Steven Crowder exposes leftwing academia and peer reviewed studies.

An analysis on studies from 1984-1998 has no bearing on ones from this decade. Especially with MUCH newer studies refuting it.

Watching him run from real debates is better. Don't ever use him as a source or you'll end up getting laughed at by the entire forum, AGAIN.

You're being trained on by the entire forum because of the idiotic OP.

There's only 1 clown in here.

just remember you're on a video game forum.

:D

Replying with meltdowns isn't being trained... saying... but but its the best we got doesn't refute my post.

We all are.

Ill keep using him. Watching you babies have meltdowns without refuting his point is priceless.

It also gets people active in the discussion as starting the thread with an actual study would have had virtually no comments.

Again I'll place the burden of proof on you to debunk the study. All evidence shows that it's gotten worse not better. You made the claim it's got better so prove it or hold another L.

Yeah you do that. Keep using Stephen Crowder as scientific citation.

With this bad decision making like that, you took the biggest fucking "L" I have ever seen in this section with everyone laughing. And that's saying a lot,

He knows.

We all agree peer review and publishing isn't perfect. It has some major flaws.

But it's the best we got and it's by no means "mostly trash". To try to dunk on people who primarily use peer reviewed citation by posting a Stephen Chowder youtube is insanity. They are still using the best citation available.

@zaryia:

Yeah you do that. Keep using Stephen Crowder as scientific citation.

With this bad decision making like that, you took the biggest fucking "L" I have ever seen in this section with everyone laughing. And that's saying a lot,

I never used him for " scientific citation".

Seriously with your shitty reading comprehension and outright lies I honestly don't know why I even bother with you.

I used his video as proof of the flaws in the peer review proceed and backed it up with a study. Not one of you clowns could refute it.

Ps: Still waiting on the evidence that's it's improved.

Care to refute?

Researchers who have examined peer review often find evidence that it works barely better than chance at keeping poor-quality studies out of journals or that it doesn't work at all.

So should we just abolish peer review? We put the question to Jeff Drazen, the current editor of the top-ranked medical publication theNew England Journal of Medicine. He said he knows the process is imperfect — and that's why he doesn't rely on it all that much.

[Peer review] is like everything else," Drazen said. "There are lots of things out there — some are high quality, some aren't."

Drazen is probably onto something real in that journal editors, with enough resources, can add real value to scientific publications and give them their "golden glow." But how many journals actually provide that value add? We're probably talking about 10 in the world out of the tens of thousands that exist.

Oof. Not sure how you can laugh at this. This is a pretty massive L you keep taking and I'm waiting for some source that backs up your claim that it's improved.

10 out of 10s of thousands actually provide value. I think that qualifies most as being trash. I'm tired of beating you down with a shovel at this point. You going to refute this?

Dude you really haven't proven anything. Being invited to be peer reviewed is not a gotcha moment.

When you're a troll it is. They should have never given him the time of day.

Your now nuked original post did.

You used his failed experiment to claim most peer reviewed studies were trash (no proof on this has been provided yet btw) and blasted people who primarily use them. You offered no sources other than him in the OP. That's insanity btw.

See. You used his video of proof, but he lied and was wrong. Meaning you flopped on post #1.

You posted several decades old studies afterwards which no one will take seriously, but at least acknowledge your OP was stupid. That very old study you used in no way reflects Chowder's failed and doofus experiment.

After 3 alts you still post straw-men.

Huh?

Read the room man. You've been trashed in here.

Let me show you,

They're still the best form of citation and even YOU are ironically relying on them ITT, meaning your attack on these posters makes no sense. Also, most are not trash depending on the field. There's only a handful of fields were I'd say a large number of them are probably poor.

Peer Review in Scientific Publications: Benefits, Critiques, & A Survival Guide - PMC (nih.gov)

He's trying to defend Crowder with studies that have nothing to do with what he attempted in that video. Crowder was wrong and the OP was stupid.

Nope. That's reaching. The dude isn't important enough for everyone to know who he is.

@zaryia:

Your now nuked original post did.

You used his failed experiment to claim most peer reviewed studies were trash and blasted people who primarily use them. You offered no sources other than him. That's insanity btw.

That wasn't scientific citation , nor did I say it was. I simply showed an experiment where he had PHD's praising his troll job. Again wtf are you talking about?

@zaryia: After 3 alts you still post straw-men.

That's not a strawman. You said the decades old study was irrelevant. I'm asking you to show me proof that it is.

@zaryia: Read the room man. You've been trashed in here.

People disagreeing with you isn't being trashed. Is that why your so bad at this?

I'll spam this till you counter it. 10 in tens of thousands that provide value. That would mean most are trash.

Researchers who have examined peer review often find evidence that it works barely better than chance at keeping poor-quality studies out of journals or that it doesn't work at all.

So should we just abolish peer review? We put the question to Jeff Drazen, the current editor of the top-ranked medical publication theNew England Journal of Medicine. He said he knows the process is imperfect — and that's why he doesn't rely on it all that much.

[Peer review] is like everything else," Drazen said. "There are lots of things out there — some are high quality, some aren't."

Drazen is probably onto something real in that journal editors, with enough resources, can add real value to scientific publications and give them their "golden glow." But how many journals actually provide that value add? We're probably talking about 10 in the world out of the tens of thousands that exist.

Bro, the first post dismantled the entire premise of your thread. It's probably better not to cite Steven Crowder on anything at this point. The guy is a failed comedian that produces trash aimed at racist morons (might be a bad sign for you).

Disagreeing with you on facts at Chowder objectively screwing up and not knowing what peer-reviewed was with his experiment proving absolutely nothing, and you defending it for some reason. Just delete the thread and remake it with that old ass study you found a day later.

Let the embarrassment end.

The embarrassment is you keep ignoring the more recent studies that back his claim up that I've also posted and that you have continued to ignore. You said I made an " insane claim" when I said most are trash. When the facts are about only 10 in 10s of thousands add any value.

He was right plain and simple. None of you have proven him wrong. Your only argument is they didn't peer review his paper. They did however ask for his input which is hilarious and sad.

Literally every piece of literature I found backed up the purpose of his experiment.

No it didn't. He had fat phobic experts asking him for input and his praising his work.

When all of the posters wanted to talk about " the authenticity and rigorous " requirements for peer review I quickly destroyed that with multiple studies and examples.

And I'm sorry but 5.6 million followers is successful. Go listen to Amy Schumer.

Meaning Chowder's entire experiment was a disaster, has no relation with the methodology of the decades old study you posted, and was the reason you got rung out and plastered by the whole forum.

Meaning you shouldn't have put his video as the OP, but instead should have put the super old trash study you found. Which in itself is funny, you say peer reviewed papers are not trust worthy but used one yourself a day later after getting curb stomped due to Chowder's idiotic video.

Then use that one in the OP next time instead of being tarred and feathered by posting the clown show "experiment" that ended in disaster and Chowder's misunderstanding of all things related to this.

No he's not. Peer review published is still the best citation, and "most" are not false from all fields. You're still always going to concede to this, and we'll all continue to post them in science threads (even you) since it's still the best we got.

@zaryia:

Meaning Chowder's entire experiment was a disaster, has no relation with the methodology of the decades old study you posted, and was the reason you got rung out and plastered by the whole forum.

Meaning you shouldn't have put his video as the OP, but instead should have put the super old trash study you found. Which in itself is funny, you say peer reviewed papers are not trust worthy but used one yourself a day later after getting curb stomped due to Chowder's idiotic video.

Not at all. He had PHD's asking him for input. It's pathetic actually. And between your shitty reading comprehension and bad math( I posted the study minutes later) as the thread isn't even 24 hours old. You made the claim that my initial claim was insane.

After mud stomping you repeatedly you repeatedly with 4 separate sources now you have chosen to ignore them and focus solely in crowder 😄.

Researchers who have examined peer review often find evidence that it works barely better than chance at keeping poor-quality studies out of journals or that it doesn't work at all.

So should we just abolish peer review? We put the question to Jeff Drazen, the current editor of the top-ranked medical publication theNew England Journal of Medicine. He said he knows the process is imperfect — and that's why he doesn't rely on it all that much.

[Peer review] is like everything else," Drazen said. "There are lots of things out there — some are high quality, some aren't."

Drazen is probably onto something real in that journal editors, with enough resources, can add real value to scientific publications and give them their "golden glow." But how many journals actually provide that value add? We're probably talking about 10 in the world out of the tens of thousands that exist.

I had to wipe your shit off my shoe after this one 😅😆

Your OP was very very stupid and you screwed up. Next time lead with the paper (I thought peer reviewed papers weren't reliable?) sourcing 1980s data instead of Stephen Fucking Chowder 🤣

Get the heck' outta' here you curb stomped by the whole forum mess,

Take the L on your OP/Thread so we can discuss this new stuff that has nothing to do with it.

Prove that 10 out of 10,000 figure from a blog/interview with a published peer reviewed paper. Also he doesn't say the others are false or trash. Still requires massive citation.

No, you didn't.

Nor did I suggest 'he was inviting him to check for typos'. Perhaps you should brush up on your reading comprehension.

Isn't the whole NPC thing so 2020? Maybe you should try to be more constructive in your insults instead of just slinging around the dumbest buzz words Gen Z can come up with.

@Maroxad:

No one here is arguing for transwomen in women's sports... This again goes to what I said in the paragraph above. You clearly don't know where our positions are. You assume our positions, based on what you have been lead to believe by the echo chambers you reside in, rather than the positions we actually argue for. You do this in pretty much every thread, with this thread being no exception.

When I refer to these arguments do you honestly think I'm just talking about people in this thread? You keep saying our positions? Who are you speaking for? My point is this stuff is happening in real life and it started with bullshit studies. Although it may not be your position ( I never said it was) it is a popular position of those taken on the left.

It so accurately describes your group though. Maybe you can stop sounding ao cringe? " like omg it's soooo 2020" .

You sound like a dumb valley girl from the 90s 😄

The fact that people unironically use NPC and dont realize the severe case of irony and self ownage says a lot about the cognitive abilities of those who use it.

You are not arguing with some vague left that you get to define. You are arguing with Zaryia, Maroxad, Hoolahoopman, br0kenrabbit, LJS and a bunch of others.

Oh really?

@br0kenrabbit This was an organization for a conference. I've been invited to speak at conferences, and I've asked people to look over my presentation before doing so. That doesn't mean I was submitting my presentation for peer review, and that doesn't mean those who look over it for me are experts. It just means I'm asking someone to go over it, maybe they'll find a mistake or misstatement or typo that I missed.

Yea what an unreasonable deduction I made here.

None of which have spoken specifically about the trans issue other then you. Did I say specifically if they supported it? Is it any different when Zaryia post one of his 10 dozen threads on Tucker Carlson and implies all of us crazy rightwingers are bat shit insane?

My point is you supported the study on trans issues( at least implied they had credibility) and I'm showing you the real life results of that.

The more you post, the younger my image of you becomes.

-You don't know how to make an argument.

-You don't know how to support an argument.

-You constantly misquote people and misstate what others have said.

-You resort to personal insults when backed up against the wall.

So what...15, maybe 16 years old? Can't really convenience me otherwise at this point.

By that he was talking about minor mistakes in the writing itself, which CAN include typos.

@zaryia:

Your OP was very very stupid and you screwed up. Next time lead with the paper (I thought peer reviewed papers weren't reliable?) sourcing 1980s data instead of Stephen Fucking Chowder 🤣

Get the heck' outta' here you curb stomped by the whole forum mess,

4 leftist is the whole forum? None of which have countered the argument.

@zaryia: Take the L on your OP/Thread so we can discuss this new stuff that has nothing to do with it.

Criticizing the credibility of peer reviewed studies has been what the entire thread is about. Follow along for **** sake.

@zaryia: Prove that 10 out of 10,000 figure from a blog/interview with a published peer reviewed paper. Also he doesn't say the others are false or trash. Still requires massive citation.

Those were comments from the head of the New England medical Journal. He said only 10 out of 10s of thousands add value. If it doesn't add value what is it? Your grasping for straws. I posted the head of one of the most renowned medical journals ( one of the few that has credibility) telling you that most add no value. Stop grasping for straws. You asked for me to prove most were trash... unless you come up with a valid counter argument your toast!

Yes, really. There's your lack of reading comprehension again. You claim:

When what was said was:

I've been invited to speak at conferences, and I've asked people to look over my presentation before doing so. That doesn't mean I was submitting my presentation for peer review, and that doesn't mean those who look over it for me are experts. It just means I'm asking someone to go over it, maybe they'll find a mistake or misstatement or typo that I missed.

Probably because virtually no one here cares about these brain dead culture wars. There are far more pressing issues at hand. Economics, logistics, and other stuff that actually matter and is fuelled by results, rather than emotional responses and getting people riled up.

In politics, amateurs fixate over partisanship while the successful look to get results.

The research, is different from the activists are doing. The research for all intents and purposes, seems valid enough, I couldnt find any real faults with it when I read it. And given that I cannot in any honest way refute it, I wont. As for your study. Zaryia already did, you just refuse to admit it, as is par on course for you.

As for Zaryia, he has gone on record praising intelligent right wingers as well. From what I have gathered from his posts, the people he deems crazy/low IQ are the Did-My-Own-Research Crowd.

No it's really not. You take things extremely literal. Im not trying to be mean but are you autistic? Serious question.

You're mplying that the PHD inviting him to REVIEW A paper is nothing. You used your example as as to what the the PHD may have been doing for Crowder. I just took one of your examples.

No, I used an example of why someone may want others to read their work, never did I suggest any of the reasons were directly applicable nor is it limited to the reasons I stated.

Further, as I already noted, the invite wasn't to go over the invitee's work, it was to go over the Doctors work. Dude, it's right there in the screenshot:

Notice the non-highlighted part, and notice the ':' between the two parts. What is being reviewed is AN INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF BODY WEIGHT AND SOCIETY, not the invitee's paper.

Mute the fucking narrator, you obviously can't read and listen at the same time.

You wouldn't care because your side is dominating it. It doesn't bug you because in most cases it fits with your world view. You won't have any more effect on pressing issues as you would culture war nonsense, as you call it, at least not on this forum.

We would would have to agree to disagree. 15 different genders to a infinite spectrum seems like absolute nonsense. The reality is actuvist use the scientist and even influence them.. but i guess that's a non issue to you? Zaryia didn't refute my study at all. His study basically says it's bad but it's all we got. I then countered it with a more recent study and the head of the New England medical journal saying only 10 in 10s of thousands of journals add any value.. that's pretty bad.

Hmm I haven't seen it. Only time he would praise a right wingers is if it's a Lincoln project clown or someone bashing Trump. In other words they follow the narrative.

Thats fine I wasn't really trying to personally insult you.

Regardless I've made the argument with about 4 different sources, punching a massive hole on the validity of peer reviewed studies. Did you want to address that?

Is the head of the New England medical journal just another clown like Crowder?

Dude how someone chooses to define themselves doesn't affect your life in the least. Not sure why you're so riled up about it. The problem with the right is they only have culture wars. They have no answers for problems that actually DO affect lives.

Right wingers are hard to find to praise lately. While I don't agree with their politics, I do find Cheney and Kinzinger to at least stand up for what's happened since the 6th. And then the right cancelled them. You see the problem with the GOP yet?

I bet you think this is new. Have you any idea of Roman or Greek culture? Hell, effeminate men are even spoken of in the Bible.

Truth is, it's only with the rise of Abrahamic religions that such things aren't totally normal. Even the Native Americans recognized more than two genders: read up on the concept of 'two spirits' (berdache).

Culture yourself.

Again here you go with your obsession over sides and parisanship. If you think culture wars is between 2 sides you have a very naive understanding of not just culture wars, but politics in general. What we are seeing is various interest group campaigning for their interests. I got into politics through culture wars with the whole gamergate thing. Which I left after their cultlike and fraudulent tendencies became very clear. And became firmly left leaning, after gamergators became just as bad as Anita Sarkeesian herself.

But eventually I grew out of the culture wars and my interest in politics became increasingly specialized. Nowadays my interest in politics is mostly in the mathematical and technical stuff.

He is more moderate than you think. Not just that, but he also recently made a thread bashing a Democrat.

I realize you probably think everyone who disagrees with you is a backwoods militant Christian as you say but come on now. We have all heard of effeminate men. However they are men correct? They are not a different gender.

No, he is saying you are blatantly ignorant of how gender has manifested itself in most societies. 2 Genders is nowhere near as universal as you seem to think it is.

And yes, they are often considered a seperate gender that exists outside the binary model we have have adopted in the west. I suggest taking less things for granted and having a more tabula rasa way to look at new information.

Gender isn't biological. Sex is. Gender =/= sex.

There has always been people of one sex who take on the roles of the other, both or none (asexuals, eunuchs, etc). Every culture in the world has such people. Before they were repressed by religion it was as normal and expected as anything. Christians, Jews and Muslims have repressed them for millennia, but they never went away. And they're not going to. The faster you learn to co-exist the better off you personally will be.

Why am I only getting the random odd notification that someone has replied, and sometimes I don't, and sometimes the notification comes days later, after I've already read and replied to it.

@br0kenrabbit: the words man and woman are based off biological sex.

Transwomen aren't real woman.

It's a Trap.

The words Man and Woman come from 'weremen' and 'wifmen'. Today that would be 'husband' and 'wife'. Before puberty, all children were called 'girls'.

The word girl, meaning “a female child,” originally meant any “child” or “young person,” regardless of gender. Girl, for “child,” is recorded around 1250–1300.

However, the original source of the word is uncertain. Scholars point to Old English words like gyrela, “an item of dress, apparel,” presumably of a type worn by and popular with a young person back then. -sawce

@br0kenrabbit: the reason different words like man and woman exist is because of the biological differences between the sexes.

Bone density, muscle mass, height, reproductive organs, and so on.

I'm just saying, the words man and woman are used to describe biological sex.

Male and Female are the proper biological terms. Man and Woman are gendered terms.

Pfffftthahahahahahahahahahaha. Citing his followers as a form of success. This is pathetically sad at this point.

@br0kenrabbit: we disagree then, because I've seen man and woman used to describe biological sex and so has most of humanity for thousands of years.

Here's the clue: would you call a animal a man or woman, or male or female?

Science doesn't use 'man' and 'woman'. Those are gendered and fluid terms that haven't always meant what you think they mean.