7 ms·

I apologize if this comment makes HN readers uncomfortable, but this article is just another one of those trite "There is discrimination in [field X]" articles

by orijing 16y ago

I apologize if this comment makes HN readers uncomfortable, but this article is just another one of those trite "There is discrimination in [field X]" articles with the whole basis of argument on anecdotal evidence. I don't profess to know any better, but are there empirical evidence (Say, experiments with the same resumes with male/female names sent around)? Perhaps I'm the only one who cares about data integrity, but making a conclusion from small observations is pretty flawed at best. Decisions should be data-driven.

mediacrisis 16y ago
I see where you're coming from, but sociology is a soft science. Even in an experiment like your resume example, there are many uncontrollable variables (company sizes/values/morale, hr staff, etc) that render the data somewhat anecdotal, even if it follows a pattern. Moreover, this post is a personal outlook, and doesn't necessarily need hard data to prove an individual experience. There is really no "If A, then B" implied here.
- orijing 16y ago
  Of course there are uncontrolled variables, but there are those in every experiment. With large enough samples, those uncontrolled variables become less significant. That's how statistical sampling works--if you expected everyone to be exactly the same, then you would only have to ask one person. I understand that this is a personal outlook, but I feel like it is trying to make a more general point than "This is my story". BTW: Would you consider economics a "soft science"? I study economics with some background with econometrics (statistics, essentially, where the entire focus is on controlling for unknowns)
  - mediacrisis 16y ago
    I haven't really thought about economics as a soft science. I suppose its more objectively measurable, so I wouldn't necessarily lump it in with fields like psychology. Good point to ponder though :)

by orijing 16y ago

mediacrisis 16y ago

I see where you're coming from, but sociology is a soft science. Even in an experiment like your resume example, there are many uncontrollable variables (company sizes/values/morale, hr staff, etc) that render the data somewhat anecdotal, even if it follows a pattern. Moreover, this post is a personal outlook, and doesn't necessarily need hard data to prove an individual experience. There is really no "If A, then B" implied here.

orijing 16y ago
Of course there are uncontrolled variables, but there are those in every experiment. With large enough samples, those uncontrolled variables become less significant. That's how statistical sampling works--if you expected everyone to be exactly the same, then you would only have to ask one person. I understand that this is a personal outlook, but I feel like it is trying to make a more general point than "This is my story". BTW: Would you consider economics a "soft science"? I study economics with some background with econometrics (statistics, essentially, where the entire focus is on controlling for unknowns)
- mediacrisis 16y ago
  I haven't really thought about economics as a soft science. I suppose its more objectively measurable, so I wouldn't necessarily lump it in with fields like psychology. Good point to ponder though :)