5 ms·
"... a quarter of all fired employees had been unpleasant players. Toxic players tended to be toxic employees, even if the reverse wasn't always true." Isn't t
by frankmcsherry 10y ago
"... a quarter of all fired employees had been unpleasant players. Toxic players tended to be toxic employees, even if the reverse wasn't always true."
Isn't this saying the opposite?
- jessriedel 10y agoI don't think so. A = fired employees. B = unpleasant players. B is contained within A, so B implies A ("Toxic players tended to be toxic employees") but not the reverse.
- frankmcsherry 10y agoWe only have that P[B|A] = 1/4; we don't know anything about P[A|B] without more info. It could totally be that all non-fired employees are toxic, and viciously went after their weaker colleagues by having them fired! I guess that would make them toxic, but whatever.
- Dylan16807 10y agoAnd to make it even more complex, we have no idea what portion of the fired employees were toxic. You can be fired for a lot of reasons.
- jessriedel 10y agoI was just demonstrating that there was a consistent interpretation of the quote from the article.
- x1798DE 10y agoThough that seems to be how the sentence is actually parsed, it seems odd that that would be true. That indicates that every toxic player worked there, and some of the horrible people who worked there were actually not horrible in the context of the game.
- evan_ 10y agoI think what it's trying to convey is that when an employee was a toxic gamer, they were also a toxic employee.
- x1798DE 10y agoYes, that's what it would seem like, because that makes sense, but what it actually says is the exact opposite of that - if you're a toxic player, you're also a toxic employee, but if you're a toxic employee, you're not necessarily a toxic player. Seems wrong.
- blakeyrat 10y agoHow so? Maybe Ted for fired for sexual harassment of a co-worker. Maybe he worked for HR and rarely, if ever, played LoL in the first place. He'd be fired as a toxic employee without anything in his LoL chat log to hint at it. What they're saying is that if you have a toxic LoL chat log, you're likely to be a Ted. But the reverse isn't true: you can have a pristine chat log, and still be a Ted.
- elicash 10y agoTheir point is that while toxic players were DISPROPORTIONATELY toxic employees, it's not the case that a MAJORITY of toxic players were toxic employees.
- frankmcsherry 10y agoSorry, I see what you are saying, and I wasn't (intentionally) complaining that 1/4 isn't 1/2 or so. Rather, that the stat only tells us that when you look at toxic employees you find toxic players, rather than vice-versa.
- thaumasiotes 10y agoThe cited statistic doesn't tell you anything of the kind. It tells you that toxic employees are by and large (~75%) not toxic players, and the following sentence repeats that toxic employees aren't always toxic players. That followup sentence also supplementally tells you that the sweep of toxic employees happened to catch most of the toxic players. That information is unrelated to the given statistic.