Monday, April 08, 2019

“The Conceptual Penis” was such an obvious gag that no one could have taken the ludicrous paper seriously — no one except a gender studies scholar


Starting in June of 2017, three academics — James Lindsay, Helen Pluckrose, and Peter Boghossian — began writing intentionally ludicrous papers under false names and submitting them to peer-reviewed academic journals. The authors mimicked the catchphrases and buzzwords of the “grievance studies” fields they sought to expose — the language of intersectionality, privilege, and feminism.
writes Benny Huang on Liberty Unyielding.
Though the papers were fake, the experiment was very real. The hoaxers wanted to see if the hallowed journals’ peer reviewers could discern twaddle from real scholarship. In short: the reviewers couldn’t, at least not when it appealed to their prejudices.

The experiment was interrupted in October 2018 when a Wall Street Journal reporter, Jillian Kay Melchior, exposed the project. Melchior had noticed one of the papers, “Dog Park,” which focused on “dog rape culture,” and found it just too ridiculous to be believed. She apparently had more sense than the staff of Gender, Place & Culture, which gladly published the confabulated paper.

By the time the Wall Street Journal blew the whistle, twenty papers had been submitted in total. Seven papers had been accepted, though only four had been published; seven others were at various stages of review and only six had been rejected.

Gender, Place & Culture even recognized “Dog Park” as “excellent scholarship,” and no wonder — its subtitle was “Human reactions to rape culture and queer performativity at urban dog parks in Portland, Oregon.” I’m sure they lapped that up with a spoon.

The paper’s pseudonymous author, “Helen Wilson,” claimed to have based her findings on a data set consisting of just fewer than ten thousand canine genital inspections. This was so crazy that “Wilson” — who is actually James Lindsay — expected some much-deserved incredulity.

But it never came. Not only did the journal fail to question the data set; it didn’t lift a finger to determine the identity of “Helen Wilson,” much less to verify her credentials as an expert. They simply accepted Dr. Wilson as an authority in doggie sexuality.

“We flattered what they wanted to hear and then they told us it was an important contribution to feminist geography,” said James Lindsay.

As a college grad myself, I can tell you that this is exactly how academia works. Students learn early on that the key to academic success is to emulate the style, tone, and above all the message of their professors. If the profs are talking endlessly about the “social construction of whiteness” — or maleness, or heteronormativity — they should too. That’s how to get an A, how to get recommended for grad school, and how to get hired as an adjunct professor.

An environment like this is fertile ground for farcical “scholarship.”

And it’s been this way for years. 

[Alan Sokal's 1996 paper about the social construction of gravity], and later Lindsay’s, Pluckrose’s, and Boghossian’s papers, stand as shining examples of Poe’s Law. For the uninitiated, Poe’s Law states simply that it is impossible to parody extremist views because the parody will inevitably be mistaken as a genuine expression — even by people who hold those extremist views.

 … Two of the more recent pranksters, Peter Boghossian and James Lindsay, had already scored a stand-alone hoax paper “The Conceptual Penis As A Social Construct,” which was published in Cogent Social Sciences, a misnamed journal if ever there was one. The paper appeared in May 2017, which appears to be right before they undertook the more audacious twenty papers project the following month.

“The Conceptual Penis” was such an obvious gag that no one could have taken it seriously — no one except a gender studies scholar, which tells us a lot about gender studies as a field. The thrust of the paper is that penises “conceptually” cause global warming and all sorts of other really bad stuff, an obvious attempt to suck up to their reviewers’ biases.

The paper drips with misandry. Penises are bad because men are bad.

 … The rush to publish anything that sounds sufficiently “woke” has an equal but opposite counterpart — the reluctance to publish anything considered reactionary.

 … No paper, no matter how carefully researched and written, would ever be published if it came to the “wrong” conclusions. Conversely, no paper, no matter how sloppily written, would be rejected if it came to the “right” conclusions. Conclusions drive the research, not the other way around. …

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

mine's extrêmement sérieux méchant, - rip them panties off Honey!

Anonymous said...

Anonymous Reviewer - "But, ...but,...it all seemed so REAL!"

dunce said...

In high school i wrote a book report that was a bad review and got a very low grade on it. When i got to college i wrote another book report and gave it glowing praise though it was completely unremarkable and was rewarded with an A. I learned something about english teachers.

The New York Crank said...

While I rarely agree with posts in this space, I'll gladly cheer until I'm hoarse for this one. Pretentious academic bullshit has been a personal bugaboo of mine since my undergraduate college days — and we're talking over 60 years.

Some things to keep in mind:

• Confirmation bias cuts in every direction. Right wing, left wing, wingless — everyone wants to support papers that hum with their pet buzzwords and buzz in harmony with their personal prejudices.

• Nobody wants to admit — even to themselves — that they don't have a clue what the words on the page in front of them mean.

• If it doesn't seem intelligible, that may be because it's unintelligible.

• Copy that's too dense to be readable may simply be a smokescreen disguising the total absence of meaningful content.

That's all I have to say, except, while I'm at it, to the jerk who told me in Lit 302: Classic and Romantic English Poetry class back in 1961 that I was a dimwit because I didn't get the "deep symbolism" in William Blake's line, "Tyger tyger burning bright/In the forests of the night...." I still say there's nothing to get, and I still say you're a smug phony and a pretentious dipstick.

Yours very crankily,
The New York Crank

銀行汽車貸款0800772999 said...

天下運動
色情小說
報牌
成人做愛
博弈遊戲
免費a片
成人貼圖區
聖發娛樂城
現金版詐騙

www.77yum.com said...

財神娛樂評價
娛樂城評價
免費a片下載無碼
真人百家
九州娛樂
運彩
新的娛樂城
色情網站
星城online

情色網站 said...

成人圖片
成人做愛
成人文學
成人文章
成人光碟
成人聊天室
成人性爱视频直播
成人用品
成人電影

AUTOMATED TELLER (BLANK ATM CARD) said...

INSTEAD OF GETTING A LOAN,,  I GOT SOMETHING NEW
Get $5,500 USD every day, for six months!

See how it works
Do you know you can hack into any ATM machine with a hacked ATM card??
Make up you mind before applying, straight deal...

Order for a blank ATM card now and get millions within a week!: contact us
via email address::{Automatictellers@gmail.com}

We have specially programmed ATM cards that  can be use to hack ATM
machines, the ATM cards can be used to withdraw at the ATM or swipe, at
stores and POS. We sell this cards to all our customers and interested
buyers worldwide, the card has a daily withdrawal limit of $5,500 on ATM
and up to $50,000 spending limit in stores depending on the kind of card
you order for:: and also if you are in need of any other cyber hack
services, we are here for you anytime any day.

Here is our price lists for the ATM CARDS:

Cards that withdraw $5,500 per day costs $200 USD
Cards that withdraw $10,000 per day costs $850 USD
Cards that withdraw $35,000 per day costs $2,200 USD
Cards that withdraw $50,000 per day costs $5,500 USD
Cards that withdraw $100,000 per day costs $8,500 USD

make up your mind before applying, straight deal!!!

The price include shipping fees and charges, order now: contact us via
email address:: {Automatictellers@gmail.com}

Visit our Website for more Info: automatictellers.webs.com
®