Miscellaneous Articles You Should Read (1 Viewer)

Laughter and MIRTH (Methodical Investigation of Risibility, Therapeutic and Harmful): narrative synthesis (British Medical Journal)
It remains to be seen whether sick jokes make you ill or jokes in bad taste cause dysgeusia, and whether our views on comedians stand up to further scrutiny.

METHODS
We searched Medline from 1946 to June 2013 and Embase from 1974 to June 2013, using the search term “laugh”, removing animal studies and conference reports, and excluding papers on the Caribbean sponge Prosuberites laughlini and with authors called Laughing,3 Laughter,4 Laughton, or McLaughlin; none was particularly amusing. We discarded papers with opaque titles, such as “Gelotophobia and thinking styles in Sternberg’s theory”,5 and publications that proved irrelevant, such as “Another exciting use for the cantaloupe”6 (which described practising endoscopy on melons).
 
The Odds That a Panel Would 'Randomly' Be All Men Are Astronomical

There are many possible reasons why a STEM event might have vanishingly few women among its speakers. Outright sexism and misogyny are rare these days (I hope!), but it still happens. Much more common, I believe, is that all of us carry implicit biases—internal prejudices, difficult to detect in any individual instance, against the idea that women can excel in science and math. These biases have been shown to literally alter our perception of women in STEM fields, so that we evaluate them as being less accomplished as men with identical CVs. This (unintentionally) unfair evaluation of women by conference organizers, together with the psychological tendency to first call to mind stereotypical representatives of categories (for example, male mathematicians), lead them to come up with speaker lists consisting disproportionately of male speakers.
Unless we consciously try to observe the gender composition at conferences, the same biases cause us not to even notice that there are far too few women to be the result of a fair process; and so the injustice is perpetuated.
So I think it is important to assert explicitly that the current system, in practice, is flawed and systematically biased, and that efforts to introduce gender into the decision-making is actually a subtraction of unfairness—an effort to bring reality closer to the theoretical meritocracy we all desire.
 
I've encountered this big time from an organising perspective, you really have to fight to get females on the same level as the males. It's nightmare stuff, particularly when older academics are leading the group.
 
I've encountered this big time from an organising perspective, you really have to fight to get females on the same level as the males. It's nightmare stuff, particularly when older academics are leading the group.
Quality of evidence revealing subtle gender biases in science is in the eye of the beholder
These results suggest a relative reluctance among men, especially faculty men within STEM, to accept evidence of gender biases in STEM. This finding is problematic because broadening the participation of underrepresented people in STEM, including women, necessarily requires a widespread willingness (particularly by those in the majority) to acknowledge that bias exists before transformation is possible.

terrible article title though
 
New posts

Users who are viewing this thread

Activity
So far there's no one here

Support thumped.com

Support thumped.com and upgrade your account

Upgrade your account now to disable all ads...

Upgrade now

Latest threads

Latest Activity

Loading…
Back
Top