N = 15 while p ≈ 20. It has been a while since I have taken a stats class, but that sample seems plenty large enough to me.
>Learning the true context is most important. This could be done by corroborating allegations for example.
Corroborating is exactly what journalists do. From the article:
>five people with knowledge of the situation said.
>But according to 23 current and former Coinbase employees, five of whom spoke on the record, as well as internal documents and recordings of conversations
>according to a recording of the session shared with The New York Times
>In a company email he sent later, which was also shared with The Times
>wrote in a Slack message that was viewed by The Times.
>three people briefed on the situation said
>according to a recording of the event
>according to a copy of the message seen by The Times
>according to a copy reviewed by The Times.
>two people with knowledge of the situation said
The NYT talked to dozens of people, watched/listened to multiple recordings, and viewed numerous emails and Slack messages. This story is corroborated.
> One Black employee said her manager suggested in front of colleagues that she was dealing drugs and carrying a gun, trading on racist stereotypes. Another said a co-worker at a recruiting meeting broadly described Black employees as less capable. Still another said managers spoke down to her and her Black colleagues, adding that they were passed over for promotions in favor of less experienced white employees. The accumulation of incidents, they said, led to the wave of departures.
These have no corroboration, even though they allegedly happened in front of multiple coworkers.
edit: Sorry, I'm the poster from above, I just posted from my phone which has a different account logged in that I originally intended to give hiring advice unlinked to my main account(opsec fail).
Let's use another example in which evidence is hard to find: sexual assault. If one woman accused Bill Cosby of sexual assault, the burden of proof for her story is high. She would need some pretty strong evidence to get Cosby charged let alone convicted. She probably wouldn't even receive coverage in the mainstream media without some other form of evidence. However the entire situation would change if she was one of 60 women coming forward. Suddenly the burden of proof for that first woman is greatly diminished. Each individual's story is corroborated by someone else having a very similar story.
Our culture is full of anecdotes and stories that serve as a warning why this is a very bad idea.
Isn't there like 400 million guns in private hands in the US? If so, the assumption that pretty much anyone you meet in the street might have concealed gun on them is not absurd per se.
But speaking about it aloud seems strange, yes.
"passed over for promotions"
This is the oldest workplace complaint ever and happens in racially homogeneous countries all the time. Favoritism in the workplace is probably as old as the pyramids.
Yes that's what was asked; which ones?
> especially when n=15(if this was a statistical study on insulin response to artificial sweeteners, people would be saying the sample size is too small to draw conclusions)
And those people would be wrong. It's incorrect to dismiss a study based on sample size without a discussion of significance and effect size in the context of the data.
Moreover I reject the premise that you should be assessing this story quantitatively rather than qualitatively. But if you insist: what are your priors on whether or not a given company engaged in discrimination, and how do these change if you're told 75% of employees of a particular demographic stated there was discrimination?
> what are your priors on whether or not a given company engaged in discrimination, and how do these change if you're told 75% of employees of a particular demographic stated there was discrimination?
I completely agree that it's a very bad look. It is probably even more likely than not that given those facts, it is due to racism. I guess the question comes down to, philosophically, how one answers the following question: In the quest to eradicate racism and racists, is it better to be over-zealous and destroy a few non-racists to make sure you get all the actual racists(the chemo approach) - or is it better to be slightly more circumspect and let a few racists slip through the cracks so that far fewer non-racists are punished (the US judicial system ideal)?
Learning the true context is most important. This could be done by corroborating allegations for example.