"The issue is never the issue."

[Chesterton]

Particles For Justice, lol

 

[PloverWing]

Here is the physicists' reply to Alessandro Strumia's talk that the speaker mentions: Home

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Excellent presentation. Calls to minde the rebellion of Lucifer, and Eve.

 

[dgiharris]

Here is the physicists' reply to Alessandro Strumia's talk that the speaker mentions: Home

I watched the first 3 minutes of that video and I simply don't have the time to watch something that doesn't get straight to the freakin point...

If he presents a mathematically and scientific case that shows that women are not being systemically prevented from entering scientific fields, then of course he should not be crucified.

however, if he uses the above data to then declare that "women are less capable in physics then men" then yes, he should rightfully be raked over the coals...

I am a big black man and was a physicist once upon a time, I graduated from a very tough technical university with a 3.4 GPA and over 160 credit hours... I will readily admit that women and minorities are surely underrepresented in science however I do not feel it is the fault of some nefarious organization or system racism in the field...

Truth be told, I believe the fault lies at the elementary, middle school, and high school level... I believe the fault lies with simple cultural marketing and social programming...

How much attention and focus do actors, actresses, models, musicians, and athletes get? How many BILLIONS of man-hours are minorities spending trying to get better at sports? How many BILLIONS of man-hours are teenage girls spending on social media trying to get their view counts up?

Truth is, if you could redirect more of that youthful effort and focus into the sciences, you'd have more minority and female scientists and engineers.

There are other reasons and problems as well, but I don't want to write a book here.

In short, having belonged in that field, yes, there is racism and sexism sure, but imo way way less than in other areas of life. Reason being... data doesn't lie. In science, the math is the math and it doesn't matter who comes up with it. Others can recognize your acumen and appreciate your intellect and very soon it becomes apparent that you are capable and that is all that matters.

The hard bitter truth is, the reason why minorities and women aren't prevalent in the sciences has infinitely more to do with social programming and cultural marketing than it does with racism and sexism.

For every Neil Degrasse Tyson you have on TV talking about science (basically only one black guy), you have hundreds if not thousands of professional athletes, musicians, and actors... So as a black kid, where do you think your focus will be?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The hard bitter truth is, the reason why minorities and women aren't prevalent in the sciences has infinitely more to do with social programming and cultural marketing than it does with racism and sexism.

While I agree with the broad thrust of your argument, it seems to me that much racism and sexism is also to do with social programming and cultural marketing...

 

[PloverWing]

I watched about the first 10-15 minutes of the video, and I read the entire reply statement at particlesforjustice.org. I did not see Dr. Strumia's presentation, though small excerpts appear in Dr. Fiamengo's video and in the particlesforjustice response; I am thus having to make some guesses based on what they've said.

It sounds like there are two problems with Dr. Strumia's presentation.

1) The context in which the remarks were presented: According to https://physicsworld.com/a/thousand...g-disgraceful-alessandro-strumia-gender-talk/, the talk was given at a workshop on high-energy physics and gender, a workshop designed to discuss ways to support women and minorities in the physics community. His talk was thus especially discouraging in that context -- something like, perhaps, if a church conference was held to discuss ways to spread the gospel, and one of the speakers gave a talk about how religion is stupid. That's a valid idea to discuss, but jarring in that context.

Dr. Strumia also included a slide about how he was denied a job that was instead given to a woman. He gave her name, and his, and their respective numbers of publications. (The slide appears in the video.) Maybe he has a valid complaint -- I wasn't on the hiring committee -- but it's unprofessional to include a personal complaint like that in the middle of a conference presentation.

2) Dr. Fiamengo doesn't seem to be distinguishing adequately between the field of physics and the field of the psychology/sociology of the physics community. She says that Dr. Strumia has numbers and graphs, so his conclusions are sound. Let us agree for the moment that Dr. Strumia's numbers are correct -- that he has correctly counted the numbers of publications per researcher, the number of times publications were cited by others, and so on. (I haven't verified his numbers, but I see no reason that he would have gotten the counts wrong.) One of the charts in his presentation measures the success of male and female physicists through their career (counting number of publications, I think). By his measure, male physicists as a group were more successful than female physicists as a group. Up to that point, it's numbers. But he goes on to assert that this is because men as a group are more talented in physics than women as a group, and Dr. Fiamengo agrees. At this point, they've stepped over into the social sciences, and speculation.

Why did the female physicists (as a group) publish less? Maybe they're less talented, or less single-mindedly motivated. Or: Maybe the women were expected to invest more time in child care and housework than their male counterparts. Maybe the women were given subtly different sets of work responsibilities -- more management, or more teaching, etc. Maybe the women didn't feel at home in all-male communities of researchers, making it harder for them to collaborate with colleagues. Maybe something else. These are questions of psychology and sociology, and they need to be researched. Some people are conducting research in this area, and I look forward to their discoveries. But it doesn't sound like Dr. Strumia and Dr. Fiamengo themselves have conducted research in this area, the question of why the numbers come out the way they do. It's premature to jump to the conclusion of innate difference in talent before other hypotheses have been fully considered.

I care about this because I'm a different male-dominated field, computer science.

 

[Chesterton]

I watched the first 3 minutes of that video and I simply don't have the time to watch something that doesn't get straight to the freakin point...

I watched about the first 10-15 minutes of the video, and I read the entire reply statement at particlesforjustice.org.

Guys/Gals, this wasn't a test with a time limit. If you're interested enough to make lengthy replies to the video, you should watch the video so you can know what you're replying to.

 

[PloverWing]

I have now watched the remainder of the video. The comments toward the end of the video are similar to the ones in the early part of the video. My assessment is unchanged.

 

[Chesterton]

1) The context in which the remarks were presented: According to https://physicsworld.com/a/thousand...g-disgraceful-alessandro-strumia-gender-talk/, the talk was given at a workshop on high-energy physics and gender, a workshop designed to discuss ways to support women and minorities in the physics community. His talk was thus especially discouraging in that context -- something like, perhaps, if a church conference was held to discuss ways to spread the gospel, and one of the speakers gave a talk about how religion is stupid. That's a valid idea to discuss, but jarring in that context.

Why would his talk be especially discouraging? A better analogy would be a group of speakers addressing a group of cancer patients to show them support, and one of the speakers says "I have good news. I've done further testing and found that none of you have cancer". Shouldn't the women at the workshop have been happy to hear they're not being discriminated against? I don't get it, unless they just have hurt feelings about men having more citations/publications, but that's something that could possibly even out over a longer time period.

2)...But he goes on to assert that this is because men as a group are more talented in physics than women as a group, and Dr. Fiamengo agrees.

The response letter claims he said that. At 20:00 in the video, Fiamengo says that he did not say that.

Why did the female physicists (as a group) publish less? Maybe they're less talented, or less single-mindedly motivated. Or: Maybe the women were expected to invest more time in child care and housework than their male counterparts. Maybe the women were given subtly different sets of work responsibilities -- more management, or more teaching, etc. Maybe the women didn't feel at home in all-male communities of researchers, making it harder for them to collaborate with colleagues. Maybe something else. These are questions of psychology and sociology, and they need to be researched. Some people are conducting research in this area, and I look forward to their discoveries. But it doesn't sound like Dr. Strumia and Dr. Fiamengo themselves have conducted research in this area, the question of why the numbers come out the way they do. It's premature to jump to the conclusion of innate difference in talent before other hypotheses have been fully considered.

I agree, you could be absolutely right about any or all of that. But I'm sure it was beyond the scope of his talk to go into all the possible "whys" behind the numbers.

But may I ask you - do you think it's right or fair for a person to lose their career, be insulted and be shunned, for expressing an opinion that some people either disagree with or just dislike?

 

[PloverWing]

Why would his talk be especially discouraging? A better analogy would be a group of speakers addressing a group of cancer patients to show them support, and one of the speakers says "I have good news. I've done further testing and found that none of you have cancer". Shouldn't the women at the workshop have been happy to hear they're not being discriminated against? I don't get it, unless they just have hurt feelings about men having more citations/publications, but that's something that could possibly even out over a longer time period.

To go with your disease analogy: The announcement would be more like saying "I have good news and bad news. The good news is that I've done further testing and found that none of you have cancer. The bad news is that you have a genetic condition which is untreatable." The symptoms being experienced by the women at the workshop persist, regardless of what the speaker is saying. The question is whether the symptoms are due to something in the environment that can be changed.

The response letter claims he said that. At 20:00 in the video, Fiamengo says that he did not say that.

I agree, you could be absolutely right about any or all of that. But I'm sure it was beyond the scope of his talk to go into all the possible "whys" behind the numbers.

It's hard to evaluate Dr. Strumia's presentation further, without seeing the actual presentation itself. It appeared to me that the "why" behind the numbers was exactly his point, but I am trying to evaluate his talk as filtered through two secondary sources.

But may I ask you - do you think it's right or fair for a person to lose their career, be insulted and be shunned, for expressing an opinion that some people either disagree with or just dislike?

That's an interesting question. Dr. Strumia's opinion -- and Dr. Fiamengo's -- is one that should be on the table for discussion. Until it's disproved, it's a possibility. Dr. Strumia should be able to continue his career as a research physicist, and to voice his opinion. The ParticlesForJustice physicists should also be able to voice their opinions, and then the psychologists and sociologists do their research, and we figure out who's right.

I would not, I think, want Dr. Strumia to supervise female doctoral students; if you persuade a woman that women aren't as good at physics as men, that can be self-fulfilling. (Similarly with African-Americans, and other underrepresented groups.) It's something we watch out for in our own teaching, as educators. But Dr. Strumia should be fine in a research lab, as long as there are others around him voicing more inclusive opinions.

 

[Chesterton]

To go with your disease analogy: The announcement would be more like saying "I have good news and bad news. The good news is that I've done further testing and found that none of you have cancer. The bad news is that you have a genetic condition which is untreatable." The symptoms being experienced by the women at the workshop persist, regardless of what the speaker is saying. The question is whether the symptoms are due to something in the environment that can be changed.

According to the data, women are often getting hired over more qualified or successful men. Although it's bad for science, it sounds like women physicists have it good. So what exactly are the symptoms to which you're referring?

It's hard to evaluate Dr. Strumia's presentation further, without seeing the actual presentation itself. It appeared to me that the "why" behind the numbers was exactly his point, but I am trying to evaluate his talk as filtered through two secondary sources.

Yeah, same with me. Apparently the presentation isn't online. For various reasons I find the reply statement suspect, though.

That's an interesting question. Dr. Strumia's opinion -- and Dr. Fiamengo's -- is one that should be on the table for discussion. Until it's disproved, it's a possibility. Dr. Strumia should be able to continue his career as a research physicist, and to voice his opinion. The ParticlesForJustice physicists should also be able to voice their opinions, and then the psychologists and sociologists do their research, and we figure out who's right.

Agreed.

I would not, I think, want Dr. Strumia to supervise female doctoral students; if you persuade a woman that women aren't as good at physics as men, that can be self-fulfilling.

I don't know where you're getting that Strumia has any interest in persuading females of that. Second, it sounds condescending and sexist to suggest that adult females are able to be persuaded out of doing something if they're capable of doing it and want to do it. Doctoral students aren't 4 year olds.

(Similarly with African-Americans, and other underrepresented groups.) It's something we watch out for in our own teaching, as educators. But Dr. Strumia should be fine in a research lab, as long as there are others around him voicing more inclusive opinions.

Shouldn't we be primarily concerned with whether an opinion is right or wrong, rather than whether it's inclusive or exclusive?

Also, what does "underrepresented" mean? What would proper representation, or correct representation, or ____? representation (I don't know the word), look like?

 

[PloverWing]

I'm reaching the limits of how well I can evaluate Dr. Strumia's presentation, given that a) I didn't see the presentation itself, and b) physics isn't my field, so c) I've never been on a physics hiring committee, and I haven't done research alongside physicists. Part of the question is whether the male applicants are indeed "more qualified and successful" than the female applicants who received the job or promotion. Number of publications is one measure of success, but also relevant are the number of authors on each publication, the importance of the research projects, and (for some jobs) teaching ability and the ability to work well with others. From the ParticlesforJustice response, Dr. Strumia's numbers may not be taking these other factors sufficiently into account. But I've reached the limits of what I can say without seeing Strumia's actual research.

In my field, computer science, the "symptom" is that women are underrepresented in computer science, and the underrepresentation gets worse as the career progresses from undergraduate to graduate to faculty. In CS, this has become known as "the incredible shrinking pipeline", and the causes of this phenomenon is an area of research. Especially attention-getting is that the percentage of CS degrees awarded to women is much lower than the percentage of Math degrees awarded to women, even though the two fields are similar; if there was something about being female that limited one's mathematical ability, one would expect more similarity between the numbers in those two fields. The disparity leads one to explore what social factors may be coming into play.

"Underrepresented" means that the percentage of the population in a particular demographic (gender, ethnic group, etc.) form X% of the population, but form much less than X% of the people in a particular field.

(Some relevant references for the above: The NSF gives some statistics on women in STEM fields here: Computer sciences - Field of degree: Women - nsf.gov - Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering - NCSES - US National Science Foundation (NSF). Tracy Camp's original article on The Incredible Shrinking Pipeline is here: http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/550000/543846/p129-camp.pdf?ip=150.250.190.252&id=543846&acc=ACTIVE SERVICE&key=7777116298C9657D.414C84AC7BC68407.4D4702B0C3E38B35.4D4702B0C3E38B35&__acm__=1542823176_ca6f07d57b993635be57dcd2126ed531; it appeared in the Communications of the ACM in 1997.)

"Shouldn't we be primarily concerned with whether an opinion is right or wrong, rather than whether it's inclusive or exclusive?" Yes, except for the funny way human psychology works. If you tell someone that people in their demographic are more likely to fail, and if they hear that message from enough sources, they can begin to believe it, and thus become more likely to fail. This phenomenon happens in adults, not just in children. They can also become more likely to give up or switch to a different field when things get hard or when they get a low grade. If I've just gotten a B, or if there's some concept that I just can't seem to grasp, maybe I just take it in stride and keep going -- or maybe I take it as confirmation of the message I've always heard that people like me just can't do CS (or physics or engineering) as well as the guys, and I shouldn't have even been trying. That's the kind of tricky psychology that comes into play when students hear certain kinds of messages.

 

[Chesterton]

I'm reaching the limits of how well I can evaluate Dr. Strumia's presentation, given that a) I didn't see the presentation itself, and b) physics isn't my field, so c) I've never been on a physics hiring committee, and I haven't done research alongside physicists. Part of the question is whether the male applicants are indeed "more qualified and successful" than the female applicants who received the job or promotion. Number of publications is one measure of success, but also relevant are the number of authors on each publication, the importance of the research projects, and (for some jobs) teaching ability and the ability to work well with others. From the ParticlesforJustice response, Dr. Strumia's numbers may not be taking these other factors sufficiently into account. But I've reached the limits of what I can say without seeing Strumia's actual research.

I understand, I'm in the same position, but I'll tell you why I'm suspicious of the reply statement. Fiamengo's video is entitled "Physics Under SJW Attack" for good reason. The reply smacks of all the Leftist SJW irrational modus operandi:

1. The name "Particles For Justice" is on its face a ridiculous contradiction, which is why I put "lol" after it in the OP. Particles For Justice is not a scientific organization, it's a reactionary Facebook and Twitter campaign expressing emotion, and little in the way of facts and argument.

2. The statement starts out by saying that "the humanity of any person, regardless of ascribed identities such as race, ethnicity, gender identity,.. is not up for debate." Although I haven't seen the presentation, I'm pretty sure that Strumia did not call into question whether female humans were human. This is "drama queen" language unworthy of scientists, or lawyers, or any rational thinking person interested in the facts.

3. It brings off-topic, irrelevant things such as race, ethnicity, gender identity, religion,
disability, gender presentation, or sexual identity into their reply. I doubt Strumia addressed any of these things.

4. The letter basically calls for Strumia to be punished for expressing an opinion.

5. The fact that they've got thousands of signatories from around the world while obviously, not all of those signatories could have heard any more of Strumia's presentation than you or I have. They've endorsed a refutation of a presentation which they have not heard, which is also very unscientific, and which is why Ms. Fiamengo's video is important.

6. It mentions "workshops on gender -- or other ascribed identities." Scientists speaking of gender as an ascribed identity is inherently unscientific.

In my field, computer science, the "symptom" is that women are underrepresented in computer science, and the underrepresentation gets worse as the career progresses from undergraduate to graduate to faculty. In CS, this has become known as "the incredible shrinking pipeline", and the causes of this phenomenon is an area of research. Especially attention-getting is that the percentage of CS degrees awarded to women is much lower than the percentage of Math degrees awarded to women, even though the two fields are similar; if there was something about being female that limited one's mathematical ability, one would expect more similarity between the numbers in those two fields. The disparity leads one to explore what social factors may be coming into play.

"Underrepresented" means that the percentage of the population in a particular demographic (gender, ethnic group, etc.) form X% of the population, but form much less than X% of the people in a particular field.

Do you realize what you're saying, though? You're saying that people in my demographic (short, unathletic white males) should be proportionally represented in professional basketball. I would have loved to have played in the NBA, but that's not how it works, and that's not how it should work. A free market based on merit gives the best results for everyone, in terms of basic fairness, and in terms of "getting things done", whether it's getting the best basketball playing or the best science.

(Some relevant references for the above: The NSF gives some statistics on women in STEM fields here: Computer sciences - Field of degree: Women - nsf.gov - Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering - NCSES - US National Science Foundation (NSF). Tracy Camp's original article on The Incredible Shrinking Pipeline is here: http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/550000/543846/p129-camp.pdf?ip=150.250.190.252&id=543846&acc=ACTIVE SERVICE&key=7777116298C9657D.414C84AC7BC68407.4D4702B0C3E38B35.4D4702B0C3E38B35&__acm__=1542823176_ca6f07d57b993635be57dcd2126ed531; it appeared in the Communications of the ACM in 1997.)

So by this logic, the percentage of left-handed physicists "needs" to be the same as the percentage of left-handed humans. And so on and so on for red-headed people and Australian Aborigines and people who are genetically disposed to like country western music, and etc., etc. And the purpose of such nonsense is what? To make individuals feel better, to the detriment of science? Of course it's not just about science. I want the best bus drivers to get bus driver jobs, regardless of their genetics, don't you? Isn't that the most fair thing, and the best for society?

"Shouldn't we be primarily concerned with whether an opinion is right or wrong, rather than whether it's inclusive or exclusive?" Yes, except for the funny way human psychology works. If you tell someone that people in their demographic are more likely to fail, and if they hear that message from enough sources, they can begin to believe it, and thus become more likely to fail. This phenomenon happens in adults, not just in children.

Do you have some info I could look at on that? I mean it does sound intuitive, we should always be encouraging rather than discouraging of groups and individuals, but is there evidence for what you said?

They can also become more likely to give up or switch to a different field when things get hard or when they get a low grade. If I've just gotten a B, or if there's some concept that I just can't seem to grasp, maybe I just take it in stride and keep going -- or maybe I take it as confirmation of the message I've always heard that people like me just can't do CS (or physics or engineering) as well as the guys, and I shouldn't have even been trying. That's the kind of tricky psychology that comes into play when students hear certain kinds of messages.

I don't think you can generalize and micro-manage human psychology that much. There is the type of person who you tell "you can't do this" and they'll accept that and quit. There is another type who you say that to and they will work harder and prove you wrong. And there is a spectrum in between. I think we should have a world where if you get graded an A or a D, it's because you earned an A or a D, not because of your identity.

 

[PloverWing]

On #1: I agree that "Particles for Justice" is a whimsical name, and I agree that the statement is being made by a collection of individual scientists and not by any established scientific organization.

On #2 and #3: I agree that (as far as I know) Strumia did not address race or ethnicity in his presentation.

On #4: This is a significant criticism. The "punishment" line is only there in one sentence of the document, but it is there. Strumia should have the academic freedom to hold his opinion and to voice it without punishment. I can see why Cern might not want him to serve as their official spokesperson, but he should be able to work at Cern and hold opinions as an individual scholar.

On #5: The Guardian article ('Physics was built by men': Cern suspends scientist over remarks) says that "Cern ... removed the slides used in his talk from its website." This implies that the slides were on the web site for a while, giving people outside the conference the opportunity to see them.

The notion of underrepresented groups is about features that don't seem to be relevant to the task. Of course unathletic people aren't going to excel at basketball, and people who aren't good at math aren't going to excel in physics. But if left-handed people were hugely underrepresented in physics, I would start to inquire whether there was some social or cultural pressure against left-handed people, because there's no obvious reason that handedness should make a difference.

Here are some papers on awareness of stereotypes affecting performance: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103198913737, https://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/full/10.1027/1864-9335/a000184, Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. - PubMed - NCBI, Stereotype threat widens achievement gap.

 

[Chesterton]

Here are some papers on awareness of stereotypes affecting performance: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103198913737, https://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/full/10.1027/1864-9335/a000184, Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. - PubMed - NCBI, Stereotype threat widens achievement gap.

"Stereotype threat". So that's why I sucked at basketball. Thanks for the links.