Today in Paul's implicit assumptions: that only the initial selection bias affects outcomes, not later biases.https://twitter.com/paulg/status/660534510379888640 …
@kevinmarks Did you actually read it? "And in particular it must not be invalidated by the bias you're trying to measure."
-
-
@paulg yes, you disclaimed that, but then went on to apply it outcomes of vc funding of women, implying that the disclaimer didn't apply. -
@kevinmarks It doesn't apply when you're showing bias *exists*. It means FRC's 63% number is a lower bound on their bias. -
@paulg if their female founder numbers look like YC's, I'd be surprised if there are enough to be statistically significant. -
@kevinmarks Should I take this resort to (inaccurate) snark as a sign you've been refuted? -
@paulg last time we discussed this you said the figures were inaccurate, but refused to give accurate ones https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tZVHgKnNS5ghjkQou4QOyQtQWX9sURgSMVYgyC76z-Q/edit?usp=sharing … -
@paulg isn't that the methodology you were suggesting was flawed? What does your own bias test show about YC? -
@kevinmarks My kids just knocked on my door in their costumes, and I am having this conversation on Twitter. That is so wrong. So bye. - 1 more reply
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.