4 ms·

Indeed. However, note how small the sample size is, which makes it extremely difficult to draw conclusions. Quote from p14: > Finally, we considered the possib

by ColanR 6y ago

Indeed. However, note how small the sample size is, which makes it extremely difficult to draw conclusions. Quote from p14: > Finally, we considered the possibility that seniority may be at play and that gender simply coincides with seniority. We recognized that two of the three female Justices, Justice Kagan and Justice Sotomayor, are more junior on the Court and that each is interrupted far more frequently than Justice Ginsburg. In addition, Table 1 provides some provisional support for the seniority hypothesis because of the most senior Justices - Ginsburg, Kennedy, Scalia, and Breyer — only Ginsburg and Breyer are interrupted at high rates. In contrast, the more junior Justices — Kagan, Sotomayor, and Alito — account for the other seven high interruption rates.

klyrs 6y ago
As I said, "for example" -- it's a 118-page paper that contains much more than that single table. Which, by the way, summarizes a full year of oral arguments at the supreme court -- not actually a small sample size, but a total dataset. And yes, there is much nuance in the article, and they do consider and analyze confounding factors, but your cherry-picked quotation seems to indicate a lack of genuine curiosity on your part.
- ColanR 6y ago
  Yes, you did give an example. The quote I referenced is from the discussion in the article of the example you gave - even inside the quote it makes an explicit reference to the table you pointed me to. You're welcome to make another example, but I was specifically responding to the one you gave. That's not cherry-picking, that's a totally relevant counter-example to the one you gave. > not actually a small sample size, but a total dataset Guess I didn't articulate super well. That dataset only covers a very small number of people in a very artificial environment - top lawyers dissecting legal matters from opposite sides of almost every spectrum is hardly an environment representative of e.g. general conversation. Sure, there's a lot of observations made over a period of time, but it's observations of only 9 people, which is a really tiny group when you're trying to make any extrapolation at all to the general population, even if the circumstances had been anything approaching normal. > your cherry-picked quotation seems to indicate a lack of genuine curiosity on your part Are you trying to make a personal jab, or was that just accidental? Maybe 'interrupting' isn't the only interpersonal (systemic?) abrasion that might need fixing in society...
  - klyrs 6y ago
    It's not just a tiny group. It's the most influential group of 9 people at the very top of an egalitarian system of law. Do they represent all of us? No, not perfectly. They should represent the best of us. One reason that this study exists is that it's a deliberative body with excellent records. It would be great if longitudinal studies of huge populations existed, but that would require ridiculously expensive (and highly invasive) data acquisition.
    - ColanR 6y ago
      > It would be great if longitudinal studies of huge populations existed, but... That's the problem, isn't it. There's so many things we would know if only we had better data. However, until we actually have useful data, we have to simply acknowledge that there is insufficient data to say anything worth saying. To do otherwise is unscientific.
- disown 6y ago
  > Which, by the way, summarizes a full year of oral arguments at the supreme court -- not actually a small sample size, but a total dataset. It's a "total dataset" of the most narrow and small sample size possible. You are being very deceptive here by trying to dismiss the guy's concern over small sample size with "total dataset" as if that compensates for a minuscule sample size. The supreme court ( all nine or so members ) and the oral arguments isn't a sample size worth drawing any objective general conclusions from. You might as well draw general physical conditions of americans based solely on the los angeles lakers. > And yes, there is much nuance in the article, and they do consider and analyze confounding factors, but your cherry-picked quotation seems to indicate a lack of genuine curiosity on your part. You are projecting here. The only one who cherrypicked here is you. The guy responded to your cherrypicked data.

by ColanR 6y ago

klyrs 6y ago

As I said, "for example" -- it's a 118-page paper that contains much more than that single table. Which, by the way, summarizes a full year of oral arguments at the supreme court -- not actually a small sample size, but a total dataset. And yes, there is much nuance in the article, and they do consider and analyze confounding factors, but your cherry-picked quotation seems to indicate a lack of genuine curiosity on your part.

ColanR 6y ago
Yes, you did give an example. The quote I referenced is from the discussion in the article of the example you gave - even inside the quote it makes an explicit reference to the table you pointed me to. You're welcome to make another example, but I was specifically responding to the one you gave. That's not cherry-picking, that's a totally relevant counter-example to the one you gave. > not actually a small sample size, but a total dataset Guess I didn't articulate super well. That dataset only covers a very small number of people in a very artificial environment - top lawyers dissecting legal matters from opposite sides of almost every spectrum is hardly an environment representative of e.g. general conversation. Sure, there's a lot of observations made over a period of time, but it's observations of only 9 people, which is a really tiny group when you're trying to make any extrapolation at all to the general population, even if the circumstances had been anything approaching normal. > your cherry-picked quotation seems to indicate a lack of genuine curiosity on your part Are you trying to make a personal jab, or was that just accidental? Maybe 'interrupting' isn't the only interpersonal (systemic?) abrasion that might need fixing in society...
- klyrs 6y ago
  It's not just a tiny group. It's the most influential group of 9 people at the very top of an egalitarian system of law. Do they represent all of us? No, not perfectly. They should represent the best of us. One reason that this study exists is that it's a deliberative body with excellent records. It would be great if longitudinal studies of huge populations existed, but that would require ridiculously expensive (and highly invasive) data acquisition.
  - ColanR 6y ago
    > It would be great if longitudinal studies of huge populations existed, but... That's the problem, isn't it. There's so many things we would know if only we had better data. However, until we actually have useful data, we have to simply acknowledge that there is insufficient data to say anything worth saying. To do otherwise is unscientific.
disown 6y ago
> Which, by the way, summarizes a full year of oral arguments at the supreme court -- not actually a small sample size, but a total dataset. It's a "total dataset" of the most narrow and small sample size possible. You are being very deceptive here by trying to dismiss the guy's concern over small sample size with "total dataset" as if that compensates for a minuscule sample size. The supreme court ( all nine or so members ) and the oral arguments isn't a sample size worth drawing any objective general conclusions from. You might as well draw general physical conditions of americans based solely on the los angeles lakers. > And yes, there is much nuance in the article, and they do consider and analyze confounding factors, but your cherry-picked quotation seems to indicate a lack of genuine curiosity on your part. You are projecting here. The only one who cherrypicked here is you. The guy responded to your cherrypicked data.