[jjitz]

As someone who has gone through quite a few application processes in academia, I can say the results of this (subjective) survey:

> We followed up our research with a survey of 231 academics, asking for their attitudes towards discrimination in hiring to editorial boards. Although two-thirds of academics supported no bias, for every 1 academic who supported discrimination in favour of men, 11 supported discrimination in favour of women. Our results were consistent with the hypothesis that academics and journal editors are biased in favour of women, rather than against women

Do not surprise me at all, and qualitatively the bias favoring women has seemed to be true in my experience.

HOWEVER, it's very hard to give this paper any credibility when the authors are willing to casually drop a statement like

> As mentioned, the variance in intelligence is higher amongst males, and their average also seems to be somewhat higher

On the third page. I'm aware there have been one or two studies to this effect, but a quality like "intelligence" is so amorphous, and any attempts to measure it are surely met with confounding variables, and even if treated statistically carefully is such a controversial topic, it really just makes me feel like the authors performed this study with a certain agenda / chip on their shoulder. You may notice that both authors are men.

[jquery]

Indeed, it seems they went into the study with preconceived notions about the superiority of men. Garbage in, garbage out.

Edit: just looked up the author. yikes... https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Emil_O._W._Kirkegaard

[temp8964]

I almost confused your link with Wikipedia...

[jquery]

Wikipedia policy about biographies of living people prevents this kind of “expose” type article from being written.

[raxxorraxor]

With good reason in most cases.

[jquery]

I’m not very familiar with the reasoning behind Wikipedia’s decisions. In this case, the controversies seem highly relevant to the papers being churned up. I appreciate the effort the authors of the rationwiki article put forth. It’s distributed citizen journalism.

[user-]

> it really just makes me feel like the authors performed this study with a certain agenda / chip on their shoulder. You may notice that both authors are men.

I highly recommend you look up OpenPsych and Kirkegaard, and even the Ulster Institute of Social Research (and its president Richard Lynn). You will see the extremely obvious bias of the authors