4 ms·

The NYT blog post starts out discussing regional dialects, then presents a study of 23 Southern Californians aged 18-22... The only study the post links to is

The NYT blog post starts out discussing regional dialects, then presents a study of 23 Southern Californians aged 18-22... The only study the post links to is paywalled and the link to a conference paper is dead. Your second link is also paywalled.

Jemmeh 10y ago
I've found most studies to be paywalled in general aside from the free abstract. Not really sure what to do about that.
- omginternets 10y ago
  Scihub, though I can't find a functioning mirror right now.
- jsprogrammer 10y ago
  You could quote the relevant part of the study, or, not link to paywalls. [It's not your fault, just the current reality.]
  - peyton 10y ago
    Unfortunately, quoting the relevant parts of a study (namely, methods and results) for the purpose of disseminating evidence is a weak fair use case at best. That's why generally in a work you'll see "reproduced with permission" underneath figures and tables taken from other works. The case for fair use is stronger if the work is criticism of the source material. It's a huge gray area, and some journals pursue claims relentlessly.
coherentpony 10y ago
You're absolutely right, and I have no idea why you're being downvoted.
- jsprogrammer 10y ago
  My best guess is that something I type triggers someone's preconceptions about a topic and then they reflexively seek solace in the down triangle. Edit: Or, perhaps, they are rate-limited by HN and can only use the triangles?
  - lotharbot 10y ago
    I did not downvote your above comments, but I can see why others might. Your argument, while perhaps not intended to, parallels a standard trolling technique of asking for evidence and then dismissing any information presented. You complain about one study not being broad enough, about others for being behind a paywall, and still others for being on twitter. Ultimately, the standard you ask for ("this pattern has only been observed with women", and, "this pattern has only been seen with men") is unreasonably restrictive, as if a pattern that was only 99% reliable in separating men from women would not be sufficient. It makes it appear (again, this may not be true, it's just the appearance) that you're not making a good-faith effort to evaluate information fairly, but are instead holding firm to a preconception and requiring extraordinary proof before being willing to reconsider. Your snarky "triggers ... preconceptions" response does not help this perception (and, FWIW, I did downvote this comment, because your "guess" is of negative value -- it only serves to upset your supporters and anger your detractors.) EDIT: also FWIW, I would love to see good data about potential differences in vocal patterns in males and females, if for no other reason than that I could use it in my D&D campaign.
    - jsprogrammer 10y ago
      You seem to be confirming my guess (perceiving a "standard trolling technique" === "preconception"), but I am not looking for supporters or detractors, only justification for the original claim: >These are both more common speaking patterns with women. It is incorrect to ask for "only observed" data in this instance, but I also was clear to state that it was only an example of data that could be presented. >parallels a standard trolling technique of asking for evidence and then dismissing any information presented. If the response is not actual evidence, it should be dismissed. There is no guarantee that a response to a request for evidence is actually valid. That requires investigating the claimed evidence. In this case I investigated and found it severely lacking, as I noted above. Another user has linked to some further analysis of one of the claimed pieces of evidence (the 23-person Southern California study) that shows an apparent basic arithmetic error in the presentation of results. The NTY blog dead links that study and other places that have it require one to pay to see it. >about one study not being broad enough Yes, the study was 12 women and 11 men, aged 18-22, living in the same geographic location. There were severe differences in the experimental conditions between the groups being studied (women all interviewed by women; most, but not all, men interviewed by men). Everything I have read also indicates that this study found that both the men and women in the study often exhibited the pattern that was being watched for. >and still others for being on twitter. The problem is not about being on Twitter, but that the accounts being studied were neither 1) confirmed to be human, nor 2) confirmed to be the gender the experimenters assumed (and to which they compared their predictions/guesses! [in-built confirmation bias?]). >that you're not making a good-faith effort to evaluate information fairly, but are instead holding firm to a preconception and requiring extraordinary proof before being willing to reconsider. I can't evaluate what I can't see and I don't see how I have been unfair to anything that has been presented here. I don't think I am asking for extraordinary proof. I'm only asking for evidence of the particular claim: >These are both more common speaking patterns with women. So, something like: randomly sampled recordings from public places with counts of the occurrence of the pattern and the gender of the person who spoke it.

Jemmeh 10y ago

I've found most studies to be paywalled in general aside from the free abstract. Not really sure what to do about that.

omginternets 10y ago
Scihub, though I can't find a functioning mirror right now.
jsprogrammer 10y ago
You could quote the relevant part of the study, or, not link to paywalls. [It's not your fault, just the current reality.]
- peyton 10y ago
  Unfortunately, quoting the relevant parts of a study (namely, methods and results) for the purpose of disseminating evidence is a weak fair use case at best. That's why generally in a work you'll see "reproduced with permission" underneath figures and tables taken from other works. The case for fair use is stronger if the work is criticism of the source material. It's a huge gray area, and some journals pursue claims relentlessly.

coherentpony 10y ago

You're absolutely right, and I have no idea why you're being downvoted.

jsprogrammer 10y ago
My best guess is that something I type triggers someone's preconceptions about a topic and then they reflexively seek solace in the down triangle. Edit: Or, perhaps, they are rate-limited by HN and can only use the triangles?
- lotharbot 10y ago
  I did not downvote your above comments, but I can see why others might. Your argument, while perhaps not intended to, parallels a standard trolling technique of asking for evidence and then dismissing any information presented. You complain about one study not being broad enough, about others for being behind a paywall, and still others for being on twitter. Ultimately, the standard you ask for ("this pattern has only been observed with women", and, "this pattern has only been seen with men") is unreasonably restrictive, as if a pattern that was only 99% reliable in separating men from women would not be sufficient. It makes it appear (again, this may not be true, it's just the appearance) that you're not making a good-faith effort to evaluate information fairly, but are instead holding firm to a preconception and requiring extraordinary proof before being willing to reconsider. Your snarky "triggers ... preconceptions" response does not help this perception (and, FWIW, I did downvote this comment, because your "guess" is of negative value -- it only serves to upset your supporters and anger your detractors.) EDIT: also FWIW, I would love to see good data about potential differences in vocal patterns in males and females, if for no other reason than that I could use it in my D&D campaign.
  - jsprogrammer 10y ago
    You seem to be confirming my guess (perceiving a "standard trolling technique" === "preconception"), but I am not looking for supporters or detractors, only justification for the original claim: >These are both more common speaking patterns with women. It is incorrect to ask for "only observed" data in this instance, but I also was clear to state that it was only an example of data that could be presented. >parallels a standard trolling technique of asking for evidence and then dismissing any information presented. If the response is not actual evidence, it should be dismissed. There is no guarantee that a response to a request for evidence is actually valid. That requires investigating the claimed evidence. In this case I investigated and found it severely lacking, as I noted above. Another user has linked to some further analysis of one of the claimed pieces of evidence (the 23-person Southern California study) that shows an apparent basic arithmetic error in the presentation of results. The NTY blog dead links that study and other places that have it require one to pay to see it. >about one study not being broad enough Yes, the study was 12 women and 11 men, aged 18-22, living in the same geographic location. There were severe differences in the experimental conditions between the groups being studied (women all interviewed by women; most, but not all, men interviewed by men). Everything I have read also indicates that this study found that both the men and women in the study often exhibited the pattern that was being watched for. >and still others for being on twitter. The problem is not about being on Twitter, but that the accounts being studied were neither 1) confirmed to be human, nor 2) confirmed to be the gender the experimenters assumed (and to which they compared their predictions/guesses! [in-built confirmation bias?]). >that you're not making a good-faith effort to evaluate information fairly, but are instead holding firm to a preconception and requiring extraordinary proof before being willing to reconsider. I can't evaluate what I can't see and I don't see how I have been unfair to anything that has been presented here. I don't think I am asking for extraordinary proof. I'm only asking for evidence of the particular claim: >These are both more common speaking patterns with women. So, something like: randomly sampled recordings from public places with counts of the occurrence of the pattern and the gender of the person who spoke it.