3 ms·

Experience looking at thousands of CVs and talking to people who are behind the CVs.

by s3nnyy 8y ago

throwawaymath 8y ago
That's not a statistic, nor is it quantifiable. I'm not taking issue with your experience, I'm taking issue with the fact that you've implied your claim has quantitative rigor to it, because I'm extremely skeptical that's the case. For what it's worth, I'm challenging you as someone who is neither a JavaScript developer nor a Clojure developer. I'm of the opinion that biases like the one the author laments are perpetuated (in part) by this leaky arguments from "statistics" that never appear.
- scarejunba 8y ago
  Don't get hung up on the language. People sometimes say "statistically speaking" to mean "Based on my experience over a large number of tests". It doesn't mean "I applied a test of statistical significance to arrive at my conclusion". You're then meant to combine their stated experience with their stated credentials and your assessment of their trustworthiness to arrive at some conclusion. This imprecision may annoy you but it is a common way of speaking English so it's probably not in your interest to fight over the choice of wording.
  - throwawaymath 8y ago
    Sure, I understand what you're saying. But I'll continue to challenge the use of language like that. In my opinion, saying something is true "statistically speaking" is more grievous than saying something like, "I'm 99% sure." Both are artifacts of the English language, but I think the former carries much more quantification behind it, implicitly speaking. In that sense it's not just about informal use of language. This is because saying something is true "statistically" is a claim made in both scientific and casual contexts. It's mentally taxing to figure out which context is in play - someone could have come into this thread with actual statistics and said the same phrase, verbatim. Therefore (as I see it), it's realistically plausible that someone could read the original comment and come away believing recruiters have done actual statistical analysis a la TripleByte to arrive at their conclusion.
    - s3nnyy 8y ago
      I hear you. I removed the wording "statistically speaking" from the initial comment.
- freshhawk 8y ago
  In english, "statistically speaking" can mean you are making a claim about the odds of something rather than a 1:1 correspondence. It is extremely common and absolutely correct. For example I have not run a study but I am very confident that, statistically speaking, tall people are better at basketball than short people. I am saying that I have an opinion that if you were to try and choose good basketball players, biasing yourself towards the tall people will increase your odds of making a good choice. I use the phrase "statistically speaking" to make it clear I am not saying "All tall people are better at basketball than short people". In a lot of contexts you will drop the phrase completely because you are talking to other smart people and they will know that the context of your statement is in the realm of populations and odds, but online there are a lot of pedants with poor communication skills so you have be extra clear.
  - throwawaymath 8y ago
    If you believe this is about pedantry and the literal meaning of words, you’ve missed my point. However, you’re speaking to it: the commenter used the phrase “statistically speaking” to indicate their confidence in their assertion. I’m taking issue with the fact that they used the phrase - which, as you say, is strong enough to describe the way taller people are better at basketball - to generalize that Clojure developers are more likely to be qualified than JavaScript developers. Idiomatically, any way you use the phrase implies great confidence in the corresponding claim. But I have not seen any substantial explanation of why this effect makes sense, which makes me extremely suspicious that the effect exists at all. I don’t particularly care about whether they’ve conducted a peer reviewed study. I care about whether or not their heuristic is backed by anything empirical. “I’ve noticed this...” doesn’t cut it, no matter how fast and loose you want to play with the literal meaning of the word in context.
    - freshhawk 8y ago
      It doesn't imply great confidence, it is literally saying a different thing. You seem to think it means the same thing as "scientifically speaking" or "I have evidence that". It very often means only "related to statistics". That's it. No epistemological claims needed. "I'm so going to win the lottery" "On average ... no you aren't" / "Statistically speaking ... no you aren't" / "If you work out the odds ... no you aren't" / etc. If I ask you a question about some gambling game, you are going to think about it in a statistical way. I mean you will think in terms of populations and samples and odds, not that you will go perform experiments and then do a statistical analysis of that evidence in order to come to a scientific conclusion.

Experience looking at thousands of CVs and talking to people who are behind the CVs.

by s3nnyy 8y ago

Experience looking at thousands of CVs and talking to people who are behind the CVs.

That's not a statistic, nor is it quantifiable. I'm not taking issue with your experience, I'm taking issue with the fact that you've implied your claim has quantitative rigor to it, because I'm extremely skeptical that's the case. For what it's worth, I'm challenging you as someone who is neither a JavaScript developer nor a Clojure developer. I'm of the opinion that biases like the one the author laments are perpetuated (in part) by this leaky arguments from "statistics" that never appear.

scarejunba 8y ago
Don't get hung up on the language. People sometimes say "statistically speaking" to mean "Based on my experience over a large number of tests". It doesn't mean "I applied a test of statistical significance to arrive at my conclusion". You're then meant to combine their stated experience with their stated credentials and your assessment of their trustworthiness to arrive at some conclusion. This imprecision may annoy you but it is a common way of speaking English so it's probably not in your interest to fight over the choice of wording.
- throwawaymath 8y ago
  Sure, I understand what you're saying. But I'll continue to challenge the use of language like that. In my opinion, saying something is true "statistically speaking" is more grievous than saying something like, "I'm 99% sure." Both are artifacts of the English language, but I think the former carries much more quantification behind it, implicitly speaking. In that sense it's not just about informal use of language. This is because saying something is true "statistically" is a claim made in both scientific and casual contexts. It's mentally taxing to figure out which context is in play - someone could have come into this thread with actual statistics and said the same phrase, verbatim. Therefore (as I see it), it's realistically plausible that someone could read the original comment and come away believing recruiters have done actual statistical analysis a la TripleByte to arrive at their conclusion.
  - s3nnyy 8y ago
    I hear you. I removed the wording "statistically speaking" from the initial comment.
freshhawk 8y ago
In english, "statistically speaking" can mean you are making a claim about the odds of something rather than a 1:1 correspondence. It is extremely common and absolutely correct. For example I have not run a study but I am very confident that, statistically speaking, tall people are better at basketball than short people. I am saying that I have an opinion that if you were to try and choose good basketball players, biasing yourself towards the tall people will increase your odds of making a good choice. I use the phrase "statistically speaking" to make it clear I am not saying "All tall people are better at basketball than short people". In a lot of contexts you will drop the phrase completely because you are talking to other smart people and they will know that the context of your statement is in the realm of populations and odds, but online there are a lot of pedants with poor communication skills so you have be extra clear.
- throwawaymath 8y ago
  If you believe this is about pedantry and the literal meaning of words, you’ve missed my point. However, you’re speaking to it: the commenter used the phrase “statistically speaking” to indicate their confidence in their assertion. I’m taking issue with the fact that they used the phrase - which, as you say, is strong enough to describe the way taller people are better at basketball - to generalize that Clojure developers are more likely to be qualified than JavaScript developers. Idiomatically, any way you use the phrase implies great confidence in the corresponding claim. But I have not seen any substantial explanation of why this effect makes sense, which makes me extremely suspicious that the effect exists at all. I don’t particularly care about whether they’ve conducted a peer reviewed study. I care about whether or not their heuristic is backed by anything empirical. “I’ve noticed this...” doesn’t cut it, no matter how fast and loose you want to play with the literal meaning of the word in context.
  - freshhawk 8y ago
    It doesn't imply great confidence, it is literally saying a different thing. You seem to think it means the same thing as "scientifically speaking" or "I have evidence that". It very often means only "related to statistics". That's it. No epistemological claims needed. "I'm so going to win the lottery" "On average ... no you aren't" / "Statistically speaking ... no you aren't" / "If you work out the odds ... no you aren't" / etc. If I ask you a question about some gambling game, you are going to think about it in a statistical way. I mean you will think in terms of populations and samples and odds, not that you will go perform experiments and then do a statistical analysis of that evidence in order to come to a scientific conclusion.