Experimental test of a new global discrete symmetry I will present biblio-metric data about “fundamental theory and gender”, and interpret what data means and answer the big question: The M ↔ F symmetry (S2 generalized to gender Sn) C) is explicitly broken (namely, it’s not a symmetry, M 6= F )? M) is spontaneously broken (namely, due to discrimination)? M(ainstream?) Theory [In string gender conferences, check links] “All women share the same kind of sad and unfair experiences since the beginning of their scientific career”. “Mansplaning. Gaslighting. White Male Hetero Privilege. Sexual harassment at epidemic levels. Micro-aggressions”. Men mobilize their masculinity supporting ... men in ways that advance careers. You don’t see? You have (unconscious) bias and steal credit to women. “Evaluators tend to favour men”. “Scientific quality is a gender social construction”. “Excellence is the current buzzword. Gender equality should achieve the same”. “I have a dream: that ... excellence in science is no more distorted and sweletred by gender stereotypes or creeping discrimination”. “Positive discrimination and gender mainstreaming”, “We have to help women at all levels ... to academic positions”, “programmes for women ... challenged in court for discrimination” [vs men]. “People and culture can be obstacles for change”. C(onservative?) Theory Physics is a community of interest, optimised to understand nature. 1. Physics does not depend on nation, race, sex ⇒ open to good people from any background. Indeed physics was international when ‘culture’ served nationalism. 2. Pushing the limits of human brain, physicists heavily selected on interest (1 person every 10?) and ability (1 person every 1000?). Indeed science created the modern world. Not easy. 3. It required developing tough selective rules and a great culture intellectual honesty + quantitative evidence. Predictions Both theories have unpleasant implications. Usually we don’t care why physicists are not distributed uniformly. But now we have gender conferences. M: “Science (especially physics) is not only sexist but also racist” [S. Harding]. ⇒ Discrimination against women in citations, conferences, hirings... ⇒ More ‘gender equality’ gives more women in STEM. ⇒ Less women closer to power and where merit is more subjective. C: ⇒ ⇒ ⇒ some groups over-represented because over-performing. Interest and ability not uniformly distributed; in a way that explains observations. Smarter people less affected by implicit bias, traps, etc. Use data to see what is right InSpire can be dowloaded getting big data for sociology in fundamental physics, including gender: 30 Mreferences, 1 Mpapers, 70 Kauthors, 7 Kinstitutes. Add: • Sex from name and country: 85% coverage. Miss old/unknown authors. • 9K 1st hirings in InSpire. Complete? To check, “hirings” ≡ 5 (or 10) years with the same affiliation: 19K (40K). Main results unchanged. • Fractional counting i.e. unitarity: replace Ncit with Ncit/Naut or “individual citations” Nicit ≡ Ncit/NautNref . Works. Big difference for experimentalists with many Naut. 50% of citations after 2000: dominated by recent times. • Some statistics, like for Higgs discovery. [Strumia, Torre, Biblioranking fundamental physics, arXiv:1803.10713] % of women in different fields Less women in STEM than in humanities (where right/wrong good/bad distinctions is less clear) or ∼legal professions (where real power is). ���������� ������ �� ������ ������� �� ��� ���-�� �� ���-�� ���-�� �� ��-�� �����-�� � ���-��� ����-�� � ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ����-�� ��������� ���������� ���������� �������� ��� �������� ���� ������������ ���� ��������� �������� ��������� ������ ����������� ���� Also at CERN: female %admin %physicists %technicians. Does not look discrimination % of women in theory % of women in theory and STEM anti-correlated with “gender equality index” ���� ��� ���� ��� ��� ������� �������� ������ ��� ���� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� �� ���� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ������ ��� ���� ������ ��� ��� ��� ��� ���� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ������ ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ������ ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ���� ��� ��� ��� ���� ��� � �� �� �� �� �� �� ������ ���������� �� ����������� ������ Known as ‘gender equality paradox’, but only if you believe in the wrong theory. Sexism in citations? Count single-author that cites different single-author, define 1 det Gender asymmetry = A ≡ cit cit NM → N F → cit NM →F cit NF →F ! −1≤A≤1 ���� ������ ��������� �� ��������� InSpire, after 2010 category A hep-ex (−1.2 ± 1.7)% hep-ph (0.1 ± 0.6)% hep-th (−0.1 ± 0.7)% , astro-ph (0.6 ± 1.1)% hep-lat (0.2 ± 2.2)% nucl-ex (0.2 ± 2.1)% gr-qc (0.2 ± 1.2)% cit NM →M cit NF →M ���� ����� ���������� ������ ��� ���� -���� -���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ����������� ���� �� ����� ������ No gender preference in citations in any category at any time, down to % level. M more cited than F , equally by M and F : it’s merit, not sexism. Ed 6= Rocco. Similar analysis applied to countries finds instead significant asymmetries. authors as newly arriving in the field (see Section 3). We note that Sexism fully accounting for these e↵ects would in citations? probably increase the observed di↵erence in citation speaker claims sexism in citations 1610.08984: counts Abetween females and males quoting in astronomy. October 31, 2016 Preprint typeset using LATEX style emulateapj v. 04/17/13 QUANTITATIVE EVALUATION OF GENDER BIAS IN ASTRONOMICAL PUBLICATIONS FROM CITATION COUNTS Because our name classification mechanism is mostly based on data sources in Europe and North America, this means we are less likely to recognize the gender of names from di↵erent cultures. This becomes especially apparent in later years with a more globalized astronomy community. We do not expect this to create any strong e↵ect in our analysis as we have checked that the gender bias is largely independent of the region where the host institution is based. Reading it Neven Caplar1 , Sandro Tacchella2 & Simon Birrer3 Institute for Astronomy, Department of Physics, ETH Zurich, CH-8093 Zurich, Switzerland :1610.08984v1 [astro-ph.IM] 27 Oct 2016 October 31, 2016 Abstract We analyze the role of first (leading) author gender on the number of citations that a paper receives, on the publishing frequency and on the self-citing tendency. We consider a complete sample of over 200,000 publications from 1950 to 2015 from five major astronomy journals. We determine the gender of the first author for over 70% of all publications. The fraction of papers which have a female first author has increased from less than 5% in the 1960s to about 25% today. We find that the increase of the fraction of papers authored by females is slowest in the most prestigious journals such as Science and Nature. Furthermore, female authors write 19 ± 7% fewer papers in seven years following their first paper than their male colleagues. At all times papers with male first authors receive more citations than papers with female first authors. This di↵erence has been decreasing with time and amounts to ⇠6% measured over the last 30 years. To account for the fact that the properties of female and male first author papers di↵er intrinsically, we use a random forest algorithm to control for the non-gender specific properties of these papers which include seniority of the first author, number of references, total number of authors, year of publication, publication journal, field of study and region of the first author’s institution. We show that papers authored by females receive 10.4±0.9% fewer citations than what would be expected if the papers with the same non-gender specific properties were written by the male authors. Finally, we also find that female authors in our sample tend to self-cite more, but that this e↵ect disappears when controlled for non-gender specific variables. Keywords: sociology of astronomy — publications, bibliography 1. INTRODUCTION Gender inequality and biases seem to be persistent in the scientific community. Even though the number of doctorate degrees awarded to women is constantly increasing, women still tend to be underrepresented in faculty positions (National Science Foundation 2015). Numerous studies have shown that both male and female referees consistently give higher scores to identical work done by males than females (e.g., Wennerås & Wold 1997, Moss-Racusin et al. 2012). As an example of bias in publishing, the study by Budden et al. (2008) showed that the number of female authors increased significantly authors was due to lack of females who are first authors of prestigious papers. The same group has also found that men tend to self-cite their work more (King et al. 2016). For the domain of engineering, Ghiasi et al. (2015) has recently showed around 10% bias in the number of citations. Of course we cannot claim that we have actually measured gender bias. One could imagine numerous other parameters that should be considered and matched Focusing on astronomy, Davenport et al. (2014) has studied gender balance at the 223rd meeting of the American Astronomical Society and found that even though the gender ratio of speakers mirrors that of conference attendees, women asked fewer questions than Sexism in conferences? Silvia Penati et al. complain when key speakers at conference are men. Key speakers are top-authors invited to attract participants. Top authors are man, man, . . . man and produced 10%, as the bottom 50000. Why female-only physics speakers at “gender equality” conferences? Distribution of individual citations ��� ���� ������� ������ ± ���� ��� ��������� ����� �� /�� ������ ����� ��� ������ ������� ��-��� ± ���� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��-� ��-� ��-� ��-� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ���������� ��������� Less women around the top (log scale!). Persists restricting to fixed time (not due to NF/M (t)), to hired/unhired, theory. Gender asymmetry in hiring ���� ������� ������� ���� ������� ������� ����� ���� ���� ������� ��� ���� ���� /���� �� �������� ���� ���� /���� �� ��� �������� ��� ��� ��� �� � ���� ��� ��� ������ ������� ��� � ���� ���� ���� ���� �� �������� ���� ���� � � �� �� �� ���������� ��� �� �������� On average, women “hired” with less citations. �� �� Gender asymmetry in hirings: by age ���-��� ����-�� ���-��� ���-��� ��-��� ���-���� ����-�� ��� ��� ��� � � �� �� ���������� ��� �� �������� �� ����� �� ��� ���������� �������� �� ����� ���������� ��� ��� �����-�� ��� ���������� �������� �� ����� ���������� ���������� �������� �� ����� ���������� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� � � �� �� ���������� ��� �� �������� �� ����� �� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� � � �� �� �� ���������� ��� �� �������� �� ����� Women “hired” O(1) year earlier than men with similar biblio-metric. Gender asymmetry in hiring: by country Mean number of citations at 1st InSpire hiring, all authors, after 2000: Male Female Male/Female country “hirings” hNcit /Naut i “hirings” hNcit /Naut i “hirings” hNcit /Naut i US 729 119 161 59 5:1 2.0:1 176? 44 49? 82 4:1 0.5:1 China France 172 134 38 49 5:1 2.7:1 262 123 22 69 12:1 1.8:1 Japan UK 165 199 34 129 5:1 1.5:1 Germany 164 183 25 81 7:1 2.3:1 Italy 150 121 23 82 7:1 1.5:1 71 91 24 51 3:1 1.8:1 India Spain 80 193 14 163 6:1 1.2:1 Canada 58 152 11 112 5:1 1.4:1 Brazil 60 57 6 35 10:1 1.6:1 Russia 38 132 5 8 8:1 16:1 Australia 22 158 6 49 4:1 3.2:1 20 312 5 42 4:1 7:1 Netherlands Turkey 26 51 3 5 9:1 10:1 26 70 3 50 9:1 1.4:1 Mexico Chile 19 109 3 22 6:1 5.0:1 Sweden 25 129 2 16 12:1 8:1 Recent: case studies INFN positions in theory, 2018. Gender ‘experts’ only: Role Name Ncit Commissar Silvia Penati 2130 Hired Anna Ceresole 3231 Not Hired Alessandro Strumia 30785 “The oppressive ambient started to open”. All present CERN fellows: hNpapi hNciti hNiciti h1st paperi Sex Male 22.6 1464 5.9 2008.7 Female 14.4 853 3.0 2010.6 Mean career path ���� ������ �� ���� /���� ���� ��� ���� ������ ��� ��� ��� � � �� �� �� �� �� ���������� ��� �� ����� ��� Smaller gap at post-doc level. Similar difference restricting to hired/unhired. Discrimination against women Physics invented and built by men, it’s not by invitation. Curie etc. welcomed after showing what they can do, got Nobels... Discrimination against men Moseley, Schwarzwild, ... killed in WW. ... “Oxford University extends exam times for women’s benefit” (changed title). “Italy: free or cheaper university for STEM female students”. “Scholarships for women” only. Melbourne U.: STEM positions for women only. Many places: administration wants 50% irrespective of merit. “2:1 faculty preference for women on STEM tenure track”. ... “Only adult able-bodied males ... may be called upon for forced or compulsory labour” (old UN convention still valid today). Discriminations against men “shall not be considered discrimination” (Istanbul convention article 4). Click to check. ... ERC plans: give priority to “specific policy objectives”: 40% gender quotas. In theory this means: 40% of funds to 10% of people rare among top authors. Quotas in best jobs only is not equality and Gender Equality Men make worst jobs, and 95% of work deaths. Give a try to Conservative theory Interest Past gender-string conferences: talks by Gina Rippon (1858 citations), a neurobiologist critical of ‘neurotrash’ like Simon Baron-Cohen (157000 citations) who claim observation that men/women have different average interests • “Men prefer working with things and women prefer working with people, producing a large effect size (d = 0.93σ) ... Sex differences favoring men were also found for more specific measures of engineering (d = 1.11σ), science (d = 0.36σ), and mathematics (d = 0.34σ) interests”. • Difference even in children before any social influence. • Difference even in monkeys. • Female preference not influenced by gender politics e.g. hiring more females. (Good physicists don’t follow role models). Proposed explanation: • Empathizing-systemizing brain influenced by level of pre-natal testosterone. • Test: measure secondary traits like 2D:4D digit ratio in female physicists. Maybe not fully right. The opposite assumption of identical brains is ideology. STEH FIELDS GEHBEH STUDIES SIEHUFI Ability Physics graduates have top hIQi, it’s needed. Men have similar hIQi as women and ∼ 15% higher standard deviation (‘diversity’), as in other traits. C predicts: 1 Gaussian(σ = 1) 1 NF = (interest) × (ability) ≈ × = × NM 4 Gaussian(σ = 1.15) 4 Convert hIQi to hNiciti assuming one 6σ among 109 persons: �� ���� � �σ σ �σ �σ ���� �������� � ������ ���� �/� ����� �σ � ������ ���� ���� ���� ���� ��-� ��� ��� ��� ���������� ��������� Fits well, but... ��� Harvard fired Summers for telling this! Summers, Motl had to leave Harvard... Theory of higher variability by T. Hill et *** “suppressed” by NSF, Springer. Nobel Tim Hunt fired for a misreported joke... James Darmore fired by Google... Matt Taylor humiliated for his shirt... Social scientists list in publications ways used to impose the gender paradigm: fake/selective results/citations, obstructions, funds cut, violence... In 2016 CERN attacked as “homophobic” by big media for nothing. What is behind this? M theory is (cultural) Marxism Some politicians survived to 1989 promoting a victimocracy of “minorities” and silence who disagrees with their ideology. “Equity” degenerated in“gender”. The goal of this is: more women in STEM. Indoctrinating to the ideology. Their “gender equality” works because it’s the usual sexism: women and men in their traditional gender roles of victims and protectors/providers. It’s blind human biology practiced as in the plains of Africa thousands of years ago. I said Thoughtcrime according to Minister of Truth and PC Thought Police. Conclusions Data consistent with Standard Model: no new S2 symmetry in Nature. Physics is not sexist against women. However truth does not matter, because it’s part of a political battle coming from outside. Not clear who will win. PS: many told me “don’t speak, it’s dangerous”. As a student, I wrote that weak-scale SUSY is not right, and I survived. Hope to see you again.