Message from @franti
Discord ID: 391732021132525579
how about your source sucks
is that good enough?
thus, it is a shit study
@meratrix individual quirks are factored out when you account for sample size dipshit
you wouldn't see replicable trends if it was just human error
Give us one example of discrimination you're fighting against.
you source is shit
um, no dipshit. It's still diferent people, and because the sample size is one fucking resume, it's worthless
period
you dickless knave
your source is not scientific at all
Let the grown ups talk, please.
@meratrix but they gave individual resumes to a multitude of people mowron
@méep Do you think eastern european (post commie) states are more imbalanced in regard of female scientists than the west?
yes, but it's still the same resume, so, they would need to give multiple pairs of one resume with two different names
that would be better
but you still have the problem of different people evaluating one half of each pair
mathematically his source is basically doing 125 C 1
@meratrix
@meratrix individual human error is factored out when you repeat the process multiple times
dude
this is science class 5th grade
it's fucking 125 Choose 1
wait
what was the sample size?
125?
👀
lmao
125
125 people, choosing 2 results
there's a possible 7750 combinations
and a very poor margin of error
"The results were surprising—they show that the decision makers did not evaluate the resume purely on its merits. Despite having the exact same qualifications and experience as John"
you know everytime they say that
I want to know what the resume was
Also @méep, to have any inling of reliability in this study they would not only need multiple resumes but multiple fields as well
"Because they perceived the female candidate as less competent, the scientists in the study were less willing to mentor Jennifer or to hire her as a lab manager"
probably because girls won't take that extra step and go futher beyond
Link to the paper: http://www.pnas.org/content/109/41/16474.full.pdf
girls are **WAYYYY** less likely to go the extra mile