An Evolutionary Theory for the Variability Hypothesis · HackerPapers discussions

An Evolutionary Theory for the Variability Hypothesis — mentioned by isaacfrond

Mon, 11 Jul 2022 07:28:15 GMT

The paper itself: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.04184.pdf

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

An Evolutionary Theory for the Variability Hypothesis — mentioned by microcolonel

Fri, 24 Apr 2020 16:04:35 GMT

> Greater male variance in humans has nothing to do with ... the the evolutionary benefits of sexual reproduction https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.04184

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

An Evolutionary Theory for the Variability Hypothesis — mentioned by mirimir

Mon, 24 Sep 2018 10:44:32 GMT

IANAL, and so have no opinion on the merits of her article. However, I have concerns about "topics that are 'too hot to handle'" in the sciences. For example, a recent thread[0] about Hill (2017) An elementary mathematical theory for the variability hypothesis.[1,2,3] And by the way, there's lots of great discussion in the comments on the Quillette article.[1] And it's interesting that the deleted NYJM paper is online.[2] So what, are there now two different papers at New York J. Math. 23 (2017) that begin at p. 1641? Strange. edit: Earlier versions of the preprint were apparently more…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

An Evolutionary Theory for the Variability Hypothesis — mentioned by pgeorgi

Mon, 10 Sep 2018 11:13:57 GMT

Theodore Hill (the paper's author) wrote about his side on https://quillette.com/2018/09/07/academic-activists-send-a-p... Somewhere in the middle he linked to the paper: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.04184.pdf From there you can get to its abstract page that also carries the versions: https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.04184

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

An Evolutionary Theory for the Variability Hypothesis — mentioned by DominikPeters

Sun, 09 Sep 2018 21:33:22 GMT

Interestingly, this has changed over the various versions. In v1 on arXiv, this statement is presented without proof (as Example 2.2). In v3, it is Example 3.3 and has received an extra sentence with a proof hint. In v5 (and still in v7 which is current) it has turned into a Proposition. So it seems likely to me that reviewers complained that there wasn't a proof in previous versions. [v1] https://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.04184v1.pdf [v3] https://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.04184v3.pdf [v5] https://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.04184v5.pdf

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

An Evolutionary Theory for the Variability Hypothesis — mentioned by thraway180306

Sat, 08 Sep 2018 22:00:21 GMT

The process, as told by the author, was that one of the editors invited to submit, and three weeks later it was published upon which the rest of the editorial board took notice and threatened resignation. By that telling it was published practically on the spot, especially for mathematics where things are famously glacially slow. Browsing through the journal one mostly sees submission and publication dates separated by many months. Last published paper in the current volume was received over a year before. But this paper made it in three weeks. So it was fast tracked by an editor. Editorial…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

An Evolutionary Theory for the Variability Hypothesis — mentioned by leiroigh

Sat, 08 Sep 2018 15:00:40 GMT

Skim the preprint https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.04184 , especially section 7. The article is not fit for publication in a mathematical journal, it is cosplaying as math. To cite: > The following simple proposition may be well known, but since no reference is known to the author, a proof is included for completeness. >Proposition 7.1. N(µ, σ1) is more variable than N(µ, σ2) if and only if σ1 > σ2. >Proof: [lots of lines] In a real mathematical paper, this claim would not be glorified into a numbered proposition, and it would not merit a proof; this amount of mathematical work is the distance…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

An Evolutionary Theory for the Variability Hypothesis — mentioned by brenschluss

Sat, 08 Sep 2018 04:04:51 GMT

The paper seems to have some egregious and basic errors. Take a look at the paper: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.04184.pdf On page 2, it says (in discussing Special Case 1): "If sex A is relatively selective and will mate only with the top most desirable quarter of sex B, then all of the next generation will be offspring of the more variable subpopulation B1" However, if you look at the histogram in Figure 1, it's clear that if sex A mates with the top most desirable quarter of sex B, then sex A is choosing most desirable mates who happened to be part of the subpopulation B1. That is, as…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

An Evolutionary Theory for the Variability Hypothesis — mentioned by DanAndersen

Sat, 08 Sep 2018 00:00:09 GMT

Direct arxiv link to the preprint in question: https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.04184 Kudos to the author for being brave enough to detail these events. Academia and the process of science has enough blind spots without needing activists in the mix to add their own. >“Several colleagues,” she wrote, had warned her that publication would provoke “extremely strong reactions” and there existed a “very real possibility that the right-wing media may pick this up and hype it internationally.” It's as if these people had never heard of the Streisand Effect. What would have been a stuffy publication of no…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

An Evolutionary Theory for the Variability Hypothesis — HN submission

Fri, 07 Sep 2018 23:33:47 GMT

An Evolutionary Theory for the Variability Hypothesis

49 points; 6 discussion replies on HN. Paper and source history. A submission is not an endorsement.