New Real Peer Review

But the sun is going down, so we shall leave the best (for permissive definition of "best") paper that Elmore et. al misfortunately cites for next time.

And of course IRMA itself is not devoid of strange questions that require you to answer unreasonably to a poorly formulated question to avoid being counted as ebil rape myth acceptor (e.g. the non-RMA answer to screenshot is "disagree" a-la "literally 0 women ever did that") /8

Very serious science was done here, gang /7

Starting from use of of Sexual Experience Survey , a janky tool that conflates forcible rape and every single less than perfect thing under the sun, developed by the infamous man-hating Mary P Koss who is on record claiming men can't be raped for freudian penetration reasons /6

Notably, further regression analysis (Table 4) ignores IRMA completely. What does this mean 4/

in fact NOT recognized as valid predictor by Loh - money quote in screenshot (that's for IRMA:Other, IRMA-self didn't even reach levels at which it would enter the model and there's quite a bit weirdness going down about it which we will see later) 3/

Okay, so we were inspired to make a bigger dive into "rape myth acceptance" (RMA) literature (the rate of RMA is falling, so we gotta try making some funny tweets before RMA is extinct) and right off the bat, in a rather mediocre paper, two fascinating claims. Let's dive in! 1/

Okay, aside from this entire thing being literally snowclone of soviet education quirk where "marxism leninism" had to be squeezed into everything, how is the "BIPOC students need to be taught with less lectures" supposed to work without some "brown skin think different" racism?

Today in "we can't believe it's not a conspiracy theory" 💩🤡🤡💩 the definitely not conspiratorial belief that white supremacist structures in psychology (which include teaching African girls about women's rights without a shaman or parent's approval lol 🤡) are "by design"

P.S.: limk to this weird ass dodgy paper, for all your climking needs link.springer.com/article/10… :-/

And then authors proceed to pollute the paper with obvious childish “it wasn’t me who broke the vase mom” half-assed CYA SUS “We believe this argument is mistaken” Well, WE believe it’s time to take a look at the actual data (fortunately available for download) /8

in retrospect suspicious focus in CurrentYear when you can put as many charts into your paper as you like and not worry about colors and page counts) of ostensibly nonAGP men are barely distinct from those of natal women, something that should have raised an eyebrow /7

they should have borrowed a binder full of women from Sen. Romney? Anyhow, it gets worse For reasons impervious to logic and sanity authors think that the study's use of unmodified CAS is an "advantage" when it's clearly a limitation (questions /4

Observing nonsense in introductory physics: A case study in calling everything you don't like whiteness P.S.: yes it is literally another "whiteboards are racist because they center attention" paper. journals.aps.org/prper/abstr…

Authors getting a head of themselves read.dukeupress.edu/social-t…