3 ms·

I'm sorry that you're angry. For what it's worth, we worked pretty hard to make this as statistically solid as we could with the dataset that we had. The subj

I'm sorry that you're angry. For what it's worth, we worked pretty hard to make this as statistically solid as we could with the dataset that we had. The subject we're posting on is "How 4,000 men differ from 4,000 women in RescueTime". While the data might lead to some interesting questions, I don't think anyone would assume that this is necessarily a reflection of a broader population (any more than Mint's data was). I think your "black people" example is interesting. If we were comparing designers to developers, would you be so incensed? Yours is literally the first actually angry response all day. Is it possible that you're overreacting? In terms of business effect, signups today have been abnormally high and cancellations have been slightly to the low side. It was meant to be provocative, but so far this hasn't ended up being a mine field. Again, sorry that we've upset you.

krschultz 16y ago
I'm not the only angry response you've gotten today. Ctrl+F this thread for "hackermom", do you think she liked your post? Just one among several. I know YOU don't believe that women are 77% as productive as men and that explains the pay gap, I get your tongue in cheek tone. The problem is that there are lots of people who use these half cocked "pieces of data" as part of larger arguments and it is exacerbated by a statement like "a random sample of 8,000 people" when clearly, this is not a random sample. It should say "this is not a scientific sample", because it isn't. This is how we got birthers, "logical racists", and conspiracy theorists. Perhaps I am more sensitive to it, I took a class on gender studies, I hung out with some feminists, my wife makes a lot of money (more than I for a while, and she wasn't on a computer nearly as much as I). I think I just get mad at misapplied statistics, the lack of distinction between correlation and causation, and people saying ridiculous things to get attention (of which this does all 3). Suffice to say fivethirtyeight.com is one of my "read every day" sites.
- derefr 16y ago
  Please don't blame me for inventing a gun that someone later uses to shoot you. The problem is with the sophists misapplying others' research, trying to find evidence to support their pre-formed conclusions instead of following the evidence where it may lead; the problem is not with the researchers themselves, or the objective facts they produce.
  - MichaelSalib 16y ago
    Um, what? I've seen research. I've done research. And this is not research. Research implies some knowledge of statistics and familiarity with the relevant science. Just because a three year old child likes to play with toy planes does not mean they're a pilot. And just because some software geeks like to play with numbers does not mean they have any clue what they're doing. This is not the boy scouts. You don't get a research merit badge just for showing up and crunching some numbers.
araneae 16y ago
I have to agree that the post wasn't written very sensitively. Here are the following red flag passages, for me, at least: "From what I can tell, the 23rd chromosome has a pretty amazing impact on the way people use computers." -Drawing a conclusion from data you admit has large sampling issues. "Women spend more time socializing and shopping" - You did not mention any comparative "frivolous" activities that men might take part in more than women; say, gaming. "Evidently, there’s a reason they are called “man” hours." - Using a limited data set to large conclusions about female working habits in all contexts Generally, the whole thing was both hyperbolic and quite inflammatory.
- staunch 16y ago
  The only part I cringed on was the "man hours" line. Just does not work in text.

krschultz 16y ago

I'm not the only angry response you've gotten today. Ctrl+F this thread for "hackermom", do you think she liked your post? Just one among several. I know YOU don't believe that women are 77% as productive as men and that explains the pay gap, I get your tongue in cheek tone. The problem is that there are lots of people who use these half cocked "pieces of data" as part of larger arguments and it is exacerbated by a statement like "a random sample of 8,000 people" when clearly, this is not a random sample. It should say "this is not a scientific sample", because it isn't. This is how we got birthers, "logical racists", and conspiracy theorists. Perhaps I am more sensitive to it, I took a class on gender studies, I hung out with some feminists, my wife makes a lot of money (more than I for a while, and she wasn't on a computer nearly as much as I). I think I just get mad at misapplied statistics, the lack of distinction between correlation and causation, and people saying ridiculous things to get attention (of which this does all 3). Suffice to say fivethirtyeight.com is one of my "read every day" sites.

derefr 16y ago
Please don't blame me for inventing a gun that someone later uses to shoot you. The problem is with the sophists misapplying others' research, trying to find evidence to support their pre-formed conclusions instead of following the evidence where it may lead; the problem is not with the researchers themselves, or the objective facts they produce.
- MichaelSalib 16y ago
  Um, what? I've seen research. I've done research. And this is not research. Research implies some knowledge of statistics and familiarity with the relevant science. Just because a three year old child likes to play with toy planes does not mean they're a pilot. And just because some software geeks like to play with numbers does not mean they have any clue what they're doing. This is not the boy scouts. You don't get a research merit badge just for showing up and crunching some numbers.

araneae 16y ago

I have to agree that the post wasn't written very sensitively. Here are the following red flag passages, for me, at least: "From what I can tell, the 23rd chromosome has a pretty amazing impact on the way people use computers." -Drawing a conclusion from data you admit has large sampling issues. "Women spend more time socializing and shopping" - You did not mention any comparative "frivolous" activities that men might take part in more than women; say, gaming. "Evidently, there’s a reason they are called “man” hours." - Using a limited data set to large conclusions about female working habits in all contexts Generally, the whole thing was both hyperbolic and quite inflammatory.

staunch 16y ago
The only part I cringed on was the "man hours" line. Just does not work in text.