So we go from “scientists like him” to “I don’t trust scientists who don’t like him”. Convenient little maneuver to dismiss any and all critiques.
-
-
Yeah, I don't get it. It says it's a multi-variate problem and discrimination is one part. Exactly what myself, you, and Peterson have said. Also, he didn't address my comments on the implications of the causal chain assumption, and its reverse bias to over-estimate the pay gap.
-
Tweet unavailable
-
Peterson: It does seem that way, but multivariate analysis of the pay gap indicate that it doesn’t exist.
-
Peterson: Yeah, but there’s multiple reasons for that. One of them is gender, but it’s not the only reason.... women in aggregate are paid less than men. Okay, well then we break it down by age, we break it down by occupation, we break it down by interest...
-
But then you look at papers like this and there is a wage gap when properly accounted for.
-
Yeah, I don't think it doesn't exist and I don't think discrimination isn't likely to be a part of it. He later said it was a part of it, but that other factors matter too. As did I. You said other factors are subsumed by discrimination because they're after in the causal chain.
-
Where did I say anything was subsumed by discrimination?
-
You didn't say that, I apologize. You said, in my reading, that some amount (unclear how much) of occupational choice is due to women self-selecting out of jobs due to discrimination in those fields, and so controlling for occupational choice would under-estimate gap.
-
I said that may well be true, but ignoring occupational choice would over-estimate the gap since it would ignore all occupational choice due to actual preference and not discrimination. You didn't respond to that.
End of conversation
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.