How Americans Became So Sensitive to Harm

Re:How Americans Became So Sensitive to Harm by jules on Wednesday April 20, 2016 @03:57PM (#11537283)

I did. How did I misrepresent it, and how am I overstating the results of the study I cited? How am I abusing the scientific method as a whole? When you make these grandiose claims it would have been nice to provide at least some form of accompanying argument, rather than just stating it as fact.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How Americans Became So Sensitive to Harm by richmarr on Thursday April 21, 2016 @05:56AM (#11540728)

>> ... then we could simply focus at the moment of judgement (which btw, is also currently biased [1])

[1] being a link to Steinpreis/Anders/Ritzke (1999)

> You're right that it's biased, but perhaps not in the way you think it is: http://www.pnas.org/content/112/17/5360.abstract

At risk of repeating myself... You've taken a study that looked specifically at tenure-track faculty hiring within four STEM subjects, i.e. a very specific, limited, scope. You then presented that as "evidence" in a general context (in reply to a point about hiring in general being biased against women) in order to argue that the hiring process is biased against men, without any mention of the limited scope of that study.

The way I see it, one of these things is true;

(a) You made a mistake, fair enough, no big deal

(b) You're unfamiliar interpreting studies, fair enough, no big deal

Given your vociferous objections to affirmative action I'm guessing (c) but happy to give you the benefit of the doubt.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How Americans Became So Sensitive to Harm by jules on Saturday April 23, 2016 @02:44PM (#11556802)

(d) You are deeply embedded in an ideology and therefore not able to deal with facts in an unbiased way. Had the results of that study been the reverse, the study would have been fantastic since it is objectively much stronger than any of the studies you cited.

[ Parent | on HN ]