7 ms·

Not statistically significant already says you cant say much about the observation. But here is a thought, what if woman already get preferential treatment (co

Not statistically significant already says you cant say much about the observation. But here is a thought, what if woman already get preferential treatment (contrary to what many feminist would have you believe), and when their voices are masked as a mans, that preferential treatment falls away. And vica versa for when mens voices are masked as a womans. And this whole rickmarol is about achieving equal outcomes (even distribution of women to men in tech), and not about equal opportunities or the removal of bias / prejudice.

gbersac 10y ago
> what if woman already get preferential treatment I always felt it was the case. IT is such a man place that every one is happy when a woman come, even if she is a little bit less efficient compared to men. Myself included. So I am biased to favour women.
- namaemuta 10y ago
  Just a question for you: do you feel happy when a woman comes to work with you because of what she can contribute or because she is a woman? I read a statement that reflects this very well: "when a woman is treated different, it doesn't mean she is treated better".
  - visarga 10y ago
    Could be just a preference for diversity. There are already tons of men in IT.
    - xexers 10y ago
      Agreed. If you think about the 2 extremes... it's not ideal to work in an office with 100% men or 100% women... for very different reasons (which I won't list here).
    - rthrewmr 10y ago
      Our society was sold the idea that diversity would be beneficial for productivity. When and why did we stop valuing the end and instead value the means?
      - LanceH 10y ago
        Just look at all the quantified studies showing the gains from diversity.
        otempomores 10y ago
        Are there meta studies what political affliction study authors have and the outcome of their studys?
      - ubercow13 10y ago
        When did we decide productivity is the only important factor in society?
      - FilterSweep 10y ago
        Was our society also sold the idea that dozens of frivolous layers of middle management and bureaucracy would be beneficial for productivity as well? I'm not buying the idea that diversity is the problem here.
      - gozur88 10y ago
        When the politics became more important than efficiency.
  - gozur88 10y ago
    If she gets the job because she's a woman it's hard to argue that's not better treatment.
    - namaemuta 10y ago
      Not really. Think about this: how many of these jobs end up being under qualified jobs? in some places, hiring a certain percent of women grants you some benefits from the government. Also, do you think their opinions, work, etc. will be appreciated as the one of a male coworker that got his job without special treatment?
      - gozur88 10y ago
        Think about this: A job is a job. If you're applying for a job, you want it, or at least you want the option to take it. It's true AA hires have to go the extra mile to prove their competence, but having a forum to do it is a huge advantage. So is getting paid.
  - Mz 10y ago
    It is extremely complicated. The problem is rooted in the fact that there are, actually, differences between men and women. When I see arguments that there are Zero differences, it makes me crazy. There are many differences. However, there are also many differences from any given individual to any other given individual, even if they are the same gender. We need to find ways to both give women more opportunity to build their chops and not merely be hired because they are women, while also finding ways to value what they do bring to the table that isn't what men bring to the table. Studies show that diverse companies are more profitable and successful. When I worked for a Fortune 500 company with a good track record for diversity, internally, I recall them saying "We hire everyone so we can more easily sell to everyone" or words to that effect. They believed strongly that not having representatives internally for various populations was guaranteed to undermine their ability to understand and communicate with those populations, as well as develop products that worked for them, etc. So, while there is no easy path forward here, it should be done, and not for pie in the sky "ideals," but for pragmatic ones -- because it has a proven track record of success for the company when the company can get this detail right.
    - ahartman00 10y ago
      Well said. This is why I'm frustrated to only hear about diversity in the tech field. Why not education? Wouldn't our kids benefit from diverse role models?
      - Mz 10y ago
        Wouldn't our kids benefit from diverse role models? Potentially, yes. I vaguely recall seeing something once about the dearth of male teachers in elementary education and the negative impact this has on male students. I have also heard (back when I was involved in the online gifted education community) that a lot of (female) school teachers end up in elementary education due to their lack of competence in math. When they can't hack the math, they got told "Oh, go teach kids!" Men do not get this same message. I am a mathy woman. I tutored my ex husband in math when he took college classes. He had a serious career in the military where he ultimately retired as a high ranking NCO. No one ever suggested that his bad math abilities meant he should go teach kids. Furthermore, when men do desire to go into education, everyone looks askance at them, like they are obviously pedophiles. I ended up homeschooling my sons for many years. I had to put in a lot of effort to undo the damage to my oldest son's self esteem (and his relationship to math, which he hated by the time I pulled him out of school) from the awful baggage he got from public school regarding math. I firmly believe that women who are bad at math get their egos destroyed when they are blithely told "Oh, go teach little kids!" (implied: because you can't hack a real career) and they pass their math neurosis and incompetence on to many of the nation's kids and our entire nation is the worse off for it.
sambeau 10y ago
'Not statistically significant' means you can and should say nothing about it — it just as likely happened by chance as any other theory and, as such, you should leave it that: it happened by chance. In terms of analysis - it might as well not have happened at all and is only worth mentioning if you had expected something significant to happen.
- Bartweiss 10y ago
  > it just as likely happened by chance as any other theory and, as such, you should leave it that: it happened by chance. That's wrong. That's very wrong, and it reinforces the confusion already surrounding 'significance'. p=0.05 means that there was a 5% chance of obtaining results at least as extreme as measured if the null hypothesis was true (i.e. there was no difference to observe). p=.06 is a 6% chance, and p=.04 is a 4% chance. None of those are "as likely as not", which would be 50%, or p=0.5. Nor is p=.05 an inherently meaningful cutoff - it's an arbitrary threshold on a continuum of possibilities, and indeed 'significance' is often set at p=.01 instead. Overemphasis of a cutoff leads to p-hacking, and treating significance as binary promotes bad studies (p=.04 is not as meaningful as p=.00001). This article is too credulous to an unproven result, but saying that all results >.05 are "as likely by chance" or not worth discussing is intensely wrong. The original blog post responded quite legitimately by indicating an unexpected-but-unproven result, and suggesting further study.
- fragsworth 10y ago
  > 'Not statistically significant' means you can and should say nothing about it No, absolutely not. Mentioning that they did it, and could not come to a conclusion because there weren't enough participants, is far better and more information than pretending it never happened. It can indicate that we probably should investigate further and maybe do studies with enough participants.

gbersac 10y ago

> what if woman already get preferential treatment I always felt it was the case. IT is such a man place that every one is happy when a woman come, even if she is a little bit less efficient compared to men. Myself included. So I am biased to favour women.

namaemuta 10y ago
Just a question for you: do you feel happy when a woman comes to work with you because of what she can contribute or because she is a woman? I read a statement that reflects this very well: "when a woman is treated different, it doesn't mean she is treated better".
- visarga 10y ago
  Could be just a preference for diversity. There are already tons of men in IT.
  - xexers 10y ago
    Agreed. If you think about the 2 extremes... it's not ideal to work in an office with 100% men or 100% women... for very different reasons (which I won't list here).
  - rthrewmr 10y ago
    Our society was sold the idea that diversity would be beneficial for productivity. When and why did we stop valuing the end and instead value the means?
    - LanceH 10y ago
      Just look at all the quantified studies showing the gains from diversity.
      - otempomores 10y ago
        Are there meta studies what political affliction study authors have and the outcome of their studys?
    - ubercow13 10y ago
      When did we decide productivity is the only important factor in society?
    - FilterSweep 10y ago
      Was our society also sold the idea that dozens of frivolous layers of middle management and bureaucracy would be beneficial for productivity as well? I'm not buying the idea that diversity is the problem here.
    - gozur88 10y ago
      When the politics became more important than efficiency.
- gozur88 10y ago
  If she gets the job because she's a woman it's hard to argue that's not better treatment.
  - namaemuta 10y ago
    Not really. Think about this: how many of these jobs end up being under qualified jobs? in some places, hiring a certain percent of women grants you some benefits from the government. Also, do you think their opinions, work, etc. will be appreciated as the one of a male coworker that got his job without special treatment?
    - gozur88 10y ago
      Think about this: A job is a job. If you're applying for a job, you want it, or at least you want the option to take it. It's true AA hires have to go the extra mile to prove their competence, but having a forum to do it is a huge advantage. So is getting paid.
- Mz 10y ago
  It is extremely complicated. The problem is rooted in the fact that there are, actually, differences between men and women. When I see arguments that there are Zero differences, it makes me crazy. There are many differences. However, there are also many differences from any given individual to any other given individual, even if they are the same gender. We need to find ways to both give women more opportunity to build their chops and not merely be hired because they are women, while also finding ways to value what they do bring to the table that isn't what men bring to the table. Studies show that diverse companies are more profitable and successful. When I worked for a Fortune 500 company with a good track record for diversity, internally, I recall them saying "We hire everyone so we can more easily sell to everyone" or words to that effect. They believed strongly that not having representatives internally for various populations was guaranteed to undermine their ability to understand and communicate with those populations, as well as develop products that worked for them, etc. So, while there is no easy path forward here, it should be done, and not for pie in the sky "ideals," but for pragmatic ones -- because it has a proven track record of success for the company when the company can get this detail right.
  - ahartman00 10y ago
    Well said. This is why I'm frustrated to only hear about diversity in the tech field. Why not education? Wouldn't our kids benefit from diverse role models?
    - Mz 10y ago
      Wouldn't our kids benefit from diverse role models? Potentially, yes. I vaguely recall seeing something once about the dearth of male teachers in elementary education and the negative impact this has on male students. I have also heard (back when I was involved in the online gifted education community) that a lot of (female) school teachers end up in elementary education due to their lack of competence in math. When they can't hack the math, they got told "Oh, go teach kids!" Men do not get this same message. I am a mathy woman. I tutored my ex husband in math when he took college classes. He had a serious career in the military where he ultimately retired as a high ranking NCO. No one ever suggested that his bad math abilities meant he should go teach kids. Furthermore, when men do desire to go into education, everyone looks askance at them, like they are obviously pedophiles. I ended up homeschooling my sons for many years. I had to put in a lot of effort to undo the damage to my oldest son's self esteem (and his relationship to math, which he hated by the time I pulled him out of school) from the awful baggage he got from public school regarding math. I firmly believe that women who are bad at math get their egos destroyed when they are blithely told "Oh, go teach little kids!" (implied: because you can't hack a real career) and they pass their math neurosis and incompetence on to many of the nation's kids and our entire nation is the worse off for it.

sambeau 10y ago

'Not statistically significant' means you can and should say nothing about it — it just as likely happened by chance as any other theory and, as such, you should leave it that: it happened by chance. In terms of analysis - it might as well not have happened at all and is only worth mentioning if you had expected something significant to happen.

Bartweiss 10y ago
> it just as likely happened by chance as any other theory and, as such, you should leave it that: it happened by chance. That's wrong. That's very wrong, and it reinforces the confusion already surrounding 'significance'. p=0.05 means that there was a 5% chance of obtaining results at least as extreme as measured if the null hypothesis was true (i.e. there was no difference to observe). p=.06 is a 6% chance, and p=.04 is a 4% chance. None of those are "as likely as not", which would be 50%, or p=0.5. Nor is p=.05 an inherently meaningful cutoff - it's an arbitrary threshold on a continuum of possibilities, and indeed 'significance' is often set at p=.01 instead. Overemphasis of a cutoff leads to p-hacking, and treating significance as binary promotes bad studies (p=.04 is not as meaningful as p=.00001). This article is too credulous to an unproven result, but saying that all results >.05 are "as likely by chance" or not worth discussing is intensely wrong. The original blog post responded quite legitimately by indicating an unexpected-but-unproven result, and suggesting further study.
fragsworth 10y ago
> 'Not statistically significant' means you can and should say nothing about it No, absolutely not. Mentioning that they did it, and could not come to a conclusion because there weren't enough participants, is far better and more information than pretending it never happened. It can indicate that we probably should investigate further and maybe do studies with enough participants.