108 Comments
Jan 5·edited Jan 5Liked by Christopher F. Rufo

Just anecdotally as a former grad student at Harfraud, data contrivance and model "overfitting" is ubiquitous, especially in anything "social science" oriented. I can't tell you how many graduate theses I saw that were fundamentally verificationist in methodology: only supporting data is cited (or sorted) to verify a sloppy thesis. Only falsifiable hypotheses are scientifically valid (which is not to say they are true however! Just feasibly testable.) But postmodern verificationist thesis "research" (as it's always called) is just ideologically driven garbage. Data is almost like, an aesthetic at this point – the fetish of graphical modeling and crap; Mattias Desmet hits this nail on the head in his book The Psychology of Totalitarianism. Both academia and corporations are obsessed with the aesthetic of data; big surprise. When so much has been cleverly rationalized with sophisticated modeling nowadays then you have to trust your nose: if it smells like bullshit, it probably is. The 21st century has to be navigated by scent way more than I'd like!

Expand full comment

"... what they show is only a correlation, not a causal relationship.

"... this leads to a correlation in the data—without any causal effect from the election of black representatives.

This is very basic. For many people who work with data, such considerations about possible alternative hypotheses are the first thing we think about. But for some reason it was not considered in the paper, which means that the conclusion it makes about causality is invalid."

BINGO: The Left assumes cause that fits their view & vision without considering perfectly logical alternatives. Thomas Sowell (& others) have repeatedly shown & specifically debunked that the Left assumes correlation is cause.

Expand full comment

Please, Christopher, after you are finished, do law schools next. I went to a no name night school and when I sat down to take the Ca. bar, the person next to me asked a very basic evidence question. I was stunned but he explained that at USC, evidence was an elective. I’m not the brightest bulb I admit, but I couldn’t, and still can’t fathom how one can be a lawyer without even a passing knowledge of evidence.

Expand full comment

DEI is an intellectual death spiral. Ideological purity requires moral bankruptcy that leads to intellectual depravity. The result is dysfunctional institutions that progressively fail from incompetence which attempt to compensate for the failures by increasing requirements for intellectual depravity that worsen the incompetence. This closed intellectual system ends in collapse unless interrupted by rational outside actors who break the trance. We are at a moment of truth that will determine whether our civilization survives.

Expand full comment

As an exhausted, brain-fog-riddled mother of 5 I can clearly understand the preposterousness of her thesis based on the info given here. Why was this not caught 20 years ago??? As the kids say, "I can't even"...

Expand full comment

Don't stop now, please. With more questions such as these, she'll lose her tenure as well.

Expand full comment

I doubt if Gay actually wrote anything. She's an affirmative action hire and was an affirmative action student. They don't have to pass tests, write legitimate papers and dissertations, or know anything. They get "degrees" because they are black. Pretending she wrote it is absurd. Additionally, anyone who "peer reviewed" her stuff wouldn't find fault with any of it because she's black!

Expand full comment

Bo Winegard for Harvard President ! ✌️✌️✌️ This can only constitute an improvement, anyway 😅

Expand full comment

It's a little bit confounding the dance they do with intersectionality. Because it is simultaneously all about race and not really about race. You can see that with the treatment of Larry Elder or Clarence Thomas or any black conservative. We're all for you, but if you disagree then we're done with you big time. Which means it's really about ideology, and an anti-western one, because they view the west as white, which in large part it has been, even if not completely.

Expand full comment

A much larger issue where the liberal elite confuse correlation cause and is climate change. They insist that the observation that earth surface temperature and CO2 levels in the atmosphere are increasing together proves that a minuscule amount of CO2 — 0.04% of total atmospheric gas — is the root cause of climate change and vigorously ridicule and suppress any explanation of how they may instead be correlated. The commonly held notions that CO2 somehow creates an insulating blanket over the earth or somehow “reradiates” heat back to the earth is based on profound misunderstanding of the ideal gas laws and basic thermodynamics. Another example on a grand scale of the left assuming correlation is cause!!

Expand full comment

There’s a huge problem in higher education that probably has little to do with the heavy viewpoint bias toward progressivism. Peer review doesn’t mean true. Far from it. Data used in a peer reviewed publication is almost never reviewed by the peer reviewers. Please listen to this discussion: Adam Mastroianni on Peer Review and the Academic Kitchen. Abstract below.

https://www.econtalk.org/adam-mastroianni-on-peer-review-and-the-academic-kitchen/

“Psychologist Adam Mastroianni says peer review has failed. Papers with major errors make it through the process. The ones without errors often fail to replicate. One approach to improve the process is better incentives. But Mastroianni argues that peer review isn't fixable. It's a failed experiment. Listen as he makes the case to EconTalk host Russ Roberts for a new approach to science and academic research.”

Expand full comment

Pallesen's idea that left-biased things pass peer review more easily was tested when three people hoaxed a whole bunch of sociology/feminist journals six years ago with fake papers the conformed to woke viewpoints: https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2018/10/dog-rape-and-mein-kampf-feminist-text-why-we-hoaxed-journals-terrible

Expand full comment
founding

Thank you Chris for shedding even more light on Gay. So now we know Gay is a racist white-hater, a plagiarist, and a p-hacker. Which means she hates, steals, and does fraud.

It appears the emperor (The Harvard board) has no cloths. I just hope others see how nakedly corrupt they are too.

Chris, keep up the great work.

Expand full comment

[ note this is NOT about the article itself but merely the reference made to “Dansk industri” as danish trade association, last sentence of the second paragraph.

I stumbled because it didn’t seem like an accurate translation (being Danish so I really began to think and compare structures of big orgs and actors in Denmark lol). So looked it up

According to their own website, DI is “Confederation of Danish Industry”, not Danish trade association, which resonated a lot more with me

https://www.danskindustri.dk/english/

[I’ll continue to read article now]

Expand full comment

The confusion of correlation with causation is so rampant in academia, the news media, and partisan politics- and so often passively accepted- that it's a scandal. It's hardly reserved for any particular ideological "side", either.

One of the aspects I find most troubling about this classic logical fallacy and the lazy assumptions typically connected to it is that it's long been the stock in trade of the racist right wing. If ever there was a Tool Of The Oppressor that can't be trusted to Dismantle the Oppressor's House, the manipulation of correlative findings into causative conclusions is it. Uncritical acceptance of such confusion as if it were slam-dunk probative opens the door to massaging preconceived biases--maintaining shoddy narratives with the authority implied by the "objective" metric data used to fabricate the speculative "conclusions." And, from there, even more extravagant speculative leaps and mean cheap shots have a way of marching through.

Expand full comment

The other issue with peer review, according to John Stodden in his book “Science in an Age of Unreason” is that is completely incestuous. The number of “scientists” in many social science fields is so small that everyone knows everyone else and they all scratch each other’s backs. The commenter who said that peer review is broken is correct.

Expand full comment