The science is settled

A little while ago I saw cited yet another Harvard study supposedly proving that women CEOs are just as good as men, except better, not withstanding the fact that anyone can see that women in charge are profoundly disruptive and destructive, that women can no more run a large group than they can chop wood with an axe, pilot a plane, do science, or clear a path through the jungle with a machete, that putting a woman in charge is pissing away shareholder’s assets, as divorced women piss away their husband’s and their children’s assets, so I thought I would remind you of this golden oldie:
hide the decline

Click on the graph to see it in its full glory.

Is not science wonderful?  I have been finding a pile of similar science data not just in global warmering, and in studies of demonic males viciously oppressing saintly women, but also dietary science, medical science, biology, and even string theory and materials science.  These days, the way to get ahead in any area of science is to discover that your field has some political relevance that is unlikely to occur to any sane person, and then produce data that supposedly comforts the oppressed and saves the earth from cruel exploitation by white males.  For an added bonus, you can destroy the careers of your colleagues as oppressors of the weak and vulnerable, because back in the bad old days they upheld the old evil theory (now refuted by your new data) for no reason other than hatred of some saintly victims and desire to cause harm to those saintly and long suffering victims.

126 Responses to “The science is settled”

  1. Art says:

    “Jim says that C1 is not a predictor of C0, that C1 and C0 are entirely separate things, nearly independent variables. The academic says… what? Something about “total competence” being comprised of two “competences”, one general, Cg (C1?), and one CEO-specific, Cc (C2-C1?)? How does this move anything forward?”

    What is so nonsensical about the proposition that some outcome can be affected either by Factor 1 or Factor 2 or the combination of both?
    Read the entire exchange. Academic is questioning whether the Jim Effect adds any predictive power to the “shape of the distribution” model, already accepted by everyone here. Seems like a reasonable question to me.

    • jim says:

      A model with two independent variables, each of which has a very large effect on some things but not other things, will give different predictions to a model in which one variable controls all things. Thus a mathematical proof that two variables predicts different observables to one variable is not interesting, and a purported mathematical proof that a model with two independent variables must give the same observables as a model with one variable is obvious incoherent absurdity.

      And the stuff that Alt-right Academic Jew has been spouting, and for some not very obvious reason calling mathematics, is obvious incoherent absurdity.

    • Carlylean Restorationist says:

      The net result is that you, who had no disagreement before, find yourself in disagreement.

      הפרד ומשול

    • pdimov says:

      “What is so nonsensical about the proposition that some outcome can be affected either by Factor 1 or Factor 2 or the combination of both?”

      It does not describe what Jim states.

      Jim says that in scenario 1, you observe X, and in scenario 2, you observe Y, and there is virtually no correlation between X and Y.

      The “factor” model says that in scenario 1, you observe f1(F1, F2), and in scenario 2, you observe f2(F1, F2), in context even implying that f is w1*F1+w2*F2. That is, it posits the opposite of what Jim says, that the observations have common fundamentals and are therefore correlated.

      • jim says:

        Not following you.


        • pdimov says:

          Performance under male supervision is X, performance without male supervision is Y, these are virtually independent.

          This is simple and clear. One can build whatever mathematical models on top of that, and then make testable predictions, and then check these against empirical data. There’s no need to massage the formulation further.

          If one feels the need to rephrase it in the form “performance is determined by the competence function C( double V, bool under_male_supervision ), where C(V, true) is X, and C(V, false) is Y”, this is an indication that one believes that X and Y have something in common, and are therefore better described by a single function, rather than two independent variables.

    • peppermint says:

      Pseudoscience can be categorized according to where the lie is.
      In this form, a mathematical model is proposed and endlessly argued within in the hope no one notices its irrelevance to the situation.

      Does it have a name? This is distinct from the fake and useless data “underpinning” psychology, or the definition wrangling that lead from “colorless green ideas sleep furiously” to all languages can express the same thoughts in a comparable amount of time to the words we use say nothing about us, or the history of America breaking away from England being a history of class struggle and the side with more iron winning most wars leading to all of our history being a history of class struggle.

  2. John Q Public says:

    I would love to see bad data in string theory. What are they trying to prove? Is it just about getting government funding? Or is there some SJW agenda, like God doesn’t exist?

    • Carlylean Restorationist says:

      It’s the same broad approach as “alt right academic” is employing in this very comments section: they want you to give up trying to figure the universe out.
      Post-modernists will try to claim it’s impossible to figure the universe out, but not everyone will be convinced by this, so for those who still insist it’s possible, the string theorists (etc.) make it so mind-bogglingly complex that people just give up and do something else.

      Just one tiny part of undermining and weakening our civilisation.

      • peppermint says:

        No, the anti-string people and anti-quantum people with their multiple theories that never go anywhere and stories about taking on Big Science are the ones trying to turn physics funding into another vector for funding leftism.

        And they’re right that Big Science is a problem.

        Less insane people attached to the university like Sean Carroll merely have crackpot students with crackpot papers, or Scott Aaronson, in between missing the point several times in his book on quantum computing, writes that he wishes he didn’t have balls.

        Lubos Motl is good, which he can pull off because he’s in .cz. Even so, he shares space, and prestige, with the enemies of civilization.

        Even Donald Knuth went to the pussyhat march against Trump because it said it was for science or whatever. It was terrible how many scientists were killed in the French Revolution, but really, they’re in a position to know better and refuse to participate.

    • peppermint says:

      Academic real physicists and other hard scientists do exist, in order to share space and prestige with the rest of academia. It is impossible for someone who hasn’t understood all of undergrad math and physics to appreciate why strings instead of some other quantum gravity, let alone gravity itself, quantum being simple enough that any non-leftoid can understand it.

      Undergrad math and physics being defined as what you can learn by listening to lectures, or by reading books, or can be drilled into women by their male student counterparts, or niggers by the nigger support network within the jewniversity, in such a way that they can pass a simple test of reciting arguments they have been drilled, following which they are certified competent for HR to impose on high-skill teams in industry.

  3. alt-right academic Jew says:

    >>A normal random variable truncated at X standard deviations above its mean, >>concentrates [any given amount of its mass] around X + O(1/X).

    Hence also true that the average value of that thing is X+O(1/X).

    >>the difference between average male and average female
    >>levels of anything [normally-distributed] is suppressed
    >>by a factor of 1/#(standard deviations)

    Here’s the calculation, which is trivial given the part you agree is correct.

    Define a qualified CEO to be someone (male or female) at least X male standard deviations of CEO-ability above the male average. Assume that females are a full (male) standard deviation behind, maybe due to some components of ability having “no overlap” as you put it (e.g., testosterone). So we are selecting at X+1 standard deviations in the female distribution, or c(X+1) for some constant “c” slightly larger than 1, if the female distribution is narrower as Jim has been saying.

    Given the accepted True Fact above,
    -average ability of selected males is approximately X + p/X
    -average ability of selected females is approximately X + q/(X+1) = X + q/X + O(1/X^2)

    where the constants p,q (implicit in the O(1/X) term of the True Fact) depend on the variances of the distributions.

    The difference in average ability is therefore (p-q)/X + O(1/X^2). So I understated the case earlier: suppression is both by a factor of 1/SD and by the small difference in variances, i.e. (p-q) is of the form f(var1)-f(var2) where the variances are close.

    Let me know if you concede the point or have further questions/objections.

    • Carlylean Restorationist says:

      If you’re going to start accepting the reality of kurtosis (ie. the irreality of the normal distribution) then you ought to be more sceptical of using algebra to refer to the real world.

      You’re both wrong. We know about women’s nature and we don’t need to ‘test’ it against statistical transformations of what usually amounts to random data.

      Popperian logical positivism is a talmudic circle-jerk.

    • alt-right academic Jew says:

      ( that numerator should be “(p – (q/c))” not “(p-q)”, but this has only a notational effect on the reasoning. e.g. that quantity is equal to ( f(c*var2) – f(var2)/c ) where c is close to 1, the ratio of variances between sexes, so there is an extra suppression effect by a factor proportional to (c-1). )

      • Carlylean Restorationist says:

        Can you help us out please?

        I’m following you just fine until the part where you mundify the epigastrium. I don’t know whether your technique’s just too advanced, but you lose me mid-mundification.

  4. […] up, he reminds us that the science is settled, which is one of those phrases that has become extremely politically charged… I wonder why. […]

  5. alt-right academic Jew says:

    bug report for Jim:

    the comment here

    appears under my username but is from another user replying to a comment of mine (replying to Peppermint) that disappeared. It quotes one (of two) paragraphs from my vanished comment, so that comment existed long enough for respondent to see it and ceased to exist later on. It does not look like a deliberate deletion, but maybe the software overwriting or combining comments.

    In other news, I saw that there is now a specific objection posted to the 1/SD asymptotics. I will answer.

  6. alt-right academic Jew says:

    Jim says: “This is nonsensical gibberish.”

    A minute ago you were saying my math is wrong, but suddenly have shut up about that when I posted several paragraphs with the details.

    “You string words together as if saying something, but just are not even trying to make sense.”

    I’m happy to explain, with formulas if needed, anything you didn’t understand. What I actually did is separate the logically coherent part of what you claimed (a female-specific “incompetency cliff” that only appears at CEO level, independent of company size) from the incoherent mysticism about how Moral Qualities are something that can’t be quantified as *part of* a straightforward Overall CEO Ability distribution.

    • jim says:

      You are attempting justify an elementary maths error with incomprehensible random word salad.

      Further, you are making up positions for me that make no sense, and bear no resemblance to any position I took, nor to any argument that I made.

      “Competency cliff”? Where have I ever suggested such a thing? Competency is not an issue. Women are, as I said, quite good at management if under the supervision of someone manly, patriarchal, alpha, and sexy.

      You are arguing like Cathy Newman.

      • alt-right academic Jew says:

        As I stipulated several times, “competency” in my sense includes everything (about the CEO themselves), that potentially contributes to their success or failure in a wide range of CEO jobs (so that it means personal competency, not the skills tailored to running Yahoo but not Microsoft or Google).

        For example, in your latest formulation, “being able to function whether or not under the supervision of [an alpha patriarch]”, is a form of competency. There is a sudden cliff for this form of competency that appears only at CEO level, and only for women, because as the Big Boss they no longer have supervisors, and their previous supervisors are usually male. So your theory does have a “competency cliff”.

        As I pointed out, also several times, a No True Female CEO theory *requires* some such cliff in order to make mathematical sense. Without a cliff, competence (the full spectrum of things relevant for CEO) would be detected at earlier levels and females selected for CEO would be expected to perform similarly to males. “Similarly” means that due to the extreme selection, distributional differences are suppressed. As in the calculation that I sketched for you in the normal model, or the common sense that severely selected individuals will cluster near the cutoff point.


        • jim says:

          Typical Jewish approach. You redefine words so as to make your position right by definition. But obviously, you are making an empirical claim about the world, therefore definitions cannot make you correct.

          Further, you glibly slide between using words in their standard meaning, and using words in your peculiar and unusual meaning, so that it is impossible to know what you are saying – which is the downside of trying to argue by giving words unusual definitions.

          You define words in some unusual sense, so that I am supposedly saying something obviously stupid – but that is not what I am saying, your definition are self serving and make no particular sense, and you are not using them consistently.

        • jim says:

          No True Female CEO theory *requires* some such cliff in order to make mathematical sense.

          you are being deliberately stupid.

          You invent positions for me that make no sense and are not based on anything that I have said.

          Your approach is similar to that of Marx, who instead of producing evidence and argument that capital and entrepeneurship produced no value, defined value to exclude capital and entrepeneurship. That is not cleverness, that is ignorance and obstinate stupidity.

          • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

            I sometimes get the feeling that, when a jew starts going off on something, that he may not even *himself* necessarily really believe what he is saying; that he is perhaps rather expecting or *hoping* that you slap the argument down, thus showing him the true way; that on some level he perhaps rather is *purposefully* enverbalizing abstruse arcana that may not necessarily make complete sense even to him, an expression of his own bewilderments in the face of Being; setting up such a thing because he *wants* someone who is able to cut through the dross, and give him the clarity he so desires.

            Not unlike a female, that is.

            And of course, heaven help one who ‘fails the provocation’ and actually ends up taking the simulacrum seriously.

            The history of Aryan-Khazarian relations; a protracted series of serial shittesting?

        • pdimov says:

          “There is a sudden cliff for this form of competency that appears only at CEO level, and only for women…”

          No, it can appear on any level if the woman has no male supervisor.

          But what are you really trying to say? Let’s suppose you’re right about that cliff. What are the implications? What are you arguing against?

          • pdimov says:

            … if the woman _effectively_ has no male supervisor…

          • alt-right academic Jew says:

            Note that I wrote “usually” the supervisor (or her boss, or…) is male, for that very reason.

            For your question about the larger picture, see the recent comment containing the words “Gentile Chutzpah”.

            • pdimov says:

              Your simplistic model does not describe reality. It does not even account for the hypothetical “Jim effect” properly.

              You assume that women are promoted on merit. You assume that women CEOs climb the corporate ladder. You assume that competence is X1+X2, rather that Jim’s X1 or X2. None of that is true.

              • Art says:

                His Type 1 does not account for the “Jim effect”. But Type 2 does. The “CEO only effect” in the Type 2 scenario I think refers to this part of his earlier post:

                “The entire content of your argument is in the very last sentence: “female performance as second in command is no indicator of female performance in command, because the incentives get reversed [vs males]”. For your logic to work, there always needs to be something that kicks in only for women and only at the apex. Your current name for this sudden competency cliff that appears at the top is “reversed incentives” (for women). Fine.”

                He then asks:
                “So the question is whether the representation seen in the real world corresponds to (1)-only or (your theory) the combination of (1)-and-(2).”

                • pdimov says:

                  “Competence” under male supervision is C1. Under no supervision, C0. (Under female supervision, C2.)

                  Jim says that C1 is not a predictor of C0, that C1 and C0 are entirely separate things, nearly independent variables. The academic says… what? Something about “total competence” being comprised of two “competences”, one general, Cg (C1?), and one CEO-specific, Cc (C2-C1?)? How does this move anything forward? You can add and subtract uncorrelated things all you like, the result isn’t going to be meaningful.

                  Some economists similarly like to divide mostly-uncorrelated things, call the result V, then go about how if we increase V, thing number one would increase if thing number two is held constant. Except that V is an arbitrary number so there’s no way to effect its increase.

                • pdimov says:


      • alt-right academic Jew says:

        “You are attempting justify an elementary maths error”

        Is this elementary error something quotable that was posted?

        Here are some free clues.

        1. I probably have forgotten more math than engineers such as yourself typically have heard of

        2. Other readers seem to “get” the math when it’s explained, or at least stop claiming that it’s wrong

        3. The absence of #2 is something I encounter all the time in online discussion with engineers. They tend to dramatically overestimate their understanding of things mathematical, and wing it with intuition that is often bogus.

        • Carlylean Restorationist says:

          As is evident elsewhere in your comments, your central mistake is to view the world as potentially soluble by algorithmic analysis and synthesis.
          This is a fundamentally Jewish approach which was notoriously favoured by what we might call second wave Marxists such as Lenin.

          The behaviour of women in large institutions, absent male oversight, is obvious to anyone who’s observed it. It doesn’t require a mathematical proof.

          The whole point of the alt.right/neoreactionary movement is that we reject those ways of thinking. We don’t buy your central banking equations and we don’t buy your social science sophistry. There’s a third way: it’s called accepting reality.

          My instinct is always to bash the logical positivists no matter what, but I’ll throw one crumb in their/your direction: even Ronald Fisher understood the race question. He was wrong to attribute benevolence to the UN but he was quick to spot that it was nonsense they were spouting.

          I daresay he had a few things to observe about the behaviour of your people too. You’re a walking illustration of talmudic thinking applied to policy-making. You’re also a walking illustration of disingenuous debating strategy. If you’re so “alt-right”, why are you defending sex equality?

          Don’t answer, I don’t need a rudiments of mathematics primer.

          • alt-right academic Jew says:

            I stipulated that men have higher ability, and did not take a position on Jim’s theory. It’s possible that Jim is right about (1)women having a CEO disability due to moral differences of some sort, but is also wrong about (2) these differences being invisible on the selection path to becoming a CEO. If the differences manifest earlier, then women with more of this CEO disability are removed along the way, and the incidence and severity of the disability should get lower and lower as one goes up the ladder. This would make it more likely that any given woman *hired as CEO* is qualified, a completely different question than the relative abilities of women vs men.

            • Carlylean Restorationist says:

              Jim’s repeatedly told you he’s claiming no such thing.

              By repeating the same misrepresentation you raise the possibility that some of us may *agree* with the claim you claim Jim’s making. Absolutely textbook subversive tactics: no intention of arguing from a position of honesty and integrity, just endless attempts to create confusion and deliberate obfuscation intended to make progress more difficult.

              • alt-right academic Jew says:

                Which thing is Jim not claiming that I said he claims? He is explicitly saying that performance at 2nd in command is a predictor of CEO performance for males but not females, due to differences that are not visible on the selection path (“reversed incentives” that only reverse themselves, for women, when their male supervision is removed by installing the woman at the top).

                • jim says:

                  That is a reasonably accurate account of what I said.

                  But has no resemblance nor any logical connection to your previous claims about what I said.

                • race mace says:

                  you make a great argument for making Shoah real

                • anon says:

                  also and I think this should be admitted you do a great job of regularly reappearing with legitimately interesting new twists on old habitual jewry

                  so keep it up d00d. I hope you escape the gas chamber feeling clean, refreshed, and freshly showered

        • anon says:

          Do traits vary independently?

          Is the probability of rolling 6 die and getting 6 sixes 1/6 ^ 6?

  7. John Sterne says:

    you know jim the contortions to justify patriarchy are unnecessary and look silly we should rule because we do have the power to rule and they dont have the power to stop us. while thats probably indicative that very generally speaking your histrionics are correct theyre beside the point and unmanly to resort to. you dont argue with servants

    • Oog en Hand says:


      Anybody who opposes us will burn in hell. Hell is eternal!!!

    • peppermint says:

      women are different from men in far more profound ways than being weaker and less capable of organized fighting, which is also true of niggers

      • John Sterne says:

        Yeah?, so are you suggesting we need then justify ourselves to the servants in detail why they are servants?
        Or is the purpose here to reassure yourselves you are on the side of the angels? My experience is niggers and bitches understand perfectly well in that non verbal way of animal thinking they have , why they are servants, and masters never give a thought to why they are masters we simply know we are, we simply tell niggers and bitches and everyone else what needs doing and they do it.
        Could it be that millennial mamas boys are just not comfortable with the whip hand and need boomer mama jim to tell them its ok?

        • Samuel Skinner says:

          Nrx is filled with autistic people who don’t have the inherent understanding of all these things and need to work it out in order to comprehend what is going on. It comes from not giving a shit about social conventions, either because of a lack of understanding or because when they are spelled out they sound incredibly stupid.

          • John Sterne says:

            No doubt you’re right and all the more reasons beta fags shouldn’t be allowed to spell out what we already know and they will never understand. better they should figure out how if we give them a bitch in every beta bed again how they can not pass their faggotry genes into the gene pool again and give us another several generation of cuck faggot pajama boys we must thwart.

            • anon says:

              your fundamental problem is that you still believe in theGeneral Will

            • peppermint says:

              They are removed from their mothers’ arms as newborns and left to cry and think themselves abandoned. They are removed from their father’s arms as small children and left to be hit by niggers while teacher tells them they’re the evil one. They are raised from infancy to daycare to elementary school to middle school to high school to college to grad school by people who hate them and respect only one thing, The General Will of the Proletariat. They see themselves as the abused Proletariat and seek revolution.

              And we are that revolution.

        • jim says:

          > Yeah?, so are you suggesting we need then justify ourselves to the servants in detail why they are servants?

          We need to justify to ourselves why we should rule. Our enemies win by sowing weakness in our hearts.

    • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

      Adaptive philosophies of things taken for granted tend to appear only after they start getting lost.

  8. peppermint says:

    Is random female pick from a population capable of being CEO likely to be worse than a male pick, and if so, more or less more capable than the average man versus the average woman?

    erf is a special function, but 10^(-s^2/4) is easy enough. Suppose s for men is 2, we get like .1-.01 between 2 and 3. Suppose s for women is 4, we get .000,1 – .000,001 between 4 and 5 . So it is indeed vastly more likely to have barely acceptable the further from average we pick. You both agree about this.

    As to whether an average man or an average woman is capable, my autistic mind is incapable of answering.

    • alt-right academic Jew says:

      Difference between females and males drops by about 1/(number of SD’s) as you raise the cutoff, in a normal distribution model.

      It’s not normal, since at the extremes you have large random variables of large effect and not just a lot of small differences in (e.g.) decisionmaking competence that compound over a career. This adds a noise component to models based on underlying ability, which will dilute the specific M/F differences that might otherwise have been observed more clearly.

      The soldiers who (can) become generals are not just the top 0.1 percent of a normal IQ+aggression index. Survivorship bias, politics, luck, …

      • jim says:

        This is just not so. The number of female CEOs that are not obviously bad is zero for all practical purposes.

        • alt-right academic Jew says:

          I’m stating the mathematical facts of life here, so just quote the parts you say aren’t so.

          Framing it as female chaotic subversion rather than female incompetence doesn’t change anything (other than the verbal label), unless you postulate that this difference mysteriously fails to appear below the absolute CEO-level apex of any organization. If it appears when the female CEO candidate heads up a division (or a smaller corporation) that will tend to disqualify her from actually becoming CEO, which is the same statistical effect as having lower CEO-ability in the ability-based models. After all, “disinclination to subvert” is clearly an ability one wants a CEO to have.

          • Steve Johnson says:

            “I’m stating the mathematical facts of life here, so just quote the parts you say aren’t so.”

            What facts? This?

            “Difference between females and males drops by about 1/(number of SD’s) as you raise the cutoff, in a normal distribution model.”

            Because first of all that isn’t a mathematical fact. Secondly it’s maybe a true statement that’s just missing a clause like “in intelligence” after the “females and males” – which no one disagrees with.

            Jim is making an entirely true different point – that the relevant difference isn’t in intelligence.

            • alt-right academic Jew says:

              It doesn’t matter what the “ability” (or “tendency to succeed as CEO”) is made of — it has a distribution in each sex and that’s all the ability-based arguments assume. I stated the correct math facts in that case.

              • jim says:

                The problem with female scientists is ability.

                The problem with female CEOs is nothing to do with ability. It is moral.

                A man in power is in power because that is what he wants, he struggled hard to get it, he will reward his followers for putting him there and keeping him there.

                A woman is in power because men are failing her shit tests, making her angry and bitter. She thinks it is what she wants, but it is not what she wants. She will lash out at them and destroy everything.

                All men in power, as near all of them as makes no difference, will act to preserve the organization that gives him power and reward the men who gave him and continue to give him power.

                All women in power, as near all of them as makes no difference, will act to destroy the organization that gives her power and lash out at those men who fail her ever more brutal shit tests by giving her power.

                • academic gossip says:

                  Calling it “moral” doesn’t change anything for purposes of prediction. Aggregate moral qualities plus management ability plus whatever other things as inputs to constructing a CEO ability index. Then there are two distribution of that being compared, to which my earlier comments apply.

                • jim says:

                  You are making the supposedly “moderate” progressive argument, taking the supposedly moderate and supposedly sane position that the distributions for different groups, though not perfectly identical, are similar and substantially overlapping.

                  Which for male and female IQ is true, but there are important characteristics in which there is no significant overlap. Also, affirmative action tends to exacerbate existing differences by removing restraints against misconduct by the saintly oppressed victim group. Women are supposedly wonderful and blacks are supposedly wonderful, therefore no need to restrain women from acting in distinctively feminine ways, or to restrain blacks from acting in distinctively black ways.

                  There is near zero overlap between the moral character of women and the moral character of men. Not that men are good and women are bad, but men are good in manly ways and bad in manly ways, while women are good in feminine ways, for example making me coffee, and bad in feminine ways, for example shit testing me and the boss.

                  In moral characteristics, women and men have zero overlap. All women are like that, though in the presence of firm male authority, female behavior can be brought into line with male expectations. But today, no male authority, therefore the total lack of overlap in character is reflected in total lack of overlap in conduct.

                  If a man is in power, he will be happy, he will act to preserve the organization through which he exercises power and reward the men who obey him. All men are like that. If a woman is in power, she will be bitter, angry, hostile and unhappy, she will act to destroy the organization through which she exercises power and harm the men who obey her. All women are like that. Zero overlap. No exceptions.

                  Correction, women married to older men, who successfully preserved the old ways and successfully imposed the old ways on their wife, can be exceptions, but younger men have no chance.

                • alt-right academic Jew says:

                  I’m NOT making any argument about male/female moral tendencies, or even contradicting your statements about that. It’s a separate issue.

                  I’m just saying that whatever the moral differences may be, the quantity of interest, “overall CEO ability/potential” (i.e. the distribution of results from installing the person as CEO) aggregates that and all else.

                  I don’t think it’s a misreading of your argument to say (based on doing the math correctly) that the only way it can be correct is if the moral etc differences suddenly only come into play at the CEO level but not a woman’s previous below-CEO qualifying positions.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  “A woman is in power because men are failing her shit tests, making her angry and bitter. She thinks it is what she wants, but it is not what she wants. She will lash out at them and destroy everything.”

                  Which explains Thatcher. She was put up as a fake candidate for Tory leader by the important men in her movement and won by accident. After winning, she remained loyal to those men. She is remembered as a tyrant to her cabinet by those men (most of them) who were enemies of the men to whom she was loyal, such as Willie Whitelaw, Keith Joseph, Friedrich Hayek, and (until his murder by the IRA) Airey Neave. Those men remember her as a class act her who always had time to listen to them.

          • jim says:

            > I’m stating the mathematical facts of life here

            If we were discussing women scientists, your maths would be relevant, but wrong.

            Since we are discussing women CEOs, your maths is irrelevant, in addition to being wrong.

            • academic gossip says:

              As I wrote: “so just quote the [math] parts you say aren’t so.”

              Really should not be so hard to name a false mathematical statement if that’s what you’re disagreeing with.

              • alt-right academic Jew says:

                Sorry, changed handle inadvertently. I post as “academic gossip” at other sites.

              • jim says:

                > “Difference between females and males drops by about 1/(number of SD’s) as you raise the cutoff, in a normal distribution model.”

                That is just nonsense, and ignorant nonsense at that. It is a badly garbled form of some prog talking point, which neither you nor the prog understood, so it got mangled in each retransmission.

                Looks to me that prog A made the true but misleading point that the IQ difference between males and females is not that big, prog B heard it from prog A but, not understanding it, mangled it, prog C heard it from prog B, and misunderstanding prog B, mangled it further, as in a game of telephone, prog D mangled it even further, and you proceeded to turn it upside down and backwards.

                Perhaps the original point was that the difference in IQ between one person and the next within a group selected for ability diminishes as you raise the cutoff point.

                But if you select a group of the smartest x percent of people, the proportion of women and minorities in that group drops exponentially as you raise the cutoff point. Obviously women and minorities in power are not selected for ability, because selection on ability produces results that are horrifyingly politically incorrect, and the higher the cutoff point, the more dramatically horrifying the results.

                • alt-right academic Jew says:

                  A normal random variable truncated at X standard deviations above its mean, concentrates [any given amount of its mass] around X + O(1/X). As a consequence of that, or (by direct calculation) of the asymptotics that you posted about hyperexponentials, the difference between average male and average female levels of anything is suppressed by a factor of 1/#(standard deviations) as long as the “anything” is normal distributed in each gender. For more general hyperexp distributions, which I guess is how you are modeling this, there will still be suppression, but at a different rate, since (the basic point of hyperexp) the truncated distributions will concentrate near their cutoff point. The male and female distributions are, by assumption, cut off at the same point, since we are talking about the affirmative-action free notion of CEO potential.

                  This says nothing about how frequently any given amount of CEO ability naturally occurs nor about the merits of your argument about female subversion absent the Iron Hand. It does quantify the (math fact) that women who are CEOs or candidates for such are much closer to their male colleagues than women and men in general are (i.e, distance between their respecting CEO-ness distributions).

                • jim says:

                  A normal random variable truncated at X standard deviations above its mean, concentrates [any given amount of its mass] around X + O(1/X).


                  As a consequence of that, or (by direct calculation) of the asymptotics that you posted about hyperexponentials, the difference between average male and average female levels of anything is suppressed by a factor of 1/#(standard deviations)


                  You are not even trying to make sense. You are just blowing smoke.

                • peppermint says:

                  > women who are CEOs or candidates for such are much closer to their male colleagues than women and men in general are

                  This is trivially true in your model, and irrelevant to Jim’s argument that predicts women will perform worse the higher they’re placed, and also false in the sense you bring it up, because the woman is further from the mean and thus closer to the cutoff.

                • alt-right academic Jew says:


                  Not sure what you are saying is false (as math or in the intended application).

                  Corporation size follows a power law (very fat tailed) as noted by Mandelbrot many years ago. Evidently the difficulty of managing a company scales up gently in the size of the enterprise. Otherwise every big company would be worth more (to an arbitrageur) split up into smaller pieces, and we would not see many big companies. There is no abrupt complexity cliff that separates the men from the boys, or in this case the women, when they are placed in command of larger and larger *parts* of a company, and nothing that starts to quickly exhaust the upper tail of the underlying ability distribution(s), which we tend to think of as narrow and normal, or hyperexponentially decaying as in Jim’s linked posting.

                  In addition, the sensitivity of CEO results to CEO’s ability is not as great as their sensitivity to all kinds of other noisy, fat tailed processes and accidents, that collectively swamp the variation in ability.

                  Assuming we (the prospective CEO-hirers) are interested in results, not underlying ability, the only way to get a huge M/F difference in competence to be CEO is if:

                  – either the M/F difference in ability distributions is huge (so that there are effectively no competent female senior executives in the pool, never mind CEOs)

                  – or being CEO is massively sensitive to ability in a way that is not true of any lower-ranked position in the company.

                  Jim is postulating the latter. He says that women need bosses to function properly, therefore can do every corporate job except that of Big Boss. Maybe. I’m not arguing for or against it except to point out that some such CEO-specific female impediment is required for his argument.

                • jim says:

                  You string words together as if saying something, but just are not even trying to make sense. It is just nonsensical gibberish.

                  If you are honestly trying to say something, rather than merely emit a squidlike cloud of ink, need to try again.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  Every large corporation, and every old organisation, should be broken up and replaced, and survives only because of the government.

                • peppermint says:

                  > some such CEO-specific female impediment is required for his argument

                  You’re right, such a thing would never be suggested. Well, I guess it’s just a fluke that HP and Yahoo were ruined by CEOs that didn’t have horrible performance earlier in their careers

                • alt-right academic Jew says:

                  1. In order to ruin an HP or Yahoo-size company as its CEO you generally need to have had stellar performance up to that point in your career, or would not be hired as the CEO. So that part of it is universa

                  Obviously you don’t need stellar performance if you are black, gay, or female. Was Tim Cook’s performance as chief operating officer stellar?

                  Further, suppose a woman gave stellar performance because she was reporting to someone who was extremely alpha and she wants his approval. Then he retires, and she is top dog. Now her motivations reverse 180. Instead of trying to please her boss, she is now trying to harm her subordinates and destroy her company.

                  And if she is super competent, as very likely she is, she will do a stellar job of destroying her company and ruining the lives of her subordinates.

                • alt-right academic Jew says:

                  ^ The previous message lists me as author, but is actually a reply to me by a different user, that seems to have overwritten the comment it replies to, but somehow “merged” the two by keeping my name as the author. The quoted paragraph numbered “1. ….” is mine, rest is from the respondent (maybe Jim).

      • jim says:

        The reason for female under representation among top engineers, scientists, etc, is that women are slightly less competent on average and have a narrower distribution.

        The reason for female under representation among CEOs is moral and emotional, unrelated to competence. On average women are better managers than men. The problem is that if they don’t get the supervision that they emotionally need, they will maliciously run the operation into the ground, like a wife married to a beta male husband whom she despises, destroying the lives of his and her children.

        Happens every single time, as near to every single time as makes no difference.

        • alt-right academic Jew says:

          The normal distribution models are reasonably predictive for sex differences in things like math competitions and physics professorships.

          Is becoming CEO more like a mathematics olympiad, or a Survivor gameshow based on complex social interactions?

          • jim says:

            None of the above.

            A woman becoming a CEO is like a woman marrying a man who turns out to be a beta loser.

          • anon says:

            Attaining a CEO-ship is like navigating 365 minefields every year for twenty years and coming out the other side unscathed.

            Most of the men who get blasted are incompetent. Some are unlucky. Some are incompetent and unlucky. But no one who doesn’t get blasted isn’t both competent and lucky.

            Hire the wrong CEO and your company dies. Man or woman. Women may also self-sabotage, burn modtly they’re underrepresented among apex actors.

            • alt-right academic Jew says:

              Right, but that’s the argument for women CEOs being similar in performance to men CEOs (so that if ability distributions are different, the difference would show up mainly in the relative number of M vs F heads of corporation, and with much less difference in average performance than for the M/F populations as a whole). It runs against Jim’s theory his theory unless there is some devastating deficit among the females that is invisible before they get hired as CEO and suddenly appears once they get the top job.

              I find it more plausible that every weakness has a good chance of to making itself known during the 2-3 decades on the way to CEO, and if severe and particular to women will disproportionate remove them from the pool. Doesn’t mean that everyone is filtered out who should have been, but under this the incompetence rate for CEO-level work will not be anywhere close 100% if all abilities and deficits are prone to being revealed eventually.

              If hiring is not based only on performance, and there is favoritism for group X then this will jack up X’s failure rate especially at top positions like CEO. But Jim isn’t arguing about female failure under affirmative action hiring, his theory is that women must fail (at CEO) even under selection for performance.

              • jim says:

                You are just being obstinately stupid.

                Obviously there is a gigantic difference in performance, in that even the worst of male CEOs are trying preserve their organization and make it prosper, while even the best of female CEOs act to destroy their organization and make everyone in it hate and disrupt everyone else, and there is also a very large difference in numbers, caused by the fact that despite women continually getting numerous affirmative action appointments to run businesses, they seldom last very long.

                You are incoherently providing a nonsense explanation as to why what we see happening right in front our noses cannot possibly be happening, but your explanation makes no sense, and if it did make sense, that would just show that there must be something wrong with your premises or reasoning. I cannot tell what your premises are, but there is certainly something wrong with your reasoning. It is just random word salad.

                Are you saying that female CEO performance must be similar to male CEO performance because female CEOs are appointed on merit?

                1. That is just transparently absurd Obviously female jobs, like female college transcripts, have almost nothing to do with merit.

                2. If they were appointed on merit, which quite obviously they are not, they would be appointed on the basis of competence in management as second in command, but whereas male performance as second in command is a good indicator of male performance in command, female performance as second in command is no indicator of female performance in command, because the incentives get reversed.

                • alt-right academic Jew says:

                  If there is something you don’t understand just quote it.

                  The entire content of your argument is in the very last sentence: “female performance as second in command is no indicator of female performance in command, because the incentives get reversed [vs males]”. For your logic to work, there always needs to be something that kicks in only for women and only at the apex. Your current name for this sudden competency cliff that appears at the top is “reversed incentives” (for women). Fine.

                  The alternative theory is that women with greater or lesser tendencies toward subversion will have those revealed under the original incentives at all lower levels, either directly or through their effect on corporate outcomes, as they climb the corporate ladder; and that higher positions reveal more things more rapidly.

                  The statistical signatures of these theories are different.

                  Under the competency cliff, and similar management ability (that you postulated) not to mention affirmative action, female representation shouldn’t really fall off very much as one goes up the ladder. And then it should collapse at (and only at) the apex as bad woman CEOs are fired and don’t get re-hired nearly as often (for CEO) as good male CEOs.

                  Under gradual progressive revelation of abilities and deficits, if females are less competent overall (whether due to subversion or hormone differences or socialization or what-ever else) their representation should tank as you go up the levels of success. This is under merit-based promotion. Under affirmative action, there will be both some milder depletion of female representation, plus an escalating rate of female failure at higher and higher positions (since more and more of those promoted to the high levels will not be qualified).

                • jim says:

                  If there is something you don’t understand just quote it.

                  All of it. Almost nothing you say makes any sense. It is all gibberish and nonsense. The parts that make sense are the parts that I quote. The parts that are meaningless word salad I ignore. Everything that I did not quote, I did not understand.

                  For your logic to work, there always needs to be something that kicks in only for women and only at the apex

                  And I have told you what that something is in the plainest possible words over and over and over again: A woman needs male authority to behave appropriately and be civilized. Without male authority she will misbehave badly. All women are like that. Everyone used to know this and it is confirmed by casual observation every day. Women are incapable of civilization except under male authority. Similarly, dogs cannot function as the alpha male, as the pack leader. Women and dogs become tense, difficult, and destructive when their master is weak. Dogs need human authority, all dogs are like that, and women need male authority, all women are like that. Cats, wolves, and human males, on the other hand, are fine.

                • anon says:

                  >female representation shouldn’t really fall off very much as one goes up the ladder

                  good troll

                • alt-right academic Jew says:


                  I get it that you don’t understand either the explicit math (that you shut up about, now that it’s been spelled out twice) or the implicit math in the rest of my comments. I guess it’s Gentile Chutzpah to call me stupid over that.

                  So let’s dumb it down another 10 IQ points and spell it out even more.

                  Divide male/female differences (relevant to management) into two categories: (1) “observable throughout career”, and (2) “unobservable, or very weak in effect, except when appointed CEO”. Assume these differences favor men over women.

                  You’ve posted a lot about what you think the nature of the type (2), CEO-specific, differences are. I don’t disagree, agree, or take any other position on that. Just stipulate it for purpose of analysis. I do ask “what are the observable consequences, such as M vs F representation at various levels of the corporate ladder”. Your theory and its alternatives both make predictions.

                  Differences of type (1), the readily observed stuff, are accounted for (over time) in promotion and hiring because they are observed. Women who fail or do worse due to some female-specific deficit are more likely to be removed from the CEO promotion path, than women who don’t have that deficit, or have a lower level of it. So the population of women becomes more man-like as one climbs the ladder. Since the ability differences favor men, the proportion of women is reduced at higher rungs, but there is no huge difference in competence between the men and women who do make it to any given level, below CEO. There should be some difference due to the sex differences, but not a huge one, because of the filtering by past (in)competence.

                  If, in addition, the type (2) CEO-only effects exist, and are near-universal in women and devastating to performance, (all of which you claim), then the proportion of female CEOs should radically decline compared to the proportion of females at the level before. This is because their tenure will be cut short by removal, or bankruptcy of the business, and their chances of being rehired as CEO somewhere else will also be tanked. A woman can become CEO — once.

                  So the question is whether the representation seen in the real world corresponds to (1)-only or (your theory) the combination of (1)-and-(2).

                  Hope you get it now.

                • jim says:

                  I get it that you don’t understand either the explicit math (that you shut up about, now that it’s been spelled out twice) or the implicit math in the rest of my comments. I guess it’s Gentile Chutzpah to call me stupid over that

                  You have not spelled out anything. Your previous supposedly math comments sprayed incoherent stupid word salad, a pile of random assertions, none of them true, few of them with any clear meaning, none of them logically connected to each other.

                  I shut up about it in the sense that it was such complete nonsense that no comment can possibly be made.

                  Your latest comment starts out sensible until

                  but there is no huge difference in competence between the men and women who do make it to any given level,

                  Oh come on. Look at what is in front of your face.

                  Female middle managers under male supervision are about as competent as male middle managers by the normal definition of competence.

                  But you keep sliding between the normal definition of competence, and your own unique, bizarre, and idiosyncratic definition of competence, and by your slippery and self serving definition, they are not as competent. A good female middle manager, despite being a good female middle manager, displays characteristics that in an equally good male middle manager would put him out of the running for the role of top management, and in this nonstandard and unusual sense of the word “competent”, female middle managers are dramatically less competent.

                  You are using a standard Talmudic method of argument: One can deduce any conclusion one wants, if one’s premises contain a contradiction, and one slips a contradiction into one’s premises by using non a nonstandard definition, changing the meaning of a word between one premise and the next, as Marx slides between the normal meaning of value, and his own unique, bizarre, and slippery definition of value.

                  You slide a contradiction into your premises by sliding between the normal meaning of “competence”, and some crazy stupid meaning that you have never very clearly explained, and then very logically deduce contradictory and absurd conclusions.

                  Similarly, Marx, by cleverly redefining “Value” was able to logically prove that God the side of history would give the Jewsvanguard of the proletariat rule over the entire earth.

                  When your argument about empirical conclusions depends on a definition, it is an invalid argument. Definitions should not affect empirical conclusions.

                • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

                  >no huge difference in competence between the men and women who do make it to any given level

                  This is akin to saying, ‘there is no huge difference in competence level between who have won an olympic gold medal in wrestling their weightclass, or who have won the WBC championship belt in their weightclass, or who have won the UFC championship belt’.

              • anon says:

                No, that’s my proposed analysis of women attaining CEO-ships based on their history of performance in competitive masculine domains assuming gender neutrality in the sense of no affirmative action.

                So, assume that one sufficiently competent woman is competitive against 770 men. That’s a hell of a ratio already. Then you realize that most women don’t want to spend their lives competing against men in male domains. Then you realize that most women want to reproduce, and they can’t both reproduce and hold a top-tier manly position. How many are willing to forgo that? 1 in 2? 1:1540. 1 in 5? 1:3,850. 1 in 20? 1:15,400. 1 in 100? 1:77,000.

                At some point you have better odds of finding Bantu mathematical geniuses.

    • jim says:

      > Is random female pick from a population capable of being CEO likely to be worse than a male pick

      That is not the problem. The problem, rather, is malice and shit testing. Female CEOs are wicked, rather than incompetent.

      Women are markedly more prosocial than men under some circumstances, markedly less so in other circumstances. Being CEO (or prime minister or president) is one of those circumstances. If a woman has a strong husband who is himself wealthy and powerful, and she washes his dishes and sorts his socks, then she can be a good manager. Today, however, husbands are generally weak, and therefore competent female CEOs correspondingly rare.

  9. alt-right academic Jew says:

    Where on the Internet is the school of Poseur Statistics that you attended? La Griffe? Steve Hsu?

    Try computing the mean of a truncated normal distribution to understand why what I wrote earlier is correct. Not that I was assuming normal or univariate as you make up from thin air.

    Even in your own model, differences are *attenuated above the cutoff* and the main effect is on the *relative number of M/F* who can (legitimately) be CEO. If you think about what a multi-factor model would be like there are going to be things that favor and disfavor women. Mostly disfavor, and the positive/negative effects will shake out in favor of men. But in a way that is *attenuated above the cutoff*. Duh.

    Also, CEO means CEO, not head of the largest NASDAQ corporation, once-in-a-lifetime POTUS, or the richest capitalist in history. Jim mentioned an academic study which means some large number of more ordinary CEOs on which data is collected, not god-emperors as such.

    • alt-right academic Jew says:

      (that was a reply to “anon”, not the blog post.)

    • anon says:

      There are minimum thresholds of innate, inborn competence below which people through no fault of their own are irremediably incompetent and cannot become competent given any amount of time or experience.

      These minimum thresholds are determined genetically, and the vast, vast majority of genes are of very small effect.

      Knowing that most women are terrible leaders, we make an assumption: they are less competent than men in male domains (quelle surprise), especially the leadership and management of people. Thus, the proportion of women with the innate potential to become great fake men capable of outcompeting real men in the male-est of male domains is vanishingly small. The proportion of women with both the innate potential and the desire to fake being top-tier men is probably even smaller.

      I have no doubt that, besides Yahoo, there are many smaller companies being run into the ground by their newly appointed CEOs. But no matter how hard I try, I can’t seem to think of a single great female leader. Merkel, perhaps?

      • alt-right academic jew says:

        The “are females as good” question is about likely observable differences in results (of hiring them as CEOs), not underlying differences in ability. The latter, even if normally distributed, are just one factor in a noisy and fat-tailed process producing the former. It means you cannot use the normal model to directly draw conclusions about the distribution of actual CEO success, because the real world is not some Apprentice-style management bootcamp that rewards the CEOs for the sum of their scores on a series of tasks.

        If a CEO’s results are obtained by feeding their personal CEO-ability parameter into a much noisier process, who runs Yahoo down and Google up doesn’t end up having that much to do with CEO ability directly. Do you seriously think Eric Schmidt, never mind Sergey and Larry, is top 0.001 percent CEO material in terms of leadership ability? There are probably hundreds of people at Facebook who are better managers, leaders, and business analysts than Zuckerberg. He’s the chief for other reasons, and his business is successful for reasons that don’t generalize well.

        • jim says:

          The disastrous effect of women on corporations is obvious, and has little to do with competence. Women are very competent managers. A woman has always managed my affairs, and generally done so very well, but women are uncomfortable running things without a strong alpha male supervising them and approving their work from time to time. If they don’t get the supervision that they emotionally need from someone masculine, patriarchal, and sexy, they start acting maliciously, and self destructively, running the operation off the road and into the ground in a subconscious effort to force an alpha male to appear and give them a well deserved beating.

          Which is what female CEOs invariably do, no matter how smart and competent and hard working they are. Exceptions are so rare as to be nonexistent for all practical purposes. Women are comfortable taking care of the details under the supervision of a manly man who takes care of keeping the group as a whole disciplined and cooperating, an echo of the patriarchal family. Absent that manly man, she will maliciously and self destructively sow discord.

          Female CEOs fail for reasons of character, not competence. They sow discord and destruction, like a woman married to a beta male poisoning the minds of his children against him.

        • anon says:

          “because the real world is not some Apprentice-style management bootcamp that rewards the CEOs for the sum of their scores on a series of tasks”

          That’s exactly what the real world is. Or to be more precise, the Apprentice-style management bootcamp is an intentional (though low-resolution) imitation of the real world. Because the real world is a long series of competitions along several major dimensions and dozens of minor ones, the men who tend to bubble to the top of competitive domains lying at the intersections of these dimensions may not be among the very best in the world at any one of these dimensions, but they may well be among the very best at the combination of the dimensions relevant to their field.

          So the capable CEO may not be the very smartest man in any given room, but he’s one of the smartest. He may not be the very handsomest man in any given room, but he’s one of the handsomest. He may not be the very most personable man in any given room, but he’s one of the most personable. He may not be the very most hard-working man in any given room, but he’s one of the most hard-working. He may not be the very most dominant men in any given room, but he’s one of the most dominant.

          It’s overwhelmingly probable that the men to whom those other titles belong are different men. To steal a Peterson-ism, the capable CEO is the man who, in excelling in all (or most) of the relevant dominance hierarchies, best approximates the archetypical hero figure.

          And the preceding only counts for a healthy system. In an unhealthy system, talent doesn’t rise to the top, which is practically the definition of an unhealthy system. In a truly pathological system, the hierarchy is completely inverted, and instead of aristocracy, there is kakistocracy, or rule of the worst.

          • alt-right academic Jew says:

            The difference is that Apprentice gives everyone same or similar tasks and does so repeatedly. Real world CEO results are different for different reasons of time, place, company, industry, politics, luck, etc. These differences are path-dependent and fat tailed, not the interchangeable stuff that normal distributions are made of.

    • anon says:

      Sigma is also smaller, so sigma^2 is exponentially smaller.

      Sorry I don’t know the vocab, I don’t think in words, I think in moving shapes.

      • jim says:

        You refer to hyperexponential decay Hyperexponential decay explains the under representation of women among great scientists, great musicians, great mathematicians, etc. But female under representation among CEOs is rather a character problem, that female CEOs act like wives married to a beta male, act maliciously, destructively, and self destructively.

        • alt-right academic Jew says:

          Occam’s razor says those two things are one thing: character (in this sense) is part of the competence of a CEO. The distinction between them is interesting for corporate sociology but for purposes of the statistical arguments they are the same.

          • jim says:

            Look at the female approach to confrontation and conflict and the male approach to confrontation and conflict. Zero overlap in the distribution. Similarly, power.

            A male quarrels with a male. They get in each other’s faces, you feel that violence might happen, or at least one of them will call security and have the other shown the door.

            A female quarrels with a male. She interrupts him and talks over him in a supposedly friendly and supportive way “So what you are really saying is …”

            A male who intends to aggress against another male who is ignoring him intrudes into the other male’s space and just plain get close enough that the male he is aggressing against has to pay attention.

            A female who intends to aggress against a male who is ignoring her also intrudes, but not so close, and proceeds to interrupt what he is doing and distract him with some halfway plausible excuse as to why he has to stop what he is doing and pay attention to her, which excuse is something that in theory should not irritate him, and he has trouble understanding why he is irritated, and why she lacks any real interest in the nominal justification for demanding his attention and interrupting his activities.

            No significant overlap in the distributions.

            • academic gossip says:

              Again, the CEO issue is about distribution of *results*. Pork and beef have “no significant overlap in the distributions” materials but the CEO discussion is equivalent to asking which one tastes better, is more nutritious, or can be substituted for the other in a recipe. Lots of overlap there.

              Reagan and Thatcher had rather similar methods (and outcomes) in conflict resolution, judging from the large-scale aggregate observables. Whether their “inner distributions” overlapped is irrelevant. If Reagan invaded fought wars, crushed strikes and fought commies because he fantasized some alpha male nostalgia about football games and Hollywood starlets, and Thatcher did the very same because she inwardly wanted to please her shopkeeper father, so much the better.

              • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

                Soyboy countersignals high test activities and/or men who engage in them; news at eleven.

        • anon says:


          what makes it “hyperexponential”, though, except as hyperbole?

  10. alt-right academic Jew says:

    Ya gotta do the math right. “CEOs” is a very nonrandom sample at the extremes.

    Assume that CEO-ability is present much more in men than women. The main effect of this difference would be to have far fewer women CEOs, which is obviously the case, plus more subtle effects on the relative ability of male vs female who do become CEOs. Differences between male and female heads of corporation would be a host of smaller things, overall favoring men, but with some of them potentially favoring women. The average ability of a male CEO will be still higher than for female CEOs but the difference is attenuated (vs general population) by the extreme selection involved in becoming CEO. End result is nothing like “female CEO = incompetent”.

    • alt-right academic Jew says:

      On the other hand, all the above are reasons why a “female CEOs are just as good” study is, due to the same math, immediately suspect. It’s possible however to get a legitimate result, where females are as good after controlling for some other factors (such as pre-CEO salary, years of experience), and then dishonestly spin it as giving an uncontrolled result of “just as good”.

    • anon says:

      Total misunderstanding of statistics.

      If population A has a given mean of competence and population B has a given mean of competence minus 1 standard deviation, it follows that there is 1 person in 7 from population B capable of doing the job to the mean competence of population A. It follows that there is 1 person in 50 from population B who can do the job to 1SD’s competence of population A. It follows that there is 1 person in 770 from population B who can do the job to 2SD’s competence of population A.

      I postulate that there is at least 1SD’s worth of difference between the leadership ability of the average man and average woman; therefore, since the average CEO worthy of the title is at least 2SD above the mean, then there is at most 1 woman of equal ability to 770 men. This in no way should be taken to devalue women: women should not have to work; it degrades them, which is why the term “working woman” was once an euphemism for “prostitute”.

      Keep in mind that this is solely leadership ability, and does not account for intelligence, drive, disagreeableness, creativeness, and so on, many of which traits vary to a very large degree independently of one another, and so when expressed in one person the independent variance of these traits is multiplicative. If these traits were assumed to vary 100% independently, we could, for example, express the probability of the occurrence of a person with 2SD intelligence, 2SD drive, 2SD disagreeableness, 2SD creativeness as such: 0.02 * 0.02 * 0.02 * 0.02 * 0.02 == 0.0000000032, or 3.2 in 1 billion.

      There was only one John D. Rockefeller.

      There was only one Steve Jobs.

      There is only one Elon Musk.

      There is only one Jeff Bezos.

      There is only one Donald Trump.


      Fortunately, everything good is correlated, so the proportion of great men in reality is actually much higher in 1 billion — but it’s still a ludicrously small percentage.

  11. Glenfilthie says:

    Oh please. Warble gloaming is a cash grab and a fad for intellectual poseurs. Everyone knows it; and it will die the same way the looming ice age hoax did 35 years ago.

    And yes, women can so do STEM, fly jet planes and work in certain industrial environments as well as men. The problems we are having are not because of the women – it’s the KIND of women that are getting parachuted into these roles because of their reproductive plumbing rather than their qualifications. Who do you think ran the factories in America during the world wars while the men were fighting on other continents? Do you think the settlers could have come west with fragile, childish people women who couldn’t work?

    Our women today are childish, petulant sluts because they’ve been raised that way. And if ya think the men are any better, wait’ll you have to try and hire a millennial. Our men are mostly cucks and eunuchs who won’t stand up to this shite.

    And the good news there is that all that is changing too. Hillary Clinton got kicked to the curb the in the last election – and that in spite of a heavily converged mass media. Trump and half the nation told the environmentalists to FOAD and the EPA is being dismantled and cut back as we speak. Sure, converged companies are destroying themselves – but others that aren’t are ready to replace them. Your ‘Cathedral’ is teetering… are you guys ready to replace it when it fails? THAT is what you need to think about.

    • yolo says:

      I once met a female carrier fighter pilot, the second one ever, I think. It was immediately and painfully obvious that she was affirmative actioned into her station. I didn’t meet the first one, probably because

      >Kara Spears Hultgreen (5 October 1965 – 25 October 1994) was a Lieutenant and Naval Aviator in the United States Navy and the first female carrier-based fighter pilot in the U.S. Navy. She died just months after she was certified for combat, when her F-14 Tomcat crashed into the sea on final approach to USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72).

    • Steve Johnson says:

      “Who do you think ran the factories in America during the world wars while the men were fighting on other continents? ”


      You know that Rosie the Riveter was just a poster, right?

      The woman who modeled for it recently died actually. Do you know what she was doing during the war? She was a telephone operator.

  12. Alrenous says:

    I once debunked string theory using cartoon physics. Bugs bunny is flattened by an anvil. He turns sideways and disappears, because he’s become two dimensional. Real physics must be consistent; if he doesn’t exist from the side, he doesn’t exist from the front either. Strings aren’t three dimensional, therefore they don’t exist. This was before Smolin’s book on the subject demolished string theory at length.

    • Garr says:

      Aren’t strings supposed to be more than 3 dimensional, though — 10 or 11 or 21 dimensional or something? So they’re supposed to have at least the three you need to have to exist.

      Still, the main reason people have for believing that it makes sense to speak of more-than-three dimensional beings is that they think that it makes sense to speak of 2 dimensional beings. So they think, “2 dimensional beings would think that 3 dimensional beings don’t make sense, yet here we are. So even if we can’t imagine more-than-3 dimensional beings, there might be some.” But it really doesn’t make sense to speak of 2 dimensional beings, as you indicate. In Flatland, Abbott’s narrator has to admit that the Flatlanders are in fact slightly 3 dimensional.

      I like the idea of a 2nd time-dimension perpendicular to the ordinary one, because this would allow us live an afterlife along that time dimension while having ceased to exist on the ordinary one. So that Sargon, Alexander, Attila, Henry II, and Napoleon are all living simultaneous afterlives along that 2nd time-dimension.

      Oh, I just realized that maybe strings are supposed to be in themselves 2 dimensional but spiraling and looping around with more than 3. Is that what it is?

      • Alrenous says:

        Yes, you correctly figured it out. The strings move in an 11 or 12 dimensional space.* Like a point that can be located and moved in a 3D space. I assert that physical objects must have an extension that matches their host space – we can talk about 11 dimensional strings if they take up 11 dimensions, and therefore have finite volume.

        *(Which incidentally has no experimental support and therefore isn’t physics, but either math or theology.)

        Sure it makes sense to speak of non-3-dimensional stuff. There’s whole fascinating fields of math on the topic. But it’s not physics.

        The consensus is that two time dimension is impossible, because it breaks causality. Max Tegmark has a nice chart of this somewhere, and there’s a guy on Twitter using it as his avatar. I have an unorthodox but simple explanation for this, which is that functions need an independent variable, which manifests as the timelike dimension.

      • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

        Time is the unfolding; in a space with no motion, there is no time. The faster the motion, the faster the time.

        Time is the flowering; it grows out from events. The speed of motion is the reach of time.

        Time is the enmeshing; adjacent spaces can have over laping times. Other spaces can be beyond the reach of times.

        Time is being; to speak of being in a past time, is to speak of creating a time; for past is always present.

  13. anonymous says:

    Women seem to make good enough average scientists, especially in biology, chemistry and medical research, just not paradigm-changing scientists. They’re also good statisticians. However, research groups should be sex segregated to the maximum possible extent.

  14. Narm says:

    Off topic- Isn’t this a fairly good way to run a company of intelligent people?

    “Informed Captains” (sounds like “freehold”)

    “Highly Aligned, Loosely Coupled” (there’s the “altar”, and the “walls”)

    Doesn’t sound too bad!

  15. psmith says:

    I know a woman who split a cord of wood with a hazel hoe, to prove it could be done.

    (yes, obviously, bell curves and so on.).

    • Dan Kurt says:

      A cutter Mattock which has an adze end works akin to your “hazel hoe.” With a cutter Mattock I was taught to use in the 1950s to split hard wood by my father. He had used one when he was a lad in the 1920s and had been taught by his father. The cutter Mattock is easy to use and safe compared with a sledge hammer and wedge used to split wood.

      Dan Kurt

    • Dave says:

      Children can split hardwood if the grain is straight. Find a crack at one end, insert any sort of wedge (e.g. a hatchet), and baton it in with another piece of hardwood.

      Cherry gives me trouble because it’s twisty, and softwoods are difficult because my splitting maul mashes in and gets stuck.

  16. eternal anglo says:

    Bloody hell, I knew about AGW, social science and other realms of pure demonology, but is even materials science starting to be converged? That’s one step removed from steam turbines and NPK fertilizers. At this rate, the Cathedral will be instructing us on the racially sensitive way to flake flint arrowheads by the end of the century.

    jim, assuming science will be entirely converged before long (if not already), which areas of engineering will remain uncorrupted the longest? I’m guessing aerospace and anything else related to weapons – the Cathedral, like Mao, will want to hold on to its capacity to destroy infidels long after the nuclear power and Big Macs have run out. (Please forgive the tone of wheedling supplication, O master – I ask as a straight white male Anglo just starting a MechEng degree, in South Africa. I would like to know the best way to a) do actual non-bullshit work in my life and b) avoid being put into a mass grave for as long as possible, via c) becoming as technologically indispensable as possible to whatever Lovecraftian political horror-entities the current Left is destined to morph into in the medium term.

    • Steve Johnson says:

      The nuclear weapons already likely don’t work.

      • jim says:

        US nuclear weapons probably have ceased to work. Other people’s nuclear weapons ….

        • BomberCommand says:

          The really frightening bit is how the cathedral put us on a course for war with Russia. Russia got their nuclear house in order after Libya and is ready to win a nuclear war. Without Trump’s victory that war still might happen.

          • Oliver Cromwell says:

            Probably not, Russia’s nuclear delivery systems including missiles and submarines have suffered repeated failures. We don’t see whether the bombs work (just as they don’t see whether ours work) but they probably aren’t doing better with bombs, and without resuming actual testing.

            My best guess is that currently Russia and the USA are both confident they could launch some kind of semi-effective attack, which is a sufficient deterrent while neither side is led by ideologues with real guts; that the USA will probably lose the ability to launch that attack; and that when they perceive that that point has come, Russia and the PRC will denounce the test ban treaty and regain the sort of capability the US and USSR had in the 80s.

    • jim says:

      You are modeling the Cathedral as a rational being with a single will. This is not the case.

      I am deeply distressed that my beloved software engineering is being converged.

      The core of Silicon Valley was the Silicon Valley exemption, that Silicon Valley was permitted to be meritocratic – and now it is no longer meritocratic.

  17. […] The science is settled […]

Leave a Reply