Depends on the size of the field. I know just about everyone in my space, because the conference is small and over 3 days I either met the researcher or sat in on their session.
My spouse knows most of the people in her field at some level as well, thanks again to annual conference where they all gather.
It would be interesting to see an implicit bias test, but I don’t know how it could be effectively run.
Yeah, but they died in a pool of blood in an alleyway, so excuse me for not modeling my life after them.
Well, quotas of course.
You just need to include a certain amount of cites of non-cis-white males to get your paper reviewed. Your ‘peers’ doing the review also must consist of the proper variety, naturally.
And this sort of thing is why China and India are likely to end up the dominant superpowers in due course, because I doubt they’re wringing their hands over whether they’ve got enough Kashmiris or Uyghurs contributing their their rocket science programmes.
If they’re doing nothing to fight the Chinese/Indian equivalent of the good ol’ boys’ club, then they’re likely missing out on big groups of people who could contribute. Diversity isn’t just about doing the right thing for moral reasons – it’s also about making sure we’re not ignoring lots of voices that could have great ideas just because they’re outside the social circle of those with the most influence.
And there is no doubt that Western Science has been that good old boy network far too many times - and still is far too often than it should be.
I guess the new stupid Twitter shit of the day is some Women’s March thingie is tweeting out Happy Birthday to a fugitive Black Panther convicted cop killer.
Sorry no links, I’m at work.
Regarding bias in the hard sciences: yes, it’s a thing. I didn’t look for racial bias, but here’s here’s a review article on gender bias in scientific review. An excerpt below:
[QUOTE=Kaatz et al. Trends in Pharmacological Sciences 2014]
Given the impact of gender stereotypes on judgment, one would also predict that grant reviewers may unknowingly and unintentionally adjust competence standards such that a female applicant would need to demonstrate more proof of ability to earn the same assessment of competence as a male applicant. Lending support to this is the classic study by Wenneras and Wold in which female applicants for a postdoctoral research fellowship needed more than twice as many publications to receive the same competence scores as comparable male applicants [12]. In the USA, awards from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) are the cornerstone of grant support for individual investigators in biomedical, behavioral, and clinical research. Overall, there is little difference in the success rates of male and female applicants for NIH grants [13–15]. If gender bias operates in grant peer review, one would expect that different evaluative standards for male and female investigators would be exaggerated when assumptions of performance most strongly align with male gender stereotypes; that is, where science and leadership conflate. This would occur in the review of highly prestigious scientific awards, large program proposals where the investigator is a leader of other scientific leaders, and R01 (NIH grant support for human health-related research) renewals from experienced investigators. Gender differences are found in these situations [13]. Between 2003 and 2007, experienced female investigators had significantly lower R01 funding success rates than did equivalent male applicants [14]. Similarly, in 2008, experienced female investigators who submitted Type 2 (renewal) R01 applications had significantly lower funding success rates than did equivalent male applicants [15]. Data from the NIH website show persistently lower Type 2 R01 or R01-equivalent success rates for women versus men, and there was no change after the 2009 change in scoring and critique structure (range, 2–8% lower; average, 5%) [13]. We examined written critiques of R01 proposals and found significant differences in those for applications submitted by male versus female investigators, despite similar scores or funding outcomes [16]. Consistent with implicitly lower performance expectations for women in science, peer reviewers offered more praise and acclamation for proposals from female investigators, and greater reference to competence and ability for funded proposals from experienced female investigators (i.e., this is amazing work for a woman scientist; she must have exceptional ability). Critiques for male applicants contained significantly more negative words. This is also consistent with stereotype-based assumptions causing a subtle adjustment of evaluative standards because it may require more proof of a man’s lack of competence in a male gender-typed domain for him to be deemed incompetent [1]. Although this is not an experimental study, the differences are those expected if gender stereotypes lead R01 reviewers to subtly adjust performance standards.
[/QUOTE]
And here’s a nicely depressing paper showing that, as with gender bias in every other context, men are resistant to believing that there is a real problem:
[QUOTE=Handley et al., PNAS 2015]
In all experiments, participants read an actual journal abstract reporting gender bias in a STEM context (or an altered abstract reporting no gender bias in experiment 3) and evaluated the overall quality of the research. Results across experiments showed that men evaluate the gender-bias research less favorably than women, and, of concern, this gender difference was especially prominent among STEM faculty (experiment 2).
[/QUOTE]
So, would you like some help to tell you what you’re talking about? Any idiotic right-wing link would have done the job.
Pay more attention to your work.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/07/18/assata-shakur-birthday-honored-by-womens-march-organizers.html
Big baby
Fragile moron.
If someone wished a 70-year-old convict in exile a happy birthday, how does that benefit her or pinch you in any way, much less discredit womens’ equality or whatever other ideas (guessing: also about equality) you hate?
“Some Women’s march thingie?” “Black Panthers?” Well, if Fox has found a way to put them in the same sentence, then Geez, better go hide under your bed.
Take your guesses and shove them up your ass. Take your strawman, light it on fire and shove that up there too.
Sorry. Missed the correct response.
To Dale Sams: Hi, stupid!
Now THAT I can’t dispute.
Does allowing racism and sexism make a country more money, or would economics inherently reduce reduce sexism and racism, and the government should have not gotten involved?
And, anyways, making more money does not make you better. China is a profoundly unhappy country. The countries that are happy don’t make as much money.
And you can’t tell me that money is more important than happiness. Rich people still commit suicide. Seems having money doesn’t override not being happy as an excuse to not keep on living.
The reason you guys like threads like these is that you can mock what you can’t actually argue against.
I have infinitely more respect for BigT than for you. You contribute precisely zero to any thread to which you post. At least BigT isn’t scared to voice an actual, you know, opinion.
Because I feel like stirring things up today: here is a screed by a 4chan user on why he doesn’t like so-called “SJWs”.
Those who’ve linked this have been, of course, very approving. The other side may not be. That’s up to you. But I would be interested if people like the OP agree as much as those who’ve linked and upvoted this (and, even more interesting, who agree with the OP but not with the screed).
OK, before I click on that, I need to consider that just a few posts back there was a link (I’m not fucking kidding) to Fox fucking “news”. Now, your link is billed as a screed by a 4chan user. Hell. [insert careful consideration time here] Alright, I’ll click it. What could it hurt, right?
My life has been blessed to learn random angry 4chan user’s opinion. Fuck me, I shoulda seen that coming a mile away.
Well, it seems that it’s commonly shared or cheered by those who share his POV, so now you know what kind of people created this thread. 
