Message from @franti

Discord ID: 391732021132525579


2017-12-16 23:18:54 UTC  

how about your source sucks

2017-12-16 23:18:58 UTC  

is that good enough?

2017-12-16 23:19:08 UTC  

thus, it is a shit study

2017-12-16 23:19:26 UTC  

@meratrix individual quirks are factored out when you account for sample size dipshit

2017-12-16 23:19:46 UTC  

you wouldn't see replicable trends if it was just human error

2017-12-16 23:20:04 UTC  

Give us one example of discrimination you're fighting against.

2017-12-16 23:20:05 UTC  

you source is shit

2017-12-16 23:20:07 UTC  

um, no dipshit. It's still diferent people, and because the sample size is one fucking resume, it's worthless

2017-12-16 23:20:09 UTC  

period

2017-12-16 23:20:21 UTC  

you dickless knave

2017-12-16 23:20:39 UTC  

your source is not scientific at all

2017-12-16 23:20:52 UTC  

Let the grown ups talk, please.

2017-12-16 23:21:06 UTC  

@meratrix but they gave individual resumes to a multitude of people mowron

2017-12-16 23:21:26 UTC  

@méep Do you think eastern european (post commie) states are more imbalanced in regard of female scientists than the west?

2017-12-16 23:21:38 UTC  

yes, but it's still the same resume, so, they would need to give multiple pairs of one resume with two different names

2017-12-16 23:21:41 UTC  

that would be better

2017-12-16 23:21:54 UTC  

but you still have the problem of different people evaluating one half of each pair

2017-12-16 23:22:08 UTC  

@franti I don't know about eastern europe

2017-12-16 23:22:50 UTC  

mathematically his source is basically doing 125 C 1
@meratrix

2017-12-16 23:22:56 UTC  

@méep We got more women into tech by forcing them.

2017-12-16 23:23:11 UTC  

No stay at home mums here

2017-12-16 23:23:12 UTC  

@meratrix individual human error is factored out when you repeat the process multiple times

2017-12-16 23:23:18 UTC  

dude

2017-12-16 23:23:19 UTC  

this is science class 5th grade

2017-12-16 23:23:24 UTC  

it's fucking 125 Choose 1

2017-12-16 23:24:42 UTC  

wait

2017-12-16 23:25:48 UTC  

what was the sample size?

2017-12-16 23:25:51 UTC  

125?

2017-12-16 23:25:56 UTC  

👀

2017-12-16 23:25:57 UTC  

lmao

2017-12-16 23:26:01 UTC  

125

2017-12-16 23:26:35 UTC  

125 people, choosing 2 results

2017-12-16 23:26:57 UTC  

there's a possible 7750 combinations

2017-12-16 23:29:58 UTC  

and a very poor margin of error

2017-12-16 23:30:31 UTC  

"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"

2017-12-16 23:30:37 UTC  

you know everytime they say that

2017-12-16 23:30:47 UTC  

I want to know what the resume was

2017-12-16 23:31:38 UTC  

Also @méep, to have any inling of reliability in this study they would not only need multiple resumes but multiple fields as well

2017-12-16 23:31:52 UTC  

"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

2017-12-16 23:31:55 UTC  
2017-12-16 23:32:14 UTC  

girls are **WAYYYY** less likely to go the extra mile