3 ms·

The article contains a link to this paper: http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1522&context=jgspl http://digitalcommons.wcl.amer

by untog 11y ago

The article contains a link to this paper: http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1522&context=jgspl http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?a... "Examining Exclusion in Woman-Inventor Patenting: A Comparison of Educational Trends and Patent Data in the Era of Computer Engineer Barbie" which contains a specific section on data comparisons, so I certainly wouldn't say it is "without any arguments or data".

tomp 11y ago
I'm not saying their claims aren't true, I'm just saying that they haven't presented any arguments or data in the article. Edit: Haha, I didn't realize my original comment was flagged. I guess I was wrong to call it "bullshit", I should have called it "propaganda". But probably even that would be to "politically incorrect" (or "inconvenient") to be acceptable here...
- untog 11y ago
  That's the beauty of hyperlinks - linking to relevant content without having to repeat it.
  - untog 11y ago
    And RE: the edit I just noticed that you made, you appear to have confused "propaganda" and "politically incorrect" with "factually correct". A claim was made and backed up with data-driven scientific study and you still aren't able to perceive it as anything other than propaganda? I feel sorry for you.
    - tomp 11y ago
      Why don't you comment on petra's post then?
      - untog 11y ago
        It's a reasonable post that makes points I, frankly, am not qualified to judge, so I will not try to. Your post stated that the author had provided no argument nor data, when it did exactly that. I am able to judge the existence or non-existence of text, so I replied.
- pavel_lishin 11y ago
  You also called their claims bullshit, without doing any research or bothering to present any arguments yourself.
  - tomp 11y ago
    No, "bullshit" was meant only for the way those claims were presented in the article. I didn't really see how they were relevant to the rest of the content (and to the title). It seemed like somebody thought "Oh, we could slip some feminist propaganda in here!"
    - pavel_lishin 11y ago
      Seems pretty relevant to the article; it explains why innovation in the field of menstruation has been so slow. It's pretty relevant background.
petra 11y ago
Actually the strongest claims about the gender imbalance from the nytimes article are "And a 2006 study found that female academics in the life sciences — Ms. Tariyal’s field — were filing about 60 percent fewer patents than their male colleagues." But when looking at the referenced research[1], the methodolgy is:" One possibility is that men and women do qualitatively different kinds of research. In particular, if women are risk averse in their research choices (15), there may be a gender difference in research Bpatentability.[ We believe such a difference would manifest in the extent of scholarly impact. To explore this possibility, we created a data set of the 23,436 articles published by the women in our sample and matched each paper (by publication year) with a randomly drawn article from the pool of male scientists_ papers. This yields a sample of articles with a 1:1 gender ratio. We then examined by gender and year, the average number of citations and the journal impact factor (JIF) of these papers. We found that the per-article mean citation count for male scientists is very similar to that of women (table S3). Moreover, the gender gap in average JIF actually favors women (average JIF for male: 4.06; average JIF for female: 4.12). Overall, there is no evidence that women do less important work based on standard measures of scientific impact." Which sounds like a way to measure the average quality of research(via mean), not for comparing the highest quality research by males and females, which is what counts for VC investments(and probably for patents) - and which should have high correlation to risk preference of males/females. [1]http://haas.berkeley.edu/faculty/papers/ding9_gender%20differences%20in%20patenting.pdf http://haas.berkeley.edu/faculty/papers/ding9_gender%20diffe...

by untog 11y ago

tomp 11y ago

I'm not saying their claims aren't true, I'm just saying that they haven't presented any arguments or data in the article. Edit: Haha, I didn't realize my original comment was flagged. I guess I was wrong to call it "bullshit", I should have called it "propaganda". But probably even that would be to "politically incorrect" (or "inconvenient") to be acceptable here...

untog 11y ago
That's the beauty of hyperlinks - linking to relevant content without having to repeat it.
- untog 11y ago
  And RE: the edit I just noticed that you made, you appear to have confused "propaganda" and "politically incorrect" with "factually correct". A claim was made and backed up with data-driven scientific study and you still aren't able to perceive it as anything other than propaganda? I feel sorry for you.
  - tomp 11y ago
    Why don't you comment on petra's post then?
    - untog 11y ago
      It's a reasonable post that makes points I, frankly, am not qualified to judge, so I will not try to. Your post stated that the author had provided no argument nor data, when it did exactly that. I am able to judge the existence or non-existence of text, so I replied.
pavel_lishin 11y ago
You also called their claims bullshit, without doing any research or bothering to present any arguments yourself.
- tomp 11y ago
  No, "bullshit" was meant only for the way those claims were presented in the article. I didn't really see how they were relevant to the rest of the content (and to the title). It seemed like somebody thought "Oh, we could slip some feminist propaganda in here!"
  - pavel_lishin 11y ago
    Seems pretty relevant to the article; it explains why innovation in the field of menstruation has been so slow. It's pretty relevant background.

petra 11y ago

Actually the strongest claims about the gender imbalance from the nytimes article are "And a 2006 study found that female academics in the life sciences — Ms. Tariyal’s field — were filing about 60 percent fewer patents than their male colleagues." But when looking at the referenced research[1], the methodolgy is:" One possibility is that men and women do qualitatively different kinds of research. In particular, if women are risk averse in their research choices (15), there may be a gender difference in research Bpatentability.[ We believe such a difference would manifest in the extent of scholarly impact. To explore this possibility, we created a data set of the 23,436 articles published by the women in our sample and matched each paper (by publication year) with a randomly drawn article from the pool of male scientists_ papers. This yields a sample of articles with a 1:1 gender ratio. We then examined by gender and year, the average number of citations and the journal impact factor (JIF) of these papers. We found that the per-article mean citation count for male scientists is very similar to that of women (table S3). Moreover, the gender gap in average JIF actually favors women (average JIF for male: 4.06; average JIF for female: 4.12). Overall, there is no evidence that women do less important work based on standard measures of scientific impact." Which sounds like a way to measure the average quality of research(via mean), not for comparing the highest quality research by males and females, which is what counts for VC investments(and probably for patents) - and which should have high correlation to risk preference of males/females. [1]http://haas.berkeley.edu/faculty/papers/ding9_gender%20differences%20in%20patenting.pdf http://haas.berkeley.edu/faculty/papers/ding9_gender%20diffe...