Canadian editor Jonathan Kay talks to Dr. Theodore Hill, professor emeritus of mathematics at Georgia Institute of Technology. Ted Hill recently wrote an article for Quillette about how a paper of his on the Greater Male Variability Hypothesis was accepted and retracted by The Mathematical Intelligencer and The New York Journal of Mathematics, following a lobbying effort by mathematicians who disapproved of his point of view.
Published on November 16, 2018
Quillette Podcast 2 – Ted Hill on how his Paper was Sent Down the Memory Hole
So. Again.
Unless and until your “podcast” has an RSS feed and you publish the link to it, what you have are a folder full of audio files and not a “podcast.”
Quillette: Your home for exactly the level of technical ignorance of all the ideologues it critiques.
Not sure that I understand your complaint, Joe. I’m listening to the podcast right now using the popular podcast player, Pocket Casts. This app had no trouble finding the Quillette podcast or this, the second episode (which it downloaded automatically as soon as it was released). So it seems to me that there must be an rss feed. But what do I know. I’m not an expert in these matters.
I’m not sure what the issue is either. Click and listen. What more is to be desired?
Podcasts are basically defined as a series of audio files with an accompanying RSS file. The fact that you were able to use some proprietary software to access this content does not a podcast make. As you acknowledge, Pocket Casts indexing may not even rely on RSS.
Luckily someone managed to dig up an accompanying RSS feed and posted it below.
Hopefully Quilette will make advertise this feed more prominently in the future.
I do agree the podcast doesn’t have an RSS feed (definitely not one discoverable by any mean I’ve tried so far) and I suffer the inconvenience as well. There is an RSS feed for the articles (all of them) but not for the podcast.
However, I disagree with the unnecessarily harsh tone of the comment. Are you paying some subscription and therefore feel entitled?
Correction, I just have found it: https://rss.whooshkaa.com/rss/podcast/id/5023
Enjoy!
… btw, fascinating interview! 🙂
Dontcha just love it when these efforts to suppress real science blow up in the faces of the censors? But things like this demonstrate that this crap has gone way beyond the merely bothersome, the ideologues are now doing real harm to real people and the censorship is hardly less odious than that under Hitler or Stalin. It’s later than we think.
What is so disturbing is that there are professional academics who doing their best to suppress certain IQ information for political reasons.
On the other hand, to gratuitously make factually true statements in order to stoke social disharmony or to deliver a blow to a person or group that one dislikes is not to be encouraged. If a person is physically ugly that fact alone doesn’t justify asserting it to the person’s face for malicious reasons.
It’s obvious why males are more variable – they don’t have to raise children; nature can take more risks in men. Dumb or weird women won’t have children that survive to have their own children because raising children is a serious gig – f*ing around and fighting isn’t.
I agree! I realize it is not always wise to rely on ‘common sense’ but for me, it is obvious that the tails of the bell curve are extended for men. Just take a walk down the street and look around.
I have absolutely had it with the ignorance, bigotry, and bias of feminists and social justice wars. They are both intellectually dishonest and incompetent.
Responding to Dr. Peterson and his interviewer, whose name I didn’t get, regarding their comments about the US Constitution and the founding of the US from two individuals who are not Americans, I feel there is a need to correct some misconceptions. As a native born American and a historian and a polymath, I dispute the idea about the democracy of the US Constitution. The Constitution was written by rich, white Englishmen for the benefit of rich, white Englishmen. Many famous and important people of the Colonial period who participated in the convention were forgotten by history because they refused to sign the Constitution. Passage of the Constitution was accomplished by the convening of special conventions where only rich, white Englishmen were invited and comprised only about one-sixth of the then population of the country. It was not voted on by the general population which was composed of not rich, white Englishmen and others. The objectors protested the Federalization imposed by the Constitution which was reminiscent of the time before the revolution. A book, “An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution,” by Prof. Beard was written in 1913 and re-issued in 1933 where he argues that the Constitution was written to protect the wealth of the “framers,” as they’re called, which was “land speculation” at the time. Nineteenth century literature reflects how the average person hated the imposition of the Constitution.
What people forget is that the US Senate was not directly elected by the people but by the state legislatures to “protect the rights of the states.” Direct election did not occur until 1913. Then as today, the Senators were rich people who elected rich people to protect the rights of rich people who ran the state legislatures. After the Constitution was ratified, Jefferson and Madison formed the “Whig Party,” which became the Republican party, to protect the rights of rich people. The power to amend the Constitution was given to rich men of the Senate who were the ones who controlled who got what under the Constitution all was siding with the rich bankers and railroad entrepreneurs. The framers said “all men are created equal’ but they didn’t mean unlanded people who couldn’t vote regardless of sex. Without going into details, a few years back, an amendment to control campaign contributions, which had widespread support, was defeated by one vote in the Senate keeping campaign contributions secret and the rich in control of politics. Under American law, a person has no rights if he can’t afford a lawyer and legal costs to protect his rights which is supposed to be guaranteed under the 6th and 14th Amendments which the Supreme Court holds is only for criminal cases. Could continue but wanted to point out that the Constitution is far, very far from being democratic for anybody but the rich.
“Native born” is a tautology- which I know without even being a polymath. I guess you qualify as the latter if we consider “rich”, “white” and “English” as three ideas, but you do seem a little fixated on the “rich” part.
I can see why you’d have to let the “English” part go, after a couple of centuries of rich, white (and black) “native born” folks.
But seriously, you can’t form a sensible understanding of the great experiment that is the US Constitution, of its framers, or of the history of its development and operation, through so narrow an interpretative framework.
An interesting podcast on a recurring theme: the attempted politirape of academics who have run afoul of the political cultists. What I found interesting about this podcast was the way that the retired professor more or less thrived on the response. He discovered that in the end, the attempted politirape resulted in his views getting far more exposure than they would have otherwise. Good for him.
Well, I’ve listened to the first two podcast, and I’m honestly disappointed.
I have to qualify everything I say bye first admitting that I am an old school 60s style liberal, so free speech and and open exchange of ideas is very important to me.
When I first heard about this podcast I got a little excited, and possibly put too much expectation on it. There has not been a right-leaning place for the open debate of conservative ideas since William F Buckley’s Firing Line back in the day.
Alas there still is not. Not only is there no exchange of ideas, or discussion of the mechanics and merits of ideas, there is relatively little content regarding the ideas at all. For the most part it seems to be a forum for certain people to come and air their grievances, both real and imagined, about how shabbily they have been treated by the left. This is aided and abetted by the interviewers leading questions and failure to challenge inflammatory language.
Here’s the simple truth. No one is obligated to give you a forum because you think you have something to say. Most treatises, articles, and research papers, do not get published. No attempt at all was made to interview the accused enemies of free speech. No attempt at all was made to discuss any opposing view on the ideas that were supposedly suppressed.
Dr. Peterson’s attempted to dismiss anyone who disagrees with him as a ” postmodern neo-marxist leftist” did nothing but demonstrate how solidly his own mind is closed, and certainly did not invite any kind of open Exchange.
The world does not need another Fox News. It does need another Firing Line.
I should say that I will continue to listen for the next few podcasts. Perhaps these issues will be corrected. I’m willing to wait and see.
No attempt at all was made to interview the accused enemies of free speech. No attempt at all was made to discuss any opposing view on the ideas that were supposedly suppressed.
I agree that Quillette, in general, shows a bias toward a certain type of article that bemoans the activity of SJWs and of so-called identity and oppression politics. In doing this they are catering to a segment of society that agrees with these articles and enjoys reading them. I, for one, enjoy reading these diatribes against repression. However, I agree that Quillette would enhance its credibility if it also tried to supply a cogent statement of the opposing point of view. For example, in the case of the Greater Male Variability Hypothesis there are counter-arguments such as this and this.
Granted, many readers come to Quillette instead of going to Vox, for example, because they don’t want to read those types of articles, of which there is no shortage in the MSM. And I can understand that Vox authors may not be lining up to write articles at Quillette. Furthermore, some of the arguments are technical and mathematical and cannot easily be expressed for the general reader. However, I think that Quillette’s reputation for integrity would only be enhanced if it would at least supply links to statements of the opposing points of view and provide short summaries of those views, where possible.
It would no doubt be much easier to provide such statements in the case of the Greater Male Variability Hypothesis than it would be to succinctly and rationally give the underpinnings of the belief that White Privilege, homophobia, sexism, racism and class oppression are pervasive influences in our society, justifying the demonization of anybody who gives them traction either by denying that they exist or by making arguments that surreptitiously give them succor.
Do either of you think that the “enemies” cited by these actual victims of bias and hate and suppression and oppression would engage in dialog in any meaningful way? They deplatform the right constantly and refuse to debate or discuss topics at all with the right for the most part. They shut down debate and refuse to engage. This has happened literally hundreds of times over the past several years on college campuses, private meetings and public gatherings.
At this stage being aggrieved and emotional is normal and human.
Do either of you think that the “enemies” cited by these actual victims of bias and hate and suppression and oppression would engage in dialog in any meaningful way?
Usually no, but sometimes yes. In this case the position on the other side had been expressed and could at least have been summarized. In most cases I agree that a response from the other side would likely be little more than a series of accusations of racism, sexism, etc. which I don’t think would contribute to meaningful dialogue. And having requested a response it might be awkward to then refuse to print it. But there are people on the other side who can put together a thoughtful response, though many such arguments would be quite lengthy. In some cases the case for the opposing side can be summarized, but on the other hand readers of Quillette can easily locate the full-blown opposing argument in a matter of seconds. But I would like to see a serious debate on this site, if an appropriate person on the other side is willing.
In the case of Greater Male Variability Hypothesis, it seems Quillette did not even attempt to contact anyone (other than the author himself) who was named in Hill’s piece. Forget about discussing opposing views; they are not even interested in proper fact-checking.
I just have to make a comment about the idea that the right has been deplatformed. The right controls all three branches of government, Fox News is the most watched Cable News Network, and talk radio is 90% right-wing Talking Heads.
This idea that right-wing speech has been suppressed, is similar to the idea that Christians are A persecuted minority in America. Just because you can’t control every single platform does not mean you are being oppressed
A simple Google search will show that none of the ideas supposedly being suppressed, have in fact been suppressed. They are available for anyone who wants to see them.
I’ll apologize in advance for anyone who’s going to jump on me for using the term right-wing. I do understand that just because a person may have conservative ideas that does not put them out on the right wing. I’m simply pointing out that right-wingers do in fact control most of the government, and have a huge media presence. The truth is, that moderate conservative views are as suppressed by the right-wing as they are by the left.
This idea that right-wing speech has been suppressed, is similar to the idea that Christians are A persecuted minority in America. Just because you can’t control every single platform does not mean you are being oppressed
If Ted Hill is correct, then his study was suppressed. You are apparently saying that there is no suppression unless there is absolutely no outlet for the information, but that is absurd. Suppression can be only partly successful and still be suppression. It is suppression to create a climate in which a researcher is actively inhibited by being threatened with the loss of his job if he publishes the information, regardless of whether he goes ahead and publishes.
The truth is, that moderate conservative views are as suppressed by the right-wing as they are by the left.
First you deny that right-wing speech has been suppressed, then you assert that moderate conservative views are suppressed. Are you serious? Furthermore, the fact that suppression does not come only from the left does not make it an acceptable tactic.