Nobel laureate forced out of studies after making joke about women

[Superbeast]

SNIP

I'm going to split this up to reply as I have different thoughts about the different events, if that's ok? Also, what level of education are we talking about - I saw "professor" and assumed either college (16-18) or university (18+) level.

The three instances I personally witnessed were more the professor making exceptions for the individual by giving them an opportunity to make up some work rather than simple grade inflation.

At the higher education establishments I have attended, if you wanted an extension you needed to get it from your faculty's Welfare Officer before the deadline of the assignment (barring extreme circumstances such as hospitalisation on submission day etc.). Once the deadline was passed you lost a certain percentage per day. The papers were delivered to administration staff and had to be submitted electronically to ensure that no-one was being given unfair extensions from a certain professor.

Grade inflation should be virtually impossible in a properly set up system too. Our professors did not mark our own work (it can even be people without any subject knowledge entirely marking to a mark-scheme) and then the papers are sent off for second marking/verification by independent adjudicators unaffiliated with the educational institution.

One of three the professor made an exception for the crying girl (after having told me no, but I wasn't crying) but gave the exception to the entire class to benefit from which I thought is the way to do it if you're going to do it ethically.

I suppose offering it to the whole class is better than select individuals. Also, he may well have refused you, but upon realising that more students had the same issue (implying errors of communication regarding the task on his end) changed his mind - after all, he did not just give it to the crying girl but the whole class. I really cannot say though as I was not there!

But that professor's problem was that his test questions mirrored the book's test questions but gave wrong/different answers. Why he told me no to begin with when I clearly showed those problems in the books having a different answer is beyond me. But I guess that's what to expect when a chemist tries to teach chemistry in a language he barely knows.

That is just bizarre, and I hope was taken up with other members of the chemistry staff, even if not in an official capacity. Surely the answers could not have been that different either, given that chemical structures and mathematical formulae don't change in translation (or was it all text-based explanatory answers)? If the language barrier was that severe then it does create questions about what they were doing teaching there in the first place!

It all seems so odd given my experiences in education. Hopefully from me explaining my own position and experience you can see why I thought your claims odd.

 

[Lightknight]

Yeah, women are far more likely to cry in response to criticism. It's a natural defense mechanism that totally works and it isn't even "manipulative" or "bad" because it is entirely automatic (for the most part).

You have proof of that, or is this simply adding stereotype upon stereotype? Or is this is sarcasm? I cannot tell with this one.

What? It's an incredibly well documented and heavily studied sex-based behavior differentiator.

Here's the first summary of the disparity I found.

http://www.sacredheartspectrum.com/news/view.php/663981/The-Crying-Game-Why-Women-Cry-More-Than-

SNIP

http://www.apa.org/monitor/2014/02/cry.aspx

SNIP

Do you understand the difference between a study and an article? I asked for PROOF, not a page of what you thought, as written by people who think like you.

What? Those were articles citing and describing numerous studies and their findings.

Do you really think the American Psychological Association thinks like me?

I don't know, I don't know how you think compared to an enormous organization. It may be that you think like the article's author however. You didn't need that obvious attempt to shift the weight of authority from the author to the organization though; those twin fallacies were implicit in your original citation.

Thanks, because they're usually right and are a definitive source on this kind of topic.

And there is the move from citing proof, to sharing an article, to a fallacy of an appeal to authority.

Here's some of the cited studies from the APA article that you clearly couldn't be bothered to read:

Individual study conclusions taken in isolation may or may not make the strong point the article's author tried to make. It is a very old and very boring trick, to "Cite" something you can't cite, then cherrypick from the sources. I imagine even online, most people are tired of that game.

Lauren Bylsma, PhD, of the University of Pittsburgh (Journal of Research in Personality, 2011 (they also referenced the 1980 study by biochemist William H. Frey, PhD that mirrored the same results). These studies found that women cry four times as much as men.

http://ccr.sagepub.com/content/45/4/399.short (in which women cry more than men across all cultures and societies)

http://www.epjournal.net/articles/emotional-tears-facilitate-the-recognition-of-sadness-and-the-perceived-need-for-social-support/ (In which a clear biological advantage is established for people who display tears than people who don't)

All of the points I made were entirely sourced and cited. You've got no leg to stand on here.

See above.

Rates of women crying, as opposed to rates of women crying as a means to manipulate (and of course the trouble with trying to pigeonhole more than 3.5 billion diverse individuals) is not interesting or relevant.

The studies I presented show that women cry under stress. One of the articles discussed how this is an issue in the workplace and linked to organizations and resources that help women learn how not to cry at work.

I'm not sure what more you want.

Proof.

If official peer-reviewed studies and pro-women articles written by women aimed at assisting women with this issue isn't enough then maybe it's time for you to put up your own articles proving your counterpoint that women don't cry at work or under stress in far higher numbers than men. Good luck.

Not really what you offered, just what you tried to APPEAR to offer. Does this usually work on this forum?

So then no, you don't have any information or evidence to support your claims that the studies I presented which are widely accepted as accurate aren't?

Ok, that's all you had to say. Have fun with that. If you won't accept official studies or present ones of your own then you and I don't have anything further to discuss since you're dismissing scientific evidence without providing any counterpoints.

 

[Lightknight]

SNIP

I'm going to split this up to reply as I have different thoughts about the different events, if that's ok? Also, what level of education are we talking about - I saw "professor" and assumed either college (16-18) or university (18+) level.

College, University to be specific. B.A. and B.S. disciplines though I've heard similar trustworthy sources make the same claim in the local community college (I'm friends with a few professors there and talked to them about my experiences with weak professors).

At the higher education establishments I have attended, if you wanted an extension you needed to get it from your faculty's Welfare Officer before the deadline of the assignment (barring extreme circumstances such as hospitalisation on submission day etc.). Once the deadline was passed you lost a certain percentage per day. The papers were delivered to administration staff and had to be submitted electronically to ensure that no-one was being given unfair extensions from a certain professor.

Grade inflation should be virtually impossible in a properly set up system too. Our professors did not mark our own work (it can even be people without any subject knowledge entirely marking to a mark-scheme) and then the papers are sent off for second marking/verification by independent adjudicators unaffiliated with the educational institution.

Basically, professors were little Dukes of their own domain. If you wanted an exception or to complain then you would reach out to them directly or go to their office during office hours.

I suppose offering it to the whole class is better than select individuals. Also, he may well have refused you, but upon realising that more students had the same issue (implying errors of communication regarding the task on his end) changed his mind - after all, he did not just give it to the crying girl but the whole class. I really cannot say though as I was not there!

She was the fourth student in line after that test. I was the only student that got a passing grade that year and I'm ashamed to admit it may have been because I knew his daughter.

Regardless, that was the last year he worked there. The entire class ended up going to the dean on him. This was but one of the many problems he caused from lack of attendance to answering his phone in class and proceeding to talk for 30 minutes.

Boy oh boy was he the worst professor I've ever had.

That is just bizarre, and I hope was taken up with other members of the chemistry staff, even if not in an official capacity. Surely the answers could not have been that different either, given that chemical structures and mathematical formulae don't change in translation (or was it all text-based explanatory answers)? If the language barrier was that severe then it does create questions about what they were doing teaching there in the first place!

He was actually an esteemed chemist and brilliant at it. It just didn't end up translating into teaching. The professor was responsible for finding a fairly useful molecule that is currently being implemented in some neat areas of science so I assume the college thought he was worth having as a research professor. He was a lot better at explaining his personal area of study.

It all seems so odd given my experiences in education. Hopefully from me explaining my own position and experience you can see why I thought your claims odd.

Yeah, sounds like your experience was really tightened down. Was it a university, community college or something else?

 

[Superbeast]

Basically, professors were little Dukes of their own domain. If you wanted an exception or to complain then you would reach out to them directly or go to their office during office hours.

She was the fourth student in line after that test. I was the only student that got a passing grade that year and I'm ashamed to admit it may have been because I knew his daughter.

Regardless, that was the last year he worked there. The entire class ended up going to the dean on him. This was but one of the many problems he caused from lack of attendance to answering his phone in class and proceeding to talk for 30 minutes.

Boy oh boy was he the worst professor I've ever had.

Bloody hell, he sounds like he was awful. Were people paying to attend the institution he taught at? That's not to say this level of behaviour is fine if its free, but that it must have been galling to think about how much you were paying to be stuck with someone so dire, given how expensive education can be these days.

He was actually an esteemed chemist and brilliant at it. It just didn't end up translating into teaching. The professor was responsible for finding a fairly useful molecule that is currently being implemented in some neat areas of science so I assume the college thought he was worth having as a research professor. He was a lot better at explaining his personal area of study.

Yeah, unfortunately just being an expert in your field does not mean you can teach. Incidentally, the government of my country had been talking about getting industry experts to teach without having to qualify as teachers - this kind of thing is why I am massively against that idea. That's not to disparage his scientific achievements, but rather that teaching requires a certain skill-set that he may not have had.

Yeah, sounds like your experience was really tightened down. Was it a university, community college or something else?

Two different universities, both for B.A. level degrees (Biochemistry & Biological Chemistry, Classical Literature and Civilisations). Lower levels of education also had independent marking of exams.

 

[Olas]

Jesus Christ! Seriously?

Boo him. Call him a dick. Don't invite him to your next dinner party. Send him hate mail if you're really butthurt and have nothing better to do. But firing him? Over a single, somewhat off=color joke?

What's more important to this institution? Academic achievement? Or having never offended anybody ever? Even in a joke. Priorities.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Jesus Christ! Seriously?

Boo him. Call him a dick. Don't invite him to your next dinner party. Send him hate mail if you're really butthurt and have nothing better to do. But firing him? Over a single, somewhat off=color joke?

What's more important to this institution? Academic achievement? Or having never offended anybody ever? Even in a joke. Priorities.

As mentioned several times, he later clarified the joke by saying it was all true. And the job that he was fired from was representing the institution, not doing anything actually academic.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

As mentioned several times, he later clarified the joke by saying it was all true. And the job that he was fired from was representing the institution, not doing anything actually academic.

Pretty much. Even then ... yeah,you can be fired from any job for being unprofessional. Science is not some lone figure in the laboratory. It's teams upon teams of co-ordinated research groups who are supposed to work together. Also, I quite like the hypocrisy in people's arguments here. "He was talking about women being overemotional, and their outburst proves it ... lol!" Really...? It ranks up there with; "I called the police officer an egotistical pig when he pulled me over for a warning, and then he ticketed me!"

Funnily enough if you go on like a sexist fuckwit, you're going to be treated like a sexist fuckwit. His non-pology did nothing but pour salt on his situation. Saying women have lower capacity in (insert career field here) because they're overemotional, and then confirming those biases in your non-pology, is ground for termination in any other industry ...

Science is a cooperative field. You have teams of people working to a single goal. Having dinosaurs treat one half of the species as unworthy of being treated as equals is bad business in a field that relies on international coordination and cooperative engagement. Which is why such rhetoric has been treated as contemptuous.

Once again his job was about image (not science). It's often weird how people don't seem to entertain (particularly after his non-pology) the possibility that maybe, just maybe, it was a sexist pig relieved of a job for being sexist. Like, you know, a thousand other fuckwits in business who companies get rid off because they're problematic in terms of their image.

 

[Lightknight]

As mentioned several times, he later clarified the joke by saying it was all true. And the job that he was fired from was representing the institution, not doing anything actually academic.

Yep, it is scientifically true that women cry four times as much as men and are specifically far more likely to do so under stressful situations like having your work criticized.

He made a factually accurate joke. Are we complaining that he said women cry or that men fall in love with women?

Yeah, women are far more likely to cry in response to criticism. It's a natural defense mechanism that totally works and it isn't even "manipulative" or "bad" because it is entirely automatic (for the most part).

You have proof of that, or is this simply adding stereotype upon stereotype? Or is this is sarcasm? I cannot tell with this one.

What? It's an incredibly well documented and heavily studied sex-based behavior differentiator.

Here's the first summary of the disparity I found.

http://www.sacredheartspectrum.com/news/view.php/663981/The-Crying-Game-Why-Women-Cry-More-Than-

SNIP

http://www.apa.org/monitor/2014/02/cry.aspx

SNIP

Do you understand the difference between a study and an article? I asked for PROOF, not a page of what you thought, as written by people who think like you.

What? Those were articles citing and describing numerous studies and their findings.

Do you really think the American Psychological Association thinks like me?

I don't know, I don't know how you think compared to an enormous organization. It may be that you think like the article's author however. You didn't need that obvious attempt to shift the weight of authority from the author to the organization though; those twin fallacies were implicit in your original citation.

Thanks, because they're usually right and are a definitive source on this kind of topic.

And there is the move from citing proof, to sharing an article, to a fallacy of an appeal to authority.

Here's some of the cited studies from the APA article that you clearly couldn't be bothered to read:

Individual study conclusions taken in isolation may or may not make the strong point the article's author tried to make. It is a very old and very boring trick, to "Cite" something you can't cite, then cherrypick from the sources. I imagine even online, most people are tired of that game.

Lauren Bylsma, PhD, of the University of Pittsburgh (Journal of Research in Personality, 2011 (they also referenced the 1980 study by biochemist William H. Frey, PhD that mirrored the same results). These studies found that women cry four times as much as men.

http://ccr.sagepub.com/content/45/4/399.short (in which women cry more than men across all cultures and societies)

http://www.epjournal.net/articles/emotional-tears-facilitate-the-recognition-of-sadness-and-the-perceived-need-for-social-support/ (In which a clear biological advantage is established for people who display tears than people who don't)

All of the points I made were entirely sourced and cited. You've got no leg to stand on here.

See above.

Rates of women crying, as opposed to rates of women crying as a means to manipulate (and of course the trouble with trying to pigeonhole more than 3.5 billion diverse individuals) is not interesting or relevant.

The studies I presented show that women cry under stress. One of the articles discussed how this is an issue in the workplace and linked to organizations and resources that help women learn how not to cry at work.

I'm not sure what more you want.

Proof.

If official peer-reviewed studies and pro-women articles written by women aimed at assisting women with this issue isn't enough then maybe it's time for you to put up your own articles proving your counterpoint that women don't cry at work or under stress in far higher numbers than men. Good luck.

Not really what you offered, just what you tried to APPEAR to offer. Does this usually work on this forum?

So then no, you don't have any information or evidence to support your claims that the studies I presented which are widely accepted as accurate aren't?

Ok, that's all you had to say. Have fun with that. If you won't accept official studies or present ones of your own then you and I don't have anything further to discuss since you're dismissing scientific evidence without providing any counterpoints.

I'm glad to see you added to your post, it was a little thin. It's a shame it's all a lie as to what I said, but I'm not expecting more.

Look, here's what you can do. Say what was a lie, specifically, then provide evidence for your side to establish it as an incorrect statement. Do you have any evidence to back up whatever your claim is? If so, you've been pretty mum on it. What sort of proof are you accepting aside from peer reviewed studies? Do you need me to conduct the study with you (present)so that you can personally witness all of the samples in a study? Will you only accept studies where you have personally caressed the moist cheek of the samples and tasted the salt? I mean, seriously, what do you consider to be evidence or proof if you do not accept the wealth of knowledge that all of academia has accrued on the subject? It would be one thing if there were conflicting studies. But there isn't. There's a ton of studies and all of them point the same way. Women cry four times as much as men and in response to stress which men aren't prone to.

Every study has been verified and re-verified over decades on the topic. The burden of proof is on you to counter the claim with actual legitimate proof of your own that all of these studies deny existence of. Handwaving and posturing just isn't going to cut it here if you want to have a serious discussion.

 

[Lightknight]

Bloody hell, he sounds like he was awful. Were people paying to attend the institution he taught at? That's not to say this level of behaviour is fine if its free, but that it must have been galling to think about how much you were paying to be stuck with someone so dire, given how expensive education can be these days.

We were financially compensated for the course. The only thing they didn't give us back was our time. A few of the students had been kind enough to catalogue and record instances of him not showing up, cancelling at the last moment, and even a few lengthy cell phone conversations he had while we just sat there in amazement at his audacity.

Yeah, unfortunately just being an expert in your field does not mean you can teach. Incidentally, the government of my country had been talking about getting industry experts to teach without having to qualify as teachers - this kind of thing is why I am massively against that idea. That's not to disparage his scientific achievements, but rather that teaching requires a certain skill-set that he may not have had.

I think they just needed him to be a researcher and not a research professor. For someone as high up in the industry as he was they probably thought they could leverage his name for the class. I mean, Hell, that's why I went with him. I thought I was getting an education from one of the leaders of the field, and I was, but he sucked at it. It's hit or miss to be honest. Most of the other professors I went with because of their experience in their field really paid off. So I can see why the University at least tries the person out.

Two different universities, both for B.A. level degrees (Biochemistry & Biological Chemistry, Classical Literature and Civilisations). Lower levels of education also had independent marking of exams.

Hah! Then I'm very pleased my main example was of a Chemistry professor.

From some of your language use I'm guessing that you may not be American. Though I should mention for future conversations that while your Classical Literature and Civilisations degree would be a "B.A.", your Biochemistry & Biological Chemistry degree would be a "B.S.". B.A. is a Bachelor of Arts, B.S. is a Bachelor of Science. Here in American anyways.

For the most part, we don't have a problem with the setup here. If a student has any problem with the professor then they can get their work scored (marked) independently upon request.

 

[Silvanus]

Not sure whether this has been posted here yet, but an account by the European Commission was leaked and published in The Times [http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/science/article4478368.ece] (Note: The Times is behind a paywall, but this Independent column [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/richard-dawkins-demands-apology-from-sir-tim-hunts-critics-and-claims-leaked-transcript-shows-sexist-comments-were-lighthearted-banter-10341160.html] includes a lot of the pertinent details).

This is the wider context surrounding the remark;

"It?s strange that such a chauvinist monster like me has been asked to speak to women scientists. Let me tell you about my trouble with girls. Three things happen when they are in the lab: you fall in love with them, they fall in love with you, and when you criticise them they cry. Perhaps we should make separate labs for boys and girls?

Now seriously, I?m impressed by the economic development of Korea. And women scientists played, without doubt an important role in it. Science needs women and you should do science despite all the obstacles, and despite monsters like me.?

Emphasis mine.

Anyway, I'm not offering a particular opinion of my own right here, but it's highly relevant information, and (many would argue) changes the tone.

 

[Silvanus]

Yeah, it's all better if someone says, "Jews are filthy and greedy, but you can't run banks without them." Such a gentile monster now.

I specifically said I wasn't giving an opinion on the information, and avoided doing so. I'm simply giving information which-- as this is in part an argument which concerns tone-- is clearly relevant.

That hyperbole is misdirected. Point it somewhere else.

 

[Silvanus]

I disagree. In my experience his tone and content match a very typical pattern of those in power publicly shitting on those without power, with a grin. The content he expressed and his later clarification don't leave room for tone to play a role in interpretation, even with you offering it as "Just Asking Questions".

Fine. Other people may disagree with you, and most would say we're generally better off discussing snippets of dialogue if we have the context.

On a side-note, this may be the quickest escalation to outright hostility I've experienced in quite some time on this site, and that's saying a lot. Generally it'll take more than just the one post.

 

[Lightknight]

As mentioned several times, he later clarified the joke by saying it was all true. And the job that he was fired from was representing the institution, not doing anything actually academic.

Yep, it is scientifically true that women cry four times as much as men and are specifically far more likely to do so under stressful situations like having your work criticized.

He made a factually accurate joke. Are we complaining that he said women cry or that men fall in love with women?

If it's factually true, then why can't you prove it? You've tried, and even you didn't try to call it "proof". It's your opinion, you should stop presenting it as fact. A reasonable person would conclude either that you're mistaken or being intentionally deceptive.

You know what? I've got time, I'm just going to keep playing your game. Here are some of the studies that were referenced by the articles. They are actual evidence that women cry more than men by a fair margin and specifically when under stress whereas men are far less likely to cry when under stress or at all. Now, I already cited these studies, so if you do not belief that this wealth of information that is universally accepted in academia is correct, feel free to tell me what constitutes fact.

Lauren Bylsma, PhD, of the University of Pittsburgh (Journal of Research in Personality, 2011 (they also referenced the 1980 study by biochemist William H. Frey, PhD that mirrored the same results). These studies found that women cry four times as much as men.

http://ccr.sagepub.com/content/45/4/399.short (in which women cry more than men across all cultures and societies)

http://www.epjournal.net/articles/emotional-tears-facilitate-the-recognition-of-sadness-and-the-perceived-need-for-social-support/ (In which a clear biological advantage is established for people who display tears than people who don't)

I mean, this is so universally established that researchers have moved on from proving that women cry more and instead have begun to research how it impacts their jobs and ways to mitigate the damage it can cause in a work place:

<youtube=StKNjNjpR_k>

That's the first of a multiple part series on the impact/consequences of women crying in the workplace as a natural response to stress.

Here's an article detailing the findings of one of the foremost researchers in the subject who had studied the topic since the 1980s (he's also the guy that proved that emotional tears contain stress-related hormones whereas tears due to something like onions does not):

http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2012-06-29/its-my-office-and-ill-cry-if-i-want-to

That's Frey of the 1980 study I cited above that was recently confirmed in 2011 by Lauren Bylsma, PhD, of the University of Pittsburgh in the Journal of Research in Personality

It isn't that women are wimps, or weaker than men emotionally. It's just a series of facts, PROOF, that I've already mentioned:

1. Women's tear ducts are shaped in a way that encourages tear formation whereas men's tear ducts are meant to hold as much tear material as possible. So men more regularly get misty eyed and women more regularly full-on cry.
2. Women have a much higher level of the hormone prolactin which is present in stress or emotional tears. They have 60% more concentration of it than men. Boys and girls have the same levels and are known to cry at similar rates until the age of 12 where prolactin increases in females.
3. At puberty men also start to have increased levels of testosterone which has been linked with decreasing tearing up too.
4. Women cry four times more than men.
5. Women crying is seen the same way as when we see babies crying. It triggers a desire to protect and help.
6. Women are more likely to cry due to stress than men.

This is actually a known problem for women in the workforce. The academic community has responded to this by establishing seminars on how to avoid crying, seminars discussing the negative impacts of crying, and seminars on how company culture needs to stop looking at crying as weakness or instability.

What a lot of NOT proof.

Did I miss you presenting any counter-proof to the studies I already cited?

Please, cite specific examples that you think are false. Then, I want you to give me the same courtesy I've been giving you and cite evidence backing up your claim that these academic professionals are wrong and that despite the entire academic community backing up everything I've been saying with no detractions.

 

[Lightknight]

Not sure whether this has been posted here yet, but an account by the European Commission was leaked and published in The Times [http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/science/article4478368.ece] (Note: The Times is behind a paywall, but this Independent column [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/richard-dawkins-demands-apology-from-sir-tim-hunts-critics-and-claims-leaked-transcript-shows-sexist-comments-were-lighthearted-banter-10341160.html] includes a lot of the pertinent details).

This is the wider context surrounding the remark;

"It?s strange that such a chauvinist monster like me has been asked to speak to women scientists. Let me tell you about my trouble with girls. Three things happen when they are in the lab: you fall in love with them, they fall in love with you, and when you criticise them they cry. Perhaps we should make separate labs for boys and girls?

Now seriously, I?m impressed by the economic development of Korea. And women scientists played, without doubt an important role in it. Science needs women and you should do science despite all the obstacles, and despite monsters like me.?

Emphasis mine.

Anyway, I'm not offering a particular opinion of my own right here, but it's highly relevant information, and (many would argue) changes the tone altogether.

Whoa, that's a major shift in tone and context. That certainly explains why he said it at all.

Yeah, it's all better if someone says, "Jews are filthy and greedy, but you can't run banks without them." Such a gentile monster now.

This is hardly the same as this. It's a joke followed by a "But seriously...", implying that the first was purely in jest and that women play a vital role in the lab.

Sorry you didn't find it funny, but not only is the joke anchored in a real and known gender difference but it certainly wasn't equivalent to anti-Semitism. You just went Godwin's law up in here.