WaPo's smarm quickly and predictably misinterpreted further by Twitter as evidence that low-status men are evil. Good times.
-
-
Replying to @St_Rev
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!
4 replies 1 retweet 6 likes -
Replying to @St_Rev
@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 …1 reply 1 retweet 0 likes -
Replying to @othercriteria
@othercriteria ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Don't have the background to critique the stats, as I said! Would love to see reporter explain that graph tho.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @othercriteria
@othercriteria It doesn't appear that female voices are treated worse in the mean, interestingly. Though depends on the skill distribution.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @St_Rev
@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.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @St_Rev
@othercriteria It's the graph of a fitted model, yeah? So there's a bait-and-switch--it looks impossibly clean because it is.1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @St_Rev
@othercriteria A point cloud (not sure if that's exactly possible in this context?) would be far less impressive.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
@othercriteria Cool, let me know if you find something interesting
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.