Leaked internal report concludes Enos' pet theory has ''irregularities in data,'' ''unjustified deletions,'' and ''inexplicable non-deletions.'' He might have to retract an entire book.
Maybe Tingley forgot to update the code? I sometimes forgot to upload the final version of the code, so the code and the publication end up not matching entirely.
Enos is definitely not to be confused with Enos Slaughter whose statistics were solid enough for him to earn entry into the baseball hall of fame. Thank you otherwise for laying the first building blocks toward restoring our ethically bankrupt academic institutions from which much of the rest of society takes its cues.
Chris, is there a news ste that specifically calls Ryan Enos as guilty? Can you reference that here? I couldn't find anything and hence the request. Thank you
This is great, fantastically thorough. And very classy not to dig too much into Jesse's miss and false accusation and just to lay out the checkable facts.
Jesse is great, but his both-sides enlightened centrist approach means he misses a bit when it comes to the current situation. If hope he'd be classy enough to vindictate your work.
This is a surprise why? The central assumption… systemic racism… is shredded by objective reality. That doesn’t matter among Demorats because “everyone has their own truth”. When Patrick Moynihan (between his days as a White House policy wonk and a United States Senator) called attention to AFDC and what it was doing to African-American families, he was told to STFU. He was fond of saying that everyone has their own opinion, but not their own facts. The higher truth was “thou shalt not s*** on thy neighbor’s hustle”. Telling the truth about welfare based on objective reality was endangering people’s hustles. That’s the real enemy, folks… people supporting separate realities… and on both sides. It just happens to be stronger among Demorats, but fundies aren’t all that much better. They disbelieve in all sorts of demonstrable realities in the name of religion, or of patriarchalism. Unfortunately, fundie Catholics have been getting more powerful with each decade. Huge families are now de rigeur, just as they were 100 years ago. The hierarchy doesn’t even bother to defend NFP… they demand that married couples start having children when they get married and stop when the woman reaches menopause.
Catholicism wasn't part of this discussion until your snark. The hierarchy absolutely does not "demand married couples start having children when they get married and stop when the woman reaches menopause". I have been Catholic for 70 years and I know many other Catholics who have no children all the way up to "huge" families. We all make our choices and hopefully are blessed to have the kids. Why does that matter t all to you? We actually have a large problem in our country with the fertility rate at 1.62 and dropping every year. That's the "demonstrable realities" you ignore. What does any of this ad hominem attack on Catholics have to do with a discussion of Harvard research misconduct?
I guess that explains why gangs of laypeople swarm down on couples like my parents and threaten them with hell and damnation for not having had eight children. Mine stopped at four, and they called fewer than eight children “the sin of contraception”. It was made clear to them that the means weren’t the issue… the issue was not choosing to have so many children. Their choice was called a mortal sin. If you are ignoring what ultra-conservative bishops are doing in their dioceses and what they are allowing their laypeople to do (and to be taught), you are living in ignorance.
Apparently you were brought up in a remarkable community of high producers! Social pressure can be difficult. Sadly most people don't study religions very much and don't even know what they claim as their own religion.
And there are various ways to put brakes on the reproduction.
Probably you should familiarize yourself with those actual religious teachings on the matters of reproduction. You might not agree with them, as they can be inconvenient, but they are remarkably cohesive and consistent with the general view of creation.
Society does need some high producers to make up for those who are afraid to commit themselves to the welfare of other humans.
Thank you, Chris, it’s so reassuring to watch when somebody fights for something against all odds because it’s right; and wins! Keep it up, my man!!
Maybe Tingley forgot to update the code? I sometimes forgot to upload the final version of the code, so the code and the publication end up not matching entirely.
You would be doing me a big favor if you emailed him and asked him that question, he won’t respond to me
Once again....Proving my point: Demoncraps will lie....cheat....steal...kill people.....in order to gain and hold power..!! Pfffft...!!
Weird. If president Gay can data-fraud, so can everybody else at Harvard.
"A finding of Research Misconduct requires that there be a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community"
https://facultyresources.fas.harvard.edu/research-misconduct
It's the accepted practice of Harvard's president. So there wasn't a significant departure.
No foul. No penalty. Play on. Leave Mister Enos Alone.
I love this! You are so salty and smart brother; never quit! I am in awe, you’re an absolute unit.
I love how you've brought a wrecking ball to these corrupt institutions! Keep up the great work.
Chris,
What's the difference between
"A and B maximize utility at 1 resp. 0."
Vs.
"both maximize utility at 1."
That part I didn't understand 😕.
Thank you 😊
[1,0] vs [1,1] in whatever optimization / comparative statics he was doing, iirc
that isn't the important part though
the smoking gun is the bootstrapping
O okay 👍 Thanks
BUT Awesome article! Terrific job nailing the fraudulent data sets, etc.
Enos is definitely not to be confused with Enos Slaughter whose statistics were solid enough for him to earn entry into the baseball hall of fame. Thank you otherwise for laying the first building blocks toward restoring our ethically bankrupt academic institutions from which much of the rest of society takes its cues.
I hope Singal apologizes.
So when do we get to see sections 7.1.3, 7.2.3 and 8.1.3 ?
Although the titles of the subcategories of 8.1.3 do kind of let the cat out of the bag
"This isn't just a minor revision—it’s a deliberate signal that Alan Garber’s pro-Israel administration is distancing itself from Enos and Gay"
What on earth does "Israel" have to do with this story? Why is it mentioned? Was it a Freudian slip?
Chris, is there a news ste that specifically calls Ryan Enos as guilty? Can you reference that here? I couldn't find anything and hence the request. Thank you
This is great, fantastically thorough. And very classy not to dig too much into Jesse's miss and false accusation and just to lay out the checkable facts.
Jesse is great, but his both-sides enlightened centrist approach means he misses a bit when it comes to the current situation. If hope he'd be classy enough to vindictate your work.
This is a surprise why? The central assumption… systemic racism… is shredded by objective reality. That doesn’t matter among Demorats because “everyone has their own truth”. When Patrick Moynihan (between his days as a White House policy wonk and a United States Senator) called attention to AFDC and what it was doing to African-American families, he was told to STFU. He was fond of saying that everyone has their own opinion, but not their own facts. The higher truth was “thou shalt not s*** on thy neighbor’s hustle”. Telling the truth about welfare based on objective reality was endangering people’s hustles. That’s the real enemy, folks… people supporting separate realities… and on both sides. It just happens to be stronger among Demorats, but fundies aren’t all that much better. They disbelieve in all sorts of demonstrable realities in the name of religion, or of patriarchalism. Unfortunately, fundie Catholics have been getting more powerful with each decade. Huge families are now de rigeur, just as they were 100 years ago. The hierarchy doesn’t even bother to defend NFP… they demand that married couples start having children when they get married and stop when the woman reaches menopause.
Catholicism wasn't part of this discussion until your snark. The hierarchy absolutely does not "demand married couples start having children when they get married and stop when the woman reaches menopause". I have been Catholic for 70 years and I know many other Catholics who have no children all the way up to "huge" families. We all make our choices and hopefully are blessed to have the kids. Why does that matter t all to you? We actually have a large problem in our country with the fertility rate at 1.62 and dropping every year. That's the "demonstrable realities" you ignore. What does any of this ad hominem attack on Catholics have to do with a discussion of Harvard research misconduct?
I guess that explains why gangs of laypeople swarm down on couples like my parents and threaten them with hell and damnation for not having had eight children. Mine stopped at four, and they called fewer than eight children “the sin of contraception”. It was made clear to them that the means weren’t the issue… the issue was not choosing to have so many children. Their choice was called a mortal sin. If you are ignoring what ultra-conservative bishops are doing in their dioceses and what they are allowing their laypeople to do (and to be taught), you are living in ignorance.
Apparently you were brought up in a remarkable community of high producers! Social pressure can be difficult. Sadly most people don't study religions very much and don't even know what they claim as their own religion.
And there are various ways to put brakes on the reproduction.
Probably you should familiarize yourself with those actual religious teachings on the matters of reproduction. You might not agree with them, as they can be inconvenient, but they are remarkably cohesive and consistent with the general view of creation.
Society does need some high producers to make up for those who are afraid to commit themselves to the welfare of other humans.
"This isn't just a minor revision—it’s a deliberate signal that Alan Garber’s pro-Israel administration is distancing itself from Enos and Gay"
What on earth does "pro-Israel" have to do with this story? Why is it mentioned? Was it a Freudian slip?
Great work, Chris!