[soc/neuro; feminism] Eusociality

[siderea]

I.

They're right.Or at least, Group Selection is right. I've been reasonably certain Kin Selection was mathematically ludicrous since I learned about it at age 15, and it didn't add up then, but I figured actual scientists must have looked into it and I would hold my opinion until I had a chance to hear what they said. I got a little distracted

Comments

[livredor]

It's possible that Tarnita is being left out because she's a woman, but it is standard convention among bioscientists to refer to a paper by the names of the first author (who usually did the bulk of the work) and the last author (who is usually the professor who designed the experiments and made high level decisions about the research). Most people don't even pay attention to the first names of researchers, so I'd be surprised if the people omitting her were aware that Tarnita is a woman.

It may of course not be mere coincidence that the female researcher of the three is the one in the subordinate position. Maybe she was equally capable of doing the work, but Wilson assigned all the exciting stuff to Nowak due to deliberate or unconscious bias. Maybe she could have been capable, if only she hadn't faced institutional discrimination throughout her career and taken time off for unpaid and unrewarded caring work. But in general a paper by A, B and C will always be referred to as "a study by A and C" or "A & C, 2011". Now you've said it I'll keep an eye out to see if I ever see the middle author getting namechecked, and if that happens more often when the middle author is identifiably male, but I suspect it's rare enough that I won't be able to see any patterns.

[siderea]

HUH! Fascinating. I'd never heard of such a tradition -- in all the fields I'm familiar with names go strictly in order of precedence, so A and B are the most and next most prestigious positions respectively, and papers are most typically referred to as by, well, "A", but otherwise "A and B".