4 ms·

Would you care to elaborate A lot of 'studies' in the humanities are based on plain and methodologically naive questionaires, with low n and questionable stati

by mafribe 11y ago

Would you care to elaborate A lot of 'studies' in the humanities are based on plain and methodologically naive questionaires, with low n and questionable statistical methods. One of the great social thinkers of the 20th century once called the ongoing inability to make any meaningful inferences from what people say to what they do the great shame of social sciences. There were a bunch of discussions about lack of repeatability in psychology just recently on HN. Anyway, we both agree on the systematic repeatability problem in social sciences. A used car salesperson's motives are crystal clear, which is why their opinion is justifiably taken with a pinch of salt. A gender studies researcher's motives are crystal clear, which is why their opinion is justifiably taken with a pinch of salt. uncomplicated incentive to lie. The world "lie" is lacking nuance. Why did you introduce it? There is a whole ocean between mathematical truth talking (e.g. 2+3 = 6) on one end and straightforward lies (e.g. my username on HN is mafribe) on the other. You are fond of the phrase "unconscious bias", but have you ever applied that concept to yourself, or to texts like [0, 1, 2, 3, 4]? If not, why not?

richmarr 11y ago
> ... have you ever applied that concept to yourself, or to texts like... Yes. I am currently doing a lot of work on exactly that subject. > A gender studies researcher's motives are crystal clear... ...and we're not discussing the motives of gender studies researchers. We're discussing a man talking to his friends about their own experiences. You were the first one to bring up the topic of social science.
- mafribe 11y ago
  we're not discussing the motives of gender studies researchers. Have you considered the possibility that those researchers have the same motivation as the "friends"? You brought up gender studies researchers by referencing material of questionable scientific credibility. As to you "doing a lot of work on exactly that subject", what are the results? Why do you, like a lot of men, automatically genuflect to damsels, going on about their distress?
  - richmarr 11y ago
    > Have you considered the possibility that those researchers have the same motivation as the "friends"? You seem to be implying that a significant portion of discrimination is (by fair means or foul) invented, on the basis that women have a motive to do so. By that same logic, a significant portion of men would therefore refute and deny any genuine stories of discrimination, as they have a motive to do so. The best way to unpick this stuff is with actual data, and there's plenty of data (from labs, randomised controlled trials, and other types of study) that says discrimination is still occurring at a systematic level. > You brought up gender studies researchers by referencing material of questionable scientific credibility. Feel free to offer some thoughtful analysis of the actual papers mentioned. > As to you "doing a lot of work on exactly that subject", what are the results? To be published when ready. > Why do you, like a lot of men, automatically genuflect to damsels, going on about their distress? That would be empathy, Bob.
    - mafribe 11y ago
      You seem to be implying ... Yes. A significant portion of discrimination is invented, on the basis that women have a motive to do so. Do you agree or disagree? By that same logic ... First, that's an orthogonal issue, why bring it up? Secondly, it's false, because there are no corresponding incentives. there's plenty of data Most of this data has been collected by people with massive and unresolved confirmation bias. Feel free to offer some thoughtful analysis of the actual papers mentioned. Would it be worth my time? Can you give me any reason to believe that this isn't standard issue gender studies material, with methodology so bad that Trofim Lysenko looks like a shining beacon of scientific probity in comparison? I have read enough of those. How, to raise but one point, do these papers deal with confirmation bias?

by mafribe 11y ago

richmarr 11y ago

> ... have you ever applied that concept to yourself, or to texts like... Yes. I am currently doing a lot of work on exactly that subject. > A gender studies researcher's motives are crystal clear... ...and we're not discussing the motives of gender studies researchers. We're discussing a man talking to his friends about their own experiences. You were the first one to bring up the topic of social science.

mafribe 11y ago
we're not discussing the motives of gender studies researchers. Have you considered the possibility that those researchers have the same motivation as the "friends"? You brought up gender studies researchers by referencing material of questionable scientific credibility. As to you "doing a lot of work on exactly that subject", what are the results? Why do you, like a lot of men, automatically genuflect to damsels, going on about their distress?
- richmarr 11y ago
  > Have you considered the possibility that those researchers have the same motivation as the "friends"? You seem to be implying that a significant portion of discrimination is (by fair means or foul) invented, on the basis that women have a motive to do so. By that same logic, a significant portion of men would therefore refute and deny any genuine stories of discrimination, as they have a motive to do so. The best way to unpick this stuff is with actual data, and there's plenty of data (from labs, randomised controlled trials, and other types of study) that says discrimination is still occurring at a systematic level. > You brought up gender studies researchers by referencing material of questionable scientific credibility. Feel free to offer some thoughtful analysis of the actual papers mentioned. > As to you "doing a lot of work on exactly that subject", what are the results? To be published when ready. > Why do you, like a lot of men, automatically genuflect to damsels, going on about their distress? That would be empathy, Bob.
  - mafribe 11y ago
    You seem to be implying ... Yes. A significant portion of discrimination is invented, on the basis that women have a motive to do so. Do you agree or disagree? By that same logic ... First, that's an orthogonal issue, why bring it up? Secondly, it's false, because there are no corresponding incentives. there's plenty of data Most of this data has been collected by people with massive and unresolved confirmation bias. Feel free to offer some thoughtful analysis of the actual papers mentioned. Would it be worth my time? Can you give me any reason to believe that this isn't standard issue gender studies material, with methodology so bad that Trofim Lysenko looks like a shining beacon of scientific probity in comparison? I have read enough of those. How, to raise but one point, do these papers deal with confirmation bias?