4 ms·

> absolute innate equivalence Is hacker aptitude some kind of conserved quantity that is conserved over sexes based on some natural symmetry ? Why not just sa

> absolute innate equivalence Is hacker aptitude some kind of conserved quantity that is conserved over sexes based on some natural symmetry ? Why not just say, absolutely pretended equivalence.

Analemma_ 9y ago
The null hypothesis is to assume there is innate equivalence; the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate otherwise and the attempts I've seen so far are lacking.
- tptacek 9y ago
  Either way, my statement was a cards-on-the-table disclaimer, not an invitation to litigate the point.
- topmonk 9y ago
  The null hypothesis would be to accept the state of things as they are. If there are very few women in computer science, you wouldn't assume it was due to some conspiracy or "systematic discrimination" without any proof. You wouldn't enact policies of reverse discrimination (affirmative action) to correct some supposed imbalance of the system. You'd simply admit you don't know why, and search for proof of the reason.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - fixermark 9y ago
    A more correct null hypothesis is to accept the state of things as they are given signal from across time, though. Which raises the immediate question of why most programmers were women until recently.
- justAnotherNET 9y ago
  This is false. It’s scientific fact that different selective pressures result in different evolutionary outcomes. The null hypothesis, unless you discount evolutionary theory, is that all things are different and almost nothing is equal. The burden falls to the leftist to prove equality depsite differing evolutionary pressure. Many make the claim that humanity was created relatively recently by a deity. “God made us all the same”, while being a statement I don’t subscribe to, is at least a consistent belief. What’s bizarre is this piece of moral archeology is still firmly implanted in secular beliefs, absent scientific backing.
- gowld 9y ago
  "null hypothesis" simply means "a claim that might be falsified by a certain experiment". Both "P" and "not P" can be null hypotheses, depending on the design of experiment.
- baumy 9y ago
  I'm sorry, this statement is extraordinarily confusing to me. Why on earth is the null hypothesis that there is innate equivalence? This seems so precisely backward that I'm going to need you to justify it before I can agree. A lifetime full of thousands of interactions with both men and women on a daily basis have consistently shown me that there are huge differences between the sexes. The fact that we are all equal does not mean we are all equivalent. I suspect you may not be making this distinction.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

> absolute innate equivalence Is hacker aptitude some kind of conserved quantity that is conserved over sexes based on some natural symmetry ? Why not just say, absolutely pretended equivalence.

Analemma_ 9y ago

The null hypothesis is to assume there is innate equivalence; the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate otherwise and the attempts I've seen so far are lacking.

tptacek 9y ago
Either way, my statement was a cards-on-the-table disclaimer, not an invitation to litigate the point.
topmonk 9y ago
The null hypothesis would be to accept the state of things as they are. If there are very few women in computer science, you wouldn't assume it was due to some conspiracy or "systematic discrimination" without any proof. You wouldn't enact policies of reverse discrimination (affirmative action) to correct some supposed imbalance of the system. You'd simply admit you don't know why, and search for proof of the reason.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- fixermark 9y ago
  A more correct null hypothesis is to accept the state of things as they are given signal from across time, though. Which raises the immediate question of why most programmers were women until recently.
justAnotherNET 9y ago
This is false. It’s scientific fact that different selective pressures result in different evolutionary outcomes. The null hypothesis, unless you discount evolutionary theory, is that all things are different and almost nothing is equal. The burden falls to the leftist to prove equality depsite differing evolutionary pressure. Many make the claim that humanity was created relatively recently by a deity. “God made us all the same”, while being a statement I don’t subscribe to, is at least a consistent belief. What’s bizarre is this piece of moral archeology is still firmly implanted in secular beliefs, absent scientific backing.
gowld 9y ago
"null hypothesis" simply means "a claim that might be falsified by a certain experiment". Both "P" and "not P" can be null hypotheses, depending on the design of experiment.
baumy 9y ago
I'm sorry, this statement is extraordinarily confusing to me. Why on earth is the null hypothesis that there is innate equivalence? This seems so precisely backward that I'm going to need you to justify it before I can agree. A lifetime full of thousands of interactions with both men and women on a daily basis have consistently shown me that there are huge differences between the sexes. The fact that we are all equal does not mean we are all equivalent. I suspect you may not be making this distinction.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]