"Grant reviewers award lower scores to proposals from women... even when they don’t know the gender of the applicant. That’s because male scientists tend to use broader, less specific words — which reviewers seem to prefer" https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01402-4 … Got it: be more vague.
-
-
Replying to @ev_fedorenko @LanguageMIT
If you read the actual study, it seems hard to derive that claim. The study notes that the female applicants in that particular study were on average less experienced, which means that the merit of the proposal may have been a confounding factor that was not eliminated?
1 reply 1 retweet 3 likes -
(I also hope they preregistered the hypothesis that it would be broad/narrow words that clinch the difference, and which words qualify as broad and which as narrow.)
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Probability that word choice was pre-registered hypothesis--and that "detection" control," and bacteria" were pre-registered as "broad," and "brain," "community,' and "oral" were pre-registered as "narrow"--is zero.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @R_H_Ebright @Plinz and
The risibly arbitrary categorization of words as "broad" and "narrow" positively reeks of p-hacking.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
In the interest of best mutual understanding and communication it seems almost always advisable to myself to err on the side of caution when deciding over dismissing the intentions and rational coherence of others
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.