Un-Scientific American lends credibility to Gender Junk Science about Hubble Telescope

Unscientific American: Diversity is strength: We did not make this up, all these titles really exist in the Junk Diversity IssueHubble telescope time preferentially goes to men.

Female-led proposals to use the in-demand Hubble telescope are less likely to be selected.Scientific American claims this in the midst of a huge section of Junk Diversity Science which has been utterly debunked elsewhere.

An internal Hubble study1 found that in each of the past 11 observation proposal cycles, applications led by male principal investigators had a higher success rate than those led by women.  Women submit roughly 25% of proposals for Hubble telescope observing time. [SciAm]


Un-Scientific American lends credibility to junk diversity and gender science nonsense, by interspersing junk diversity propaganda among true natural science articles.
Un-Scientific American misleads their readers who think their gender baiting is on par with real science.

This confounding of junk gender science with true natural science is very serious. This is why after years of study even we need serious deprogramming from the politically correct cultural Marxist lies that impressible children, adolescents and adults are constantly told by school books and biased un-scientific journals like Scientific American!

Scientific American’s mixing of real natural science with politically motivated unscientific falsified junk science like gender, domestic violence, race and iq issues aspires to permanently poison the minds of young and old with feminist and politically correct hate ideology.

All the titles on our "Unscientific American" cover are true Junk Diversity Science articles,
we could not have made this up.

The head of a science department of a major research University confirmed to us, in private, that female scientists generally less innovative and talented then their male counterparts [7]. Implicit quotas demand hiring and promoting women who don’t meet the requirements men would be measured up to. Quotas guarantee that the rare woman with sufficient talent will be snatched away for an even more prestigious job, always rising to her level of incompetence. Aware of Larry Summer’s dismissal [8], our department head refuses to be identified.

"Scientific American used to be a great magazine but like any publishing venture headquartered in New York, it has gradually drifted into liberal never-never-land." [UnScientific American]


Men and women are equal by dogmatic fiat

Did Megan Urry control her statistics for yearly working hours, life time interest in science, years experience, work invested in the proposal, IQ, math talent of the applying scientists?

We wager a bet that the average male physics proposal writer, more so a Ivy League department chair, did not flunk their first physics exams in college, like Megan Urry herself and was interested in physics since tender age of 6, unlike Megan Urry [4] and other female applicants. Megan Urry (of course) ignores even the possibility that male and female applicants might be intrinsically different in some way.  Larry Summers was a victim of telling such truth that there is a dearth of women in the top talent for science and math.

In spite of IQ tests having been manipulated to elevate female IQ to the same level as males [Wikipedia],   there are twice as many men with IQ over 150: Men: either very clever or really stupid [Wikipedia] because of greater male variance on IQ and most other traits.

Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “Un-Scientific American lends credibility to Gender Junk Science about Hubble Telescope” »
Un-Scientific American lends credibility to Gender Junk Science ab… » continues here »

Share

How diversity makes us smarter – What a lie!

 

How Diversity Makes Us Smarter – Not! Scientific American has been polluted by the same junk science that pervades our Universities’ politically correct cultural Marxist social science and humanities departments. Entire generations are being indoctrinated with falsehoods, in much more devious ways then communist Soviet Union and China were ever capable of.

Increasing gender diversity on corporate boards leads to declines in financial performance: the evidence

From time to time we refer to five longitudinal studies which show that increasing gender diversity on boards leads to declines in corporate financial performance. The studies are referred to in a number of posts, and have been included in a number of our documents. But we thought it might be useful to prepare a short briefing paper with details of the five studies and their full Abstracts, it’s here.  [7]

 

  1. Our public challenge of Laura Carstensen, EHRC Commissioner – FOI request |
  2. White men and lack of diversity ruined Google & Apple
  3. If we ‘need’ more women in boardrooms, do we ‘need’ more white sprinters in the Olympics 100 metres final?
  4. Punish more Asian and White Students – demands Eric Holder
  5. IQ tests prohibited for job requirement, mandatory at death row
  6. Scientific American’s table shows how Switzerland, Germany, Austria suffer from serious gender gap in Math and Computer Science, while engineering powerhouses Kyrgyzstan and Saudi Arabia are on the forefront with more female then male
  7. Note that women are hopelessly outcompeted by men in tennis, snooker, chess and, yes, cooking
  8. The Bell Curve shows clearly how IQ is the most solidly researched issue in Psychology. Highly recommended book!

 

Campaign for Merit in Business, which was launched early in 2012, has made a remarkable impact in a relatively short time. We’ve proven beyond all reasonable doubt that the ‘glass ceiling’ is a baseless conspiracy theory. Through exposing as fantasies, lies, delusions and myths, the arguments which said that increasing gender diversity in the boardroom (‘GDITB’) will improve corporate financial performance, we’ve destroyed the long-vaunted ‘business case’ for GDITB. We continue to publicise five longitudinal studies, all of which show that GDITB leads to declines in corporate financial performance. What else would we expect when businesses aren’t free to select the best people for their boards, regardless of gender? Proponents are left with little other than misrepresenting correlation as causation in pursuit of their social engineering programmes.

The Conservative-led coalition no longer challenges our assertion that the impact of GDITB on UK plc will inevitably be a negative one. And yet it continues to actively pursue GDITB.  [5]

 

We’ve put in FoI requests seeking evidence for the government’s previous claims that putting more women on boards will lead to performance improvement. None has ever been forthcoming. This hasn’t stopped the government from continuing to threaten legislated gender quotas for FTSE100 boards if they haven’t achieved female representation on their boards by 2015. In fact, they’re going further. We know from a recent report that next in the firing line will be the FTSE350, and that gender parity on boards is the longer-term goal. 6


An entire issue of Scientific American

has been utterly polluted by political correctness ,
with articles like:

The Inclusion Equation

  • State of the World’s Science 2014
  • Diversity in Science: Where Are the Data?
    Where are the data?

    Global figures on diversity in the science and engineering workforce are hard to come by, but what we know is not flattering

    Gender Gap

  • How women and men fare in doctoral studies around the world

     

  • In Pursuit of the Best Ideas

  • In a diverse team, the best ideas are more likely to rise to the top

     

  • Becoming Visible

  • To change the equation, start changing the perception

     

  • Particular Points of View

  •   Gender and culture influence research on a fundamental level

     

  • Inviting Everyone In

  • There is no formula for bringing diversity to the workplace or classroom, but new research that deepens our understanding of how diversity operates suggests some modestly successful strategies

     

  • How Diversity Works

  • Being around people who are different from us makes us more creative, more diligent and harder-working

     

  • Science Exposed

  • Networked technology and social media are enabling outsiders to gather and crunch data

     

  • Taking It Personally

    How a researcher’s background can determine her mission

  •  

    Share