3 ms·

I should clarify he doesn't present data for his pivotal claim (a gaussian IQ distribution and Damore's preference argument). He does present a bunch of data th

I should clarify he doesn't present data for his pivotal claim (a gaussian IQ distribution and Damore's preference argument). He does present a bunch of data that to me reads like a bunch of good examples of gender discrimination in his field. And maybe he's a super genius at math and I'm not, but I don't see a lot of the statistical machinery I would expect to see to carry the weight of the σ=1/1.15 claim that we're currently seeing as a proposed caused for the data.

nabla9 8y ago
> reads like a bunch of good examples of gender discrimination in his field. You don't need good arguments or good data to have argument based on data. What you need is common context based on science and statistics that helps you to point out that what he presents is rubbish. Data is not ok, conclusions are wrong, not enough significance. Mathiness and using mathematical models is good because you can say more exactly what you mean so that others understand your argument and can point out the errors.
- KirinDave 8y ago
  Maybe his talk had more coherency than his slides. I imagine the talk must have been, "Why does this inequality persist." "But what if it's not unequal." "Note this inequality paradox of M theory (dun dun dun what's the M)" "Women in the field ARE treated equally if they deserve it." "Women getting into the field don't deserve it." "Because they are entitled cultural marxists." "Gender studies is literally the problem." "Please see these comics which I'm sure you haven't seen on reddit, tumblr, twitter and gab about a hojillion times."
  - KirinDave 8y ago
    I'm taking quite the beating on moderation for this, but I'm genuinely curious if someone thinks I've actually misrepresented the contents of the talk. I actually read the slides carefully, talked with some folks on Twitter, and tried to lay it out. Other than the bit about the comics I think I wrote an outline here devoid of the specific statistical arguments we already covered.

nabla9 8y ago

> reads like a bunch of good examples of gender discrimination in his field. You don't need good arguments or good data to have argument based on data. What you need is common context based on science and statistics that helps you to point out that what he presents is rubbish. Data is not ok, conclusions are wrong, not enough significance. Mathiness and using mathematical models is good because you can say more exactly what you mean so that others understand your argument and can point out the errors.

KirinDave 8y ago
Maybe his talk had more coherency than his slides. I imagine the talk must have been, "Why does this inequality persist." "But what if it's not unequal." "Note this inequality paradox of M theory (dun dun dun what's the M)" "Women in the field ARE treated equally if they deserve it." "Women getting into the field don't deserve it." "Because they are entitled cultural marxists." "Gender studies is literally the problem." "Please see these comics which I'm sure you haven't seen on reddit, tumblr, twitter and gab about a hojillion times."
- KirinDave 8y ago
  I'm taking quite the beating on moderation for this, but I'm genuinely curious if someone thinks I've actually misrepresented the contents of the talk. I actually read the slides carefully, talked with some folks on Twitter, and tried to lay it out. Other than the bit about the comics I think I wrote an outline here devoid of the specific statistical arguments we already covered.