Here's the paper by Erin Hengel that's tearing up ASSA2018!

Women get into universities because professors want pussy.

It gets worse too. Almost all the rest of the paper is based on that assertion. She claims that as women continue in their careers they tend to use fewer and fewer polysyllabic words, whereas the opposite is true for men. And the math section is an absolute abortion of a proof. She used the most obscure Greek symbols she could find in order to impress her normie friends, but in this process overwrites understood mathematical symbols like "e" and sigma

This shit is wrong on so many levels. You would have to somehow control for the content of papers, even if her hypothesis about fewer syllables was right, which is impossible. I literally would have failed, fucking failed, an undergraduate class if I tried to submit this methodology.

Women get to pollute academia with such fucking sophistry it is absurd. Fuck this bitch. Fuck all her professors who didn't fail her. Fuck the system. It needs to be burnt to the ground.

She did control for content, by only counting words that could be found in a collection of 93 novels on Gutenberg, and then by running a series of readability algorithms designed by other people that all relied on syllables and vocab level. Her main flaw was relying on "readbility" as a measure of quality of a scientific paper. But I agree with everything else you said.

>She did control for content, by only counting words that could be found in a collection of 93 novels on Gutenberg, and then by running a series of readability algorithms designed by other people that all relied on syllables and vocab level.
That isn't controlling for content. The goal would be to compare apples to apples (men and women both writing about X). Men and women could be writing about slightly different topics, which could have a huge affect on the vocabulary needed.

This is what she means by women writing "better".
Let's say I showed you this pic and I had you guess what the author's conclusion was: would you ever guess "women write better"?

The impossible ideal would be men and women writing the same papers: same subjects with the same data, etc.

TIL insecure nerd virgins HATE it when girls do better than them at the one thing they thought they were good at.
AHAHAHAHA your time in the sun is over it's a womans world now

>Why are women so obsessed by the fact that they are women?
You need some way to explain away your failures. Or you simply can't be assed to do any real research, so you say fuck it and be a victim instead.

>words with fewer syllables at a lower vocabulary level.
That's actually not such a bad way to assess it. Unnecessary jargon and fancy words just make your paper harder to read and understand. Fools often try to mask their ignorance in jargon. It becomes very obvious if you read essays written by students or messages written by redditors.

I was instructed at school to use short sentences and unambiguous words when writing scientific papers.

Who cares?
This is just so utterly meaningless.

What is the "quality of writing" and how the fuck does it matter compared to "science produced"?

If I proved the Riemann hypothesis but would write it out like a 5th grader, then what?
Was the "science" "worse"?
Even if women "writer better" (whatever the FUCK that means) why does it matter? It is like judging a book by its quality of writing, sure it might have "fancy sounding words", but if it isn't interesting or provides meaningful insights then so what?

>TIL insecure nerd virgins HATE it when girls do better than them
That's probably true, but it's even more infuriating, when brainlets falsely believe they're doing better than the 'insecure nerd virgin'. By the way, smart people tend to be insecure, and some of the smartest scientists in history were virgins throughout their lives. Maybe these insecure nerd virgins are onto something.

American education is nothing more than kike propaganda designed to kill the white male

>Was the "science" "worse"?
Yes, in a way. It's just about impossible to assess individual aspects when the whole is always tightly woven together. I'm sure you'd prefer to read a well written paper rather than a poorly written one. Just like you'd rather talk to a pretty girl than an ugly one, even though her prettiness shouldn't affect what she says in the least.

If you think about, the principal purpose of papers is to distribute knowledge. The clearer they are, the better they achieve that goal. You're not really making science, when you write a paper about your proof. The science is already done, you're just writing it down to teach others and to get recognition.

>I'm sure you'd prefer to read a well written paper rather than a poorly written one
That wasn't the point I am making.
Of course the end result will be worse. The paper will be harder to read and less people will understand that, but that does NOT change the underlying science.

Again I refer to my book analogy, a nicely written book is absolutely worthless if it has no meaningful content, of course form and content have to go together.
But in science one thing is significantly more important then the other.

It is pointless to discuss who is "better at writing", of course a paper should be "well written" to some extend, but a "badly" written paper with "good science" is infinitely more valuable then a nicely written one with no meaningful science.

>"badly" written paper with "good science" is infinitely more valuable then a nicely written one with no meaningful science.
Sure, but how about an awfully written paper with good science, or a very well written paper with mediocre science? I agree that the quality of science is more important than the quality of writing, but I wouldn't quite say that the ratio between the two approaches infinity.

>smart people tend to be insecure
Says who? Just because you consider yourself both doesn't mean there is a greater correlation.

>some of the smartest scientists in history were virgin
Some of them were women. Maybe these women are on to something and everyone else should just stand back.

>literally a paper published on the author's blog
This paper is trash. I have no reason to believe anything it says.

It's almost like STEM students suck at writing and mostly are male while english majors are good at writing and are mostly women.

If you wrote it like a 5th grader, it would actually score as more readable and, therefore, be considered "better writing".

Not even fucking kidding here. "Better" is decided by an arbitrarily chosen metric.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flesch–Kincaid_readability_tests#Flesch_reading_ease

I'm pretty sure peer review is copy editing and content verifying.

Too bad women's brains are only good at the literacy portion, but shitty at the perceptive portion.

>She can't even into hard STEM

Uhm, guys, she's watching us:
>twitter.com/erinhengel/status/950385695184576512

>words per sentence means women write better ()
>theorem 1 clearly shows double standard
fucking idiot
fuck off and kill yourself

I actually know of atleast 7 girls in university of Toronto who slept with their professors for an A. Most of it happened in the physics dept. And 2 girls did it with their chemistry and psychology professors

Not to mention all the 18-24 yr olds who always have a crush on their male TAs and probably sleep with them

she's OP, who else would care about this absolute shit?

take your nonsense shit somewhere else, this isn't math or science

Back to /pol/ pablo

>I actually know of atleast 7 girls in university of Toronto who slept with their professors for an A. Most of it happened in the physics dept. And 2 girls did it with their chemistry and psychology professors
I'd like to hear the details, especially how you know about all of this and whether anyone got in trouble.

Wait, so we have economics femanons here masquerading as STEM?

fuck off, you write like an absolute cunt
femanon is not a word

that's fucked, thank God I'm not a female so I have to be accountable for my actions

Newfag, please log off of Veeky Forums. Perhaps Plebbit is more fitting?

Oh look, it is a word:
>en.wiktionary.org/wiki/femanon

Mostly from the friends of the girls
I was studying there from 2011-2015, double major in human bio and physics.

Most of these came from close friends of these girls who won't have a reason to lie. Some of the girls confessed while drunk or just told me while giggling like a little girl.

Looking back it does make sense, a lot of teachers pet types hanged out constantly in my prof's office. I used to think the fuck these people talk about

One girl was a blonde nerdy type, she came from a religious background, was from London ON. Slept with the psych prof in the last weeks of her second year. Apparently she was in love. She also got 95+ in most of her psych courses.

Two of the physics girls were my then girlfriend's friends, one slept with a good looking TA in second year and was talking about that infront of my gf while I overheard her. The other chick slept with the physics prof because she was failing and would be put on probation if she failed one more course. She was one crazy bitch and a sorority sister

I can go on..

U of Toronto is one big whore house

Don't be surprised if one of the professors in UOT is accused of "sexual abuse" 10 years from now...

Apparently chicks dig daddy figures like professors and teaching assistants.. but most prof's and TAs have the good sense to run the fuck away from the crazy. But a quite a few don't... I guess young teenage pussy is hard to pass

And most of the girls who slept with their prof's are in grad schools now btw... won't be surprised if one of these cunts write a paper similar to OPs in the future.

>London ON
not surprised (no offense to the girl)

Lel you been there? It's a fucking village full of old people

Western has some fine ass girls though

>Western
>Fanshawe
I always thought it was party central

Are you retarded or something?

This is the academic version of "I'm not mad because of what you said, I'm mad because of how you said it".

I find it a rather ludicrous assertion to claim literal whitewashing of discrimination by analyzing writing style instead of content. This is rather inflammatory, and probably purposefully written so given that the obvious audience is female ("ladies, we're not that common in economics"). The end purpose of this paper isn't to expose and help resolve gender bias in academia on a legitimate basis, but instead will further any divide that may exist.

I don't think this has been accepted by any journal yet, has it?

>a hambeast trying to bridge the gender gap instead of widening it for her own purposes

Come on son, we both know women wont do that

It was, a shame I was 16 when I went to western for a few courses in chemistry as a high school program for gifted kids

I'd have partied hard as fuck too

>ASSA2018
>American Economic Association
How is this Veeky Forums related?

I don't think I would come to any conclusion at all if you showed me this chart out of context. The difference is consistent but not very significant.

I can't believe someone spent time to determine that men use 4.69 polysyllabic words per sentence and women use 4.31 AND THEN continued on with it as if this was some sort of interesting finding.

Doesn't make it any less stupid, just because something exists doesn't mean it should.

>I'm a feminist, I think men and women should be equal
>Women are better writers than men

You can't have it both ways honey

>The difference is consistent but not very significant.
To be fair, user, the difference is significant in the statistical sense of the word. It is sufficient to reject the null hypothesis of equal word use at the 1 percent alpha level.

The main problem with the article isn't the lack of significant findings, it's the fact that the hypotheses are orthogonal to the conclusions that are drawn from said rejected hypotheses.

>>words with fewer syllables at a lower vocabulary level.
>That's actually not such a bad way to assess it. Unnecessary jargon and fancy words...
She didn't look at whether the more advanced vocabulary was unnecessary, or if was just a case of the male researchers doing more advanced work.

Kek, it actually is on her Twitter feed.

Erin, please ignore the obvious sexism, this is the asshole of the internet after all.

In case you are still lurking, I'm genuinely curious to hear what you would respond to the criticism that writing style isn't a particularly good way to assess the value of scientific work. Note that I am not taking position against the existence of a gender gap in science, but I do take issues with the way this problem is examined in your work.

Stop larping erin no one cares about your shitty paper

Erin, you're at least in your 30s. Why're you LARPing on Veeky Forums?

...

Erin, you aren't an undergraduate anymore, grow up!

This is what happens when a 30 year old woman is not dicked regularly

I feel sorry for you erin

...

>Virtue signalling the Twitter thread.

Ugh zomg like why is science so sexist lol!!!

>Your facts are problematic.

Omg!!! Stop cyber raping me you pig from 1700s

We're not even scientists you silly motherfuckers.

This is the type of people who would rather waste time on how something was said rather than what was actually said.

Embarrassing and infantile.

This forum lends itself to edgy language. Deal with it like an adult.

Come on new buddy, you have to admit that this thread isn't only abrasive because of what language is used to say things, but to a large extent also because of the thins that are said.

Besides that, you are getting buttmad over a bunch of women posting on Twitter just the same as a bunch of women on Twitter getting upset over the things that are said here. You're not any better than they are.

Honestly, this is a shit thread even by Veeky Forums standards. Nothing but shitposting and the subject being discussed isn't even interesting. All that's happening in this thread is whining about a shit paper written by a nobody.

I'm saying the response "the humanity!" over comments on this site is so laughably childish that one can help but feel extremely disappointed.

>you are getting buttmad
I suppose responding to this would just further prove how buttmad I am, right? You should read Kafka's "The Trial" to understand where you went wrong here.

Please don't recommend people to read the trial, that book is awful. One of Kafka's worst works. Even if it was an apt analogy for this discussion nobody should have to suffer through that garbage.

I enjoyed it. The absurdity of it kept me reading.

To each their own I guess.

>childish
Guy, you're complaining about Twitter. It's the same thing as complaining about Veeky Forums. What were you expecting, a nuanced adult conversation? You should read Kafka's "Das Urteil" to understand where you went wrong here.
>You should read Kafka's "The Trial" to understand where you went wrong here.
Kek, I read it in high school, besides making you look like a pretentious asshole, I fail to see the relevance.

You seem to have forgotten where you are. Also, I'm not sure you should be talking too loudly about being pretentious, lol.

Why so serious?

Please stop embarrassing us as we have visitors, please just lurk in this thread and post your bait somewhere else

>Even if it was an apt analogy for this discussion
How the fuck was it an apt analogy for this discussion? Did you faggots even read the book?

>This is the type of people who would rather waste time on how something was said rather than what was actually said.
What is being said is
>God made woman for man and their natural role is of caregivers or nurturers
>Women have no business doing research. This idiot has a PhD from a top research univeristy. How? Women get ahead because of their vaginas and nothing else
>Women get into universities because professors want pussy
So yeah, Dr Hengel has a point

There were times when the judge used the fact that the protagonist showed up and played along with the trial as proof of its validity. Just general circular logic where the mere act of replying justifies the accusations. I assume that's what user meant by the comparison, saying the other user was acting like the judge

Why should anybody care what some thots think of Veeky Forums?

The irony is so strong that oxidation state - 7 is becoming exceedingly abundant. You altogether seem to have forgotten that you are on the internet you pompous faggot.

I hope you're baiting and not being serious.

The humanity!

You really think someone would do that? Just go on the Internet and tell lies?

Fair enough, though it kinda misses the point of that book, but fair enough.

No u

And remember, whoever gets the last post is the REAL troll!

What's actually happening right now?

Are we fighting for this woman's approval or something?

Are we chimping out?

When exactly ever are we not chimping out?

What, in your opinion, is the point of the book? I'm the user who said it was awful, and to me it just seemed like a pointless meandering fever dream of a story that seemed to exist only to make the reader feel some sort of sympathetic frustration at how idiotic the situation was. However, that's a quality of all of Kafka's stories, but his other stories have the benefit of also being more enjoyable and interesting to read rather than just a series of disconnected scenes of bureaucratic nonsense.

It's trolls trolling trolls by pretending to care what some twitter thots think

We've found something to be annoyed about and we're reveling in it.

I just want to add that women shouldn't have the right to vote.

Hear, hear! This is representative of all of us!

>disconnected scenes of bureaucratic nonsense
Well, that exactly is the point. It is is a critique of the Austro-Hungarian court system, Kafka worked as a lawyer for some time after all. Stylistically, the book conveyes almost viscerally the inadequacy of this gigantic bureaucratic institution, which for me even to this day is relatable because I often have to deal with bureaucrats.

Goddamn I love being a man, peeing standing up with my penis and what not