Radford Neal wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Jerry Dallal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > We often have a group of individuals who are judged comparable in
> > responsibilities and performance. In such cases, it *may* be
> > appropriate to use permutation methods. The rationale would be:
> > There is some variation in salary due to situation-specific
> > "whatever", so we don't expect everyone to be making exactly the
> > same money. One way to attempt to detect discrimination against a
> > particular group is to ask whether their salaries are consistent
> > with what one would expect assigning salaries at random without
> > regard to group membership.
>
> That would test whether one had evidence that salaries were related in
> some way to group membership. It would NOT test whether any such
> relationship is due to "discrimination". It would do so only under
> the assumption that there were no relevant differences between groups
> other than salary. That is of course exactly what the report under
> discussion is disputing.
The sections of particular post to which I replied did not focus on
the report that started the thread, but rather on Jim's comments
questioning randomization tests in general.
=================================================================
Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about
the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at
http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/
=================================================================
