see the Peterson and science section for a number of pretty devastating refutations of Peterson's understanding of lobster biology, the gender pay gap, and personality testing.https://www.patreon.com/posts/jordan-peterson-17972181 …
-
-
Time and time again, it is shown that the gap all but disappears when hours worked, roles worked and time out are taken into account. Time and time again, it is shown that men & women choose differently and that this gap increases where women have most freedom to choose.
-
Ah, so it sounds like you haven't read the economics papers. The simple insight you're missing is that those choices are after gender on the causal pathway, so you can't include them as controls to get your estimates. There still is a gap after you account for them, by the way.
-
Do explain? Why aren't the choices people make significant to the income they earn?
-
Helen, you and Peterson are making a mathematical error here. See page 74 of
@causalinf's textbook: http://scunning.com/cunningham_mixtape.pdf … -
What you are doing is called "controlling for a collider". Doing it means your regression has no causal implications. You are *assuming* no discrimination, not proving it.
-
I'm not assuming anything. Just saying that the fact that men and women earn different amounts of money doesn't tell us anything about the cause if the only variable considered is gender and we don't account for different jobs chosen and different hours worked.
-
You are assuming it by the nature of the regression you are suggesting. That you are unaware of it doesn't make it untrue.
- 6 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.