3 ms·

I don't find this especially convincing. Some of the issues here are reasonable things to look at; some aren't. >1) I am surprised that there are only 20x more

by zck 11y ago

I don't find this especially convincing. Some of the issues here are reasonable things to look at; some aren't. >1) I am surprised that there are only 20x more PRs by men. I would say it’s more like 100-200x more men on GitHub then women. So they're comparing data (which may be erroneous, but is actual data), with a feeling: "I would say". And the data types are even different! The study compared the ratio of pull requests between genders; this person quibbles over the ratio of users between genders. >2) But the women that are there are usually always employed by some small to medium tech company. So this study is possibly comparing mostly professional women with mostly hobbyist men. Perhaps. It would be interesting to see data here. Again, saying "are usually" isn't based on data. >4) In my experience a lot of people on GH with feminine sounding names are actually men from Eastern Europe (Sasha, Nicola, etc) or India (Sandy, Sunny, etc). This is a complaint against a methodology that the study didn't use. From the study (https://peerj.com/preprints/1733v1.pdf https://peerj.com/preprints/1733v1.pdf): >...we took a different approach – linking GitHub accounts with social media profiles where the user has self-reported gender. You can say this wasn't a big enough ratio (they identified 35% of users' genders this way), or that people will report incorrect data, but if you're talking about "feminine sounding names", you're not addressing this article. Point five has nothing to do with gender. Perhaps there's an unstated point there. Point seven is easily testable; points eight and nine are testable, but not as easily.

Chris2048 11y ago
> It would be interesting to see data here. Again, saying "are usually" isn't based on data. Why? They're suggesting the data doesn't support the claim - They only needs data of their own if they had their own claim. The burden of proof is not on them. You are right that they didn't use names to determine gender though, which makes this a little suspect - did The author read the study? It does mean, though, that the sample is further focused on developers who are on G+, who use the same email address, and who identify their gender. This would potentially allow for even more confounding factor if not investigated. Whether or not a sample is representative is not an unimportant question, and with conclusions like this, need to be considered a little more...
- vannevar 11y ago
  Why? They're suggesting the data doesn't support the claim - They only needs data of their own if they had their own claim. The burden of proof is not on them. This isn't a trial, it's an argument. And regardless of context, you should support your argument with facts, not pure speculation. The entire article is completely devoid of supporting evidence. There's nothing wrong with saying that the original study lacked evidence (if that's true), but making up your own facts without either citing a source or acknowledging that they're just speculation is not valid criticism.
  - Chris2048 11y ago
    "Burden of Proof" isn't just a legal term: http://ddo.wikia.com/wiki/Burden_Of_Proof http://ddo.wikia.com/wiki/Burden_Of_Proof vs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_burden_of_proof https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_burden_of_proof > There's nothing wrong with saying that the original study lacked evidence To show a study "lacks evidence" you need to show where it is lacking. Any plausible hypothetical not refuted by the study evidence, but also not compatible with the study conclusion, is proof of this. > making up your own facts Which facts? A statement preceded by "I would say" is one not presented as fact, but explicitly as opinion.
    - vannevar 11y ago
      Legalistic arguments over the burden of proof aside, I stand by my assertion that you should support an argument with facts. And a statement like "But the women that are there are usually always employed by some small to medium tech company." doesn't sound like an opinion being offered. I'm not saying the author was morally wrong to make his statement, only that it falls far short of something worth being posted on HN. If he'd taken the extra time to verify some of his opinions, I'd feel differently.
      - Chris2048 11y ago
        In the context of a plausible hypothetical alternative, that unverified claim still has value. People post their opinions on HN all the time, and 'verify' is a problematic concept - what tools do we have to verify something? WE're software devs, not statisticians, and and quasi-scientific, slapdash case can be made to people who lack those critical skills. TLDR; Most devs lack the qualifications to 'verify' anything statistical... Not that that will stop them from assuming they're "smart" enough to figure it out anyway...

by zck 11y ago

Chris2048 11y ago

> It would be interesting to see data here. Again, saying "are usually" isn't based on data. Why? They're suggesting the data doesn't support the claim - They only needs data of their own if they had their own claim. The burden of proof is not on them. You are right that they didn't use names to determine gender though, which makes this a little suspect - did The author read the study? It does mean, though, that the sample is further focused on developers who are on G+, who use the same email address, and who identify their gender. This would potentially allow for even more confounding factor if not investigated. Whether or not a sample is representative is not an unimportant question, and with conclusions like this, need to be considered a little more...

vannevar 11y ago
Why? They're suggesting the data doesn't support the claim - They only needs data of their own if they had their own claim. The burden of proof is not on them. This isn't a trial, it's an argument. And regardless of context, you should support your argument with facts, not pure speculation. The entire article is completely devoid of supporting evidence. There's nothing wrong with saying that the original study lacked evidence (if that's true), but making up your own facts without either citing a source or acknowledging that they're just speculation is not valid criticism.
- Chris2048 11y ago
  "Burden of Proof" isn't just a legal term: http://ddo.wikia.com/wiki/Burden_Of_Proof http://ddo.wikia.com/wiki/Burden_Of_Proof vs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_burden_of_proof https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_burden_of_proof > There's nothing wrong with saying that the original study lacked evidence To show a study "lacks evidence" you need to show where it is lacking. Any plausible hypothetical not refuted by the study evidence, but also not compatible with the study conclusion, is proof of this. > making up your own facts Which facts? A statement preceded by "I would say" is one not presented as fact, but explicitly as opinion.
  - vannevar 11y ago
    Legalistic arguments over the burden of proof aside, I stand by my assertion that you should support an argument with facts. And a statement like "But the women that are there are usually always employed by some small to medium tech company." doesn't sound like an opinion being offered. I'm not saying the author was morally wrong to make his statement, only that it falls far short of something worth being posted on HN. If he'd taken the extra time to verify some of his opinions, I'd feel differently.
    - Chris2048 11y ago
      In the context of a plausible hypothetical alternative, that unverified claim still has value. People post their opinions on HN all the time, and 'verify' is a problematic concept - what tools do we have to verify something? WE're software devs, not statisticians, and and quasi-scientific, slapdash case can be made to people who lack those critical skills. TLDR; Most devs lack the qualifications to 'verify' anything statistical... Not that that will stop them from assuming they're "smart" enough to figure it out anyway...