Utopia Talk - Politics - Peer reviewed nonsense PT 2

Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Tue Apr 30 15:29:23 2024

Utopia Talk / Politics / Peer reviewed nonsense PT 2

Seb
Member Sun Aug 19 14:54:30
http://www...hread=83151&time=1534599101645

Hood:

"Seb thinks he's galileo, being prosecuted by the fanatically blind for his revolutionary thinking. He doesn't realize that he's actually the modern flat earther."

Actually that's more Nim's view. I'm boringly controversial in thinking that Science should conform to normal practice established over centuries. Nim is the one that is arguing his revolutionary thinking needs special leeway.

"That suspiciously doesn't provide an actual reason for the discrepancy."

I'm not sure why you think I should go beyond the paper here. However, the paper itself is strongly suggestive of bias being the reason for the differing acceptance rates.

However, I think you are missing the point. The differing pull request acceptance rates are themselves the problem as those affect job prospects. Hence, uneven playing field. If you can think of a good reason why the "anonymity" premium exists I'd be interested to hear it.

Nim:
"because it is assumed that the underlying ability is evenly distribute among men and women"
Um, no. The whole point is about differences between identifiable gender and non identifiable gender.

Or do you think that there is a reason why that difference should be correlated with ability?

Your argument that the difference can be explained by difference in ability as a null hypothesis is rather unscientific.

The obvious null hypothesis is that you would expect ability to be equal, otherwise we are one step away from always invoking a hypothetical silver bullet explanation for any difference.

" there is a higher variability among men. Github coders are not average people"

Explain in detail then how you think this higher variability of ability and intelligence in men (assuming that the women contributors are similarly a tail population); would lead to this strange phenomenon where unidentifiable women have higher acceptance rates than identifiable women; and the difference between unidentifiable men and identifiable men should be much less.

It is far from obvious why this would be caused by the effect you cited - a great example of the handwaving, leap-of-logic explanations you asked me to highlight.

jergul
large member Mon Aug 20 07:14:34
Nimi
I think that you labelling bar you from using research that supports your view.

Case in point. The researcher showed that desperate, marginalized individuals with serious mental health issue will still try to uphold gender roles.

This suggests that gender identity is more than a social construct imposed by social norms and expectations, but may very well have a hard-wired element that no amount of social engineering can change.

For and example of how to use research to support your own perspectives.

show deleted posts

Seb Member	Sun Aug 19 14:54:30 http://www...hread=83151&time=1534599101645 Hood: "Seb thinks he's galileo, being prosecuted by the fanatically blind for his revolutionary thinking. He doesn't realize that he's actually the modern flat earther." Actually that's more Nim's view. I'm boringly controversial in thinking that Science should conform to normal practice established over centuries. Nim is the one that is arguing his revolutionary thinking needs special leeway. "That suspiciously doesn't provide an actual reason for the discrepancy." I'm not sure why you think I should go beyond the paper here. However, the paper itself is strongly suggestive of bias being the reason for the differing acceptance rates. However, I think you are missing the point. The differing pull request acceptance rates are themselves the problem as those affect job prospects. Hence, uneven playing field. If you can think of a good reason why the "anonymity" premium exists I'd be interested to hear it. Nim: "because it is assumed that the underlying ability is evenly distribute among men and women" Um, no. The whole point is about differences between identifiable gender and non identifiable gender. Or do you think that there is a reason why that difference should be correlated with ability? Your argument that the difference can be explained by difference in ability as a null hypothesis is rather unscientific. The obvious null hypothesis is that you would expect ability to be equal, otherwise we are one step away from always invoking a hypothetical silver bullet explanation for any difference. " there is a higher variability among men. Github coders are not average people" Explain in detail then how you think this higher variability of ability and intelligence in men (assuming that the women contributors are similarly a tail population); would lead to this strange phenomenon where unidentifiable women have higher acceptance rates than identifiable women; and the difference between unidentifiable men and identifiable men should be much less. It is far from obvious why this would be caused by the effect you cited - a great example of the handwaving, leap-of-logic explanations you asked me to highlight.
jergul large member	Mon Aug 20 07:14:34 Nimi I think that you labelling bar you from using research that supports your view. Case in point. The researcher showed that desperate, marginalized individuals with serious mental health issue will still try to uphold gender roles. This suggests that gender identity is more than a social construct imposed by social norms and expectations, but may very well have a hard-wired element that no amount of social engineering can change. For and example of how to use research to support your own perspectives.
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: