Academic Activists Send a Published Paper Down the Memory Hole
The paper seems to have some egregious and basic errors.<p>Take a look at the paper: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;arxiv.org&#x2F;pdf&#x2F;1703.04184.pdf" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;arxiv.org&#x2F;pdf&#x2F;1703.04184.pdf</a><p>On page 2, it says (in discussing Special Case 1): &quot;If sex A is relatively selective and will mate only with the top most desirable quarter of sex B, then all of the next generation will be offspring of the more variable subpopulation B1&quot;<p>However, if you look at the histogram in Figure 1, it&#x27;s clear that if sex A mates with the top most desirable quarter of sex B, then sex A is choosing <i>most desirable mates who happened to be part of the subpopulation B1</i>.<p>That is, as diagrammed in the histogram, variability is not a function of the population any more, since the red rectangle noting &#x27;B1&#x27; with desirability 3 to 4 is <i>no longer variable</i>. It would be absolutely incorrect to say that &quot;all of the next generation will be offspring of the more variable subpopulation B1&quot;.<p>In other words, it&#x27;s like saying:<p>&quot;In Sack 1, I have a mix of of blueberries and watermelons. Sack 1 is varied in fruit size, and has a high variability.
I&#x27;ve sorted them by size, and taken the most largest fruit and put them in Sack 2. Now Sack 2 is full of variable sizes of fruit, since it came from Sack 1, which had high variability.&quot;<p>(EDIT: to be clear, I think the above sack example is incorrect; I&#x27;m illustrating the logic in which the paper seems to be incorrect, according to my understanding.)