3 ms·
It's pretty arbitrary, yeah, but why 'obviously faulty'? Seems to me like it's just a different threshold than you or I might have picked, I can't think of a be
by lmitchell 11y ago
It's pretty arbitrary, yeah, but why 'obviously faulty'? Seems to me like it's just a different threshold than you or I might have picked, I can't think of a better metric to judge by though.
It would be interesting to see which names were the 'most' unisex, though - ie. those with closest to 50% spread, regardless of popularity.
- kevb 11y agoThe "60% of all names" is wrong. Let's imagine there are 3 total names, Alice, Bob and Casey. Alice is > 80% female, Bob is < 20% female and Casey is 50% female. Even though we're using the 80/20 cutoff, only 33% of the names are unisex, not 60%. You can't just subtract 20 from 80 to get the number of unisex names as the distribution is unknown (or unmentioned). You'd have to actually measure or take the distribution into account.