The Casting Couch

I know of a few cases in which people have publicly supported the idea that humans are bosons while personally thinking otherwise. This can mean signing Graham Coop’s  letter against Nicholas Wade [ misplaced: such  letters are traditionally sent to  Pravda], or publicly criticizing work they privately agree with –  ” you have to read between the lines” -, or just being careful to avoid certain dangerous topics  – “I can’t afford to think about that”.

This tendency is strongest, perhaps, in people just entering the field. Weakest in dying Nobelists.

But life is like that sometimes.  Think of what young actresses have had to do to advance their careers.  From one point of view, they deserve respect for the sacrifice they make for their art.  In the same way, when some young geneticist is emitting protective nonsense, which can’t be comfortable – remember: it takes a hell of a man to fuck Harvey Weinstein.




This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

68 Responses to The Casting Couch

  1. Inquisitive Bird says:

    I don’t know.. Sometimes it seems that older people in academia are more resistant to change. Because they are deeply entrenched in the accepted narrative.

    Whereas the next generation comes in and is more open to the accumulated evidence that challenges the accepted narrative

  2. sprfls says:


  3. JamesDW says:

    let’s cut to the chase: boomers are the evil here.

    rich boomers with tenure are lying so poor millennials with no tenure are forced to placate fat and comfortable boomers so they’re not unemployed and homeless.

    People older than boomers are either confused or clueless or mad.

    But this is 100% a boomer menace.

    Why is it that NO boomer, no matter how “heterodox” will name the boomer?

    • Rosenmops says:

      I’m a boomer with tenure (as a lecturer). I’m not rich, but I guess anyone with a regular pay cheque and a full time job might seem rich to young people trying to get into academia. Fortunately math is not controversial so I am not put in a position to either tell lies or lose my job. However I have ignored instructions to put a statement on my course outlines saying the university is on unceded aboriginal land. I’m retiring soon any way.

      • Frau Katze says:

        I, another boomer, have recently seen anti-boomer sentiment all over Youtube. Mostly from commenters.

        I’m not rich either but today’s young are generally worse off. The universities seem to be relying more and more on adjuncts, that will never have a pension, tenure or even any guarantee of ongoing work.

        My pension is fairly modest but few of younger generation will even see that.

        At first I thought they were blaming us for the crazy hippies and leftists of 1960s who started all this nonsense like the grievance studies departments.

        But perhaps it’s just that it’s so much harder for them financially. I thought house prices in Vancouver were expensive in the 1970s. Yet it’s far far worse now.

        • Hugh Mann says:

          Not only is housing expensive, academic careers are precarious in a way they never used to be. The old doctorate to permanent lecturer career path seems to have gone unless you’re lucky or ‘special’.

          “I have just returned from my last conference of the season – half a dozen in total, across the UK and Europe. One theme kept cropping up in conversations with fellow attendees: job insecurity, and the impact it is having on our families and lives.”

          • dearieme says:

            These people are complaining, essentially, that they made a bad choice of career.

            They even criticise someone who had the sense to realise the nature of the problem and bugger off to do something else. “There was the announcement that a top-notch researcher was leaving academia for the private sector, citing lack of job security and pay as the reasons.”

            Well, it might just be rotten luck that they made the wrong choice, but it’s obstinate folly that they don’t accept that the choice was wrong and change course accordingly.

            I talked my daughter out of doing a PhD and that still looks to me to be a good policy.

      • dearieme says:

        All the universities I’ve taught in have been built on land stolen from Abos, or Maori, or Romano-Britons, or the Gododdin. I’ve delivered seminars on land stolen from Injuns, Mexicans, Transalpine Gauls, Cisalpine Gauls, and the sundry Kelts and Slavs who lived in Germany before the Krauts turned up.

        Is there an acre on God’s earth that didn’t change hands by theft at some point in its history?

        • Young says:

          Is it theft when land changes hands without any generally accepted notion of property rights and legal title and when the current occupants have taken the land from others? Most Indian tribes fought each other for slaves, control of land and for fun. Custer had Indian scouts with him because their tribes had a grievance against the folks he was fighting. Cortez had Indian help against the Azetecs and Pizarro against the Inca for the same reason. The concept of ‘theft’ only makes sense within a narrow legal construct.

        • Young says:

          To get a better sense of how mutable the concept of ‘theft’ can be when race is in the mix, see how many academics are willing to apply the notion to the violent seizures of white farmers’ land in Rhodesia/Zimbabwe and South Africa. Remember, there was a time when Zimbabwe invited whites to buy and develop farms in the country. Those who did did not ‘steal’ it in any sense of the word yet it is hard to find anyone left of center use words like ‘steal’ or ‘murder’ when those same farmers are slaughtered by mobs for land they developed.

        • R. says:

          Slavs weren’t even a thing when Krauts settled the area of present Germany.

          • dearieme says:

            “The present Germany” rather limits the discussion: Germany was moved bodily westward in the 20th century . If you look at the German Empire of 1914 plenty of its eastern areas had been Slavic before being invaded by Germans. And part of it had been neither German nor Slav but Balt.

            And even the “present Germany” was presumably populated by someone or other before the Germans arrived from the north. If indeed that’s what happened.

      • Alex says:


        “Fortunately math is not controversial”

        Have you decolonized math yet?

        • Hugh Mann says:

          Geology and chemistry are still OK, although even in geology there are some people miffed that geologic periods and series are named after Welsh tribes, English counties or small Welsh towns. But they’re the cloud no bigger than a man’s hand at present.

          Geography, esp “human geography”, is pozzed, and medicine very much so. For example, Asian and African immigrants to the UK have twice as high a risk of developing diabetes as the Native Brits – and you can find that information on the National Health Service website. Elsewhere you can find the information that NHS spending on diabetes is predicted to rise from 10% to 17% of the entire budget in 25 years. No one in UK medicine is drawing the obvious conclusion that further immigration from Asia or Africa is unwise.

    • Rich says:

      Agree 100%. Fat cat, lazy assed boomers, taking pictures with their ipads.

    • CS Lewis noted the phenomenon before a single Boomer was born, in “That Hideous Strength.” (1945) BTW, he takes some heat for criticising scientists in the book, but it’s really the social scientists claiming the mantle of science that he goes after. The only real scientist in the book, a chemist, is killed by the journalists and social scientists running the joint.

      To the OP. At minimum, public letters are not how science is done. It smacks greatly of The Manifesto of the Ninety-Three in 1914.

    • savantissimo says:

      Boomeritis was first diagnosed among boomers, but NABALT, and not all cases of boomeritis are seen in boomers. I see the syndrome most often in those born any time in the ’40s or early ’50s. Other risk factors: college degrees, especially professional degrees and degrees before the mid-’70s; stable employment, particularly in large organizations with tenure or real pensions; obesity; TV watching, esp. before cable TV; familial or spousal history of boomeritis; extraversion & co-morbid personality disorders. Boomeritis seems to be much rarer among minorities and those who attended integrated schools.

      I’d apply for a grant to study the subject, but if I were so optimistic and stupid, I’d have to diagnose myself with at least incipient boomeritis myself.

      • Toddy Cat says:

        Are you guys implying that Boomers are more PC than Millennials? I agree, there are some pretty obnoxious PC Boomers around, but Good Lord.

    • jameshigham says:

      The major problem is Gen X, not the majority of Boomers.

    • ghazisiz says:

      Karma. Remember how the Yippies thought the revolution meant killing everyone over 30? Remember the contempt we felt for all those straights who had never dropped acid? This next generation will have equally valid reasons for despising us.

  4. Bert says:


    • ohwilleke says:

      I’m confused by that too. Neither of the definitions of the word that I am aware of (an integer spin particle such as a photon) or in the sense of a colloquial terms for “boatswain” (a minor naval officer), really make sense in this context.

  5. Jokah Macpherson says:

    I don’t think they deserve more respect. After all, moxie is highly heritable, so all they’re really doing is being themselves.

  6. James Fulford says:

    Boson are particles that are all, as far as we know, identical. (Like people, any of whom would be able “given the opportunity” to “do most anything” according to Deborah Solomon. )

    I found the letter from Graham Coop, et al, and what makes it unusual is that the et al who signed it are mostly people who SHOULD know better, and who possibly DO know better, but really want to see their names up in lights saying “Tenured Professor.”

    • gcochran9 says:

      I know a few that definitely do know better.

    • gregor says:

      The statement manages to use the terms “speculation,” “guesswork,” and “conjecture” all within a few sentences. They don’t even say he’s wrong, just that he’s going beyond the evidence. Isn’t it odd though that only certain results seem to require this high bar of absolutely dispositive evidence? You can make up whatever excuses you want to explain away differences and nobody gets worked up about those (often already falsified) speculations.

    • SMack says:

      I hadn’t noticed before that Reich was on that list.

  7. Zeinish says:

    But life is like that sometimes.

    Life was always this way, and always will be. When people like you will be in charge, everyone will gladly repeat the nonsense you believe in to get on your good side.
    Until then, you are out of luck.

  8. Webber Tinkle says:

    His book is pretty good though, quick read, only 160 pages.

  9. Jim says:

    It’s sad that there is so much intellectual corruption in academia. However if I try to imagine myself in the position of someone just at the very start of their academic career without tenure and uncertain prospects I can understand that they don’t feel like charging right out onto the beaches of Normandy.

  10. Zeinish says:

    Do you people really need to ask why people repeat untrue things?
    Better question is: why is blank state narrative dominant? And the answer is: because it is excellent justification for existent class structure of society.

    The people on the top are there because they are the smartest, and they are the smartest because they were studying hard and working hard. Anyone could do it, but the lower 99,99% are lazy swine who prefer watching TV and drinking beer. This is why they deserve everything they got.

    If want the HBD-IQ narrative prevail, you need to appeal to the top, and offer it as better narrative to justify their power. Something like: “You are high IQ master race born to rule and command, the low IQ commoners are two legged sheep born to serve and obey. This is scientific truth.”

    Anything else is just whistling in the wind.

  11. albatross says:

    Taboo topics and ideas and a party line everyone is supposed to believe are all common features of most any culture. And while those may be good or bad things to follow in some objective sense (don’t marry your sister regardless of whether it’s a taboo to do so), those taboos and party lines don’t come about from a rational process, and peoples’ beliefs in them and reaction to seeing them challenged isn’t happening at a rational level.

    • SMack says:

      Sure, but not many parties develop a line that guarantees rapid self destruction.

      This is NOT a normal case of “elites gonna elite” or “ruling group pursues self interest”.

      This is a family of frogs that’s decided to make “always trust scorpions” its highest and most stringently enforced value.

  12. JRM says:

    These people say false things because they place more emphasis on social relations than truth.

    Since they are socially oriented, that is also their weakness.

    They care what others think and about their status in society.

    Make them feel pain with criticism and mockery by pointing out their low status.

    Ms. Scientist is fat, ugly, can’t hang on to a man, etc.

    Mr. Scientist can’t get laid, bad with women, has a fat wife, etc.

    If it is true, they know it and it hurts even if said just once.

    And if the criticism is so funny, others share it….jackpot.

    • Zeinish says:

      This will not work.
      To impugn someone honor, you need to have honor of your own.
      In the good old times, the nobles were concerned what other nobles think about them, not the peasants.
      Just like uppity peasants were whipped to death or torn apart by dogs, people like you are now banned from twitter and facebook, and this solves the problem.

  13. Toddy Cat says:

    “it takes a hell of a man to fuck Harvey Weinstein”

    It must have taken a strong constitution to write that…

  14. J says:

    “Think of what young actresses have had to do to advance their careers.” No sacrifice at all. It came naturally to them.

  15. Ilya says:

    “it takes a hell of a man to fuck Harvey Weinstein.”

    There might be a hidden meaning here, but technically, it must be that “it takes a hell of a man to get fucked by HW”

  16. Rory says:

    But how is sleeping with the weinsteins et al a sacrifice for art? Maybe you’d have a point if the slop hollywood was putting out were half decent, but even then it would be little better than sex for pay (being sex for pay + fame and social status). Prostitutes do more for less, and with men just as (or more?) repulsive as big harv. And I’m not sure the lies of academics qualifies either, I’ve heard of something called a noble lie (what would ever convince me to affirm the goodness of such a thing I don’t know), but never that the greater and more painful the lie, the greater it’s nobility. I’d say the greater and more certainly false the lie the greater the shame of lacking the will to tell the truth.

    • Hugh Mann says:

      It’s a sacrifice for career, not for art. There’s always another pretty young thing who will want the role and will do what it takes to get it.

  17. J says:

    It has been observed among our cousins on the trees that females beg for food or protection while offering their behinds. Why should be it different among us? Why the consternation except for penis envy?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s