Funny that they pretend not to enjoy drama and gossip.
There is a civil war brewing in the world of mathematics
-
The most important thing from the chat log is:
Jonathan Beardsley: Haha, well, for the record, I know who several of those folks are, and they're not economists.
So wait he’s saying he’s being trashed by fellow mathematicians then? Isn’t that worse?
His game is playing it humble, conceding that most of what’s being said about him is true, so that the dûmbest of his wöke fellows think he’s just an exceptionally humble but competent mathematician. It might work because some great mathematicians are indeed humble, or at least sound like it in public.
-
Coming back to this thread after I've read through the responses to AT's letter, here: https://www.ams.org/journals/notices/202001/rnoti-o1.pdf
I think mathematicians are very brave. Much braver than so many economists who only dare to speak our true opinions on EJMR, of how the w0ke craze is destroying not just academia but society too. Whereas so many mathematicians who support AT will bravely sign their names (even if they are male, white/asian, which could be construed by their w0ke enemies as "evidence" for them being unsupportive of diversity) onto a document that is presented to and read by mathematicians all around the world. I don't think economists will ever dare to sign their names on such a document, much less write letters defending their stance. Needless to say, there will be no one brave enough like AT in the economics profession. Maybe this shows that mathematicians, for all their perceived and stereotypical lack of social skills as compared to economists, actually have more balls than economists.no. they're just naive and don't understand social dynamics. i.e., are even more 4spy than we are and can't accurately judge how this will hurt them in the long run.
-
Coming back to this thread after I've read through the responses to AT's letter, here: https://www.ams.org/journals/notices/202001/rnoti-o1.pdf
I think mathematicians are very brave. Much braver than so many economists who only dare to speak our true opinions on EJMR, of how the w0ke craze is destroying not just academia but society too. Whereas so many mathematicians who support AT will bravely sign their names (even if they are male, white/asian, which could be construed by their w0ke enemies as "evidence" for them being unsupportive of diversity) onto a document that is presented to and read by mathematicians all around the world. I don't think economists will ever dare to sign their names on such a document, much less write letters defending their stance. Needless to say, there will be no one brave enough like AT in the economics profession. Maybe this shows that mathematicians, for all their perceived and stereotypical lack of social skills as compared to economists, actually have more balls than economists.no. they're just naive and don't understand social dynamics. i.e., are even more 4spy than we are and can't accurately judge how this will hurt them in the long run.
You are a spineIess MachiaveIIian who can’t accurately judge how your tolerance for evil erodes society in the long run.
-
Coming back to this thread after I've read through the responses to AT's letter, here: https://www.ams.org/journals/notices/202001/rnoti-o1.pdf
I think mathematicians are very brave. Much braver than so many economists who only dare to speak our true opinions on EJMR, of how the w0ke craze is destroying not just academia but society too. Whereas so many mathematicians who support AT will bravely sign their names (even if they are male, white/asian, which could be construed by their w0ke enemies as "evidence" for them being unsupportive of diversity) onto a document that is presented to and read by mathematicians all around the world. I don't think economists will ever dare to sign their names on such a document, much less write letters defending their stance. Needless to say, there will be no one brave enough like AT in the economics profession. Maybe this shows that mathematicians, for all their perceived and stereotypical lack of social skills as compared to economists, actually have more balls than economists.What are you talking about? Only a handful of nobodies supported AT. That link ends with a letter signed by a long list of mathematicians and the letter opposes AT.
-
Meanwhile PH is complaining about having to do undergrad math again https://twitter.com/pwr2dppl/status/1463582722006429700?s=20
Whoever encouraged her go into math academia instead of doing SQL at an insurance company has a lot to answer forstop attacking my math friends with cushy corporate jobs
-
Meanwhile PH is complaining about having to do undergrad math again https://twitter.com/pwr2dppl/status/1463582722006429700?s=20
Whoever encouraged her go into math academia instead of doing SQL at an insurance company has a lot to answer forshe's a digsusting |\|i99er <unt.
-
no. they're just naive and don't understand social dynamics. i.e., are even more 4spy than we are and can't accurately judge how this will hurt them in the long run.
You are a spineIess MachiaveIIian who can’t accurately judge how your tolerance for evil erodes society in the long run.
The past 3-4 years is the first time in history of mankind we've gotten to observe feminine group dynamics up close, through social media. Maybe all those mis-o-gynists from 50/5000 years ago had a point? Its too depressing to contemplate.