by Pat Frank
A couple of days in the past, Charles TM revealed an essay on the latest report of the Nationwide Academy entitled "Sexual Harassment In opposition to Girls: Local weather, Tradition and Penalties for College Science," # 39; engineering and medication " accessible on the following tackle: WUWT right here.
Apparently, the NAS report is so forthright concerning the widespread abuse of girls in science, know-how, engineering, and arithmetic (STEM) departments that Senators Kamala Harris, Jacky Rosen, and Richard Blumenthal anticipate to legislate to avoid wasting the individuals.
In response to the NAS report, not solely is sexual violence in opposition to girls widespread, but additionally the patriarchal hierarchical construction of STEM departments creates a local weather of intersector violence that’s conducive to sexual harassment of girls.
Earlier than we proceed, we should acknowledge that there have been instances of sexual abuse within the STEM academy which have been broadly mentioned. Effectively-known examples are one at Berkeley in 2015, one at Yale in 2014, one at CalTech in 2016, one on the College of Chicago in 2016, one involving three girls on the College of Chicago. Alabama in 2013, one at Arizona State College in 2015. There are severe episodes involving actual abuse and actual victims.
Nevertheless, the issue doesn’t concern episodic abuse, which is sort of inevitable wherever numerous women and men work underneath the identical roof (I tackle this level beneath. abuse happens with the looks of a low-probability persona sorts in statistically legitimate populations).
The query is whether or not the info assist the conclusion that sexual harassment in opposition to girls is widespread in STEM college departments and that the setting in STEM departments is chargeable for sexual harassment of girls.
The NAS Report got here to Stanford final October (2018 should you're a reader of the distant future). After having a look at it, I made a decision to research the identical concern as in 2001, when the IPCC TAR was revealed: are the adversarial controversies justified? ?
Effectively, guess what. …
This might be a abstract. The complete evaluation consists of 30 diary-type pages, 5 figures, two tables and 139 citations; lengthy and concerned.
Right here is the abstract:
· The NAS report goes from injustice to the pointless.
· This distorts the literature.
· He falsifies his personal information by reporting false and inflated sexual harassment charges.
· This can be a product of a scientific incompetence virtually unprecedented.
· Universities are anticipated to fall right into a false ethical panic.
· That is the primary barrage of the educational conflict of cultural research warriors to destroy science.
Those that want Full Monty can obtain a pdf right here (876 kB). Please select the choice "gradual obtain". It’s quick sufficient and you’ll keep away from the pecuniary provides. As well as, the file doesn’t comprise any viruses.
For those who learn and love this publication, be happy to ahead it, wherever you might be or to anybody, it may do good.
The excellent analysis criticizes the survey methodology of the NAS report. It examines facets of sexual harassment associated to persona. It introduces and validates the literature on the sexual harassment of males by girls, by their explicit energy of sexual show in inappropriate locations.
The excellent evaluation additionally addresses widespread and widespread defamation of males by a silly statistical inference that describes every man in a false method as a possible aggressor.
The final half diagnoses the report of the NAS itself because the preliminary assault of the Conflict of Aggression warriors of cultural research on science itself. They intend to destroy it. The final paragraphs right here come again to that.
This message summarizes the issues associated to the NAS report itself, after which pertains to sexual abuse perpetrators.
Half I: The report of the Nationwide Academy on Sexual Harassment within the Fields of STEM misstates or critically omits central analysis work and impairs its personal evaluation.
The report depends on statistics on sexual abuse generated by a large-scale survey on the campus of the College of Texas system. The survey used a model of the "questionnaire of sexual experiences" (SEQ).
Louise Fitzgerald developed the SEQ in 1988.  The UT survey is a modification of a second model of the SEQ revealed in 1995. 
The SEQ model utilized by the NAS Report was nonetheless a 3rd model and had 4 sections. Every part requested 4 questions on a degree of sexualized expertise. Every of the next sections (components, in jargon) posed questions on more and more private interactions.
Listed below are all 4 questions for the primary issue of the SEQ of the SIN, for instance:
1. Sexist Hostility / Sexist Sexual Harassment: Undesirable or undesirable phrases, actions, symbols, gestures, and behaviors based mostly on intercourse or gender and sometimes repetitive.
1.1. You’ve gotten handled "in a different way" due to your gender.
1.2. Submit, use or distribute sexist or suggestive materials.
1.three. Made offensive sexist remarks.
1.four. You belittle or condescend due to your intercourse.
The second set of things concerned sexual hostility and gross sexual harassment. The third set was entitled "Undesirable Sexual Consideration" and the fourth was "Sexual Coercion". Not one of the components questioned about sexual abuse or rape.
The 1988 and 1995 variations of the SEQ ended with "Have you ever ever been sexually harassed?" (1988 model) or the assertion "I used to be sexually harassed" (1995 model). These are known as the query or assertion criterion.
Optimistic responses to the criterion query led to the conclusion that SEQ's conduct constituted harassment. Detrimental or clean responses implied that the respondent didn’t really feel harassed by the experiences.
The that means of every SEQ query is open to the respondent's sensitivity.
For instance, one may reply "sure" to query 1.1 if a person holds an open door for a given lady. Some girls take offense at this. Others prefer it. 1.2 may very well be a intercourse joke birthday card. 1.three may very well be offended by, "males are such beasts!" 1.four, maybe, "this materials is just too heavy so that you can put on alone (mentioned by one particular person of the identical intercourse to a different)."
These examples are definitely innocuous, however they however all meet the requirement of the query. The questions are all very ambiguous and haven’t any context. The person sensitivity to shading varies.
As I’ll present later, there are gender-related persona variations. Simply mentioning gender variations to somebody may stimulate taking offense underneath any one of many issue one points.
This ambiguity was a part of the very severe criticisms made by Professor Barbara Gutek and her colleagues concerning the SEQ in 2004. 
Here’s a abstract of their crucial findings relating to SEQ:
1. The SEQ will not be very dependable in accuracy or precision.
2. The take a look at and re-test information are mediocre.
three. The causal path of the harassment stays ambiguous.
four. The SEQ will not be standardized. There are a number of variants. SEQ outcomes can’t be analyzed in time or house.
5. The SEQ overestimates the prevalence of sexual harassment.
6. The SEQ wording doesn’t assist the conclusion that the respondent was personally overwhelmed or threatened by the experiences.
7. A a lot bigger fraction experiences SEQ's experiences than answering the query of criterion / assertion that they felt sexually harassed (an enormous downside for researchers looking for to cowl their tutorial bread of sexual harassment).
eight. The cross-correlation between SEQ components is about zero.72.
The criticism of level three on causation is key. Does a given SEQ rating imply harassing setting is on the origin of sexualized work behaviors? Or does this imply that the sexualized work behaviors led the respondent to deduce from a harassing setting?
The primary researcher is the researcher's favourite as a result of it permits them to conclude that social development engenders sexual harassment, relatively than saying that harassment stems from particular person behavioral selections. The depraved selection of social development is the patriarchal hierarchy; very useful should you make a profession as a cultural research warrior.
Gutek et al. Concluded that "the SEQ is a faulty instrument and its optimistic options have been enormously exaggerated. It doesn’t appear to measure anybody's definition of sexual harassment, together with that of its personal builders. "
In addition they cited a decide who rejected the outcomes of SEQ and concluded a sexual harassment case in 2002:
"In EEOC c. Dial Company, November 17, 2002. Ailing, No. 99 C 3356, the Federal Choose famous that "the survey instrument poses inherent reliability issues" and that "the a part of the investigation regarding the SEQ is invalid. "…" This lack of comparability of the SEQ scores appears to me problematic as a result of it appears to make the SEQ scores devoid of any goal that means "(p.eight). The decide concluded that the "investigative paperwork" [i.e., the SEQ — P] are too imperfect to be helpful to the investigator on this case. "(My daring)."
The decide reached the identical conclusion as Gutek et al.: The SEQ doesn’t measure sexual harassment. Actually, it appears to haven’t any goal significance.
And but, this completely imperfect SEQ survey is on the middle of the NAS report; chosen by business professionals to objectively reveal the hidden abuses inside STEM college departments.
The correlation rises: article quantity eight of the Gutek et al. Is especially acute.
Initially, it was mentioned that the 4 distinct SEQ components measured 4 distinct dimensions of habits. Which means every of the 4 components is meant to be orthogonal to others. Which means they’re 90 ° aside within the SEQ section house; ideally with an inter-correlation coefficient = zero.
Nevertheless, the components usually are not decorrelated. They’re correlated and their correlation coefficient is on common zero.72. The correlated components don’t have a singular that means.
Correlated epidemiological datasets must be corrected by an element of 1 / (1 + r) to acquire the variety of statistically impartial information factors ("r" being the correlation coefficient). 
Nevertheless, the authors of the NAS uncared for this stage of their evaluation. The correction of the info SEQ is 1 / (1 + zero.72) = zero.58. All fractions of respondents who had SEQ experiences must be multiplied by zero.58 to search out the statistically distinctive fraction.
So, for instance, the report does numerous haying concerning the fraction of girls reporting SEQ experiences in STEM fields.
They report that 22% of girls in non-STEM tutorial fields, 20% of girls in science, 27% in engineering and 47% in medication, all had at the least one SEQ expertise and have been due to this fact sexually harassed.
These fractions should be corrected by a scale of zero.58, which supplies respectively 13%, 12%, 16% and 27%.
The bar graph in Determine 2 reveals the uncooked SEQ scores and their statistical corrections.
Determine 1: SEQ Experiences of Girls STEM One lecturers, taken from Appendix D-1 of the NAS report. The bars are: (blue), reported NAS; (crimson), corrected for an element correlation of zero.72; (inexperienced), the typical fraction of girls reporting sexual harassment throughout the academy, and never solely in STEM, given by optimistic criterion responses. The whiskers point out the variability of the question-criterion from two completely different tutorial SEQ research (± zero.047). [2, 6] The authors of the SIN regard SEQ blue experiences as sexual harassment, whether or not or not the respondents did.
One other signal of professionalism amongst NAS authors is that they left the question-criterion outdoors of their investigation. This allowed them to advertise SEQ experiences in instances of sexual harassment. This can be a misrepresentation of the outcomes of SEQ.
The NAS definition of sexual harassment (p.28):
"Sexual harassment (a type of discrimination) consists of three classes of habits:
1. sexual harassment (verbal and non-verbal behaviors that replicate hostility, objectification, exclusion or second-degree standing of members of the identical intercourse),
2. undesirable sexual consideration (undesirable sexual, verbal or bodily advances, which can embrace assault), and
three. Sexual coercion (when favorable skilled or instructional remedy is conditional on sexual exercise). "
The three standards of the SIN are literally particular person SEQ behaviors which will or might not be harassment. Solely the respondent may know. The context was necessary. Solely the one who had these behaviors knew the context and will decide if she felt harassed or not.
Initially, SEQ's experiences turned harassed provided that the respondent answered the query of the criterion as having felt harassed.
However the authors of the SIN waived the respondent's notion. They resolve now. They decide harassment based mostly on minimal proof – a SEQ guidelines – and with out realizing the context. Any registered SEQ habits now counts as sexual harassment.
For instance, they are saying that 20% of girls scientists have been sexually harassed, however not 20% had SEQ experiences that might have been offensive or not.
The authors of the NAS falsified the that means of the SEQ experiments. The result’s to inflate enormously the fraction of girls that may be described as sexually harassed.
Lack of Significance: Right here is one other instance of professional incompetence in unresolved issue correlation. The correlation coefficient is the cosine of the angle between the outcome vectors within the section house of the info. 
For SEQ components, with a correlation r = zero.72, this section hole angle is cos-1 (zero.72) = 44 °.
Determine 2 illustrates the importance of this space-phase angle. The that means is that not one of the SEQ components has any distinctive that means.
Outcome vectors that every have a singular that means usually are not correlated of their information section house. Their vectors are separated by 90 °.  When the info vectors are separated by an acute angle, equivalent to 44 °, every vector has a projection on the other axes.
In a multidimensional section house, there are a number of orthogonal axes. The acute vectors can have projections on at the least two axes, or much more than two of them.
In our bodily actual house, because of this every SEQ is a mix of two or extra meanings.
In SEQ, the that means of the axes will not be recognized. Even the dimensionality of the section house of the SEQ information is unknown, though all of this has to do with human habits and socio-sexuality.
Determine 2. Representational outcomes vectors separated by an acute angle of their information section house. Every vector has a projection on the x-axis and the y-axis. The that means of every vector is a mix of the distinctive that means represented by every of the 2 axes.
However the acute angle between issue vectors signifies that none of those components has any distinctive that means. Every issue can have a number of meanings. And every of the doable meanings is cryptic.
Thus, by combining Determine 2 with the judgment of this insightful decide and that of Gutek et al. crucial evaluation, it’s clear that the outcomes of SEQ haven’t any single that means.
Essentially the most blameworthy facet of the entire affair is that the NAS writers knew Gutek's crucial paper. I do know this as a result of Gutek and his collaborators are quoted in a few of their revealed articles (with out mentioning the crucial content material).
However within the NAS report, they’re completely silent and careless about Gutek, et al., 2004. They didn’t quote it within the NAS report. It doesn’t exist within the NAS universe.
Blinded by the sunshine: NAS authors boast of being a "committee of main scientists, engineers, and physicians and consultants in sexual harassment analysis, in research in regulation and psychology ".
And but, they lacked all of the crucial facets of their work.
After all, if they’d paid consideration to those crucial facets, they might have had nothing to speak about. The authors of the NAS report based mostly their conclusions and proposals on nothing that may be outlined.
All errors, errors, forgetfulness and negligence go in the identical path: to indict STEM lecturers for sexual harassment. The authors of the NAS have slandered dozens and tens of hundreds of harmless individuals.
NAS report is incompetence plus bias; all. It would solely chunk the STEM departments with suspicion. It will poison skilled relationships.
Consideration Authorities and Attorneys: It appears to me that the NAS report encourages situations that meet the EEOC definition of sexual harassment. Making a hostile office by way of systematic harassment based mostly on intercourse; harassment directed particularly in opposition to harmless males.
In my illegal opinion, a category motion must be introduced in opposition to the SIN for inciting hatred and in opposition to any group that imposes its standpoint as authoritative. I consider that proof of actual damage may very well be present in misplaced jobs and slowed careers. If that is so, NAS authors can also be weak.
Half II: Who abuses? The persona stock has come a great distance within the final hundred years of its growth. The HEXACO stock divides the persona into six normal traits. It’s about extraversion (E), acceptability (A), consciousness (C), neuroticism (N), openness to the affected person. expertise (O) and honesty-humility (HH). [9, 10]
The typical correlation among the many components amongst these six is r = zero.11 ± zero.08. This provides a imply space-phase angle of separation of vector (84 ± 5) °; relatively higher than the SEQ.
Female and male personalities stand out, [11, 12] to the nice fury of social constructivists and fluidophiles world wide. Persona classes usually are not devoid of any causal hyperlink with genetic heritage and evolutionary biology. [13, 14]
Determine three illustrates among the variations and similarities between the 2 sexes for 2 of the six HEXACO persona traits, plus the Barratt BIS-11 Impulsivity trait (I).
Extremely favored individuals in H-H and A are typically socially pleasant. Too excessive enters the class of mates of the fault. So, within the persona trait as in all issues, extra will not be essentially higher. Impulsiveness measures danger taking or lack thereof.
Polls present that folks with low ranges of H-H and A have a excessive rating on the Sexual Harassment Danger Scale (LSH). [15, 16] People, males or girls, who could also be topic to sexual harassment are likely to have low-level, simple, heat and caring personalities, and comparatively excessive ranges of rudeness and hardness.
Determine three: Idealized Gaussian distributions of male (blue) or feminine (crimson) persona traits. Left: two traces HEXACO; on the appropriate the road BIS-11 Barratt Impulsivity. [9, 17] Arrows point out areas the place low H-H, Fullness, or Excessive Impulsivity result in troublesome or impulsive personalities.
The change to a low H-H or a low A corresponds to a regular deviation beneath common. I've taken the transition values for males to mark entry into the powerful personalities for ladies too. The upper common of girls A signifies that fewer girls than males ought to have a extreme persona.
Assuming that the persona traits H-H and A are hereditarily impartial and uncorrelated, we will know which fraction of individuals in a big inhabitants can have weak personalities in H-H and A qualities.
This fraction is solely the product of the Gaussian H-H and A areas beneath the worth of two.74 (Determine 2).
For males, zero.37 × zero.17 = zero.06 and for ladies, zero.41 × zero.04 = zero.02. These individuals all have a excessive rating within the LSH scale.
The prediction is that 6% of males and a couple of% of girls will tend to have interaction in sexual harassment. The remaining – 94% of males and 98% of girls – won’t do it.
This alone is sufficient to point out that sexual harassment will not be a normal trait of males or girls.
The claims of "poisonous masculinity" and "rape tradition" discover no assist within the psychometric literature. The 2 derogatory classes mounted in opposition to males are solely egotistical examples of feminist research of grievances. 
Though I don’t talk about it right here, the total analysis reveals very properly the harassment of males by girls. This could be the two% of girls weak in H-H and A.
They harass males by abusing a female energy very properly documented within the auxiliary literature: by sexualized pores and skin demonstrations on invitation, however carried out in skilled, instructional or extra severe locations.  It’s so widespread to be thought of regular.
Anybody fascinated with extra info on this matter is inspired to obtain the total examine and to examine for your self should you agree.
Lastly: who violently offends? The literature fairly properly establishes that people who find themselves very impulsive and weak in H-H and A are criminally inclined. Thus, excessive LSH and excessive impulsivity mix to foretell the fraction of the inhabitants that may commit against the law of violent sexual abuse and rape.
The impulsivity in line with crime is 1.58 customary deviations above the imply (the arrow in Determine three, proper). This represents 6% of the male or feminine inhabitants with solely excessive impulsivity. However excessive impulsivity alone doesn’t predict crime.
To foretell crime, we’d like low H-H and A values, in addition to excessive impulsivity.
Assuming once more that the traits are impartial, the Gaussian fraction is zero.37 × zero.17 × zero.06 = zero.zero04 and zero.41 × zero.04 × zero.06 = zero.001 for ladies. For instance, about zero.four% of males and zero.1% of girls within the normal inhabitants ought to have personalities who expose them to violent crime, together with violent sexual assault.
Which means 99.6% of males and 99.9% of girls usually are not keen to commit violent intercourse crimes. As soon as once more, "poisonous masculinity" is objectively refuted. Maintenant, cependant, nous pouvons aussi objectivement éliminer la féminité toxique de la liste des attributs humains caractéristiques déterminée objectivement.
La tradition du viol, déjà par la fenêtre, est maintenant partie de l'univers; sauf comme un trope résiduel dans ce que j’appelle maintenant la «tradition de la harpie».
Une étude réalisée en 2015 a confirmé de manière indépendante que zero,four% des hommes représentaient la moitié des délinquants violents. Je ne connaissais pas ce papier avant de passer à la prévision, mais cela m'est arrivé en cherchant généralement dans la littérature sur les crimes violents.
Au Québec, Bouchard et Lussier ont pu estimer la inhabitants «cachée» de délinquants sexuels violents, compte tenu du nombre connu de condamnations et de condamnations à nouveau sur une période de 42 mois. 
Ils estiment à eight 322 le nombre whole de délinquants sexuels violents parmi 387 condamnations et 9 nouvelles condamnations sur une inhabitants de 2,13 thousands and thousands d'hommes âgés de 18 à 64 ans. Cela donne une fraction de délinquants sexuels violents de zero,four% parmi la inhabitants masculine. La affirmation de la prédiction faite indépendamment à partir de l'inventaire de la personnalité n'aurait pas pu être plus précise.
Toutes ces conclusions sont bien validées par la littérature dans l’évaluation complète.
Les femmes STEM sont en plein essor: des enquêtes directes montrent que la très grande majorité des membres STEM (90 à 95%) sont satisfaites de leur carrière.
Aux États-Unis d’aujourd’hui, les femmes qui souhaitent travailler dans les STEM ne sont pas confrontées à des obstacles et sont même embauchées de préférence. [21, 22] La disparité en termes de pourcentage de femmes occupant des emplois exigeants en mathématiques est liée à leurs choix libres de mener des carrières plus centrées sur l'être humain. [22-26]
Plus une société est égalitaire, plus la disparité entre les sexes dans les emplois exigeant en mathématiques est grande. La raison en est que, lorsque les gens sont égaux et libres de suivre leurs propres intérêts, les préférences déterminées biologiquement (sur le plan de l'évolution) sont les plus aptes à jouer un rôle dominant dans les choix de carrière. [27, 28]
Il n’ya aucune validité des accusations portées dans le rapport de la NAS; pas l'un d'entre eux.
Les femmes se portent bien dans les carrières STEM. Il n'y a pas de crise d'abus sexuel en milieu universitaire.
L’ensemble des recommandations proposées dans le rapport de la NAS constitue le rêve le plus cher de la gauche universitaire: «Les universités devraient imposer l’embauche de personnel et développer une nomenklatura politiquement soumise, dirigée par des commissaires de la justice sociale: un nouveau lysenkoïsme, en d’autres termes. 
Je ne peux pas imaginer un meilleur programme pour détruire la science.
Les auteurs du rapport The NAS sont des universitaires spécialisés dans le harcèlement sexuel. Ils ont non seulement mutilé la littérature, ils l'ont appliquée à une fin malveillante.
Ils n'auraient pas pu faire preuve d'une plus grande incompétence.
Un avertissement grave: les lecteurs ici présents ne sont peut-être pas au courant du «mouvement de passage». Que vous sachiez ou non, il devrait savoir qu'il a généré un sure nombre de vidéos youtube remarquables.
Une femme qui s'est éloignée de l'idéologie féministe et a trouvé son chemin vers la libre pensée a posté une vidéo au format 15:12.
Elle parle de son désenchantement pour le féminisme et de ses erreurs, et de sa prise de conscience que l'embauche pour l'équité est un acte de bigoterie. Elle parle d'expérience directe de l'académie des sciences humaines.
À four h 50, elle aborde la faillite intellectuelle et morale de la théorie des études culturelles et féministes, l'agenda de l'endoctrinement agressif et irrationnel des humanités universitaires en général, ainsi que leur déformation consciemment péjorative de l'histoire.
À 15h12, elle se termine par «Bonne probability, sciences. Ils viennent pour toi. Bientôt, vous ne ferez pas d’études sur le sexe biologique, automotive cela n’existe pas. "
Je suggest ceci: le rapport de la NAS constitue le premier barrage des humanités universitaires dans leur guerre consciente, délibérée et maligne visant à détruire la science. They’re an existential risk.
The Humanities have turn out to be the necrotizing fasciitis of educational integrity. The one treatment for NF is early amputation.
 National_Academies_of_Sciences_Engineering_and_Medicine, Sexual Harassment of Girls: Local weather, Tradition, and Penalties in Educational Sciences, Engineering, and Medication. 2018, Washington, DC: Nationwide Academies Press. 312.
 Fitzgerald, L.F., et al., The incidence and dimensions of sexual harassment in academia and the office. Journal of Vocational Conduct, 1988. 32(2): p. 152-175.
 Fitzgerald, L.F., M.J. Gelfand, and F. Drasgow, Measuring Sexual Harassment: Theoretical and Psychometric Advances. Fundamental and Utilized Social Psychology, 1995. 17(four): p. 425-445.
 Gutek, B.A., R.O. Murphy, and B. Douma, A Evaluation and Critique of the Sexual Experiences Questionnaire (SEQ). Regulation and Human Conduct, 2004. 28(four): p. 457-482.
 Hanley, J.A., et al., Statistical Evaluation of Correlated Knowledge Utilizing Generalized Estimating Equations: An Orientation. American Journal of Epidemiology, 2003. 157(four): p. 364-375.
 Ilies, R., et al., Reported incidence charges of work-related sexual harassment in the usa: Utilizing meta-analysis to clarify reported charge disparities. Personnel Psychology, 2003. 56(three): p. 607-631.
 Rodgers, J.L. and W.A. Nicewander, 13 Methods to Have a look at the Correlation Coefficient. The American Statistician, 1988. 42(1): p. 59-66.
 Rodgers, J., A. Nicewander, and L. Toothaker, Linearly Unbiased, Orthogonal, and Uncorrelated Variables, Vol. 38. 1984. 133-134.
 Lee, Ok. and M.C. Ashton, Psychometric Properties of the HEXACO Persona Stock. Multivariate Behavioral Analysis, 2004. 39(2): p. 329-358.
 McCrae, R.R. and O.P. John, An Introduction to the 5-Issue Mannequin and Its Functions. Journal of Persona, 1992. 60(2): p. 175-215.
 Kajonius, P.J. and J. Johnson, Intercourse variations in 30 sides of the 5 issue mannequin of persona within the giant public (N = 320,128). Persona and Particular person Variations, 2018. 129(p. 126-130.
 Verweij, Ok.J.H., et al., Particular person Variations in Persona Masculinity-Femininity: Analyzing the Results of Genes, Atmosphere, and Prenatal Hormone Switch. Twin Analysis and Human Genetics, 2016. 19(2): p. 87-96.
 de Manzano, Ö. and F. Ullén, Genetic and environmental influences on the phenotypic associations between intelligence, persona, and inventive achievement within the arts and sciences. Intelligence, 2018. 69(p. 123-133.
 Zietsch, B.P., T.R. de Candia, and M.C. Keller, Evolutionary behavioral genetics. Present Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 2015. 2(p. 73-80.
 Pryor, J.B., Sexual harassment proclivities in males. Intercourse Roles, 1987. 17(5): p. 269-290.
 Ménard, Ok., S., N.E. Shoss, and A.L. Pincus, Attachment and persona predicts engagement in sexual harassment by female and male school college students. Violence and Victims, 2010. 25(6): p. 770-786.
 Stanford, M.S., et al., Fifty years of the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale: An replace and evaluation. Persona and Particular person Variations, 2009. 47(5): p. 385-395.
 Lindsay, J.A., P. Boghossian, and H. Pluckrose (2018) Educational Grievance Research and the Corruption of Scholarship. Areo Journal, URL: https://areomagazine.com/2018/10/02/academic-grievance-studies-and-the-corruption-of-scholarship/ Date Accessed: 11 April 2019.
 Burrows-Taylor, E. OPINION: It’s not sexist to say this French MP shouldn’t put on revealing garments on TV. 2018 [Last accessed: 1 April 2019]; Obtainable from: https://www.thelocal.fr/20180227/opinion-its-not-sexist-to-say-mps-shouldnt-wear-revealing-clothes-on-tv.
 Bouchard, M. and P. Lussier, Estimating the Measurement of the Sexual Aggressor Inhabitants, in Intercourse Offenders: A Prison Profession Method, A. Blokland and P. Lussier eds, 2015, John Wiley & Sons.
 Williams, W.M. and S.J. Ceci, Nationwide hiring experiments reveal 2:1 school desire for ladies on STEM tenure monitor. Proceedings of the Nationwide Academy of Sciences, 2015. 112(17): p. 5360-5365.
 Ceci, S.J., Girls in Educational Science: Experimental Findings From Hiring Research. Instructional Psychologist, 2018. 53(1): p. 22-41.
 Ceci, S.J., et al., Girls in Educational Science:A Altering Panorama. Psychological Science within the Public Curiosity, 2014. 15(three): p. 75-141.
 Ceci, S.J. and W.M. Williams, Intercourse Variations in Math-Intensive Fields. Present Instructions in Psychological Science, 2010. 19(5): p. 275-279.
 Ceci, S.J. and W.M. Williams, Understanding present causes of girls’s underrepresentation in science. Proceedings of the Nationwide Academy of Sciences, 2011. 108(eight): p. 3157-3162.
 Ceci, S.J., W.M. Williams, and S.M. Barnett, Girls’s underrepresentation in science: Sociocultural and organic issues. Psychological Bulletin, 2009. 135(2): p. 218-261.
 Robertson, Ok.F., et al., Past the Threshold Speculation:Even Among the many Gifted and High Math/Science Graduate College students, Cognitive Talents, Vocational Pursuits, and Life-style Preferences Matter for Profession Alternative, Efficiency, and Persistence. Present Instructions in Psychological Science, 2010. 19(6): p. 346-351.
 Henrekson, M. and M. Stenkula, Why Are There So Few Feminine High Executives in Egalitarian Welfare States? The Unbiased Evaluation, 2009. 14(2): p. 239-270.
 Roll-Hansen, N., The Lysenko Impact: The Politics of Science. Management of Nature, ed. M.L. Schagrin, M. Ruse, and R. Hollinger. 2005, Amherst, NY: Humanity Books. 335.