Re:Authors’ names have ‘astonishing’ influence on peer revie...
by erfgh on Wednesday October 12, 2022 @07:42AM
(#33175523)
You will find it beneficial to learn what a "prior probability distrubution" is.
Re:Authors’ names have ‘astonishing’ influence on peer revie...
by WithinReason on Wednesday October 12, 2022 @07:57AM
(#33175659)
It's actually you who doesn't understand probabilities. If a woman is twice as likely to make a discovery but women are only 5% of researchers, then it's both true that:
1. most discoveries are made by males
2. it is reasonable to give larger weight to new female-done research
contradicting you point.
Re:Authors’ names have ‘astonishing’ influence on peer revie...
by erfgh on Thursday October 13, 2022 @05:04AM
(#33188801)
But you pulled those number out of thin air. The fact of the matter is that if I pick one research paper at random out of all the papers written by men and I pick another research paper at random out of all the papers written by women the former will be of higher average quality.
Re:Authors’ names have ‘astonishing’ influence on peer revie...
by WithinReason on Thursday October 13, 2022 @05:15AM
(#33188870)
Did you just pull that out of thin air?
What do you mean? I think you didn't understand the experiment. Subjects were shown the same text with, at random, a male name, female name, or initials. These names were not real researchers, nor familiar to the subjects.
> If it is known that most discoveries are made by males it is reasonable to give larger weight to new male-done research
I'm sure you can see the two different fallacies in this short sentence:
- There have been more male researchers than female, therefore more "discoveries" were made by men than women. No shit. This does not mean male researchers are better than female, obviously.
- There are more men being researchers therefore men's research should be given more weight therefore there are more men researchers therefore...