4 ms·

I can think of contexts, especially when n=15(if this was a statistical study on insulin response to artificial sweeteners, people would be saying the sample si

I can think of contexts, especially when n=15(if this was a statistical study on insulin response to artificial sweeteners, people would be saying the sample size is too small to draw conclusions), but I don't know if developing hypothetical scenarios is useful. Learning the true context is most important. This could be done by corroborating allegations for example.

fractionalhare 6y ago
> I can think of contexts Yes that's what was asked; which ones? > especially when n=15(if this was a statistical study on insulin response to artificial sweeteners, people would be saying the sample size is too small to draw conclusions) And those people would be wrong. It's incorrect to dismiss a study based on sample size without a discussion of significance and effect size in the context of the data. Moreover I reject the premise that you should be assessing this story quantitatively rather than qualitatively. But if you insist: what are your priors on whether or not a given company engaged in discrimination, and how do these change if you're told 75% of employees of a particular demographic stated there was discrimination?
- googlryas 6y ago
  Okay - one context is where one department has a large number of black people, and that department is defragged for purely business reasons to a different office across the country. Most people never choose the relocation package, and so a big chunk of black employees end up quitting. That's the event that triggered 8 black employees of the 15 who left as I understand it from the article. > what are your priors on whether or not a given company engaged in discrimination, and how do these change if you're told 75% of employees of a particular demographic stated there was discrimination? I completely agree that it's a very bad look. It is probably even more likely than not that given those facts, it is due to racism. I guess the question comes down to, philosophically, how one answers the following question: In the quest to eradicate racism and racists, is it better to be over-zealous and destroy a few non-racists to make sure you get all the actual racists(the chemo approach) - or is it better to be slightly more circumspect and let a few racists slip through the cracks so that far fewer non-racists are punished (the US judicial system ideal)?
  - whakim 6y ago
    But this question assumes that the root cause of the problem is that Coinbase has a disproportionately high number of "bad apples." To me that's exactly backwards; it seems much more likely that institutional culture tolerates and even encourages racism.
slg 6y ago
>I can think of contexts, especially when n=15(if this was a statistical study on insulin response to artificial sweeteners, people would be saying the sample size is too small to draw conclusions), but I don't know if developing hypothetical scenarios is useful. N = 15 while p ≈ 20. It has been a while since I have taken a stats class, but that sample seems plenty large enough to me. >Learning the true context is most important. This could be done by corroborating allegations for example. Corroborating is exactly what journalists do. From the article: >five people with knowledge of the situation said. >But according to 23 current and former Coinbase employees, five of whom spoke on the record, as well as internal documents and recordings of conversations >according to a recording of the session shared with The New York Times >In a company email he sent later, which was also shared with The Times >wrote in a Slack message that was viewed by The Times. >three people briefed on the situation said >according to a recording of the event >according to a copy of the message seen by The Times >according to a copy reviewed by The Times. >two people with knowledge of the situation said The NYT talked to dozens of people, watched/listened to multiple recordings, and viewed numerous emails and Slack messages. This story is corroborated.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- oh_sigh 6y ago
  If you order the claims in the article on a scale of not racist at all to clearly racist, you'll see basically all of the corroboration comes from claims on the left side of that scale, and few if any on the right side. The claims I was specifically thinking about were things like: > One Black employee said her manager suggested in front of colleagues that she was dealing drugs and carrying a gun, trading on racist stereotypes. Another said a co-worker at a recruiting meeting broadly described Black employees as less capable. Still another said managers spoke down to her and her Black colleagues, adding that they were passed over for promotions in favor of less experienced white employees. The accumulation of incidents, they said, led to the wave of departures. These have no corroboration, even though they allegedly happened in front of multiple coworkers.
  - 6y ago

fractionalhare 6y ago

> I can think of contexts Yes that's what was asked; which ones? > especially when n=15(if this was a statistical study on insulin response to artificial sweeteners, people would be saying the sample size is too small to draw conclusions) And those people would be wrong. It's incorrect to dismiss a study based on sample size without a discussion of significance and effect size in the context of the data. Moreover I reject the premise that you should be assessing this story quantitatively rather than qualitatively. But if you insist: what are your priors on whether or not a given company engaged in discrimination, and how do these change if you're told 75% of employees of a particular demographic stated there was discrimination?

googlryas 6y ago
Okay - one context is where one department has a large number of black people, and that department is defragged for purely business reasons to a different office across the country. Most people never choose the relocation package, and so a big chunk of black employees end up quitting. That's the event that triggered 8 black employees of the 15 who left as I understand it from the article. > what are your priors on whether or not a given company engaged in discrimination, and how do these change if you're told 75% of employees of a particular demographic stated there was discrimination? I completely agree that it's a very bad look. It is probably even more likely than not that given those facts, it is due to racism. I guess the question comes down to, philosophically, how one answers the following question: In the quest to eradicate racism and racists, is it better to be over-zealous and destroy a few non-racists to make sure you get all the actual racists(the chemo approach) - or is it better to be slightly more circumspect and let a few racists slip through the cracks so that far fewer non-racists are punished (the US judicial system ideal)?
- whakim 6y ago
  But this question assumes that the root cause of the problem is that Coinbase has a disproportionately high number of "bad apples." To me that's exactly backwards; it seems much more likely that institutional culture tolerates and even encourages racism.

slg 6y ago

>I can think of contexts, especially when n=15(if this was a statistical study on insulin response to artificial sweeteners, people would be saying the sample size is too small to draw conclusions), but I don't know if developing hypothetical scenarios is useful. N = 15 while p ≈ 20. It has been a while since I have taken a stats class, but that sample seems plenty large enough to me. >Learning the true context is most important. This could be done by corroborating allegations for example. Corroborating is exactly what journalists do. From the article: >five people with knowledge of the situation said. >But according to 23 current and former Coinbase employees, five of whom spoke on the record, as well as internal documents and recordings of conversations >according to a recording of the session shared with The New York Times >In a company email he sent later, which was also shared with The Times >wrote in a Slack message that was viewed by The Times. >three people briefed on the situation said >according to a recording of the event >according to a copy of the message seen by The Times >according to a copy reviewed by The Times. >two people with knowledge of the situation said The NYT talked to dozens of people, watched/listened to multiple recordings, and viewed numerous emails and Slack messages. This story is corroborated.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
oh_sigh 6y ago
If you order the claims in the article on a scale of not racist at all to clearly racist, you'll see basically all of the corroboration comes from claims on the left side of that scale, and few if any on the right side. The claims I was specifically thinking about were things like: > One Black employee said her manager suggested in front of colleagues that she was dealing drugs and carrying a gun, trading on racist stereotypes. Another said a co-worker at a recruiting meeting broadly described Black employees as less capable. Still another said managers spoke down to her and her Black colleagues, adding that they were passed over for promotions in favor of less experienced white employees. The accumulation of incidents, they said, led to the wave of departures. These have no corroboration, even though they allegedly happened in front of multiple coworkers.
- 6y ago