Maya Forstater has challenged Adam Rutherford and Ben Goldacre to set Bragg straight about Cass and systematic reviews

[RethinkingLife]

Maya Forstater challenged Rutherford and Goldacre to set Billy Bragg straight on his misunderstanding of systematic reviews in re: Cass because FondofBeetles' explanation has seen her put on naughty step by TwiX.

There are a rash of people like Billy getting horribly confused about systematic reviews.

AdamRutherford bengoldacre you might want to step up now as neutral science communicators and explain how this works.

https://x.com/MForstater/status/1779422767781118224

No response from Goldacre but Rutherford responded to deny any relevant knowledge. And, yes, this is the Rutherford of Rutherford and Fry fame and the books and radio programmes ] Rutherford's TwiX bio: "I'm a scientist. President of Humanists_UK Lecturer in Genetics UCL Genetics, race, eugenics, history of science, movies, books, cricket"

It's not something I know much about.

https://twitter.com/AdamRutherford/status/1779478504930779315

To which somebody else responded with a clear Rutherford prior intervention about methodology etc.

https://twitter.com/JustMisogyny/status/1779580934448095682

And there's an interjection from Gurwinder Bhogal to Rutherford.

https://twitter.com/G_S_Bhogal/status/1779593609387421785

Completely agree.

MariedeGournay, duc
Quite right. We haven't rejected the parcelling up of left-ish beliefs only to pick up a different parcel.
We agree on this one thing. That's massive. Let's not push it.

Christ Williamson interviewed Gurwinder Bhogal. There was some discussion about high vs. low integrity individuals and what it takes to admit to being mistaken.

But of the high-integrity individuals, there are a lot more trustworthy than high-integrity institutions. I tend to trust individuals a lot more. The ways that I learn whether I can trust someone or not. I have a few heuristics, but for instance, one of them would be, are they willing to publicly admit when they get things wrong? Because it takes integrity to admit when you're wrong, but it takes a huge amount of integrity to do it publicly. If you can do that, and that's a very rare skill, it takes a huge amount of strength to be able to go out there and say, Okay, I was wrong.
[00:22:53]And so that, for me, is a very good indicator that somebody is high integrity. It shows that they value the truth more than their own ego.

Transcript: https://www.happyscribe.com/public/modern-wisdom/742-gurwinder-bhogal-17-shocking-lessons-about-human-psychology

The ways that I learn whether I can trust someone or not. I have a few heuristics,

Don't we all ? I know I have.

But labour under a proBrexit Corbyn was neutral at best about the referendum

Alice Robert’s talking about a debate between an archeologist and Graham Hancock (pseudo archaeologist)
“ It involves the presentation of how science works & the importance of big data, on the one hand - vs personal conviction, ideology and cherry-picked cases, with a complete ignorance of how science works, on the other. At its heart it's a conversation between science and utter nonsense”

but somehow gender identity is real and people can change sex?? how does the cognitive dissonance not make her head spin??

Having attended a very well presented talk by Professor Alice Roberts (mainly for fashion tips) her science seems spot on. But as I say, the word "gender" appears in DFB rather too much.

"What gender is this skeleton ?"

Oh do fuck off.

Thanks a lot for that link; I've come across the phenomenon before but did not have the vocabulary for it. Rational Man Syndrome it now is.

I find that these sentences capture their stance perfectly: "The intimation was that it was all a little bit mad and unseemly. Why would anyone get obsessed with that?" and "It’s the people who keep pointing it out who are the problem."

It's the brushing off and making it seem like those who like to investigate properly are the mad ones. Additonally it shows male priviledge, because they are not the ones who have the most to lose.

Alice Roberts is a gender woo believer.

Lots of threads on here, like this one:
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/3616759-Alice-Roberts-what-the-hell

And tweets like this:
https://twitter.com/theAliceRoberts/status/1141091857193156608

See also:

Luxury beliefs have, to a large extent, replaced luxury goods.
Luxury beliefs are ideas and opinions that confer status on the upper class, while often inflicting costs on the lower classes.

https://www.robkhenderson.com/p/status-symbols-and-the-struggle-for

Deptford Project is the classic example that turns up on MN:

https://web.archive.org/web/20180315031511/https:/twitter.com/LucyLoveslife1/status/973852316787933184

https://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3203804-The-Deptford-People-Project-and-the-impact-of-self-ID-and-transactivism-on-working-class-women re: www.feministcurrent.com/2018/03/23/leftist-women-uk-refuse-accept-labours-attempts-silence-critiques-gender-identity/

These luxury beliefs do not impact rational man who believes that only he can address this matters in the rational manner that they merit. Not these squeaky, emotional women who live with the consequences of these luxury beliefs.

Apologies if this has been posted elsewhere as there are a lot of Cass threads but I saw a science reporter trying to set Owen Jones right
https://twitter.com/benryanwriter/status/1780805791269666991

Hes also written a blogpost about the Cass report https://benryan.substack.com/p/the-cass-review-fact-check-its-clear

In other Owen Jones news

https://twitter.com/OzKaterji/status/1781088132919685606

He attributed a quote from Greenpeace to the House of Commons Defence Select Committee.

The Guardian have now issued a correction, but no acknowledgement that the two aren’t interchangeable and this rather changes the impact of the quote.

(And I know nobody would ever accuse Jones of being a rationalist, but some things need to be shared 😆)

@RethinkingLife Thank you, I'll have a read

Round about now would be a good time for Rutherford to read the Cass Review and praise the clarity of the section about the methodology in public.

Maybe belatedly say something? (My original typo was bleatedly which is apposite.)

Ah, Rutherford now asking for an invite onto Joe Rogan in hopes, one imagines of making more of a splash in US market.

https://twitter.com/AdamRutherford/status/1782085031873089894

Good grief, who's he trying to position himself with now. And I used to like him. Surely it's time for him to follow in Tim Harfords footsteps on more or less

Er... that's arrogant. "@ joerogan invite me". Has he any idea how big Joe Rogan is, compared to him (AR)?

Joe Rogan seems like a weird choice?