National Science Foundation (NSF)
This article is a stub. You can help us by editing this page and expanding it.On X
2009
Confused by the fact that science sees religion as its chief threat. Might we worry instead about threats posed by NSF/NIH/NAS?
I find @EricRWeinstein addressed by @NSF speaking in the first person singular. Think Eric: what did Moses do in this situation?
Oh @NSF do not confuse me more. Did thou not fund me to go to MIT? Did thou not command me to gain the PhD for our nation's good?
Give me a sign @NSF: what are we going to do about the epidemic level of hogwash that threatens our nation in finance/markets?
For @dabacon: "NSF/NAS study ways of glutting markets to depress wages for universities and other employers ignoring the scientific impact."
BTW @dabacon, any fear of writing such a blog post is meant to be covered by your academic freedom. Your fear, is exactly my point.
QED.
"scarce talent *lured* into the PhD-level NS&E career paths will not be available for other uses." -Internal NSF labor study [Emphasis mine]
"This pessimistic scenario of rising PhD scarcities and *rapidly rising salaries*.."-NSF study fearing high scientist wages. [Emphasis mine]
By far the biggest threats to innovation, discovery and scientific revolution come from our dominant science organizations.
New Topic: "What's your vision of true academic freedom?" [Asks @Philip_Girvan.]
An old joke about the diference between the Soviet and US constitutions. Both give freedom to dissent. The US gives freedom the day after.
Academic freedom is about making secure heroes out of Margot O'toole, Doug Prasher & Nassim Taleb instead of pushing them to the periphery.
Academic freedom is freedom to invite a senior colleague to self-copulate for inserting himself before your name on YOUR paper..and survive.
Academic freedom comes from the academic *obligation* to schedule lectures if you have even the possibility of strong disruptive results.
Academic freedom entails a right for a non-expert theorist of high ability to cross boundaries and live on merit without seeking permission.
Academic freedom is the insulation from threat or want to continue in good standing for *any* and *all* contributions & reasoned dissent.
What few people admit is that opposing "String Theory", "The Great Moderation", "Scientist Shortages" etc...leads to excommunication.
This was best put by @BretWeinstein: "Selection is to be feared only when just individuals are prevented from returning costs."
So @ahaspel asks what institutional reforms are needed (which was where I was headed when a birthday party occured in physical reality).
First of all, I am focused primarily on science. If universities can't provide Academic freedom, science needs to move homes.
Next: Basic research in science is a public good (inexhaustible and inexcludible). Therefore we need higher levels of public funding.
To maintain academic freedom we need to move resources from what is falsely called 'scientific training' to the compensation of researchers.
To get strong individuals, our target for researchers should be something like MA by 21-22 PhD by 25-26, permanent job by 26-28 (approx.).
Graduate training is actually much shorter than assumed. Typically one is a graduate 'student' in year 1,2 of a PhD and working thereafter.
Raising PhDs should be Eusocial. Giving students to PI's in a 1 on 1 relationship is like parking choir boys with priests. Better in theory.
We must also fund entirely different sorts of people. Without Huxleys, Grossmans, & Hardys you don't get Darwins, Einsteins, & Ramanujans.
A central point: scientists are supposed to be K-selected but universities are hell bent for leather to r-select PhDs.
Yet that's insane.
Research & Teaching in Universities are as perfectly linked as Skiing & Shooting in the Biathalon: tenuously for all but Professors / Finns.
Last point for now: Freedom for academics is precisely freedom from academics. A real marketplace of ideas beats the pants off peer review.
Something occurs to me. If you've never had reason to test your own academic freedom, you may have absolutely no idea what animated me.
On May 23, 2003 an extraordinary talk at NAS called âExactly Backwards: Scientific Manpower Theoryâ was given.There is no record of this.
The talk was so extraordinary that it was repeated again at NAS 11 days later on June 3, 2003. Again there is no meaningful record of this.
The talk presented evidence to the National Academy of Sciences that NAS & @NSF partnered to manipulate markets over scientist salaries.
Now ask yourself why would @NSF be trying to weaken American scientists? Why would NAS help? How would NSF dependent scientists self-defend?
Gauge theoretic economics interest has come recently from @mathpunk @dabacon @diffeomacx @riemanmzeta @tylercowen @ahaspel etc... Loving it.
I should say that Gauge theoretic economics is also all about academic freedom, quashed as it was by the rennegade Boskin Commission idiocy.
An email from Twitter overnight said: "National Science Fdn (@NSF) is now following your tweets on Twitter." Yet, now @NSF is gone. But why?
As we can obviously see each other @NSF, I propose public dialogue on whether NSF should be strengthening scientists (ergo raising wages).
If you would like to see a dialogue with @NSF on academic freedom, compensation, shortage canards, etc... retweet and star.
An excellent test of our President is whether the Obama era @NSF can undo catastrophic damage to US scientists begun by the Reagan era NSF.
But @NSF / @pffli, why not engage with reasoned critique? You have a fine economist on staff named M. Boylan. Ask about: http://bit.ly/NSFSG
Of course following me isn't a mistake at all @pffli. You paid for my education to do research. My research is at NBER http://bit.ly/NSFSG
In order for us to help keep @NSF funded, healthy, & attractive, we need you to engage. And, of course, we've followed each other for years.
I tweet as an Individual scientist. There are no work (Gov't/Corp) entanglements in this stream for @NSF to worry about.
2010
I'm delighted to learn of teaming between Google & NSA followed by Microsoft & @NSF making a joint announcement today. #Bob&Carol/Ted&Alice
I'm trying to figure out why the US is now crazy for 'Singapore Math'. Does anyone believe that the US sucks at math? Well, anyone smart?
The US needs to invent 'US mathematics' where we learn from our own awesomeness instead of malingering to get @NSF funded.
Glashow, Weinberg, Glauber, Politzer, Cooper, Hulse & Schwartz went to one US public school over 25 years (1941-1966). Can we claim to suck?
Hoffmann, Cohen, Stein, Lederberg, Axel, Fogel, Lax went to 1 rival US public school across town in the same period. But in '70, WE changed.
The problem with US math & science education is that we became dependent after 1970 on a permanent state of lying about just how bad we are.
I await being lectured on data supposedly showing that we'll be speaking Korean if we don't follow tech CEOs.
I love bulgogi: bring it.
Lockhart's 'Mathematician's lament' makes a strong argument for what to do in the face of math hysteria: http://bit.ly/11lyg.
Oh man. @DARPA_news claims there is a US geek shortage. Uh...Do they know it has authors? Circa 1986? By @NSF? Jointly with NAS via GUIRR?
Recommendation to @DARPA_news: request all internal docs written by @NSF economist Myles Boylan. Some are undated with no attribution.
Finally after standing up for Pornographer rights, Ed Teller, NSA, and pointing out that @NSF/ NAS lie about shortages, I have 0 followers.
.@NSF funded cartoon Cyberchase is quite radical. Counter-stereotypes girls & minorities as better at math with white boys more confident!
2011
I'm fascinated by scientists cheerleading for @NSF without understanding it's dual roles in both promoting & destroying innovation.
2016
1/ The invisible world is first detected in the visible world's failure to close. [For @naval @johndurant @pmarca et al. A tweet storm try.]
2/ In physics we have conservation laws. We found the light/invisible neutrino because decay in heavy/visible particles violated these rules
3/ Likewise in biology we proved the germ thy of pathogens vs theories like spontaneous generation/miasma by visible effects at macro scale.
4/ I used 'failure to close' to deduce from 1st principles that the NSF must have done a secret study in '85-6 on how to *lower* sci. wages.
5/ This was b/c the incompetent 'shortfall studies' that got NSF in trouble would have lead to different visa laws than those that passed.
6/ I was shocked when a highly competent "smoking gun" study hidden in '86 showed up exactly where my thy predicted: https://t.co/VZvmupRFon
7/ This is the secret history of H1-B. The @NSF secretly studied how to interfere w/ US labor market 2 avoid paying scientists market wages.
8/ Rules:
I) Look for a macro system failing to close.
II) *Don't* posit a detailed explanation.
III) Posit a 'neutrino' place holder & dig.
9/ HW: A) Why don't top OEMs sell laptops w/ lens covers, mic kill switches & hardwired video LEDs offering security to gain mkt advantage?
10/ How do you get 9 figures of wealth doing charity work & public speaking without selling, inventing, founding or investing brilliantly?
11/ C) Why were Bernie's massive rallies often not covered @ NYT & why did a positive Bernie article go neg after massive linking from web?
12/ D) Why do laboratory bred mice used for drug testing have extra long telomeres (allowing radical tissue repair) compared to wild type?
13/ I could go on. I don't know which are nefarious. I'm a different kind of conspiracy guy. I *don't* have answers but know where I'd dig.
14/14. Thank you for your time. Feel free 2 attack. But remember, I've been here before just as w @NSF...before digging up their smoking gun
2017
Odd. My paper on NSF conspiracy behind the 1990 immigration act has been hosted at NBER since '98. Until just now... https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:V2bdTXXnf8YJ:www.nber.org/~peat/PapersFolder/Papers/SG/NSF+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
Waiting to know how (or if!) @nsf, @michiokaku, @theNASciences & other prominent backers of large scale scientific immigration defend this..
Did @nsf trick congress into undermining PhDs to benefit #STEM employers? @EricRWeinstein found the smoking gun https://ineteconomics.org/perspectives/blog/how-why-government-universities-industry-create-domestic-labor-shortages-of-scientists-high-tech-workers
@RadioFreeTom @SamHarrisOrg
These are from trade theorist @paulkrugman in his âProtectionist Momentâ piece. Iâm not trying to win here. Iâm worried that you arenât watching how this neo-liberal edifice is being abandoned because the expertâs public stance was a lie.
@RadioFreeTom @SamHarrisOrg @paulkrugman What are your thoughts here @RadioFreeTom? I can go into detail on a number of these. We could do the fake STEM shortage backed by the @NSF and @theNASciences if you donât believe in such things.
Oh, which is why I included the Brad DeLong slide. Where he says it straight. Did you see that one?
Are you comfortable with experts saying âwe trot out exoteric theories to hide our real esoteric theoriesâ when the real theory may transfer wealth to insiders? Is that mere spin?
@RadioFreeTom @SamHarrisOrg @paulkrugman @NSF @theNASciences Do we disagree on fundamentals over this:
@RadioFreeTom @SamHarrisOrg @paulkrugman @NSF @theNASciences And, no I donât call something a conspiracy because I disagree w/ experts. I usually agree w/ them! What I disageee with is using expertise to transfer wealth & agency from the supposedly childlike voters who intuit something is rigged but canât name it in political 3 card Monty.
2018
Thanks for asking Alex. âWelfare Queens in White Lab Coatsâ is an oft repeated epithet since the Reagan-Bush era in anti-tax circles. Certainly Prof Rustum Roy said it. RRâs NSF Director boosted it. But Iâm referring to its amplification by free marketeers who ignore mkt failure. https://x.com/alexberezow/status/988532847391604736
As for boosts in Scientific funding, Iâm not saying all US Republicans are anti-science funding. On the contrary. Many see it as an extension of security funding or competitiveness. But what drives many scientists away is an unwillingness to be careful about public goods & taxes.
@AlexBerezow Well, given that you hadnât yet heard the expression before Iâm thinking you may want to look at the history before retooling the implicit accusation that this was nothing. Erich Bloch wasnât a nut. Nor was Roy.
[You can steelman your argument by pointing out Proxmire as a Dem.]
@AlexBerezow Iâm sorry! Iâm only aware of your book on the anti-scientific left (which is a huge problem as well), but not any work on the âanti-scientificâ right. What do you write about Erich Bloch? Iâm curious because I also covered him in my work. Canât wait to discuss.
I have my disagreements with Noah Smith but this stuff from EW just seems bizarrely conspiratorial tbh
@CathyYoung63 @Piaggio_g @AlexNowrasteh Fascinating. You do realize Iâm quoting the actual secret study done by NSF/PRA/GUIRR? I mean, you are aware that this was already a scandal investigated by congress before I found the study and dissected it?
Are you challenging anything substantive? I didnât catch it if so.
2019
Let me remind you what the National Science Foundation / National Academy were really up to w/ high skilled immigration. But letâs do it in their own words from their own secret study which they hid from the public. It was about tampering w/ free markets to hobble US scientists.
No mainstream outlet has properly covered this story in 25 years. Every big paper has asked about it. Yet every story is always spiked by an editor. It just sits there in full view of the entire press core.
It is what proved to me that there is no actual newspaper in America.
So youâre saying that the NSF actually WANTED to hobble US scientists? Arenât they, um, a part of that community? Iâm open to learning...but off the cuff, this seems right wing anti immigrant stuff. Or self serving at the least.Granting I donât know as much as you. Help me get it
@TreiberS Itâs one hell of a rabbit hole. Yes, senior scientists and employers destroyed the career path for their younger colleagues. That was the shocker. It was the NSF/NAS.
When we ban people from spreading conspiracy theories we can no longer discuss conspiracies.
In 2017, I spread a conspiracy story.
Q: Should I be deplatformed for alleging that the US has a proven ability to destroy lawful US citizens by planting fake news in mainstream media?
Think about this: the US has had a proven history of conspiring repeatedly against its own citizens and destroying lives. Our check against that tyranny is FREE SPEECH/PRESS including the freedom to discuss & test wild hypotheses that begin as...wait for it...conspiracy theories.
Right now, EVERY major platform (@Google, @Apple, @facebook & @Twitter) both spreads and profits from hate, violence, misinformation and offensive speech. I will defend them in the same terms I defend all those they deplatformed pretending that they have a zero tolerance policy.
Furthermore I will again spread my own researched conspiracy theory: the H-1b & the Immigration Act of 1990 were created from a conspiracy inside the @theNASciences & @nsf complex to target and betray our own STEM professionals on behalf of STEM employers: https://ineteconomics.org/uploads/papers/Weinstein-GUI_NSF_SG_Complete_INET.pdf
Ending conspiracy theories means ending investigative journalism: no My Lai. It means banning Howard Zinn. Not discussing the McCollum memo. Not talking about the Dulles brothers / Kermit Roosevelt. Forgetting the untreated syphilis victims of Tuskegee.
Me to FB: Drop dead. /End
P.S. In honor of FB's zero tolerance, I joined a pro-violence hate group on FaceBook. It has an ideology of supporting violence by Kurdish Women against ISIS, its hated target. Come join me and dare FaceBook to shut us down. We are called "Kurdish Freedom Fighters Against ISIS"
Iâd love to debate my friend @AndrewYang on the subject of so-called high-skill immigration.
Resolved: American STEM immigration was deliberately structured by the @NSF & @theNASciences via fake news to undermine the free market bargaining power of the US Scientist & Engineer.
It is not immigrants but automation and technology that are causing economic dislocations around the country. We need to wake up to the transformation around us and think much bigger about how to make our economy work for people.
I hope itâs clear that Iâm proposing this out of love for @AndrewYang and his mission. But I want to support his policies as well as the man I consider a friend. If heâs to stand a chance, he has to unlock the Xenophilic-Restrictionist mega block of voters that MSM denies exists.
Our US immigration problem is severe but it is not immigrants. Our problem is a despicable class of cynical fellow Americans hiding behind the immigrant who have weaponized our tolerance and used immigrants to transfer wealth from US labor to US capital. Itâs the wealth transfer.
My buddy @AndrewYang is welcome on The Portal. He is trying to become a portal out of our political theater.
If you want to accelerate that, make some noise. Iâve already asked and heâs said yes if I recall.
2020
@erikbryn @Noahpinion @fmanjoo No. I refused to believe it until people told me what they were up to. You may want to read this rather carefully. Iâm not making this up:
https://users.nber.org/~sewp/references/archive/weinsteinhowandwhygovernment.pdf
@erikbryn @Noahpinion @fmanjoo Let me have the NSF tell you in their own words why they want so many of your graduate students to be foreign. From section 5:
We need an emergency talk about this media war on @AndrewYang & @TulsiGabbard that was waged on @RonPaul, @BernieSanders & others before.
This is what I call the âVampire Effectâ; institutions will not reflect certain people just as vampires supposedly donât reflect in a mirror.
This isnât cute as #YangMediaBlackout. This isnât hidden any more. This is a boast by our media. Their point to all of us is: âFuck you and your illusionsâ. And We arenât calling it what it is: a declaration of war by our own media and parties against our own democratic process.
Forget the Russians tampering in US democracy. Thatâs amateur hour. The Russians arenât bragging like this. @MSNBC has been asking: âSo tough guys, whatcha gonna do about the fact that we just keep knocking your milkshake into your dateâs lap?â
We need to just be done with this open coup against meaningful elections. This is âMagicians choiceâ ... which is no choice at all. To hell with our news magicians. We need to make their credibility a financial issue. Open to suggestions.
Take a look:
https://vocal.media/theSwamp/a-visual-history-of-the-yang-media-blackout
I got tired of MSNBC suppressing @AndrewYang. The @DNC suppressing @TulsiGabbard. @HillaryClinton suppressing @bernie. @ABC editors suppressing reporting on Epstein. @nytimes not covering @EvergreenStCol in real time. @Harvard burying my wifeâs & my work: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/18-slipping-the-disc-state-of-the-portal-chapter-2020/id1469999563?i=1000462651162
I got tired of @RonPaul being suppressed by @GOP. The @UMich wasting years of my brotherâs life and peer review suppressing his discovery. The Boskin commission suppressing truth about inflation. How the @nsf and @theNASEM suppressed the reason for H1-B. We must name the enemy:
The enemy is the DISC. Its the complex of structures that resulted in fantastic income inequality & unrest breaking out all over the đ. It is what keeps Jamie Dimon safe from Len Bole. David Baltimore from Margot OâToole. Biden safe from Yang. Institutions safe from Individuals.
The first goal of The Portal is to install a Portal allowing young researchers in our STEM departments and Research Universities to avoid being subjected to submission to these instutions. No loyalty oaths. No signing over your intellectual property. No theft of your retirement.
I donât want you having to submit your work to an anonymous referee if you donât trust that process. What if it is an unethical competitor? What if your advisor is jealous of you or has come to dislike you? You and your work need adult options. You are a scientist not an infant.
You have a right to unionize. You have a right to know if your department canât place its graduates into professorships and is blaming you for its failures. You have a right not to be subjected to the intellectual âDroit du seigneurâ that has come over âgraduate trainingâ.
And what do I want in exchange for trying this? Selfishly, I am about to take on a fair amount of negativity and risk so I would be honored to be mentioned in your thesis acknowledgements if I can help get you a real income and the rights to your own work. But I want more.
What I most want is that you have the courage I lacked. I couldnât imagine standing up to Harvard.
I want you to swing for the fucking fences w/ your research. I want you to remember that we need you to get out of our stagnation. I want you to believe pathologically in yourself.
So letâs go after the exhaust vent in the DISC. Letâs get you a future. Jobs in the same city as the one you love. Careers while youâre young. Letâs get you savings for retirement & help raising your kids.
But to make this work: stop fetishizing âidentityâ & build our future.đ
This is the Distributed Idea Suppression Complex or DISC in action.
A hyper specific allegation that the @NSF and GUIRR inside the @theNASEM in 1986 directed an internal economic analysis to figure out how much they would have to pay STEM workers in the future.
The study is economically competent using both supply & demand, and then found new US graduates would have to be paid 6 figures shortly. They termed this the âpessimistic scenarioâ, and then (and Iâm not making this up) faked an *incompetent* DEMOGRAPHIC study by removing demand!
The *competent* ECONOMIC study was protected and buried by never releasing it and removing the date and author from it. The author is still attached to NSF. To be clear: our @NSF is faking incompetence. The mainstream media is faking disinterest. Why? To not reveal the reasoning.
The reason we have sky high STEM immigration is wage tampering. The @NSF & @theNASEM undermined our own model of scientific independence, academic freedom & irreverent science that was the envy of the word by flooding US markets with pliable STEM labor. And over what? Just wages.
Now who is willing to get the @NSF on the record denial? Only the right leaning @BreitbartNews here! And US Instutional media treats anything that appears there as automatically beneath discussion. This is the logic of the Gated Institutional Narrative:
I donât exist. Breitbart doesnât exist. The secret study doesnât have an author, a date or publication. All restrictionists are automatically racists. Blah blah..
But then why not call a liar @nsf? Why invite me to the National Academy 4 separate times to present this @theNASEM?
Ask yourself why your trusted media wonât put this story to rest. Just deny it @NSF. I triple-dirty-dog dare you. I would love the pleasure of having your spokespeople on The Portal to use your superior access to documents to explain.
Welcome to the DISC. Letâs do this thing.
Folks are asking why I donât name the economist at @NSF. Or publish the study.
Itâs not because I donât have the name. Iâve spoken to the author.
Itâs not because I donât have the study.
Itâs because this isnât about ruining lives. Itâs about saving the NSF & US STEM complex.
Iâm getting to the point where I may do both. But it isnât what I want.
I want my country, university system, research labs, immigration, media etc reformed & not destroyed. I canât stand the new âBURN IT ALL!â energy. But our institutional world is now keen to self-extinguish.
If so, so be it. You want 4 more years of this madness and an ultra conservative Supreme Court to stop Woke wild eyed Far Left economic proposals?
You love Trump or China that much that you want to focus on reparations & pronouns? You want to scorn US families? I canât stop you.
But Iâm sure as hell gonna try. What do I have to lose if you are that determined to screw this whole thing up anyway. Letâs go for it.
@CarlSag74260271 People who want to anger the electorate by dragging the party to celebrate âundocumented workersâ. People who refer to underemployed Appalachian former Democrats with guns, bibles and no college degree as deplorables. Media who want to focus on gender edge cases more than China.
This is hard to keep saying: almost everything we think about STEM is wrong.
A) We the US are GREAT at science.
B) Workers are mislabeled as students/trainees.
C) We underfund research.
D) China sends workers valued by Unis as they not as free or expensive as our own people.
Are you suggesting that US universities should have had fewer STEM doctoral candidates in total, or that they should have excluded foreign nationals, or only foreign nationals from a country with an âincompatible form of government?â 1/x
Think of it as âIntellectual Munchausen By Proxyâ where the leadership of STEM at @NSF and @theNASciences have historically made up stories about how their own children (US STEM) are too sickly/greedy/unruly to do research. But our pliant temp visa holders are obedient wiz-kids.
The US STEM complex is induced to murder careers of our own people because we are not trained to be obedient workers. We use freedom & irreverence based education. Our edge is our middle finger and US STEM folks rightly demand market level US salaries to power our market economy.
So hereâs our choice.
Either:
A) Stop whining and pay US STEM costs for some of the best and most irreverent mavericks in the world.
B) Shut down the programs that canât compete.
C) Prepare to have PRC work its way into every corner of US R&D by supplying our workforce.
đ
Folks are going to struggle processing the reasons for my anger. Let me explain:
A) There were & *are* such cabals: GUIRR, AAU, NAFSA, NSF, NAS, APLU, etc. They got going later than was discussed on this episode.
B) Iâve been ringing this bell since the â80s. This is way late.
So I agree that this 2020 podcast is saying this is appalling. But this is almost 40Yrs after this problem became visible and these voices were NOWHERE to be heard! When we said this in 1987 or 1992 we were vilified. So yes, this is better than most. But that bar is too damn low.
And lastly, I have been in multiple conversations where professors of economics and/or finance have *literally* laughed in my face explaining how great our system is for them at the expense of younger students using exactly these concepts like barriers to entry: The joke is real.
2021
2022
Is it finally starting to happen? The industrial grade lying among scientists started so far as I can tell in 1986.
It was ushered in by the 1st NSF director to come from industry rather than academe.
You will soon understand this loss is now at levels you have yet to consider.
As with all lying, when you discover prominent scientists lie about one issue, you start wondering: which others? https://dailysceptic.org/2022/01/14/new-emails-reveal-scientists-stifled-lab-leak-discussion-to-protect-science-in-china/
This is not about @spotify or @joerogan anymore. Or COVID. Or vaccines.
This is about the President of the United States USING vaccines to lean on communications/news companies to label his critics as misinformation.
This is an open war on American Values from the Oval Office.
So @PressSec weâre going to come straight after *your* #EliteDisinformation.
I surmise that @NSF, @BLS_gov, @HHSGov, @NIH, @NIAIDNews, @doddtra, Fauci, Collins, etc, are all located under the Whitehouse in the Executive branch. Thus, dis- or mis-information from them, is yours.
Shall we slap a warning label on your lectern: âWarning: The Oval Office & its departments/agencies are leading repeat purveyors of misinformation & disinformation on everything from Gain-of-Function research to Weapons-of-Mass-Destruction to Immigration/Trade/Inflation policy.â?
This either is still America or it isnât. This discussion has NOTHING to do with vaccines or public health. Itâs about American Citizensâ freedom to dissent from their own Executive Branch.
Whether it is or isnât still meaningfully America, Itâs time to find out. Letâs do this.
Iâll be sure to ask him. But in the meantime why donât we ask why economists at @nsf in 1986 secretly did economic wage projections and then erased ALL the demand curves to pass the 1990 immigration act in a fake demographic panic to destroy our scientistsâ bargaining positions?
Maybe your employer can take $2B and give out a bunch of stipends to a couple of hundred scientists? Seems like a start to me!
Iâm not sure why Peter needs to clean up a conspiracy at @nsf and the National Academy of Sciences to defraud the US on behalf of technical employers who wanted their markets flooded with cheap talent. Can you ask economists what a âlabor shortageâ would be in a *market* economy?
@karyns4 @NSF Wow! âAll well paid and thriving.â
We are back?! With tenure? Easy grant renewals for long term research? 4 years to PhD? Full benefits? Kids in independent schools? Jobs in the same city as their spouses? 2nd Homes?
This is great news. I stand corrected.
Only itâs not true.
2023
Now I feel completely alone.
I want our wanting out of this story. I have a huge dog in this fight. I spend every day fighting my own human desire for GU to be proven correct.
I believe this is how String Theorists stopped being scientists.
I just want our data & the physics.
If biological aliens were here from others star systems in crafts that defy the current physics of the standard model and, more importantly, general relativity, I would be one of the few people who would have a guess on day one as to how they must have gotten here. Itâs tempting.
I donât think biological interstellar alien visitors using GR and the SM make much sense. So I try to have a war *inside* my own mind as to what is true. I have a genuine âNeed to Knowâ as to whether this is BS NatSec space opera disinformation theater. Because to me, it is data.
What just happened isnât data. Itâs that a sober individual just pushed one of the many longstanding highly conserved NHI narratives collected from *many* diverse sober NatSec informants over the sworn testimony line. And it gets a LOT crazier from here. But itâs not science yet.
As Iâve been saying, there is so much deliberate NatSec BS out here that our own scientists are being propagandized. Weâre drilling holes in our own scientistsâ lifeboat. Last time we saw this it was virologists/immunologists/epidemiologists being gaslit. Now itâs physicists.
Let me be very careful in what I am about to say. We have at least the appearance and optics of scientific self-sabotage. And wanting things to be true is how science dies.
I fight like hell to promote my theory. But Iâd sign on to another to know the truth if I was wrong.
We may be looking at the birth of a new UFO religion. Or a moment of contact. Or a long running Disinformation campaign. Etc.
To go beyond GR, letâs be scientists & get NatSec out of our data first. Where is our data pruned of space opera disinformation and cultic religiosity?
What I want to know:
Why was the Mansfield Amendment passed?
Why did NSF fake a labor shortage in our MARKET economy destroying American STEM labor markets?
What stopped the Golden Age Of General Relativity?
Why was the SSC really cancelled?
StringTheory & STAGNATION: WTF?
What the hell was the 1957 Behnson funded UNC Chapel Hill conference actually about?
Why are we not stopping to QUESTION quantum gravity after 70 years of public *FAILURE* inspired by Babson-Behnson patronage of RIAS, the Institute of Field Physics and the precursor to Lockheed?
This is the 50th year of stagnation in the Standard Model Lagrangian. It is AS IF we are deliberately trying to forget how to do actual physics. Everyone who has succeeded in Particle Theory in standard terms is now over 70. This is insane. In 25 years there will be no one left.
Why are we not admitting that quantum gravity is killing physics and is the public respectable face of 1950s anti-gravity mania that lives on to murder all new theories in their cradle?
Quantum Gravity is fake and works to stop actual physics.
There. I said it. Now letâs talk.
If you want to know whether there are biological interstellar visitors here observing us, the short answer is âAlmost *certainly* not if they are using our current stagnant non-progressing theories of physics.â
Letâs finally get serious about this whacky subject? Thanks. đ
I swear I didn't write my tweet to make you feel alone and I'm genuinely sorry if that was the result. That said, I think it's better to acknowledge one's hopes and desires than to pretend they don't exist and thereby overestimate one's own rationality.
@skdh I acknowledge my desires as you see from what I wrote. But a stagnant community always wants outcomes. It wants SUSY. Or Strings. Or some g-2 muon anomaly. Etc.
I want too. But what I want is mostly just a desire to get the BS out of physics so we can get back to succeeding.
2024
I highly recommend learning about the history of where H-1B came from before getting emotionally invested in it.
It was born as a labor tampering conspiracy against American scientists headquartered at the @theNASEM (GUIRR) & @nsf (PRA) under Erich Bloch.
Posted this later, as an example:
"A growing influx of foreign PhD's into U.S. labor markets will hold down the level of PhD salaries to the extent that foreign students are attracted to U.S. doctoral programs as a way of immigrating to the U.S."
-Photograph from the secret @nsf study that led to the H-1B.
"A growing influx of foreign PhD's into U.S. labor markets will hold down the level of PhD salaries to the extent that foreign students are attracted to U.S. doctoral programs as a way of immigrating to the U.S."
-Photograph from the secret @nsf study that led to the H-1B.
So @VivekGRamaswamy: let's debate your ideas about why these programs are controversial.
Everyone sane in the US wants a strong America. My contention is that these programs were *designed* to weaken us as a STEM powerhouse to save money for employers. Let's debate this out. No?
Vivek: this hurt a lot of Americans.
I invited you to a public debate about your claims as Iâve been fighting this insinuation of inferior American values in STEM for 35 years or more.
Itâs a myth that came out of the @NSF & @theNASEM.
Letâs debate this in public. On camera.
The reason top tech companies often hire foreign-born & first-generation engineers over ânativeâ Americans isnât because of an innate American IQ deficit (a lazy & wrong explanation). A key part of it comes down to the c-word: culture. Tough questions demand tough answers & if weâre really serious about fixing the problem, we have to confront the TRUTH:
Our American culture has venerated mediocrity over excellence for way too long (at least since the 90s and likely longer). That doesnât start in college, it starts YOUNG.
A culture that celebrates the prom queen over the math olympiad champ, or the jock over the valedictorian, will not produce the best engineers.
A culture that venerates Cory from âBoy Meets World,â or Zach & Slater over Screech in âSaved by the Bell,â or âStefanâ over Steve Urkel in âFamily Matters,â will not produce the best engineers.
(Fact: I know *multiple* sets of immigrant parents in the 90s who actively limited how much their kids could watch those TV shows precisely because they promoted mediocrityâŠand their kids went on to become wildly successful STEM graduates).
More movies like Whiplash, fewer reruns of âFriends.â More math tutoring, fewer sleepovers. More weekend science competitions, fewer Saturday morning cartoons. More books, less TV. More creating, less âchillin.â More extracurriculars, less âhanging out at the mall.â
Most normal American parents look skeptically at âthose kinds of parents.â More normal American kids view such âthose kinds of kidsâ with scorn. If you grow up aspiring to normalcy, normalcy is what you will achieve.
Now close your eyes & visualize which families you knew in the 90s (or even now) who raise their kids according to one model versus the other. Be brutally honest.
âNormalcyâ doesnât cut it in a hyper-competitive global market for technical talent. And if we pretend like it does, weâll have our asses handed to us by China.
This can be our Sputnik moment. Weâve awaken from slumber before & we can do it again. Trumpâs election hopefully marks the beginning of a new golden era in America, but only if our culture fully wakes up. A culture that once again prioritizes achievement over normalcy; excellence over mediocrity; nerdiness over conformity; hard work over laziness.
Thatâs the work we have cut out for us, rather than wallowing in victimhood & just wishing (or legislating) alternative hiring practices into existence. Iâm confident we can do it. đșđž đșđž
The claim that America is inferior in STEM is calumny. What is true is that Americans in STEM behave like *Americans*.
Our own scientists arenât going to act like employees.
Our engineers arenât going to say âWhatever you say boss!â
We arenât lining up to sign your DEI oaths.
Our own scientists and engineers expect their kids to go to the top schools. They expect to get recognized for discoveries. They expect academic freedom. They expect to be financially secure.
Etc etc.
I say @VivekGRamaswamy, that our system produces the best STEM talent in the world and then promptly destroys most of what it produces in favor of more pliant labor. Letâs have this out.
2025
This is fascinating. Erich Bloch and Peter House employed economists to specifically and intentionally design our scientific immigration system to drive down U.S. scientific compensation using foreigners and âluresâ. Yes, the @nsf and @theNASciences in 1986 secretly designed our U.S. stem system so that our STEM employers could save money if we drove away our own top STEM talent.
Scientific backstabbing. Plain and simple. We took the worldâs top scientific workforce and destroyed it to save money on science salaries and to get access to more pliant employees. Why? Because our leaders appointed idiots to save a few bucks. Iâm sorry but that is what happened.
So, who is this Collins guy and what is he doing at the top of the U.S. science pile? Why are we listening to him? Is he some great thinker? Is he some kind of policy genius? Is he more ethical and merit loving than the rest of us slobs and mere mortals?
Ah. Yes. I remember now. Francis Collins! The one who calls for âdevastatingâ take downs against his âfringeâ MD/PhD professorial colleagues and their work. And yet, here he is again! Why wonât he slink off somewhere where he canât do even more damage? Why is he here??
This is what DC science policy circles look like. Two faced. Francis Collins would end your career without a second thought for principaled scientific dissent. As he tried to do to my colleague @DrJBhattacharya at Stanford.
He should not be speaking for science. He does not represent science.
Science cannot afford Francis Collins and his culture of backstabbing officials.
The former NIH director Francis Collins tells @JeffreyGoldberg he fears the U.S. is losing a generation of scientists.
âWe have depended so heavily on being the place that everybody wanted to come to to do research," Collins says. "And now weâre driving those people away.â
You are discussing the use of outside referee reports.
The codification of âPeer Reviewâ is a different beast.
Outside referees were at the *discretion* of editors.
âPeer Reviewâ was a last ditch promise made to government funders: âWill you stay out of our research if we agree to give away much of our discretion?â
You want to look up: Medicare act, MACOS, Baumann amendment, Utah medical clinics, and the NSF peer review wars of 1975.
Michael Shermer: you are quite incautious about what I say. Your world is dominated by careful scientists and wild eyed conspiracy theorists. The idea of wild eyed scientists (e.g. Francis Collins, Gerald Bull, Peter Daszak, Edward Teller) and careful conspiracy theorists (e.g. Seymour Hersh, William Davidon, Jack Raper, Gary Webb, etc) doesnât occur to you nearly enough.
Roughly speaking I claimed that the U.S. government was, at a minimum, faking UFOs and that there is ample evidence that we FAKE exactly such things (which I documented) and destroy our own peopleâs sanity, reputations, careers and lives on a regular basis playing the âThat sounds like a conspiracy theory!!â game.
Which is *exactly* what just happened in UFO land. We admitted we did what I claimed we were likely doing when I was on Rogan.
And what I claim about our failed 40 year âQuantum Gravityâ and âString Theoryâ program is simply that it completely disabled a potentially dangerous activity: successfully discovering and sharing the power of new physics in open universities with foreign nationals of rival nations well beyond the Manhattan Project era nuclear physics. Is that deliberate? It sure as hell would be a lot less suspicious if we ever had the string theorist/quantum gravity people at the same conference head to head with their rivals and detractors. Wouldnât it?
Iâm sorry this seems crazy to you. But the U.S. government makes shit up. Itâs called âCovert Operationsâ. In laymenâs terms: we conspire to gaslight our own people. And we do it a lot around national security.
Now would you please consider that you are carrying water for the very people that do this particularly vile form of reputational wet work? Is that what you want to do??
Enough.
I was writing about the danger of a manipulated CPI in 1996 (now admitted). The fake NSF labor shortage (now discredited) in the 1980s. Bidenâs cognitive crisis for all 4 years of his presidency (now known to all). The fake racism charges against the Wuhan Lab leak theory (ahem).
Etc. See the pattern?
Michael: you do not get to do this cheaply. You live in a simplified world of good rational people and bad madmen. I live in a different world and the scourge of that world is the shitty debunker making fun of the scientists with the courage to say âUh, ya know the mainstream position just doesnât add up.â
Conspiracy is everywhere. And those of us who are disciplined in talking about them do not need you telling us what is possible based on heuristics.
I donât think our secret federal scientists are in possession of the final theory at all. I have never said âWe have anti-gravity.â
Stop stirring the pot. You are not the amazing Randi and I am not a spoon bender. I debunk debunkers. Deal with that first.
If you want to go head to head with my track record, let me know. I would LOVE that.
If not: be more careful.
Like a scientist. Thanks.
No hard feelings.
Dear @EricRWeinstein The history of technology strongly indicates that UAP-type "anti-gravity" tech cannot be Earthly. Here's my explanation of why from my forthcoming book Truth: What it is, How to Find it, Why it Still Matters:
An alternative to ordinary explanations for UAP sightings is that they represent Russian or Chinese assets, drones, spy planes, or some related but as yet unknown (to us) technology capable of speeds and turns that seemingly defy all known physics and aerodynamics. Pilots and observers describe âmultiple anomalous aerial vehiclesâ accelerating from 80,000 feet down to sea level in seconds, or making instantaneous turns and even sudden stops, or shooting off horizontally at hypersonic speed, breaking the sound barrier but not making a sonic boom, which should be impossible, not to mention that it would kill the pilots instantly. And these vehicles appear to be able to do so with no apparent jet engine or visible exhaust plume, suggesting that theyâre using some anti-gravity technology unavailable to even the most advanced experimental programs worked on at DARPA. When 60 Minutesâ correspondent Bill Whitaker asked former Navy pilot Lieutenant Ryan Graves, who had seen with his own eyes UAPs buzzing around Virginia Beach in 2014, âcould it be Russian or Chinese technology?â Graves responded âI donât see why not,â adding that âif these were tactical jets from another country that were hanginâ out up there, it would be a massive issue.â Top Gun navy pilot and commander of the F/A-18F squadron on the USS Nimitz, David Fravor, told 60 Minutes âI donât know whoâs building it, whoâs got the technology, whoâs got the brains. But thereâs something out there that was better than our airplane.â
The hypothesis that the objects are terrestrial and developed by some other nation or corporation, or some genius working in isolation, is highly unlikely, given what we know about the evolution of technological innovation, which is cumulative from the past. In his seminal work The Evolution of Technology, the historian George Basalla busts the myth of the inventor working in isolation, dreaming up new and innovative technologies out of sheer creative genius (the ping of the light bulb flashing brilliantly in the mind). All technologies, Basalla demonstrates, are developed out of either pre-existing artifacts (artificial objects) or already existing naturfacts (organic objects): âAny new thing that appears in the made world is based on some object already in existence,â he explains. But some artifact had to be firstâan invention that comes from no other invention, ex nihilo as it were. If this is the case then that artifact, Basalla shows, likely came from a naturfact. (Barbed wire is a famous example. Its inventor, Michael Kelly, in 1868 explained: âMy invention [imparts] to fences of wire a character approximating to that of a thorn-hedge. I prefer to designate the fence so produced as a thorny fence.â )
In How Innovation Works, Matt Ridley demonstrates through numerous examples that innovation is an incremental, bottom-up, fortuitous process that is a result of the human habit of exchange, rather than an orderly, top-down process developing according to a plan. Innovation is different from invention, Ridley argues, because âit is the turning of inventions into things of practical and affordable use to people that makes innovation possible.â Innovation, he continues, âis always a collective, collaborative phenomenon, not a matter of lonely genius. It is gradual, serendipitous, recombinant, inexorable, contagious, experimental and unpredictable. It happens mainly in just a few parts of the world at any one time.â Examples include steam engines, jet engines, search engines, airships, vaping, vaccines, cuisine, antibiotics, mosquito nets, turbines, propellers, fertilizer, computers, dogs, farming, fire, genetic engineering, gene editing, container shipping, railways, cars, safety rules, wheeled suitcases, mobile phones, powered flight, chlorinated water, toilets, vacuum cleaners, shale gas, the telegraph, radio, social media, block chain, the sharing economy, artificial intelligence, and hyperloop tubes.
It is simply not possible that some nation, corporation, or lone individualâno matter how smart and creativeâcould have invented and innovated new physics and aerodynamics to create an aircraft of any sort that could be, essentially, centuries ahead of all known present technologies. That is not how innovation works. It would be as if the United States were using rotary phones while the Russians or Chinese had smart phones, or we were flying biplanes while they were flying stealth fighter jets, or we were sending letters and memos via fax machine while they were emailing files via the Internet, or we were still experimenting with captured German V-2 rockets while they were testing SpaceX-level rocketry. Impossible. We would know about all the steps leading to such technological wizardry.
Consider the Manhattan Project, arguably the most secretive program in US history to date, leading to the successful development of atomic bombs in 1945. The Russians had an atomic bomb by 1949. How? They stole our plans through a German theoretical physicist and spy named Klaus Fuchs. Modern tech companies like Apple, Google, Intel, and Microsoft are notoriously secretive about their inventions, forcing employees to sign Non Disclosure Agreements (NDEs), enforcing extensive security protocols for their offices, and protecting intellectual property rights through countless lawsuits. And yetâŠall of our computers, smart phones, computer chips, and software programs are essentially the same, or at least in close parallel development. Countries and companies steal, copy, back engineer, and innovate each otherâs ideas and technologies, leaving no one company or country very far ahead or behind any other.
Plenty of 1st rate scientists over the last 50 years have raised their voices to say âOur leadership, grant making groups, and journals are lying about X.â
How many of them have a 2nd home. A 1st home? A grant? A professorship? An invited talk? Even an affiliation?
Come on man.
If scientists wants science to be taken seriously, they've got to stop doing stupid stuff like publishing the zillionth study claiming that groupwise disparities are proof of bigotry, and then firing scientists who point out the obvious flaw in that reasoning. https://www.sensible-med.com/p/a-cancellation-and-a-firing-at-obesity
We cut off the academic oxygen to anyone who challenges the leadership.
Invite me back to Harvard as the co-founder of the Science and Engineering Workforce Project in the @HarvardEcon department and I will give a talk on how this really works. You donât have to pay me a cent if you video it.
Iâll cover:
The need to fire Claudine Gay.
The need to end activist studies depts.
University Bioweapon research
String Theory
CPI Cost of Living
Evolutionary theory applied to Humans
Low Dimensional Geometry
NSF STEM Shortage Panics
DEI hiring against merit
Epstein and Science
Cognitive abilities expectations in Geographicly widely separated populations.
We can do it in Memorial Hall to overflow crowds or one of the ground floor Science Center halls.
It canât happen. You arenât serious about this. You are looking for a little truth. Not a return to actual white knuckle science.
Or am I wrong in this? I have the credentials having done this work *AT* Harvard. Let me know.
We make anyone pointing at the real problem lose everything within the system. We expell them. We impugn them. That is the problem.
@sapinker you are one of the most courageous voices inside the system. I appreciate that.
Those more courageous than you are not there anymore and many are every bit as good as you. Look around. Where did they go? Where is Jim Watson? Who replaced Serge Lang? What did they do to Larry when he spoke in the program I co-Founded with Richard??
You are a professor. Invite those who stood up back and call for the firing of Claudine.