped them.
        . . . . . There may be young students of philosophy here; look (if you like) at http://www.big-lies.org/nuke-lies/www.nukelies.com/forum/bertrand-russell-duped-by-jews-physicists.html for my dismanting effort re Russell.
        In my view, Prof MacDonald has stalled much as Russell did.
        NB I note your dismissive parenthesis on Mathis. He has carried out astonishing work on Jews in the long term, such as the Jagiellons in Poland, the place of Venice, Jews infiltrating and using hireling Protestants and Catholics to fight each other, and Jews in Russia. Try Googling mileswmathis.com plus a few additional words.

        • Pierre de Craon
          Pierre de Craon says:

          Your support for Roman Catholicism presumably leads you to support the remains of the French Empires.

          Whatever the quoted sentence may mean when translated into standard English—e.g., unless a person is a Straussian, he does not “support” a religion; he either does or doesn’t practice it—it demonstrates yet again that “presuming” is far more amenable to its author than looking to facts and evidence.

          Rerev’s pique-driven assertion that I must be or must have been a supporter of war in Vietnam because I had the temerity to challenge his characteristically broad-brush remarks about war crimes reveals, I think, rather more about him than about the target of his pique.

  4. Richard B
    Richard B says:

    I wrote a paper for my Health class in High School on how it was possible to get VD from a meteorite.

    The simple linkage as I recall was, meteorite – chemicals – earth surface – physical contact – bacteria – infections – STD.

    The trick is to keep a straight face. So, I applied all of the standard techniques associated with any presentation, ie; connect with the audience, show passion for your topic (hard to be yourself if you’re nervous). Smile and make eye-contact (but no winking).

    I almost got away with it.

    Anyway, who would’ve thought that a teenage prank in the form of a tongue-in-cheek parody of pseudo-science conducted 40 years ago would resemble the actual template used for how “science” is conducting itself today?

    I’ve said it before, but will say it again because it’s worth repeating, this is happening not just because they are the way they are, but because we’re not united. The result? USSR 1918 – USSA 2018.

  5. Pierre de Craon
    Pierre de Craon says:

    Except in the unlikely case that James Andrewes (the author of this informative article) is the same person as Lance Welton (the pseudonymous author of a bowdlerized and otherwise cheapened travesty of this article published on October 20 at VDARE under the title “It’s Official: Even Hard Science Entering New Dark Age”), he (i.e., Mr. Andrewes), along with KM and everyone else who reads or writes articles here at TOO, has good reason to raise an eyebrow about what hardly seems to be a coincidence.

    I herewith respectfully invite all and sundry hereabouts to join me in expressing disappointment (at the very least) to Peter Brimelow et alii.

    • Richard B
      Richard B says:

      Pierre de Craon,

      Interesting comment. I don’t read VDARE as much as I used to. But the last few times I felt a difference, and couldn’t help but notice it’d been a while since I saw an article from KM there. Anyway, I never read anything to this effect until I read your comment. Do you know what happened there? Did (((they))) get to them?

      • Pierre de Craon
        Pierre de Craon says:

        My comment was narrowly focused by design. That is, I don’t think it’s a matter of anything having happened at VDARE. Peter Brimelow’s analysis of the root cause or causes of the present crisis is unlikely ever to be more than 85 percent congruent with Professor MacDonald’s, and this differential is plainly reflected in the character of the articles and writers that TOO and VDARE respectively publish. Thus, I am disinclined to draw big conclusions from PB’s decision to publish any single given article, even a dishonestly constructed article by an overreacher who offers a host of clichés and inanities while adroitly avoiding any reference to a Tribal dimension that couldn’t be more obvious if it was painted blue.* But I can’t deny that the piece in question really got my goat!
        *Taken all in all, the occasional drive-by offensiveness of a Lance Welton article counts for very little, I think, against the perpetual affront to decency and sense that the constant presence of John Derbyshire and Brenda Walker represents.

  6. Jerry
    Jerry says:

    Curmudgeon, in your previous reply you cited Trotsky. This is his Anglicized name, he is a Bolshevik jew by the name of Lev Davidovich Bronstein.

    • Charles Frey
      Charles Frey says:

      Jerry, Trotsky was the name of his guard while banished in Siberia. He gave Bronstein his Russian passport to help him escape the camp and to return to the western part of Czarist Russia.

      He went to the US and was once again arrested on the authority of Captain Maichin, of the Royal Navy, in Halifax, Nova Scotia on April 3, 1917, along with his wife, two sons and five ” fellow travelers ” , as they were called by the British Secret Service agents shadowing them on the MS Christianafjord, en route NYC Norway, then Petrograd, ie [ Leningrad and again St. Petersburg ].

      Mr. T was imprisoned in Amherst, N.S. POW camp. His wife and sons stayed with [SURPRISE !] dentist [ SURPRISE ! ] Horowitz.

      Ottawa released all of them on April 3, after enormous pressure from London on Washington, then Ottawa. The 10,000 Schiff cash found on him hopefully sufficed to feed them for the duration of that voyage.

      He made no secret in his overflow speeches at Madison Square Garden, that they were going to destroy the Provisional Government of Kerensky. This was followed by the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk taking Russia out of the War: enabling the Kaiser to throw just under a million men against the Allies towards the end, causing huge Allied losses so late in the War.

      The founder and then sole owner of Canada’s newsmagazine Macleans, Major Maclean, described ” the politicians in Ottawa as traitors to our boys in the field “, in its June 1918 edition, held by the Toronto Reference Library.

      In 1968, at his fortified Vienna Street corner compound and now Trotskyist shrine
      [ for some of our Democrats ? ] in Mexico City, I had the pleasure of sitting on the very kitchen chair on which Stalin’s agent buried an icepick in Bronstein’s skull, to die shortly thereafter. Hopefully severest pain would not have been a billionth of what this Jew and his cohorts inflicted on all others.

      • Jerry
        Jerry says:

        Charles Frey, you are incorrect. His real name is Bronstein and that can be substantiated in many historic writings. It is even on Wikipedia which as we all know is a jewish owned site.

        • Pierre de Craon
          Pierre de Craon says:


          If you look again at Charles Frey’s comment, this time giving it the attention you ought to have given it from the outset, you will see that nowhere did he write that Bronstein wasn’t the family name that Trotsky was born with.

          Furthermore, I hope that you will agree that it’s a matter of simple courtesy to read the comments of others with care and comprehension before you (1) describe them as incorrect and (2) claim to substantiate matters whose factuality no one—certainly neither Curmudgeon nor Charles Frey—has called into question. As the comments of those two gentlemen add value to Mr. Andrewes’s article by means of narrative amplification and interpretive acumen, I’d say they merit thanks rather than cavils.

        • Charles Frey
          Charles Frey says:

          Jerry, my first sentence is followed by a second sentence. Hardly contradictory. He hid his Jewish-Ukrainian BRONSHTEIN with Trotsky.

          At Canada’s Archives, near Parliament, I made a photocopy of the standard Canadian Army forms, both in German and English, where he signed himself into Amherst POW Camp; including his right thumb print. Profession, place of birth, age, etc., the usual.
          He signed his surname Bronstein Trotsky, actually Bromstein.

          He lists his nationality as Russian, though Woodrow Wilson, with all those [[[ friends ]]] around him, managed to issue him a US passport, with British transit visa and the Russian entry permit already included. He takes the jewsual liberties with the truth in his autobiography.

          New York Jews called the impending re-revolution OUR THING. Thousands were funded to go to Petrograd via Chicago, Winnipeg, Vancouver, Yokohama, Vladivostok; shadowed as far as Chicago by the NY Bomb Squad, thence the Dominion Police after entering Canada.

          In Winnipeg some may have overnighted in one of the three hotels, bars, cum whorehouses, owned by Samuel Bronfman, who ran alcohol into the US during Prohibition, before he turned to the other remaining Jewish callings of Seagram’s Distillers and mortgages in Montreal: gaining respectability. Also giving birth there to Edgar Bronfman, the 800 million tax dodger and admired President of the WJC.

          Only repeated by me, while actually detailed in a bestseller by
          [[[ Peter C. Newman ]]], former editor of Canada’s MacLeans news magazine; excepting the subsequent tax fraud.

          But let’s not engage in criminal pattern recognition.

  7. Charles Frey
    Charles Frey says:

    While anything is possible, I remain doubtful that Summers was fired by Harvard for the thinking out loud reasons given in The Atlantic. A ” progressive “, and therefor of course award-winning magazine, run by the equally award-winning, formally dual US-Israel national, Jeffrey Goldberg of, where else, Brooklyn. For his boss, publisher Haley Romer, of course also Jewish and majority owned by Steve Job’s widow, Laureen Powell Jobs, by her Emerson Collective, managed by Klein.

    Only the religion of the chief janitor and of course of his mysterious, mandatory female cat remains uncertain.

    Harvard President Summers was in greatest trouble, along with his very close friend/accomplice Andrei Shleifer, head of the Economics Department, in a number of ethical and criminal issues and indeed court cases decided against them, including those filed by Washington itself; with multi million, penalty court costs awarded against Harvard, as a corporation.

    At this point of my comment, taken from memory, I wanted to assure myself not to be misinforming anyone here and therefor reverted to some net research. I ran across an article in Math Babe, March 11, 2012, which once and for all buried the myth of the reason for S’s removal. Its author, Cathy O’Neil is intimately familiar with causes and timeline and expresses it mercilessly.

    In olden days unnoticeable slivers were shaved off gold coin. Soviet Russian assets, by comparison, were incalculable, calling for an electric grinder or Schleifer. Drop the h, move to America, run Harvard’s Economics Department, garner federal support funds in the millions, and strip the SU, or rather its abundantly Jew-tormented people, bare, largely filling his own pockets and those of his wife and friends. Including the complicity of USAID and Professor Sacks of Columbia U. Not forgetting the fairytale, alleged NGO National Endowment for Democracy, funded by the CIA but laundered through the State Department.

    Rather than asking you to read both my version from memory, as well as that of O’Neil as insider, why don’t you go to her article directly. In the right column you will find an ad for her book WEAPONS OF MATH DESTRUCTION. I don’t think she’s burdened by a lisp. Somewhere she agrees with my opening remark, that this Summers remark was a cover for the real reasons, that shouldn’t be publicized.

    It wouldn’t serve their obvious, multipronged [ Ukrainian PM Groysman ] program for regime change in Moscow, possibly assisted by regime change at the Whitehouse. They need to ” grab the Russians by their hair ” [ Churchill 1920 ] to steal them blind a third time in 100 years, and to use them to blackmail the EU with their energy supplies, bringing their 1917-begun process to an irreversible success; befitting a self-appointed chosen people.

    Thanks to the author for a concise, no bullshit rendition of the true state of affairs to be added to our lengthy collection of pattern recognitions, including the untrustworthiness of The Atlantic in all its tribe’s glory.

    WHY LARRY SUMMERS LOST THE PRESIDENCY OF HARVARD: by Cathy O’Neil; and derivative links.

    • TJ
      TJ says:

      Professor Sachs, although he could be called Sucks after what he did to Poland. Lech Walesa hated his guts.

  8. coleridge pope
    coleridge pope says:

    i wonder if it is only men who post to the comments section of this site – and if so what does that “prove” ?
    as a male maths graduate this paper (which I have read) does not look to prove that men make better mathematicians – so you can try and spin that research however you like but that is not what the theory is looking to do – and i quote

    “The goal here has been neither to challenge nor to confirm Darwin’s and other researchers’ observations
    of greater male variability for any given species or any given trait, but rather to propose an elementary
    mathematical theory based on biological/evolutionary mechanisms that might serve as a starting point
    to help explain how one gender of a species might tend to evolve with greater variability than the other
    gender. The precise formal definitions and assumptions made here are clearly not applicable in real-life
    scenarios, and thus the contribution here is also merely a general theory intended to open the discussion
    to further mathematical modeling and analysis”

    • Pierre de Craon
      Pierre de Craon says:

      The “male maths graduate” writes thus:

      [I] wonder if it is only men who post to the comments section of this site – and if so what does that “prove”?

      As most people are aware, even male limeys who once studied a bit of math, are aware, proving (i.e., demonstrating the truth of) a statement contrary to fact is impossible. In routinely doing the impossible, however, lies one of life’s great joys for present-day society’s most unendangered species, the Virtue Signaler. How fortunate these cold, callous TOO threads are when one such deigns to drop by and call the locals to account for their moral backwardness!

      • Pierre de Craon
        Pierre de Craon says:

        Had I been less careless in revising before posting, the first sentence after the block quote above would have read, “As most people, even male limeys who once studied a bit of math, are aware, proving (i.e., demonstrating the truth of) a statement contrary to fact is impossible.”

        Mea culpa.

Comments are closed.