WaPo's smarm quickly and predictably misinterpreted further by Twitter as evidence that low-status men are evil. Good times.
-
-
-
Not able to critique the stats in detail, but sample size < 200. Ironically, article steeped in Evopsych. Guess it's OK when it slams men!
-
@St_Rev And modest amount of experimenter DOFs, mostly in outlier criterion and interactions included.https://github.com/latrodektus/VG_Sexism/blob/master/VG_Sexism.R … -
@othercriteria ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Don't have the background to critique the stats, as I said! Would love to see reporter explain that graph tho. -
@St_Rev I guess "the better X gets, the more likely Y" phrasing hints at causation, but it's hard to be much less committal. -
@othercriteria It doesn't appear that female voices are treated worse in the mean, interestingly. Though depends on the skill distribution. -
@othercriteria But--stop me if I'm wrong here--but WaPo's presentation of the graph seems deeply misleading in that it's not actual data. -
@othercriteria It's the graph of a fitted model, yeah? So there's a bait-and-switch--it looks impossibly clean because it is. - 8 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.
. Banned in Sweden. SubGenius, Zhuangist, white-hat troll. Defrocked mathematician. Brain problems.