Dennis,
Again, your analogies are bad, your thinking flabby and
indeterminate.
Comments are interspersed.
On 16 Feb 2001 08:25:47 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (dennis roberts) wrote:
>At 01:58 AM 2/16/01 +0000, you wrote:
>>Dennis,
>>
>>Having the salary data would be desirable. If, on the other
>>hand, we are only interested in the question "Did the female
>>biologists at MIT perform as well as their male colleagues,"
>>your comment is incorrect.
>>
>>The "dinky" sample size is the entire population, and the
>>answer can be ascertained. See my Gork example earlier in this thread.
>
>doesn't matter ... what we have are far too few cases ... to know what is
>going on ... either on with THESE particular people ... or, in some larger
>population sense
We are not interested in some larger population sense. We have
performance data for all these people. So your assertion about
"what is going on" makes no sense
>
>it is like i look out my window ... and the first 4 women i see ... i note
>their approximate walking speed ... and the first 5 men i see ... i note
>the same ... and i actually take the time to watch them go from point A to
>point B (assuming they don't bump into a tree someplace) ... and note that
>it took the men a mean amount of time of 14 seconds ... and, the women
>took a mean amount of time of 7 seconds ...
>
>so, by these data ... which i use as a proxy measure of quickness ... i
>make the bold judgment that these ... not women in general ... but THESE
>... women, are quicker in general ...
>
>this is exactly what you are doing with your groups of 5 and 6
>
>THE PROXY MEASURE IS BAD
>
No, not at all. How could you possibly equate citation counts based
on the way HUNDREDS of other scientists have reacted to the work of
these individuals over TWELVE YEARS with looking out the window and
taking a 14 second measure of walking speed.
The mind boggles. Dennis Roberts thinks that Science Citation Indices
gathered for 12 years are the rough equivalent to looking out
the window and observing walking speed for 14 seconds.
I rest my case. Feel free to engage in further nonsensical thinking
as it pleases you.
>
>
>>I think there is a conflation of issues. I definitely resonate
>>to your suggestion [allow me the temporary luxury of interpretation]
>>that the "utility function" relating citation counts, publication
>>rates, etc. to academic value is uncertain, and there are a host
>>of other factors to consider before determining whether anyone
>>was discriminated against at MIT.
>>
>>However -- MIT's assertion that it could not release any information
>>without compromising privacy is obviously untrue. For example, I'm
>>sure that, had we put you in charge of the investigation, you could
>>have found ways to describe the committee's methodology [assuming it
>>actually had any] that would not involve releasing individual data,
>>but would serve to allow the public to evaluate the process.
>>In fact, you've made a start at doing that in your posts.
>
>how can they have it both ways ... ? most institutions are public
>institutions and, these data should be part of the public record ...
>
>we know the salaries of senators ... governors ... the president ... etc.
>.... i don't see any constitutional case for keeping this information
>secret???
>
>part of the problem in this case and others like it is ... keeping SOME
>information FROM the public ... while revealing OTHER information ... that
>appears to be cogent to the case that the reporters want to make ...
>
>not a good idea
>
>if these women were all that serious about this problem ... citing salary
>data would not be a problem for THEM ... but, i bet the men would not go
>along with that
>
>
>>MIT went further than denying the public access to the facts,
>>or any information about the facts. It specifically denied
>>that the differential outcomes occurred because the women
>>"were not good enough," and declared the very question out
>>of bounds, i.e., "the last refuge of the bigot."
>
>again ... allowing some tidbits to be put out in the press ... but not
>others ...
>
>>Our data show that the MIT report authors may well have
>>engaged, consciously or otherwise, in a compression fallacy.
>>But of course we do not know enough to reach strong conclusions.
>>MIT will not let anyone know.
>
>which means ... they should be seriously criticized ... and rightfully so ...
>while i have NO idea of the merits of these particular cases ... i bet MIT
>does not want (nor would any other big institution where salaries can be
>massively different) to really air the facts ... and the background
>particulars, the deals that were made on appointment, etc. ... it would NOT
>make them look good ... but of course, to hide many of the important pieces
>of this puzzle ... sure does not earn them any brownie points either
>
>
>
>
>
>=================================================================
>Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about
>the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at
> http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/
>=================================================================
=================================================================
Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about
the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at
http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/
=================================================================
