Conversation

Aella
@Aella_Girl
Women in science need to learn more about how statistics work. If I published results this low in significance as tho they were real I could have 'proved' eighty different insane things by now. To explain why this is bad:
Quote Tweet
Emily Khazan
@EmilyKhazan
It can be hard being a #womaninscience, and teaching evaluations often don't help. We show gender bias in teaching reviews of graduate students; another subtle force making the leaky pipeline leakier: insidehighered.com/news/2020/11/0
Show this thread
13
145
Eade
@eade_bengard
Replying to
@Aella_Girl
Do you see the irony of how this ONE woman who uses a low sample size and flexible analysis somehow means that “women in science need to learn more about how statistics work”? There are plenty of extraordinary women in science, just look at this year’s Nobel winners.
4
25
Eade
@eade_bengard
Replying to
@Aella_Girl
That’s a pretty flexible definition of irony. Did you mean sarcastic or condescending? I mean, all good. Love your polls and would love to see one of your scientific papers. But given the amount of bs men pull in science this ain’t it for me.
2
7
Aella
@Aella_Girl
Replying to
@eade_bengard
I view "women in science" to be one of the topics more likely to suffer from... Well, bad science, due to how heavily politicized it is. I view women in science as extremely good, but have more negative priors for women who talk about women in science.
16
Likes
👻Mike L
@_Mente
Replying to
@Aella_Girl
and
@eade_bengard
I'm getting the impression you might need to clarify what you said and start over, either that or your sample size of "women in science" is super small, which is to your point ironic that you'd suggest that. I know dozens of women, in my field alone, who are good at stats.
1
1