8 ms·

You try doing a large-scale study at multiple companies on multiple continents at once, then. Your comment suggests you don't really understand the immense chal

You try doing a large-scale study at multiple companies on multiple continents at once, then. Your comment suggests you don't really understand the immense challenge of doing sociological work in a way that's both ethical and useful.

anongraddebt 7y ago
One of the reasons it is difficult to produce useful sociological work is because sociology itself has questionable foundations.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
whatshisface 7y ago
>Your comment suggests you don't really understand the immense challenge of doing sociological work in a way that's both ethical and useful. The fact that something is immensely difficult doesn't make success more likely, it makes it less likely. The parent comment is saying that the study didn't achieve success, which is supported by your claim that sociological work is up against tremendous challenges. An analogy would be if someone claimed to invent a perpetual motion machine, and then responded to someone who was saying that their machine didn't work with, "you try building one, then."
- nimblegorilla 7y ago
  The study was very upfront about the limitations. A better analogy would be someone trying to debunk the theory of relativity by claiming it doesn't cover perpetual motion machines.
  - cgriswald 7y ago
    > The study was very upfront about the limitations. That's an overly generous interpretation of their comments. See deogeo's post with some questions about why many of these things are even mentioned in the paper. Where they were upfront has already been acknowledged--by me. My criticisms were where they implied, but did not support a comparison to US-based finance companies generally. Here they were 'upfront' but they shrank what should be several papers worth of arguments into a single word: 'similar'. > A better analogy would be someone trying to debunk the theory of relativity by claiming it doesn't cover perpetual motion machines. If you think this is a better analogy, you've missed the point entirely.
    - nimblegorilla 7y ago
      You're beginning to sound like a conspiracy nut. The paper is very upfront that more studies should be done in other countries: "the data necessary for the analysis, such as paygrades, demographics and manager assignments, are probably available for most large organizations. We hope this methodology will be applied to other firms, countries, and industries, which will help to generalize the findings and identify where these biases are more or less problematic"
      - cgriswald 7y ago
        > You're beginning to sound like a conspiracy nut. If I sound that way to you, it's probably because of your own biases. > The paper is very upfront that more studies should be done in other countries: You aren't even addressing the part of the paper I criticized. You haven't even acknowledged it exists, but you expect to, what, convince me or others that I'm wrong by throwing random quotes my way and calling me names?
        nimblegorilla 7y ago
        The quote I provided shows that the authors want other people to study the US or other countries to see if the results apply in a general manner. The paper in no way attempts to generalize the US other than that large companies typically track the sorts of data which would make similar studies possible.
        cgriswald 7y ago
        > The paper in no way attempts to generalize the US other than that large companies typically track the sorts of data which would make similar studies possible. In the section 3.1 Institutional Context, the paper explicitly compares the bank and the country to firms in the United States and the United States respectively over a handful of values. There's no explanation given for why the United States specifically was compared against nor is rationale given for the selection or exclusion of points of comparison. A reader has to conclude that they felt these were the relevant points of comparison because these were the things likely to affect their results. This necessarily implies generalization. Any other interpretation can only make sense if we disbelieve their results or find their comparison criteria between firms and countries lacking.
leblancfg 7y ago
>They studied a single bank in Asia with "thousands of employees." [...] They make no attempt to address cultural differences. They disclaim that the study is representative of the world, but then offer some mental gymnastics which imply without actually suggesting that it represents the US because of the country's similarity to the US in gender employment numbers and attitudes. >Your comment suggests you don't really understand the immense challenge of doing sociological work in a way that's both ethical and useful. The fact that it is immensely challenging does not make the assumptions any less liable to be false. Please re-read GP's comment and refrain from attacking him/her on a personal level.

anongraddebt 7y ago

One of the reasons it is difficult to produce useful sociological work is because sociology itself has questionable foundations.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

whatshisface 7y ago

>Your comment suggests you don't really understand the immense challenge of doing sociological work in a way that's both ethical and useful. The fact that something is immensely difficult doesn't make success more likely, it makes it less likely. The parent comment is saying that the study didn't achieve success, which is supported by your claim that sociological work is up against tremendous challenges. An analogy would be if someone claimed to invent a perpetual motion machine, and then responded to someone who was saying that their machine didn't work with, "you try building one, then."

nimblegorilla 7y ago
The study was very upfront about the limitations. A better analogy would be someone trying to debunk the theory of relativity by claiming it doesn't cover perpetual motion machines.
- cgriswald 7y ago
  > The study was very upfront about the limitations. That's an overly generous interpretation of their comments. See deogeo's post with some questions about why many of these things are even mentioned in the paper. Where they were upfront has already been acknowledged--by me. My criticisms were where they implied, but did not support a comparison to US-based finance companies generally. Here they were 'upfront' but they shrank what should be several papers worth of arguments into a single word: 'similar'. > A better analogy would be someone trying to debunk the theory of relativity by claiming it doesn't cover perpetual motion machines. If you think this is a better analogy, you've missed the point entirely.
  - nimblegorilla 7y ago
    You're beginning to sound like a conspiracy nut. The paper is very upfront that more studies should be done in other countries: "the data necessary for the analysis, such as paygrades, demographics and manager assignments, are probably available for most large organizations. We hope this methodology will be applied to other firms, countries, and industries, which will help to generalize the findings and identify where these biases are more or less problematic"
    - cgriswald 7y ago
      > You're beginning to sound like a conspiracy nut. If I sound that way to you, it's probably because of your own biases. > The paper is very upfront that more studies should be done in other countries: You aren't even addressing the part of the paper I criticized. You haven't even acknowledged it exists, but you expect to, what, convince me or others that I'm wrong by throwing random quotes my way and calling me names?
      - nimblegorilla 7y ago
        The quote I provided shows that the authors want other people to study the US or other countries to see if the results apply in a general manner. The paper in no way attempts to generalize the US other than that large companies typically track the sorts of data which would make similar studies possible.
        cgriswald 7y ago
        > The paper in no way attempts to generalize the US other than that large companies typically track the sorts of data which would make similar studies possible. In the section 3.1 Institutional Context, the paper explicitly compares the bank and the country to firms in the United States and the United States respectively over a handful of values. There's no explanation given for why the United States specifically was compared against nor is rationale given for the selection or exclusion of points of comparison. A reader has to conclude that they felt these were the relevant points of comparison because these were the things likely to affect their results. This necessarily implies generalization. Any other interpretation can only make sense if we disbelieve their results or find their comparison criteria between firms and countries lacking.

leblancfg 7y ago

>They studied a single bank in Asia with "thousands of employees." [...] They make no attempt to address cultural differences. They disclaim that the study is representative of the world, but then offer some mental gymnastics which imply without actually suggesting that it represents the US because of the country's similarity to the US in gender employment numbers and attitudes. >Your comment suggests you don't really understand the immense challenge of doing sociological work in a way that's both ethical and useful. The fact that it is immensely challenging does not make the assumptions any less liable to be false. Please re-read GP's comment and refrain from attacking him/her on a personal level.