Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Fri Mar 29 10:34:57 2024

Utopia Talk / Politics / Peer reviewed nonsense
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon Aug 13 03:42:36
Part 2 of the series ”Of limited relevance”.

Living Mathematx: Towards a Vision for the Future
Gutiérrez, Rochelle

North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (39th, Indianapolis, IN, Oct 5-8, 2017)
This paper offers specific implications for teaching and learning and brings into conversation ideas from ethnomathematics (including Western mathematics), postcolonial theory, aesthetics, biology, and Indigenous knowledge in order to propose a new vision for practicing mathematics, what I call mathematx. I build upon the work of sustainability in mathematics education and suggest we need to think not only about more ethical ways of applying mathematics in teaching and learning but question the very nature of mathematics, who does it, and how we are affected by that practice. [For complete proceedings, see ED581294.]

http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED581384
Seb
Member
Mon Aug 13 03:59:13
This is impenetrable and I'm not sure at all what this author is getting at.

I suspect it might be a spoof on that basis. You can normally see the point thats being made with these kind of abstruse social studies papers, even if you disagree with it.
smart dude
Member
Mon Aug 13 04:03:01
Really I thought Seb wrote this.

:Implications for Teaching and Learning
Elsewhere, I have argued that the practice of school mathematics in the US regulates the child by privileging: algebra/calculus over geometry/topology/spatial reasoning; rule following over rule breaking; Western mathematics (culture free) over ethnomathematics (recognizing that even academic mathematicians are a culture); the “standard algorithm” over invented or international algorithms; abstraction over context (“just pretend this is real world”); mind over body; logic over intuition; and encouraging students to “critique the reasoning of others” over appreciating their reasoning (Gutiérrez, in preparation). Not only can these repeated practices over a lifetime serve to dehumanize students and teachers in classrooms, the narrative about mathematics being a pure discipline, reflective of the natural world around us, universal, with an almost unilaterally positive relationship to society’s advancement, leaves many humans unable to challenge this narrative to consider other ways of doing mathematics. In this way, school mathematics comes to normalize and valorize particular practices and to make others seem deviant and in need of fixing (Skovsmose 1994; Walkerdine 1994). By continuing to privilege data analysis and probability over other kinds of spatial patterning, even if that data analysis concerns itself with issues such as climate change, we run the risk of limiting new ways of doing mathematics and our relationships to the practice."
Seb
Member
Mon Aug 13 04:17:54
Except perhaps "can we practice mathematics without the concept of abstraction which is inherently reductionist" which is "not even wrong".

PMENA carries a press statement asking people to tone down the attacks on her. So it didn't even go down well at the conference. And as a conference proceeding it may not have been peer reviewed.

But if I was asked to review something like this I wouldn't know where to start. You can't really give specific criticisms in the way expected of a reviewer. "This is nonsense"
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon Aug 13 04:21:17
Seb, this is real, one person did not create these systems of nonsense, it is a collaborative and iterative effort. Science and math have been deconstructed as the tools of oppression that they are. In their place there is, well this decolonized ethnomathematics. I have met these people on social media, they are real and they never respond to me pointing out all the contribution of Persian mathematicians, or ”Islamic” if you will to ”western mathematics”.
Seb
Member
Mon Aug 13 04:24:34
Smart dude:

I think the US does focus on algebra over other branches. I don't know what is meant by "regulating" the child.

The middle seems meandering nonsense.

The last bit has a germ of truth in teaching. E.g. consider Penrose tiling etc. Maths being an abstraction, new mathematical concepts can emerge/be seen in non algebraic forms wherr they might not be discovered so easily elsewhere.

But I don't think that's the central point of the paper. I think the author sees the branches of mathematics as distinct entities and abstraction as a dehumanizing imposition; rather than aspects of a universal abstract truth.
Seb
Member
Mon Aug 13 04:30:34
Nim:

In a world of 6Bn people,a few fruitcake are to be expected.

By the sounds of it, she presented her paper at conference of maths and psychology, attracted a huge amount of negative critical challenge for it. (Some possibly spilling over the bounds of accepted academic discourse judging by the orgs press statement.)

This looks to me like the system working.

Does this really strike you as a huge problem?

After all, you are a proponent of the equally ridiculous field of evolutionary psychology, must of which is untestable nonsense and has produced a myriad of papers that are easily picked appear as naught but a hill of unverified assumptions piled atop each other in order to support the next speculation.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon Aug 13 04:35:02
It is quite ironic that the paper picks out ”algorithm” as a divider. Arguably this is in the very fringe of social science, but the insularity that causes this, isn’t a fringe phenomena.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon Aug 13 04:42:17
No seb, what will happen is that this person will go back bruised by a predominatly white brigade of critics, thus validating her worldview of how racist math and white people who do math are. It is a self fulfilling prophecy, when you say retarded things in public, people will point them out to you.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon Aug 13 05:29:59
”must of which is untestable”

The same limitation of course applies to evolutionary theory in general, yet hypothesis are tested and falsified. I have posted 2 on consumer behavior. So I am curious what you think this means? The field is never going to be falsified unless ToE is falsified. And most of this nonsense you bring up is old nonsense. In its’ infancy many crazy ideas were aired, much to the horror of people with your temprament. If you remember biology and genetics also went batshit about 100 years ago. Such is the search for knowledge, uneven. These things have hampered progress, but those days are over.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s41469-017-0019-9

^Interesting times ahead of us.
Seb
Member
Mon Aug 13 05:42:01
Nim:

Not nearly to the same extent in evolutionary theory as there is plenty of evidence for the physical constraints and environmental conditions that acted as selectors, but very little for the specific psychological traits and roles - and what little there is requires secondary hypotheses that are often sources of bias.

I have raised for example, the historic misidentification of skeletons sex by experienced archeologists due the presence of artefacts they associate with a particular gender role and thus sex, whered normally have correctly identified sex based on anatomical features.

So, for example, silly arguments about whether women like the colour pink on the basis it signifies ripe fruit and thus affinity for pink would be an evolutionary advantage for women as their role as gatherers in hunter gatherer society.

Only there isn't actually strong evidence that women do have an innate affinity for pink, nor that they had a particular gatherer role on evolutionary time scales. Let alone any actual evidence that an affinity for pink would act as a selective advantage given reds and pinks are also in nature "used" as warning signs (e.g. on poisonous mushrooms).

This is very different from examining anatomical adaptations for e.g. mechanical efficiency, where complete chains of reasoning can be constructed with testable secondary hypotheses.
Seb
Member
Mon Aug 13 05:59:18
Nim:

Not nearly to the same extent in evolutionary theory as there is plenty of evidence for the physical constraints and environmental conditions that acted as selectors, but very little for the specific psychological traits and roles - and what little there is requires secondary hypotheses that are often sources of bias.

I have raised for example, the historic misidentification of skeletons sex by experienced archeologists due the presence of artefacts they associate with a particular gender role and thus sex, whered normally have correctly identified sex based on anatomical features.

So, for example, silly arguments about whether women like the colour pink on the basis it signifies ripe fruit and thus affinity for pink would be an evolutionary advantage for women as their role as gatherers in hunter gatherer society.

Only there isn't actually strong evidence that women do have an innate affinity for pink, nor that they had a particular gatherer role on evolutionary time scales. Let alone any actual evidence that an affinity for pink would act as a selective advantage given reds and pinks are also in nature "used" as warning signs (e.g. on poisonous mushrooms).

This is very different from examining anatomical adaptations for e.g. mechanical efficiency, where complete chains of reasoning can be constructed with testable secondary hypotheses.
Seb
Member
Mon Aug 13 06:13:49
Oh, weird,my second post got eaten.
Seb
Member
Mon Aug 13 06:20:14
It is precisely and exactly the unfalsifiability of many hypotheses constructed under the umbrella of evolutionary psychology that makes them unscientific.

To the extent we are ever able to link genes to complex psychological behaviour independent of context, the field of evolutionary psychology will simply collapse back into evolutionary genetics - which is a real science.

However, evolutionary genetics makes far more limited claims precisely because it has more rigour in terms of evidentiary requirements and restricting itself to hypotheses that can be falsified on the basis of physical evidence.

One is a science, with rigor, and requirements for hypotheses to be testable.
The other is pseudoscience that while requiring plausible hypotheses with internal logic does not exclude those that cannot be tested. It's not enough that a hypothesis make sense in its own right, there must be a way to distinguish why it alone is the correct explanation and better than alternatives.

Seb
Member
Mon Aug 13 06:35:57
Re this event being the system working:

Before we begin, I don't think she is saying "maths is racist and mathematicians are racist" - to the extent shes saying anything meaningful at all.

Lets say she does "go back" with her views reinforced - human psychology winning out - so what? Very often that's precisely what happens in valid debate in academia.

The question is what happens to the body of the academy as a whole. Generally it appears they threw her and mathematax out on her ear.

This is why professional scepticism should be high, and my main criticism of your approach. Generally, your thresholds for accepting a hypothesis as acceptably likely to be true are way way too low.

Incidentally, her funder PMENA is essentially adopting a weaker version of your defence of evo psych " it's interdisciplinary, and new ideas may be crazy, we invite critical discourse but personal attacks are not ok".

In both cases, lack of rigour and discipline in the thinking, not the conclusions, are the issue.
Seb
Member
Mon Aug 13 06:38:58
Bottom line: evo psych doesn't get a free ride due to immaturity any more than revivalist parapsychology in the 70s. You dont have the tools to test your theory? Tough. It's beyond the realms of science for now.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon Aug 13 07:47:10
>> but very little for the specific psychological traits and roles<<

There are actually many sources, through academic disciplines and their research into history (history, archeology, cultural anthropology and more) and of course modern studies of groups and tribes who lived like our ancestors. So we can actually say a great deal about the social, cultural and environmental conditions that would act as selection pressures. It also sounds as if you think physiological traits and cognitive traits evolved seperatly, rather than together and under the same conditions. So we can also use facts and findings from biology for EP, behavior in other animals etc etc. This is just, ignorance.

>>It is precisely and exactly the unfalsifiability of many hypotheses constructed under the umbrella of evolutionary psychology that makes them unscientific.<<

That would, if true, make those hypothesis unscientific, not the field of research, that as I explained scientist do pose testable hypothesis, in much the same manner that evolutionary biology has done.

I would ask you to put your money where you mouth is and show me an EP research paper that reaches the level of what I posted. I am afraid we will never agree on something subjective as level of crazy.

EP is a metatheory for psychology, like ToE is for biology. Psychologists and biologist then pose and test different hypothesis within the theoretical framework, you know science. So all in all, you do not even seem to understand what EP is, what it aims to do and what it couldn’t be.

The fundamental assumption of EP is ToE. What is the basic premise of critical theory and post colonial studies

And the peer reviewed nonsense I posted, that is precisely what critical theory is about seb, it is primarily about knowledge that serves to liberate people. Now if you actually go and listen to the crazy people, yes they think ”western science” is a tool of oppression, it is used to keep brown and black people from power. They go into great detail explaining the history and how Western european people used their ”science” to colonize and justify their colonization and enslavement. Which you know contains a shitstain of truth, without technological and organizational superiority that would have been impossible. Now put it through the post colonial deconstruction machine and that shitstain on whatever you are analyzing will become the worlds biggest turd and all that thing is and was ever meant for. This is literally not rocket science, the hurdle to post modern research is the language they use not the complexity of the tools for analysis.

Example
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=C9SiRNibD14

So colloqiually ”science/math is racist”, yes they believe this.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon Aug 13 08:01:58
>>You dont have the tools to test your theory?<<

But we do, I have now posted a second paper on methodology for EP this time for Organizational psychology, and another one for EP research in general, I have posted 2 papers on UP researching consumer behavior within an EP framework with positive results. Yet you keep repeating the same things. This reminds me very much of discussion on this forum with creationist. WHAT ABOUT THE MOON DUST IT DISPROVES EVOLUTIONARY TIME SCALE! Then you look it up and see that the moon dust BS is from the fucking 80’s and was disproven as nonsense in the 80’s. You explain this and then two months later, the same person will go, WHAT ABOUT THE MOON DUST? At this point I usually remember that this discussion with the religious person is about about values, ideology and worldview, not epistemic rigor.
Dukhat
Member
Mon Aug 13 08:13:13
A key tenet of scientists is that they never stop testing their own assumptions or disallow an idea simply on face value.

Unfortunately, for a retard with an ax to grind; they will try to craft a narrative on some obscure paper nobody cares about ...
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon Aug 13 08:35:02
Ah yes, seb tail, dickface.

Tell me dickface, when the Royal Swedish technical university demands that their applicant for computer engineering write an essay about how being white and hetronormative has been a privilege, is that my narrative based on obscure papers _nobody_ care about?
Seb
Member
Mon Aug 13 08:48:34
Nim:

"history"
Mostly the period in question are before recorded history, which itself is inherently tainted with bias.

"Archeology"
Which is rather limited in what it can tell us with hard evidence - and copious examples where interpretation is tainted by bias to the extent that physical evidence has been completely misinterpreted.

"cultural anthropology"
Ditto, and mostly that's the modern studies you mention.

"course modern studies of groups and tribes who lived like our ancestors."
Which is the same as above, and has the untested and loaded assumption that current tribes lived as our ancestors which is fairly ludicrous given the central tennet of this research is the disparity in behaviours of current tribes.

None of the above are sciences - they operate to largely different standards of evidence and embrace uncertainty in a way that evolutionary psychology tends not to, which presents itself as a science by framing each hypothesis as being consistent with an evolutionary explanation but often falling far short of a true scientific hypothesis and little rigor in evidence.

And given one major use of evolutionary psychology results is to support statements innate ability, it is imperative that these ideas be more tested, not less tested. Yet the
disciplinesthat you cite as providing supporting evidence are all littered with demonstrably cases where resercher biases in exactly the issues you are exploring, makes it often little more than circular arguments laundering modernideas about different gender behaviour, projecting them on the Avant historical evidence, and then asserting this proves (rather than merely is consistent with) a broad brush understanding of evolution and declaring that the behaviour must therefore be an expression of innate biology.

It is, as a science, highly dubious approach lacking in rigor.
Wrath of Orion
Member
Mon Aug 13 08:49:02
It's Sweden, so I doubt many will care.
hood
Member
Mon Aug 13 08:57:13
"obscure papers _nobody_ care about"

"I doubt many will care"


HAAAH! You got got! Few is still more than none!
Seb
Member
Mon Aug 13 09:09:09
Nim:

"That would, if true, make those hypothesis unscientific, not the field of research"

If the field of research is generally characterised by unscientific hypothesis and methods, that is precisely what makes is not a science. How else would you distinguish scientific fields from non scientific fields?

Parapsychologists think their field is a science too.

"EP is a metatheory for psychology"
Indeed, but one with little basis to call itself a theory. A theory is something that is repeatedly verified - evolution started off as a hypothesis and has developed over time to a broad level of accepted certainty on the basis of results.

You don't get to just slap some half way plausible idea and claim to be a universal theoretical framework for understanding a phenomenology without making your case very strongly.

"The fundamental assumption of EP is ToE"

No, the fundamental assumption of EP is that the bulk of complex behaviour can be explained in terms of innate, herritable biological traits and are the response of specific adaptations to environmental constraints as per ToE.

This does not *need* to be true just because evolution is: e.g. behaviour may be adaptive responses to environmental factors at the individual level and not heritable. Or they may be heritable, but are not strongly selected for and thus not a product of evolution.

Seb
Member
Mon Aug 13 09:12:31
Nim:

"Tell me dickface, when the Royal Swedish technical university demands that their applicant for computer engineering write an essay about how being white and hetronormative has been a privilege"

I think it might help them be a better engineer and not design products that default for white middle class men but which cannot handle people who do not fit that mold - as happens a lot.

For example, I assume you have seen the automatic hand driers that can't detect black people's hands?


Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon Aug 13 09:19:31
”Mostly the period in question are before recorded history, which itself is inherently tainted with bias.”

Recorded history and the unique environment of urban lifestyle and all that it entails, select for and against behavior. So no, it is actually an important period. Nothing is perfect by through multiple disciplines in academia, yes we can provide a great deal of useful information about the environment of our ancestors.

Like I said seb, I fully understand your aprehension for the unknown, though I do not share it. We don’t need certainty to the 6th sigma for knowledge to be useful. Experiments are designed by EP researchers, hypothesis are being falsified and predictions are being made. Deal with it.

WoO
There are American examples of the same type of ideological framework producing similair outcomes. Dickface and I have spoken about those as well, he never puts two and two together because he doesn’t want to.
hood
Member
Mon Aug 13 09:31:48
"For example, I assume you have seen the automatic hand driers that can't detect black people's hands?"

1. Those things can't even detect white people hands very well.

2. They are an infested abomination anyway and should be categorically scrapped. Unless, of course, you like the idea of blowing germs all over the place.

3. Facial recognition systems are probably a better example here, as they are more pertinent and prominent.
Dukhat
Member
Mon Aug 13 09:43:30
I love how Swedish progressivism triggers Nimatzo. What a retard. If you don't like it, self-deport back to Iran where you can get hot coals placed inside your asshole by the revolutionary guard you cuck.
Seb
Member
Mon Aug 13 10:02:05
Nim:

"Like I said seb, I fully understand your aprehension for the unknown"

You are misinterpreting a simple basic requirement for evidentiary standards and falsifiable hypotheses as a fear of the unknown. Science is specifically the practice of turning the unknown into the known, and when one deviates or lowers the threshold, the risk is miss-classifying precisely that which is unknown as known - as you so often do.

You sound every bit like a parasychologist rejecting proper scientific scepticism.

hood:

Whether 1,2 or 3 are true is irrelevant in this case. The point is some idiot invented a hand drier that uses reflected light to detect hands and is calibrated such a way that it cannot in principle detect black skinned hands, and because the idiot designers didn't think to even think about this, and it didn't get tested.

There are numerous examples of this.
Seb
Member
Mon Aug 13 10:33:15
Nim, look at the link you posted:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s41469-017-0019-9

Look at what is *assumed* but not proven -

"Evolutionary psychologists assume that this tribal history is reflected in how human brains are designed."

"A final assumption is that these psychological mechanisms are optimally designed to deal with the problems in ancestral human environments in which they were selected."

This is precisely as I have said - it starts wit the assumption that psychological behaviour must be a selective adaptation, then seeks to understand what pressure that adaption must be in response to, and then announces "ta-da, this must be innate".

It's circular reasoning.

A robust scientific approach would demand proof and rationale - as evolutionary biology and evolutionary genetics does - that specific pressures led to those specific adaptations.

In this case, much of the specific pressures are based on assumptions about human society and structure and environment in our evolutionary history. AS you link points out.
jergul
large member
Mon Aug 13 11:10:30
"Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (39th, Indianapolis, IN, Oct 5-8, 2017)"

Suggests that the paper has in fact not been accepted for peer review publication at the time.
jergul
large member
Mon Aug 13 12:43:16
Nimi
Perhaps the key thing to know about all good science is the assumption of inadequacy.

Here is my theory and here is the evidence and theoretical basis it is founded on.

I know it is not true, but I think it closer to the truth than theories that came before it to explain what I was examining.

Good science follows a formula. Pointing out limitations the researcher did not see or include in his paper is a good thing, but finding a limitation does not debunk the theory, it just enhances the theory's foundation, scope and limitation.

For truths, see Religion.
smart dude
Member
Mon Aug 13 13:15:55
"This is impenetrable"
-Seb

" I think the author sees the branches of mathematics as distinct entities and abstraction as a dehumanizing imposition"
-Seb, 5 minutes later

LOL
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon Aug 13 13:27:10
I knew seb would soften up over time. I thinknif he reads it a couple more time, he will say it isn’t all that bad, just ”of limited relevence”.

Jergul, generically I agree with what you say, I don’t know what you are specifically refering to. There are certain fields, specifically in the social sciences that are all theory and no evidence, there is even a resentment towards empirical research. That is the formula for Mathematx.
smart dude
Member
Mon Aug 13 13:32:03
Well he already admitted it was impenetrable and possibly a spoof. But then he realized there's enough SJW buzzwords in it to warrant a defense. Otherwise his girlfriend's son's father might be disappointed.
Pillz
Member
Mon Aug 13 13:54:20
This is one of UP's best ever self owning I think.

Gg seb
Y2A
Member
Tue Aug 14 00:15:03
Math is already ethnic, the number system is Arabic.
Seb
Member
Tue Aug 14 01:41:33
Smart dude:

Being able to disentangle isolated elements isn't the same as being able to identify a clearly structured argument the paper is trying to advance. That being the point of an academic paper.

You are being a bit glib of latr, looking for cheap shots and making yourself look a bit silly. Are you going to pull a hood here? Let me know so I can stop taking you seriously.

Seb
Member
Tue Aug 14 01:56:37
Nim:

Premature and obvious. You'll "me too" on anything if it superficially appears to support your prejudice even if it's obviously nonsense. No, I've not softened up and I'm at a loss as to where you think I have. Perhaps where I admired that in one sentence of one huge block of text smart dude extracted looked similar to something I'd once said, but it was pretty much impossible to work out where she's going with it?

The paper sets out to argue for some kind of new practice mathematax. Irrespective of there being the odd coherent thought - there is no overall coherent explanation that leaves me understanding what mathematax is, why it's needed or what it offers. So, impenetrable.

It's convenient in that embracing this supposed "defence" lets you ignore the fact that once again you've produced a source to support your case that actually supports mine.

BTW, generally maths isn't an empirical study. It's deductive.

Seb
Member
Tue Aug 14 01:58:06
Pillz:

If you think that you are monumentally stupid.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue Aug 14 03:32:09
Seb
You have laid bare an empoverished understanding of science, unfit for this specific area and perhaps science in general. You ability to solve mathematical equations withstanding, this is about so much more.

You seem to not at all understand the relationship between theory, experiment and assumptions. It isn’t a one way street. While Karl Poppers ideas about falsificaition have value, they also fail to capture the full picture and it isn’t without limitations or valid criticism. The fact that string theory isn’t testable says nothing about how valid an explanation it is, it just makes it difficult. You are stuck inside a box, that is what I meant with your aprehension for the unknown. Social science deals with far more complex phenomena than math and physics, many more variables and many many more unknown. Meanwhile the tools and methodology are blunt. That is a reality one needs to get used to and still try to figure things out.

I should say here that the above complexity itself may actually pose an yet to me unsolvable piece of the behavioral science endevour. There is so much variation and variables at play, how would one make sense of it statistically? Doesn’t mean we can’t say something useful and insightful. Rereading the Foundations series, the concept of Psychohistory makes some sense, it is blunt, but useful.

You have so far made the argument that EP hypothesis are unfalsifiable and untestable. Not true.

You have now shifted to unproven assumptions. Pointing out the central assumption, that our behavior is in part the result of evolution. Yes our brain evolved, there is no major untestable leap to our behavior is in part adaptiv. To explore what is and isn’t you will assume that it is all ”nails”, if you will and analyse the feedback from experiment, ooops this was a screw, and that was a hand, revise theory, conduct new experiment, learn and rinse repeat.

I taught this way of improvment to people in a factory with barely a high school degree, it worked great. And then we would hit something that we couldn’t meassure objectivly or test (with our capabilities at least), like how physically tiring is this station? We called these the softer aspects, fuzzy if you will. At no point did anyone think or entertain the idea that we couldn’t get meaningful ”truths” by examining them or that it wouldn’t be fruitful or valuable because the data wasn’t as robust and reliable as our meassurement output, down time etc.

This is how it is to work with human behavior and problems, ambiguity, unknowns, incomplete data. We deal with it and move in a criss cross manner in uncharted waters. I know this explains all science to some degree, but it is for previously mentioned reasons a much bigger hurdle in social sciences.

You are too smert for this seb. Give me a gang of high school drop outs and I will give you a slightly better world, give me a legion of Sebs and we will sit here discussing how impossible most things are to explore.

It isn’t that what you are saying is completely invalid, it just isn’t the unassailable hurdle you think it is for inching forward.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue Aug 14 03:35:56
TL:DR

”Experiments are designed by EP researchers, hypothesis are being falsified and predictions are being made. Deal with it.”
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue Aug 14 04:04:46
”superficially appears to support your prejudice even if it's obviously nonsense.”

No, I have an internal model of the poster seb, I make predictions about his behavior. We all do this here and elsewhere. It is incomplete data yes, but I think my model is better than yours. That is I can predict your behavior better than you can predict mine, since you most of the time do not seem to be able to comprehend what was said 3-4 posts ago.

Hence why I told you on some topic in the past (something equality/feminist related) that I can summarize your views in a manner you would sign off on, but you can not return this favor, because you do not understand me or what I am saying, because you are not interested or simply uncapable.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue Aug 14 04:06:29
Ok that isn’t a word, *incapable...
Seb
Member
Tue Aug 14 06:20:51
Nim:

You got very, very upset when I made incorrect inferences about your position based on taking the line of argument you were setting out and applying it to the same context to a slightly different scenario.

Now you say a far greater degree of extrapolation is best practice.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue Aug 14 06:51:18
The tools and methods used for communicting with and understanding an individual are not the same as those you use to try and navigate and conduct research on group level differences and extract even if crude, significant and important insights about us as a species. It may be obvious for some people, but not all. Asimov did though, since his fictional science of psychohistory could only predict large events, not the details on individual level. Smart guy.

If you are doing social science, you can not approach the problems as you do in physics or programming. The complexity of the tools versus the problems are the inverse when compared with physics where the complexity of the problem is low but the complexity of the tools are high. We take what we have and move forward.

Thanks for playing.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue Aug 14 06:57:35
And btw most of my ”anger” is not in misunderstanding, that happens all the time, here and elsewhere. It is when one fails to bridge the gap that is frustrating. You are welcome to disagree and criticize what I actually do believe and say, but we rarely if ever reach such a place, where your understanding of what I am saying even allows for disagreements from you.
Seb
Member
Tue Aug 14 07:14:09
Nim:

Nim > " have an internal model of the poster seb, I make predictions about his behavior."

Seb> "You got very, very upset when I made incorrect inferences about your position based on taking the line of argument you were setting out and applying it to the same context to a slightly different scenario.

Now you say a far greater degree of extrapolation is best practice."

Nim >

"The tools and methods used for communicting with and understanding an individual are not the same as those you use to try and navigate and conduct research on group level differences and extract even if crude, significant and important insights about us as a species"


I see, so if I make an inference about you, it is a gross and insulting abuse and straw man argument.

But when you make an inference about me, it is an emergent phenomenon on the statistical level?

Are you high?

Seb
Member
Tue Aug 14 07:19:58
We are not misunderstanding each other on the facts.

I listed the basic problems with the field; the things that are assumed true without proper testing, which mean that much of the field can only generate and sustain hypotheses by first assuming a secondary hypothesis is true.

E.g. the assumption that psychological behaviour MUST be an adaptation to a selective pressure.

This is essentially un-falsifiable.

You then posted a link that confirmed this.

You don't seem to understand the criticism of the field being made here.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue Aug 14 07:23:10
I think you are really daft and tripping on the words ”internal ”model” and ”prediction” which have meaning outside science. Colloqiually I would say, I know you mother fucker, I know who you are and how you think. Infact I have said those exact words to you. The model is not perfect, but relative yours of me, it is stellar.

Thanks for playing.
Seb
Member
Tue Aug 14 08:26:15
Nim:

Except you are repeatedly wrong - almost every time - when you make a project. You constantly project fundamentally wrong motivations based on a construct "social justice warrior" that exists as a coherent, monolithic entity in the minds of it's opponents only.

Equally, I know you - cargo cult "science bro" who lacks a basic appreciation of science; lacks and ability to read a scientific paper critically; and who sees science as ammunition for their dubious and reactionary cause. You lack any of the professional scepticism of a true scientist.

Seb
Member
Tue Aug 14 08:27:21
In any case, in your weird diatribe I am completely unclear where invoking psychohistory comes in. It's like you completely lost the thread of your own argument.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue Aug 14 08:51:21
”Psychohistory is a fictional science in Isaac Asimov's Foundation universe which combines history, sociology, and mathematical statistics to make general predictions about the future behavior of very large groups of people, such as the Galactic Empire. It was first introduced in the four short stories (1942–1944) which would later be collected as the 1951 novel Foundation.”

You decided to talk about EP, I obliged.
EP -> behavioral science -> social science -> psychohistory

I assumed a sci fi nerd had read the books. I can only forgive you.
hood
Member
Tue Aug 14 09:07:50
Seb,

Predicting expected behavior on a new subject != predicting behavior on a well-trod subject. When people say "oh, seb will support this," we use past experience to apply it to new conditions. This is before any comment or confirmation from the subject being predicted (you). Once said subject provides input, predictions are either recalculated with new data and/or judged pass/fail (usually both, with recalculations occurring on the next prediction).

What you do is take data on the current topic and then attempt to extrapolate new arguments. This is not the same as making a pass/fail prediction. The pass/fail prediction is without any current data. You act with current data. Further, when the subject rejects your extrapolation based on current data, you ignore that rejection and continue to extrapolate what you want. You do not operate on a pass/fail prediction, you do not accumulate further data to adapt your extrapolations. You are Sam, making assertions about people and sticking to them until the bitter end, no matter how many times you're told you're wrong.



People predicted that you would support the OP article. When you didn't, those people simply took it as a failed prediction (I'm ignoring the waffling you've done on the subject as it seems fairly irrelevant to your overall judgment). This is not the same as you consistently implying or accusing racism/sexism in people who disagree with you on related matters (as one example).
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue Aug 14 10:20:31
"I see, so if I make an inference about you, it is a gross and insulting abuse and straw man argument."

Again, I told you dozen of threads and years ago, I can summarize your position in a manner you would sign off on. I gave you the chance multiple times to return the favor. You said my position was incoherent, you forfeited the right to whinge.

Pay attention!
Your position on this subject is that the field is bunk and pseudo science. In other words useless and even detrimental because it allows for essentialist arguments based just so stories that are unfalsifiable.
^You may sign under this, as soon as is convenient.

And I have argued against the points you have raised, nothing about your inner motivations, not even when I predict your support for a specific article do I need to speculate about your motivations. Because this place ISN'T REAL. For all I know you are a troll, you could be lying, you could simply play the role of contrarian (as jergul says he does). The point is, I don't need to know what motivates (and I can't, so I leave the speculations at home) you to predict how you will behave on UP. As hood explained, past experience with the avatar "seb".

And this would be at least the second time I said the above to you, regarding speculations into the inner and dark motivation of posters. Retarded stuff.

Now this is you, about what _motivates_ my interest for the evolutionary fields. No wait, you have no expanded it to SCIENCE*!

"and who sees science as ammunition for their dubious and reactionary cause."

Which is a thinly veiled attempt of saying I am sexist and racist. I give you 0 out of 10.

Better luck next semester.

*So when I am supporting you on global warming, how does that fit in to your model? Or say when we would be on the same side vs a creationist, or a flat earther? Maybe our disagreement, is just a disagreement? Maybe there are no sinister reactionary motivations? Maybe you or I are.. wrong?Crazy idea.
Seb
Member
Tue Aug 14 14:35:44
Nimatzo:

I know what psychohistory is you muppet.

You appear to be posting it in response to me pointing out your bizarre double standards on whether it is ok or not to make inferences regarding how other people's arguments would apply to hypothetical scenarios.

hood:

And you often and repeatedly get it wrong because you fail to understand *why* I take the positions I take, because fundamentally you can't see past your own, very limited, perspectives.

As long as you cling to this concept of "SJW", which is just a bucket you create to put in everything you guys don't like rather than a coherent movement, then you will fail to understand your opponents.

Seb
Member
Tue Aug 14 14:40:22
Nim:

"I can summarize your position in a manner you would sign off on."

And yet you repeatedly fail to understand the point, and repeatedly confidently say I will support things I don't.

You simply are not as smart as you think you are.

"Your position on this subject is that the field is bunk and pseudo science"
Yes, I have directly said as much. Now can you explain why? You have repeatedly suggested it is because I don't like the implications as they don't fit my values. This despite me having made specific criticisms of the underlying assumptions of the field that render it unsccientific.

Your failure to properly appreciate the power of this criticism is underlined by you posting a bloody article which sets out precisely those assumptions.

This field is only scientific in so much as we accept those assumptions untested and unfalsifiable as they are as axiomatic. But to do is not science.

"Because this place ISN'T REAL"
In what way is this "not real" but, say, a written article is real?
Seb
Member
Tue Aug 14 14:51:57
Nim:

"Which is a thinly veiled attempt of saying I am sexist and racist."

Is it now?

Firstly, I'm affraid you are racist and sexist: You are strident in your belief that there are fundamental differences between sex and races (and that gender theory is "wrong") that have meaningful relevance to social policy.

Your whole argument is simply that race and sex discrimination in social policy should be tolerated because it is "natural", and that this is supported by science.

However, as pretty much everyone with a science background has noted, you tend to start from this conclusion and searching for evidence to support it, resorting to a great deal of handwaving and leaps of logic to paper over the rather large gaps between what the literature does say and your general conclusions.

I think you want the term racist and sexist not to apply to the things you do believe because it triggers a strong emotional reaction in you.

Fine, lets not use those terms.

But you do believe in fundamental differences in capability between sexes and races, that these are strong enough to inform social policy and that the assumption should be that these differences fully explain differences in outcomes. You have said so on many occasions.

hood
Member
Tue Aug 14 16:43:53
"And you often and repeatedly get it wrong because you fail to understand *why* I take the positions I take, because fundamentally you can't see past your own, very limited, perspectives.

As long as you cling to this concept of "SJW", which is just a bucket you create to put in everything you guys don't like rather than a coherent movement, then you will fail to understand your opponents."

Well for starters, in my 3-4 predictions, I've been 100% so far. So you're already 0/1 in this thread. Then we've got this "sjw" thing you're apparently ascribing to me. I challenge you to find any sort of compelling evidence that I actually use this term as part of my own vocabulary (and don't simply use it in communication with others who do use it; there's a huge distinction). So you're 0/2. I'm going to also count your bucket comment as wrong, making you 0/3 just in this thread.

See, I do understand you. I generally agree with you on some basic principles. However, I find most of your conclusions to be hilariously extreme, to the point that to you, I appear to be on the completely other side of the fence (which is readily apparent with your language just in that post addressed to me). I am not conservative. I am not a republican. I am unequivocally for equality and equal opportunity. But in the face of radicals, everyone is the enemy. And you are a radical.



It's amusing that the dude who thinks that he's better than everyone doesn't find the hypocrisy in the attempt at being a champion for equality. Before you can believe in real equality, you have to recognize that you are included, and just as equal. Just as prone to being wrong. Someone who never questions their beliefs will never reach equality.
Seb
Member
Tue Aug 14 17:44:20
Hood:

I'll remember to point it out next time you are wrong.

You keep score all you like chump.

What exactly is it you think I propose which is too radical for you?

The last para is mumbo jumbo. I do question my beliefs. I used to be, long ago, as you are - convinced that equal opportunity had been achieved simply because I didn't see the uneven playing field. But I'm not now nor have I ever been a relativist, and relativism isn't necessary to believe in equality. Everyone is capable of being wrong, but on these points I do not think I'm wrong, I think I am right and you are wrong. I am prepared to argue that point using facts and reason and I have seen nothing from you to convince me that I am wrong and you are right. That does not mean I'm incapable of conceiving I'm wrong, it just means you haven't produced a compelling case.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Wed Aug 15 02:42:50
”See, I do understand you. I generally agree with you on some basic principles. However, I find most of your conclusions to be hilariously extreme, to the point that to you, I appear to be on the completely other side of the fence (which is readily apparent with your language just in that post addressed to me). I am not conservative. I am not a republican. I am unequivocally for equality and equal opportunity. But in the face of radicals, everyone is the enemy. And you are a radical.”

^This.

And I will add, all of the references (from me) to you white knighting or to ”SJW” are after you have explained some support or defense for an extreme position on the SJW/feminist spectrum.

”I didn't see the uneven playing field.”

Based on differences in outcome, you assume that the playing field is uneven, because you don’t believe genes nor group culture matters for these specific things. I have yet to see anything resembling ”rigorous science” establishing causality to explain it. And when we do supply evidence that could explain at least _some_ of it, you claim we say, it is ALL explained by those things. It quickly becomes impossible to discuss it with you, since you want the whole cake for your own causes of sexism and racism.

Even when I tell you, those things do exists, but to varying degrees in different areas, you will have none of it.

I don’t feel like injecting ”sexism och racism does exist” every time I am explaining some other possible cause. This is how emotionally unstable people with triggers behave. And you have been triggered by me on Islam, feminism/equality, immigration policy, even your views on EP mirrors those of PZ Meyers and the Atheism+ crowd (the original SJWs).

And at some point, both you and (Nekran I believe) defended the moniker Social Justice Warrior, what is wrong with fighting for social justice? Whose version of social justice? It is assumed that we all should have the same version and those that do not are described pathologically as deviant. It is a pernicious idea whise specific policies and outcomes you regularly defend.

No go link me a thread where I argue essentialism and that it is a Good thing and that we should accept the ”natural heirarchies”. These are racialist lies and accusations of such brevity that I would probably have punched you in the face if we were face2face. My interest for biology can not be seperated from my atheism, the brutality of nature is NOT something we want to conserve in ourselves.

If you had paid attention, I have said that probably the biggest injustice, is the genetic lottery. That my interest in evolutionary fields is rooted in understanding it so we could break free from it. You likely understand this for all the heritable diseases that we know of.

Will these things matter to you the 15th time I say them? Will you remember them 2 days from now? So far you have settled into a track and remained incorrigible.
Seb
Member
Wed Aug 15 08:11:14
Nim:

The problem is the SJW spectrum is a construct of your own making - see for example the strong disputes within feminism on trans rights.

And you association of issues as being "on a spectrum" is a categorisation of your own.

It is as valid as me pointing out that the ideas you espouse - which are extreme and not supported to the extent you appear to believe even by the fields you pray in aid to - are often adhered to by full blown NAZIs and that therefore you are on a NAZI spectrum. I suspect you would disagree strongly, no?

There simply isn't an SJW movement in the sense you appear to believe other than a rag bag of issues that you and others jointly object to.

And the positions you describe are not really that extreme at all and boil down to a few very simple tennets - the one that seems to get you and your fellow travellers on the board appear to be principally that publishers on the internet should be treated like publishers in other media, and regulated as such.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Wed Aug 15 08:24:24
Mm I wonder what came first, sebs moral outrage on UP over SJW talking points or me labeling him SJW.

Seb, SJWs also have a spectrum, they are not all 100% crazy. The term is interchangable with leftist or american coastal proggressive. You are not the craziest, I never believed that.
Seb
Member
Wed Aug 15 08:26:05
" you assume that the playing field is uneven"

No Nim, I do not assume. I have pointed to numerous examples of specific mechanisms, many of which I have seen myself, many of which have been documented excessively in both statistical and individual that you have never once addressed other than to assert they are annecdotal; and in which you have substituted un-evidenced, handwaving arguments based on extrapolating some very thin biological differences, themselves dependent on huge assumptions that the field you cite from take as un-provable but to be assumed.

For example, I have pointed out that the casual sexism of university professors in STEM subjects means that women are often keen to meet alone with male professors. This means that they get inferior tuition and access.

I've pointed out concrete studies like the infamous GitHub pull request stats: where identical pull requests are overwhelmingly likely to be accepted for women when requester is gender blind, but where there is a signfiicant sex bias when the sequesters gender can be inferred.

These are not assumptions - these are casual mechanisms showing an un-even playing field.

And one of the more obvious biases you have is that you will cite evolutionary psychology where it strengthens your case, but ignore the many results in psychology (which have also been handwavingly explained in EP) that show strong biases in people to reward and trust people who they identify with more strongly than those they do not.

You don't merely cite some other cause, you have actively promoted those as entirely explaining things. Remember your crazy assertion that the gender pay gap does not exist and your angry insistence that biology explained it all?

That's not some other potential cause, that is a positive argument that you know the specific cause.

"And at some point, both you and (Nekran I believe) defended the moniker Social Justice Warrior,"

No, I have attacked you for using it, pointing out what it says about you that you object to this terrifying threat of social justice.

"It is assumed that we all should have the same version"
Liberalism is not relativism - you are sounding dangerously post modernist here. I have pointed out that actually the key point here is we differ profoundly on values. You first confused that in the past with virtue signalling (something different) and then went off in a huff and said that I was accusing you of being racist and sexist.

Yet you yourself *do* repeatedly seek to argue that intrinsic differences between race and sex are a valid driver for social policies and explain differences of outcome such that we can ignore any discrimination other than the most egregious, willfull and motivated kind.

Your repeated fall back to genetics - as you do again.

It is obvious for anyone with even a modicum to see that there are numerous structural biases all throughout society that prejudice ethnic minorities and women - these are not assumptions. These are well documented and

To assert they are genetic in nature and meritocratic - as you frequently do - is frankly, bonkers and more often than not when encountered in the wold merely a bad faith argument being made by those with sinister motives.



hood
Member
Wed Aug 15 08:34:13
"I used to be, long ago, as you are - convinced that equal opportunity had been achieved simply because I didn't see the uneven playing field."

We'll see there you are, wrong again. I recognize the playing field is uneven; it always will be. However, it does very much seem like we disagree on how uneven the field is and where that unevenness lies. What I don't do is take your position to the extreme: you don't see me suggesting that you're a whipped pussy, that you hate men/yourself, or any of the nonsense you might regularly see certain posters (rugian, mt) say. Meanwhile, for merely disagreeing with the world view that men are wholly oppressive and anyone who isn't white and male is cripplingly disadvantaged (yes, I'm exaggerating a bit), you lump me in with the sexists and racists. Have I actually engaged in any of the myriad opportunities to be overtly racist on this board? Have you seen me argue that women shouldn't be allowed to vote, should know their place, should be stuck in the kitchen, or anything of the sort? Or do you just see me disagree with you and bucket me?
Seb
Member
Wed Aug 15 09:13:09
Hood:

Nobody suggested men are wholly repressive etc.

The fact you have to exaggerate ought to suggest to you my position is not actually that extreme at all.

I think you have an excessively narrow view of what constitutes discrimination: you do not have to have think e.g. women shouldn't be allowed to vote.

In the past I've pointed to specific things you've said rather than bucketed you. Immsure the opportunity to do so will come up again and I trust when it does we will have a productive discussion?
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Wed Aug 15 09:23:32
>>These are not assumptions - these are casual mechanisms showing an un-even playing field.<<

Nope. This is you looking at a derth of data, remain ignorant about the evidence and deaf against arguments raised against your broad generalizing (universal is probably a better word for what you are aiming for) hypothesis and draw conclusions your PhD level education _knows_ he can’t make.

Or as I said earlier, you do not understand social science and the limitations of the things you are bringing up, compounded by what I think is a shallow understanding of the spectrum of human behavior and social dynamics.
Seb
Member
Wed Aug 15 09:31:52
Nim:

This is what I mean. The gitub pull request study is pretty robust.

"That's dearth of data" is a nonsense response.
hood
Member
Wed Aug 15 09:34:10
"The fact you have to exaggerate"

... -facepalm-

It's like you've never experienced anything outside of numbers


"Nobody suggested men are wholly repressive etc."

Girl, please. Plenty of people have.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Wed Aug 15 09:45:59
The git hub pull request says something about github. Nothing else. It is as I suspected, you think ”people” behave like physical particles. I do not say this lightly, but even with your pedigree, you are for this intent and purpose illiterate. You do not understand humans.
hood
Member
Wed Aug 15 09:58:23
"The git hub pull request says something about github. Nothing else."

I mean, we could probably extrapolate it to neighboring fields like silicon valley style coding in general since we have secondary data (accusations of Google pathing women into "easier" career paths and away from back end stuff). But it certainly means nothing in relation to, say, health care database owners (for something I'm familiar with).
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Wed Aug 15 11:12:19
The clear leftist lean in Silicon valley on all social issues, makes me doubt it can be systematically applied to it as a whole. Specific things can go on in specific places of a company that do not extrapolate to the entirety of it. Google also has a lot of policies in place for women and minorities, see google memo and aftermath

Take for instance the claim (seb has made) that because women are expected to take care of children (and other social obligations men are not expected to take), flexibility in working hours is an issue. Working in tech is flexible hours. In fact alot of tech companies have all sorts of perks, daycare ffor example. Working in a hospital, is not flexible. And yet this is precisly where we find 50/50 split.

I have worked with and in over a 100 companies, who did very different things, with their organization and management system. Can’t make sense of why something that worked here didn’t work there. Because, there are too many variables unique to a place and unknowns. I am not saying that all analysis on every facet is unique to an organization, there are patterns broadly and relative to other fields. But as the question grows in complexity significance goes down. This is inherent to the nature of the topic. Unlike how particles behave :)

One thing that can possible make coding and programming fields ”anti-woman” is that a lot of aspie people work in these fields. They can be very blunt when talking to people, and this can be interpreted as aggressive and conflict seeking, more by women than men.
hood
Member
Wed Aug 15 14:54:35
"The clear leftist lean in Silicon valley on all social issues, makes me doubt it can be systematically applied to it as a whole."

Eh, reread what I said. "silicon valley style coding". Specifically the nitty gritty coding jobs. Soft coding (database queries, software side coding, etc) is a different ball game, and something I wouldn't say we could extrapolate github to. It seems that you agree with me in your aspie comments, but perhaps didn't fully understand what I was trying to say (admittedly, I was unclear).
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Wed Aug 15 15:41:54
”The gitub pull request study is pretty robust.”

I have was on my way to break down the studies limitation in methods (self reported gender from facebook. And the fact that the authors conclude, their study does not prove their hypothesis, in fact the opposite in some of the sub classes. They provide several theories (with evidence from other studies), that have nothing to do with bias towards women from men,.... But then I thought, the effect size they meassured is 0.02, that isn’t a typo 0.02, and the authors themselves reference that this is only a _quarter_ of the effect size in other lit. Sigh.. just tell it to seb straight.

You failed at science. And you are actually, at least on paper, not suppose to have a BSc, teach you the things you were suppose to have learned at King’s College.

As a comparison in the ”psuedo scientific” field of psychology generally effect size below 0.1 is considered garbage. In medical trials 0.2 is considered ”small”. Meaning that 0.02 is your proverbial ”piss in the ocean”, women actually are less discriminated on github. And yet still, the effect size for stereotype accuracy (the accuracy when people stereotype individuals from other groups) is >0.5.

This study doesnt even say anything about github, besides the fact that maybe github is a little biased in favor of women.





Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Wed Aug 15 15:43:33
>>It seems that you agree with me in your aspie comments, but perhaps didn't fully understand what I was trying to say<<

Ok, fair enough, I am with you on that aspect.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Wed Aug 15 15:57:02
I would still have dismissed sebs attempt to extrapolate from this to other fields, even if this study said what he misrepresented it to say. But I am at a loss here, had you actually read the study? That is the only way your scientific credentials can remain relatively intact, they you just read this off some horrible ”science” ”journalist”. It stroked your balls the right way and you went with it. I will forgive you for that since I have fallen for such devious BS reading articles about health and dietary research. You read something that makes ”sense” in an article and then you read the study after three months, because your penis is still the same size, then you realize, shit I was scammed!

I feel you.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Wed Aug 15 16:27:29
>>In closing, as anecdotes about gender bias persist, it is imperative that we use big data to better understand the interaction between genders. While our big data study does not prove that differences between gendered interactions are caused by bias among individuals, combined with qualitative data about bias in open source (Nafus, 2012), the results are troubling.<<

This Nafus they reference as some sort of support for their work several times, this is what she does.

*Dawn Nafus is an anthropologist at Intel Labs. She holds a PhD from University of Cambridge. Her research interests include experiences of time, beliefs about technology and modernity, and the anthropology of numeracies. She is interested in exploring new ways people might relate to their own data.

Her research is about experiencing stuff and writing about it. Which has value not saying it doesn’t, but it is of limited relevance for the claim of systematic prejudice.
Seb
Member
Wed Aug 15 16:39:45
Hood:

If I was extreme, you really wouldn't need to exaggerate. You'd just be able to quote something extreme.

I'm sure in a planet of 6bn you can find some making absurd claims all men are repressive, but nobody on this board has said such a thing.

Facepalm away, but that's the truth.
Seb
Member
Wed Aug 15 16:46:38
Nim:

GitHub users. Users of the most widely used software repository tool in the industry, and host for the bulk of OS project repos, statistics of which are basically as core to career progression (particularly entry level) as academic publishing stats are for academics.

That's direct evidence of systemic bias in one of the most critical elements of the software engineering ecosystem. Not the providers, the users theeof, with immediate amplification to employers.


I.e. it says something about the behaviour of the industry as a whole.

I just realised it is possible you don't know what GitHub is.

Let me put it this way. It is as if you could show that the same paper is hugely more likely to be rejected by all Elsevier journals if the author name suggested it was submitted by a woman.

Seb
Member
Wed Aug 15 16:51:03
Not only would that suggest substantial bias (conscious or unconcious), the direct impact given the importance of both publication record and citation record to career advancement would be to skew employment stats across the entire field, amplifying whatever initial bias led to the initial discrepancy.

And I struggle to think of any good reason why the same paper or pull request would be treated differently when the only difference is the inferred sex of the author.
hood
Member
Wed Aug 15 18:22:10
"You'd just be able to quote something extreme."

That would involve going back for quotes. You are not worth that much effort.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Thu Aug 16 02:26:39
I know what github is dumbass. Have you read the study? Nope. Is says nothing that you can use, NOTHING. It may at best illuminate certain gendered dynamics that require more study. There is _NO_ unifrom discrimination of women. ONLY in outgroup setting is their requests rejected at a higher rate.

Mens acceptens rate also falls in the outgroup when their gender is known, something the authors wave away because it is smaller. Without explaining this effect on men, you can not account for important confounders.

Do not pass go, do not collect 200 dollars, throw the PhD in the trash and go directly to the HO.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Thu Aug 16 02:30:35

Abstract

Biases against women in the workplace have been documented in a variety of studies. This paper presents a large scale study on gender bias, where we compare acceptance rates of contributions from men versus women in an open source software community. >>>Surprisingly<<<, our results show that >>>women’s contributions tend to be accepted more often than men’s<<<. However, for contributors who are outsiders to a project and their gender is identifiable, men’s acceptance rates are higher. Our results suggest that although women on GitHub may be more competent overall, bias against them exists nonetheless.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Thu Aug 16 02:49:05
lol at the sampeling method. They have to throw away 55% of the data because their automated program IDs gender at rate far below that of a human.

anyway lets continue:

"We hypothesized that pull requests made by women are less likely to be accepted than those made by men."

"The hypothesis is not only false, but it is in the opposite direction than expected; women tend to have their pull requests accepted at a higher rate than men! This difference is statistically significant (χ2(df = 1, n = 3, 064, 667) = 1, 170, p < .001). What could explain this unexpected result?"

To summarize this paper’s observations:

Women are more likely to have pull requests accepted than men.

Women continue to have high acceptance rates as they do pull requests on more projects.

Women’s pull requests are less likely to serve an documented project need.

Women’s changes are larger. (less likely to be accepted)

Women’s acceptance rates are higher for some programming languages.

Men outsiders’ acceptance rates are higher when they are identifiable as men.

----
Yes they measured differences between men and women, that were not uniform across the subclasses. They failed to prove their (and sebs) hypothesis. And this is what seb puts forward as "robust evidence" that allows him to extrapolate to sme sort of universal bias towards women in male dominated fields.

Something to be said of the large sample size. Large samples size is good for eliminating random errors, not systematic ones. Which this papers is full of. But in the end it doesn't matter, because the results are useless for sebs purpose.
----------





I told you a couple of year sago seb, when you started waffeling about your phd from clowns college and your scientific career, it would be a compliment, had I considered you an equal.
Seb
Member
Thu Aug 16 03:25:55
Hood:

Well there you go. When pressed you can't actually think of anything extreme I propose. You resort to exagerations instead. In other words - much as you have accused me of doing on lessser grounds - you make things up.
Seb
Member
Thu Aug 16 03:40:55
Nim:

Yes I read the studies.

Of course it says something I can use.

It is demonstrable that the same pull request, if issued by a female sounding name will be less likely to be accepted.

GitHub,thanks to its central place in the eco system, pull requests on OS projects are a KPI often cited as an auditable metric in candidate selection processes.

There is a strong case then that women face an uneven playing field here: either they cease using identifiable names reducing trust in the aggregate metrics hurting career prospects, or they suffer a penalty on the metrics themselves, hurting employability.

Just one very clear and evidenced example.

I'm not sure why you think the fact this manifests on outsiders is relevant? (That's a white lie, my internal model says it's a 75% probability that you are an idiot.)

Most entry level coders *are* outsiders, so it is gender bias in this group that has the strongest impact on career advancement. It is quite possible that the bias disappears for those joining OS projects core groups - having "proven" themselves but potentially having had to work harder to do so - the question is though whether it is harder for women to be admitted into core groups in the first place due to the bias evidenced against female outsiders.

In any case you are likely referring to Terrell et al. Someone did a follow up where the same pull request fixing a bug in a common dependency was submitted to multiple projects under infentifiable and non-identifiable versions.
Seb
Member
Thu Aug 16 03:44:25
"Mens acceptens rate also falls in the outgroup when their gender is known, something the authors wave away because it is smaller."

Are you a retard?

The point is the difference in acceptancr between gender of outsiders.

Of course outsiders' pull requests will be less likely to be accepted than insiders. Core group members know each other, likely confer on other channels, may share a roadmap etc. and trust each other.

It's like either you just don't understand the implications or you are trying very hard to dismiss the paper. I wonder why.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Thu Aug 16 03:55:49
Difference =! gender bias

Fucking dumbass. Keep waffeling.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Thu Aug 16 04:26:34
”The point is the difference in acceptancr between gender of outsiders.”

_A_ ”point” is that whatever makes women get rejected in the outgroup also effects men in the same subclass. Just less! Indicating it has nothing to do with gender bias!

Similar pattern is visible in college admission to computer engineering. During the booms both female and male admission go up, but more for men. During the IT busts admission go down for both, but more for females. Several theories for explanation.

You are too stupid for this. We were done when r = 0.02 is a quarter of the 0.07 of other studies. And this is what you choose as the smoking gun.

Facing reality is difficult. Reality is that, you have laymen opinions about this like pillz and sam (and you) have laymen opinions about racial genetics. You are entitled to them of course. But think I have entertained them long enough and given you the chance to argue this and make a fair representation of my position. You failed miserably on every part. Good bye.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Thu Aug 16 05:36:14
Last thing I have no reviewed the version prior to peer review. Indeed they tone down the causal language and the validity of their findings after peer review.

Pre-print:
”While our big data study does not >definitely< prove that differences between gendered interactions are caused by bias among individuals,”

Peer reviewed:
”While our big data study >does not< prove that differences between gendered”
Seb
Member
Thu Aug 16 07:15:54
Nim:

I have no idea how you are choosing to define gender bias. Those words do not appear below, explain which part you disagree with.

It is a statistical fact that women who are not core members of OS projects are less likely to have their pull requests accepted when their gender can be identified.

There is no obvious meritocratic reason why this should be the case.

GitHub,thanks to its central place in the eco system, pull requests on OS projects are a KPI often cited as an auditable metric in candidate selection processes.

The consequences of this are that use of GitHub pull request as a proxy for track record in employment for early or entry level software development is likely to disadvantage women.
hood
Member
Thu Aug 16 07:32:32
Seb thinks he's galileo, being prosecuted by the fanatically blind for his revolutionary thinking. He doesn't realize that he's actually the modern flat earther.


Also,

"There is no obvious meritocratic reason why this should be the case."

That suspiciously doesn't provide an actual reason for the discrepancy.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Thu Aug 16 07:52:51
Hood
I know why, because it is assumed that the underlying ability is evenly distribute among men and women. So without evidence to support that assumption the conclusion is meaningless. But this is the central assumption that is made.

Now we actually have data that shows that while average value in most cognitive functions broadly, is similar between men and women, there is a higher variability among men. Github coders are not average people.
jergul
large member
Sat Aug 18 05:41:31
By similar, you mean men do significantly poorer?

A recruitment bias strikes me as more plausible than the outlier theory. Though both are to some degree likely explanatory factors.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sat Aug 18 06:16:40
It is actually completely irrelevant as explained earlier. r = 0.02. Appreciate the p hacking in social science to get significant results, this is why effect size is important. It is actually notoriously difficult to get significant results in behavioral research, too much data, too many variables. So the scientist twist and turn and bend and magic tricks to get significance.With more studies using big data, you can expect more ”significant” results (hyped in the media) followed by underwhelming effects. As the authors explain:

”We caution the reader from interpreting too much from statistical significance; for big data studies such as this one, even small differences can be statistically significant”

The BBC, Gizmodo (yes them again) and Vice did not read that when they issued their articles.

It was actually a very interesting study as an object for teaching basic statistics and the difficulties of social science research. And also what it looks like when journalist are scientifically illiterate. I do partly blame the scientist for this (generally), it is their job to explain what their research is about so that it is represented fairly and with proper caution. This especially true for social science research on topics we know attracts lots of attention.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sat Aug 18 06:21:11
I came on a little strong, is isn’t _completely_ irrelevant.
jergul
large member
Sat Aug 18 06:30:19
Nimi
One of my concerns relates to understating the very real issues males have in education.

The first step is problem recognition. Measures to resolve the problem can thereafter follow.

I would vastly prefer not losing several generations as gender equality erases compensating advantages.

(my gut instinct tells me the problem is founded in relative immaturity. Males simply develop cognitively at a slower rate, but playing catch-up for more than a decade of education carries a heavy toll).
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sat Aug 18 07:32:41
We share the same concern.
That lack of maturity is explained by biology. Men mature later, a reason for men being on average a couple of years older than their female partners. There is also a social and cultural aspect to maturity, which has grown longer (people marry and get kids later, because there is so much to do these days), while the biological one hasn’t, example menopaus. It is worth to mentioning that there is a big gap between the reproductive lifespan of men and women, men’s value on the mating market actually peaks much later than women and lasts longer.

There is actually some evidence that the same effect can been seen when comparing african american boys with white and latinos, african american boys reach puberty almost a year before the rest. That of course if true, has consequences, and would would require differential treatment to help that group and it. We are at a place yet where such ideas will take root.

This is where I will inject why view point diversity matter in science. Evidence suggests that most of the subjects of study in the heavily leftist dominated field of social psychology are rightwingers and conservative. Likewise in the 90% female frnder studies the focus is ”women”. Better science is needed.
jergul
large member
Sat Aug 18 07:53:28
The better science is in. At least in quantifying. Males have huge difficulties in primary and secondary school (yay standarised OECD testing?)

The benign explanation is biological. Boys are biologically younger than girls of the same chronological age.

Better science could only give more sinister explanations (males are always less developed than females for example).
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sat Aug 18 08:31:41
You think gender science inolves biological explanations? lol :)
show deleted posts
Bookmark and Share