So this is a collection of real, peer-reviewed academic papers from the humanities programs. This has been the main source of leisure for me and my SO the past week. At nighttime...we can't bring ourselves to go to bed. 'Let's just read ONE more!'

Even if you trend towards politically correct views....I still think you will find this endlessly hilarious. It's basically a collection of abstracts that will have you shaking your head and laughing out loud. We were shocked. And entertained.

Here's a taste of 13 examples:

http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/11/13-of-the-dumbest-academic-papers-to-actually-get-published/

And here's the masterlist. Thousands of abstracts here:

http://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/peerreviewedgarbage/real_peerreview.html

It's important to note that these are largely thesis and doctorate papers. IE not 'I need to write an essay this weekend'. In most cases, people spent months/years on these things.

The researchers found that stripper's got more tips when they were more fertile.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090513807000694
I could just see them using them telling their wife "Sorry honey I have to go down to the strip club because Kandie is fertile and I need to see how many tips she gets"

I also saw a paper that men in New Zealand prefer medium size areolas while men from Papua New Guinea prefer large areolas. I found that paper after I discovered that my then girlfriend/current wife has big areolas. That got me thinking whether there is a genetic cause for areola size. She was planning a trip to New Zealand with her girlfriends so I sent the paper to her and told her that she would be getting no love from the New Zealand men.

One of the most shocking running themes was the fact that women's studies programs discourage quantitative analysis. That 'numbers and statistics and other fact-orientated methodologies are patriarchal'. So a diary entry about one's THOUGHTS on a subject are valued higher than actual data gathering. And in some cases....data gathering is considered counter-productive.

And then I considered the whole family getting together for graduation. The grandparents are there....everyone is crying...'We're so proud of you' etc etc etc. Meanwhile...their big 'research' thesis paper consisted of something like this:

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1077800416684773?journalCode=qixa

My daughter's going to University soon. This shit was eye-opening. I already planted a seed in her by sharing some of these links with her. I want her to be able to put up some resistance when she encounters this bullcrap. This is a cult and the content matter is pure dogma. I'm starting to think that three years spent on this garbage will actually hinder one's intellectual development and make them LESS prepared to navigate the real world.

>One of the most shocking running themes was the fact that
>women's studies programs discourage quantitative analysis.
>That 'numbers and statistics and other fact-orientated
>methodologies are patriarchal'. So a diary entry about one's
>THOUGHTS on a subject are valued higher than actual data
>gathering. And in some cases....data gathering is considered
>counter-productive.

I didn't know this. But this puts a recent conversation with this black feminist I've been flirting with in perspective. She knew nothing about the subject in what she had an opinion on. I, who lives in that world day in and out, tried to tell her that her understanding of it was wrong. and she just shut it down.

I brushed it off as her being a person whom just wants to listen to things that affirm things she already believes, regardless of how untrue it is.

But with hearing this, along with some other instances that stuck out in my head, it all makes since

happiness is a mediocre standard for a middle class existence - S. Williams

I don't not like you because you have dumb ideas about the world, I don't like you because you have other people's dumb ideas about the world. - Rjcc

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

If this shit doesn't at least make you crack a smile then you are truly miserable.

C'mon man. Smile:

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1077800416636754

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

But there's always someone who's suffered more than you have:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1755458613000352

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

The ultimate goal of the piece is, 'lolz, look how unintellectuals these intellectuals are' to push the equivalency narrative.

Particularly in the era of fake news I look at the sources before I even read an article nowadays.

A broken clock is right twice a day, nahmean? It's why I find the whole 'PC culture has run amok' when we've been cracking jokes on vegan eating 'ashe ashe' poetry reading bohos for twenty years on the boards. The nuts on the left are nothing new; them being trotted out as the equivalent loonies to nazi skinheads tho...

I mean a site founded by Tucker Carlson as a source.

---------------------------
Signature

lol Plus...the presumption that this phenomenon is the same from 20 years ago and nothing's changed is based on what?

There are a lot of people that have worked in these institutions for decades that are warning us things HAVE changed. Especially in the past 5 years.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

Childish, naive anti-intellectualism as a political weapon. Specifically, a weapon against the hard science and economics that might stand in the way of the right wing agenda.

No, it's not funny.

I had no idea how bad it's gotten.

Because you're reading explicitly anti-academic articles in the Daily Caller and laughing at titles and abstracts out of context.

Why would anyone care about intersectional feminist theory?
Why would anyone care about the sociology of religion?
Why are people putting shrimps on treadmills?
Why are taxpayers funding 'research' into global warming and alternative energy?
These eggheads think they know something about the economics of health care and the minimum wage, but they don't know shit! We need more job creators.

That's the agenda you're trying to spread here, whether you're aware of it or not.

These abstracts are explicitly anti-science.

There's absolutely no association between this list and climate change denial. And there's absolutely NOTHING anti-intellectual about real peer review. They're attacking anti-intellectual ideas.

that seems to be prevalent nowadays.

A lot of people seem to believe that time and money is just wasted if it's not focused on anything not super applied and practical.

Like look at these losers studying culture and human behavior. Why don't they study how to build bridges?
Why are they studying the mating behavior of seals? How does that affect my pocketbook?

_______________________________________

Almost every one of those abstracts contains the foundational belief that quantitative analysis should be de-emphasized in favor of qualitative analysis (in the form of autoethnography which is essentially a diary entry). Is this an intellectual belief or an anti-intellectual belief?

The list is compiled to show the underlying foundation of their methodologies. It self-proclaims to be anti-science, anti-statistics and pro-storytelling. It's not that sociology and feminism are not worthwhile pursuits....it's that conflict theory has taken them over and they've become inherently anti-intellectual and dogmatic. I've taken a sociology 101 course (20 years ago). Conflict theory was one of three approaches used (conflict theory, symbolic interactionism and classicalism). Classical modes of sociology use quantitative analysis to prove their claims. That's not what's happening now.
They've all gone anti-science.

I saw nothing that said quantitative should be de-emphasized over qualitative. I just seeing people doing qualitative work and that upsets some people's sensibilities for some reason.

I'm sure there are outlets for quantitative work in these fields as well. I've seen it. I had sociology students in my econometrics classes. They can coexist.


>Almost every one of those abstracts contains the foundational
>belief that quantitative analysis should be de-emphasized in
>favor of qualitative analysis (in the form of autoethnography
>which is essentially a diary entry). Is this an intellectual
>belief or an anti-intellectual belief?
>
>The list is compiled to show the underlying foundation of
>their methodologies. It self-proclaims to be anti-science,
>anti-statistics and pro-storytelling. It's not that sociology
>and feminism are not worthwhile pursuits....it's that conflict
>theory has taken them over and they've become inherently
>anti-intellectual and dogmatic. I've taken a sociology 101
>course (20 years ago). Conflict theory was one of three
>approaches used (conflict theory, symbolic interactionism and
>classicalism). Classical modes of sociology use quantitative
>analysis to prove their claims. That's not what's happening
>now.
>They've all gone anti-science.

_______________________________________

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1755458613000352

Again...one of thousands.

20 years ago...if you wanted to make a claim about violence and masculinity in team sports practice...you'd have to do more than write a diary entry about the time you sprained your ankle during soccer practice.

If you wanted to write a paper about workplace discrimination against women....you'd have to do more than interview 3 of your friends.

This is what I mean about the emphasis of qualitative analysis. It's in almost every one of the thousands of abstracts provided. And there are more than 50 examples provided in which the de-emphasis of quantitative analysis is IN the abstract itself. The students are being taught that FACTS and NUMBERS are colonial, heteronormative and patriarchal values. They are actively discouraged from using facts and numbers and statistics.

Or what you're trying to show me by posting it again.

I don't understand it because, like I said before, this is not my world. It would be like someone throwing a theoretical physics paper at me. It would mean nothing to me at all.

But what I was able to understand was that it is not trying to make any kind of claim at all. Nowhere in the pages I skimmed did it have some hypothesis it was trying to provide evidence for.
Maybe that is what you are uncomfortable with?

Show me examples of this:

And there are more than 50 examples
>provided in which the de-emphasis of quantitative analysis is
>IN the abstract itself.

_______________________________________

Which, by definition, has no quantitative analysis. It's a blog or diary entry. Call me old-fashioned...but I believe that claims made in academic papers should be proven by evidence. Not anecdotes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoethnography

An excerpt: Autoethnographers, therefore, tend to reject the concept of social research as an objective and neutral knowledge produced by scientific methods, which can be characterized and achieved by detachment of the researcher from the researched.

In short, it's anti-science.

I'll try to provide a series of links that you requested.

I see a right-wing fuck making snide remarks about people's profile photos, or about people doing academic research on sharia, or just internet funnyboy quips about single highlighted lines in abstracts.

I haven't come across anything in this list that appears anti-quantitative. In fact, what I see when I look at this list is someone who's just as likely to mock my extremely quantitative research online, and to call on the NSF to stop funding it.

The 'it's none of your business' argument is somewhat anti-intellectual isn't it?

They're talking about your field here:

https://twitter.com/RealPeerReview/status/777564353096617986

The 'it's none of your/my business' argument sounds pretty anti-intellectual to me.

But I'm assuming you can chime in on this:

https://twitter.com/RealPeerReview/status/777564353096617986

as you attempt to fake a real discussion to cover propaganda.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

>The 'it's none of your/my business' argument sounds pretty
>anti-intellectual to me.

I honestly don't know what you're getting at here.

What seems anti-intellectual to me is the implicit claim among the sources you keep linking to that if academic papers don't match up with someone's childish preconceived notions, then they must be vacuous nonsense.

>But I'm assuming you can chime in on this:
>
>https://twitter.com/RealPeerReview/status/777564353096617986

The philosophy and sociology of science are rich and complex subjects, and the meaning and purpose of the "scientific method" has been a perennial topic of discussion. Beyond that I don't have anything to say, because I don't know anything about the context of that particular paper.

>
>>The 'it's none of your/my business' argument sounds pretty
>>anti-intellectual to me.
>
>I honestly don't know what you're getting at here.

You said 'it's not my field nor is it yours' which I took to imply our readings of these abstracts aren't relevant or valid. I have a degree in philosophy and I've studied sociology and gender theory, queer theory (haven't studied critical race theory but I've read alot). But I don't see how that should make a difference.


>What seems anti-intellectual to me is the implicit claim among
>the sources you keep linking to that if academic papers don't
>match up with someone's childish preconceived notions, then
>they must be vacuous nonsense.

Well, my contention is the standard I'm employing isn't a childish preconceived notion....it's the intellectual tradition of critical thinking and rationality. I mean...several of these papers literally attack the concepts of rationality and critical thinking as a 'white' and 'male' and 'heterosexual' complex that need fixing.


>>But I'm assuming you can chime in on this:
>>
>>https://twitter.com/RealPeerReview/status/777564353096617986
>
>The philosophy and sociology of science are rich and complex
>subjects, and the meaning and purpose of the "scientific
>method" has been a perennial topic of discussion. Beyond that
>I don't have anything to say, because I don't know anything
>about the context of that particular paper.

Abstracts are supposed to convey the context of a particular paper. And I can't help but feel that you're playing dumb here. I apologize because it's kinda cheap to refer to your motivations....but they are suggesting the abandonment of the scientific method. I....er....uh....really?

so....I'm going to have to hear both sides here.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

Putting "study" in sneer quotes is for tired oafs. And don't think it's not noticeable that a pretty large portion of these are attempting to unpack some of the implications of systematic racism. That one on black people and the outdoors actually sounds pretty important.

I finished my dissertation in November and graduated two weeks ago. Every time I look at my account balance, I am totally aware that 99.9% of the population doesn't give a shit about my research. And that's fine. I'll make my goofball students call me "doctor" for a few more classes until that gets old and resume my regular, dumb life. But any mouthbreathing semi-literate that writes or disseminates an article like this just to piss on people's work is awful.

______________________________

"Walleye, a lot of things are going to go wrong in your life that technically aren't your fault. Always remember that this doesn't make you any less of an idiot"

--Walleye's Dad

>Putting "study" in sneer quotes is for tired oafs. And don't
>think it's not noticeable that a pretty large portion of these
>are attempting to unpack some of the implications of
>systematic racism. That one on black people and the outdoors
>actually sounds pretty important.
>
>I finished my dissertation in November and graduated two weeks
>ago. Every time I look at my account balance, I am totally
>aware that 99.9% of the population doesn't give a shit about
>my research. And that's fine. I'll make my goofball students
>call me "doctor" for a few more classes until that gets old
>and resume my regular, dumb life. But any mouthbreathing
>semi-literate that writes or disseminates an article like this
>just to piss on people's work is awful.


Agreed (and congrats). Denny happy to give his faux-dissertations in okp posts and typically off-centered..like the supposed off ones he is mocking in this website

Noone is being misquoted. Their abstracts are being linked. If they felt secure and proud of their work why would this be an issue?

There's been an argument made that goes something like 'It's not fair to link these abstracts to those outside of that particular field to the general public'. This is hilariously similar to those who practice scientology and their claims that the media misrepresents them.

'Of course it sounds ridiculous to the general public. They haven't learned all of our presuppositions and re-definitions yet'. This is a pretty good sign one has been indoctrinated in a dogma. Also, referring to those that haven't 'heard the good news' as mouth-breathing semi-illiterates is ALSO a good sign you've been indoctrinated in dogma.

BTW...the people behind reel peer review are a collection of mostly non-white, non-american STEM TA's and professors. Not that it should matter...but it certainly does in the world they are critiquing.

Here is a good example:

https://youtu.be/kasiov0ytEc?t=635

It's the way they're taken out of context and poorly interpreted once they hit the wild.

The stripper/ovulation one is a good example. It's a pretty interesting thing to find out about how we affect each other's behaviours subconsciously or even entirely unconsciously in the same way that other animals without our "higher brain function" do - the woodlouse moving away from a lightbulb or the moth flying towards it. It's another demonstration of how our choices are not really "our own", even if we *feel* like we played an active role in making them.

But yeah, it concerns itself with strippers having periods. Must be hilarious, right?

_______________________________

))<>((
forever.

The peer review was started and maintained by Stem professors and assistants. Yes...social relevance is sometimes the motivation. Far more often, the motivation is how these papers openly refuse to adhere to the intellectual tradition.

I can't recall the paper you cited...but what is the methodology employed to prove it's claims? That might be why they are critiquing it. For example....interviewing 3 strippers (not randomly chosen either) would be an example of a faulty methodology.

http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/974/2124

Sorry, my interpretation of this is 'We don't want our claims to be bound to the burden of evidence. We'd prefer being able to make claims freely'. The truth of a claim depends on one's emotional interaction with it....does it speak to our worldview? That is dogma.

When did the Physics department ever say 'Women's studies classes need to incorporate more physics!'?

https://twitter.com/RealPeerReview/status/848546349486284800

Here we are introduced to the term 'Figured worlds' which might be confusing. Until you realize the underlying assumption is that numbers are white and racist.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13613324.2014.885431

Physics is so not woke:

https://journals.aps.org/prper/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.12.020114

Speaking of woke. The academic world taught these young women to see the world as a series of insurmountable limitations. The college campus itself is a systemically racist institution that oppresses them. How are they going to adapt to a workplace that doesn't give a shit about their lived experiences?

http://www.ijme-journal.org/index.php/ijme/article/view/1259

Jack Kerouac took speed and stayed up for days at a time in a cold sweat to write a novel.....not a doctorate:

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1077800413489534

Westerners are sooooo close-minded and essentialist about gender. Compared to who? Who cares! Also...breast-feeding is motherly. Incredible 'findings'

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277539516303041

The more victim groups I can belong to the better. I belong to two (2) Thank god there's groups you can CHOOSE to belong to because being white really started me off on the wrong foot. Then I asked my friends to write some comic books.

http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/11022/