4 ms·

>That could easily be the result of discrimination by professors, collaborators, reviewers, etc. Your go-to analysis of this data is that there's a grand consp

>That could easily be the result of discrimination by professors, collaborators, reviewers, etc. Your go-to analysis of this data is that there's a grand conspiracy of misogynistic discrimination? I'm finding it really hard to imagine anyone deciding not to cite a paper on the sole basis that they saw a female name in the authorship.

gpm 8y ago
Conspiracy implies co-operation and planning. The far stronger argument for this is pervasive unconscious bias. Edit: You added your second sentence after I posted this (that's fine, I do the same sometimes) And indeed, his slides agree with you. There appears to be no substantial bias towards citing recent work by women. So that doesn't really counter what I said except in the sub-case of older papers. That sub-case could easily be explained by there being a bias towards citing older work of people considered to be the key people in a field (I would expect so), and a bias against considering women to be the key people in the field. That second bias could be explained by a bias against considering people with female names key people in the field, or it could be considered a bias against considering people with fewer papers (see data/previous arguments for this) key people in the field, or both. This is a giant unsupported hypothesis. I don't pretend otherwise. It seems to be just as supported as the hypothesis that women are just worse at physics then men though.
- creaghpatr 8y ago
  pervasive unconscious bias towards...citing relevant facts in your peer-reviewed research papers?
  - hef19898 8y ago
    In, unconciously, slecting these facts for your paper and ignoring others. And with facts being facts even peer-review only helps you so much. Also it was just a talk / presentation and no peer-reviewed paper. He's a physicist and not in social sciences after all.
  - ddxxgg 8y ago
    Here's a useful list, in case you're interested: https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~srugheimer/Women_in_STEM_Resources.html https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~srugheimer/Women_in_STEM_Resour...
  - evgen 8y ago
    Lise Meitner, Jocelyn Bell, and Rosalind Franklin would like to have a word with you...
    - Koshkin 8y ago
      To be fair, only one of them still could.
- emsy 8y ago
  Setting aside that the mere existence of unconscious bias is still a matter of debate on an universal level, it's baffling that people still think this accusation is a valid argument on an individual level. You have to prove it exists. The accused does not need to prove he or she is free of bias.
  - danaris 8y ago
    I work in a Psychology department that has some members who specialize in the study of various kinds of bias, and I can assure you that unconscious bias is very real, and measurable in ways that I honestly can't find any reasonable way to claim measure anything else. Look up the Implicit Association Test for a good example of this. I've taken it, and while it wasn't exactly a shocker to me to discover that I have an unconscious bias against black people (I grew up in an area that had maybe 5 of them, and despite my very liberal upbringing, our society and culture still label black people as "other" and "dangerous"), it was eye-opening to be able to see the effect so clearly.
    - simonrobb 8y ago
      I had the same experience after moving to the US for the first time. I'd never had a personal interaction with somebody of color, and all my views had been shaped by what I'd seen on American TV (typically not flattering, in the 80s/90s).
    - emsy 8y ago
      IATs are a good example for the immaturity in this area. It's a test designed to create the desired results. Switch the good/bad/black/white categories with any other two categories and I will take the bet you will get the same results.
    - bicubic 8y ago
      The Implicit Association Test is - shall we say, non-scientific. Because the results depend on the ordering of the associated categories[1] Psychology has too long been a field where people draw a conclusion first and then create some experiment or hypothesis to support it. It is only now with the advent of analytics that we are shedding light on this quackery. [1] http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2219763 http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=22...
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

gpm 8y ago

Conspiracy implies co-operation and planning. The far stronger argument for this is pervasive unconscious bias. Edit: You added your second sentence after I posted this (that's fine, I do the same sometimes) And indeed, his slides agree with you. There appears to be no substantial bias towards citing recent work by women. So that doesn't really counter what I said except in the sub-case of older papers. That sub-case could easily be explained by there being a bias towards citing older work of people considered to be the key people in a field (I would expect so), and a bias against considering women to be the key people in the field. That second bias could be explained by a bias against considering people with female names key people in the field, or it could be considered a bias against considering people with fewer papers (see data/previous arguments for this) key people in the field, or both. This is a giant unsupported hypothesis. I don't pretend otherwise. It seems to be just as supported as the hypothesis that women are just worse at physics then men though.

creaghpatr 8y ago
pervasive unconscious bias towards...citing relevant facts in your peer-reviewed research papers?
- hef19898 8y ago
  In, unconciously, slecting these facts for your paper and ignoring others. And with facts being facts even peer-review only helps you so much. Also it was just a talk / presentation and no peer-reviewed paper. He's a physicist and not in social sciences after all.
- ddxxgg 8y ago
  Here's a useful list, in case you're interested: https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~srugheimer/Women_in_STEM_Resources.html https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~srugheimer/Women_in_STEM_Resour...
- evgen 8y ago
  Lise Meitner, Jocelyn Bell, and Rosalind Franklin would like to have a word with you...
  - Koshkin 8y ago
    To be fair, only one of them still could.
emsy 8y ago
Setting aside that the mere existence of unconscious bias is still a matter of debate on an universal level, it's baffling that people still think this accusation is a valid argument on an individual level. You have to prove it exists. The accused does not need to prove he or she is free of bias.
- danaris 8y ago
  I work in a Psychology department that has some members who specialize in the study of various kinds of bias, and I can assure you that unconscious bias is very real, and measurable in ways that I honestly can't find any reasonable way to claim measure anything else. Look up the Implicit Association Test for a good example of this. I've taken it, and while it wasn't exactly a shocker to me to discover that I have an unconscious bias against black people (I grew up in an area that had maybe 5 of them, and despite my very liberal upbringing, our society and culture still label black people as "other" and "dangerous"), it was eye-opening to be able to see the effect so clearly.
  - simonrobb 8y ago
    I had the same experience after moving to the US for the first time. I'd never had a personal interaction with somebody of color, and all my views had been shaped by what I'd seen on American TV (typically not flattering, in the 80s/90s).
  - emsy 8y ago
    IATs are a good example for the immaturity in this area. It's a test designed to create the desired results. Switch the good/bad/black/white categories with any other two categories and I will take the bet you will get the same results.
  - bicubic 8y ago
    The Implicit Association Test is - shall we say, non-scientific. Because the results depend on the ordering of the associated categories[1] Psychology has too long been a field where people draw a conclusion first and then create some experiment or hypothesis to support it. It is only now with the advent of analytics that we are shedding light on this quackery. [1] http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2219763 http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=22...

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]