This is also why I don't trust social science, namely, the 'neosexism' thing. Social scientists are so bad at formulating experiments and at interpreting the results that their results simply cannot be considered science much of the time.
What a stupid article. The sexism that women experience is 1,000 microaggressions a day, most of which we dismiss because there are SO many incidents that if we brought them up one by one, we'd have no life whatsoever. Men need to STFU about "false accusations" and JUST DO BETTER.
I can't help but fixate on the fact that your imaginary banker behaved in a way that's considered unprofessional in the industry, regardless of gender. Had I put my arm around a customer while I was assistant manager (regardless how often I'd helped them in the past, and regardless whether they were a man or a woman), I'd have been reprimanded for it.
I'd be interested to see what would happen if the imaginary banker was behaving in a more appropriate way. I realize that the idea was to involve a scenario that fit a particular template, but in this case there's a genuine social reason for the existence of that template: to establish professional boundaries between bank officials and customers. Breaking that boundary takes the scenario at least a bit out of the "benign" category.
There are truly some interesting theories and observations here worthy of thought and discussion that could potentially lead to deeper insights into both our own and broader aspects of human behavior.
But how in the world can this be classified as “Science” (as contrasted with Scientism)? To what extent does presenting it as “Science” with charts and graphs published in science journal format 1) artificially elevate the conclusions presented, conferring upon them unmerited credibility, and 2) denigrate real science in the eyes of a public growing increasingly skeptical about the entire scientific enterprise?
Someone should do a social science study examining the role of social science in undermining public trust in science and scientists. Either that or just whip up a Sokal Hoax paper claiming to have done just that, and get it published in a social science journal, proving the point. :)
No problem! I missed it too the first few times... I don't know why, but that graph is oddly hard to parse. I feel it would have been better as a 2x2 grid.
I think so, too. It probably says something about the low quality of statistical education regarding the representation of data that the authors used a line graph. Unless maybe they did a version with each person having mosaicism and the connected bits in between are meaningful :D
This is also why I don't trust social science, namely, the 'neosexism' thing. Social scientists are so bad at formulating experiments and at interpreting the results that their results simply cannot be considered science much of the time.
What a stupid article. The sexism that women experience is 1,000 microaggressions a day, most of which we dismiss because there are SO many incidents that if we brought them up one by one, we'd have no life whatsoever. Men need to STFU about "false accusations" and JUST DO BETTER.
I can't help but fixate on the fact that your imaginary banker behaved in a way that's considered unprofessional in the industry, regardless of gender. Had I put my arm around a customer while I was assistant manager (regardless how often I'd helped them in the past, and regardless whether they were a man or a woman), I'd have been reprimanded for it.
I'd be interested to see what would happen if the imaginary banker was behaving in a more appropriate way. I realize that the idea was to involve a scenario that fit a particular template, but in this case there's a genuine social reason for the existence of that template: to establish professional boundaries between bank officials and customers. Breaking that boundary takes the scenario at least a bit out of the "benign" category.
There are truly some interesting theories and observations here worthy of thought and discussion that could potentially lead to deeper insights into both our own and broader aspects of human behavior.
But how in the world can this be classified as “Science” (as contrasted with Scientism)? To what extent does presenting it as “Science” with charts and graphs published in science journal format 1) artificially elevate the conclusions presented, conferring upon them unmerited credibility, and 2) denigrate real science in the eyes of a public growing increasingly skeptical about the entire scientific enterprise?
Someone should do a social science study examining the role of social science in undermining public trust in science and scientists. Either that or just whip up a Sokal Hoax paper claiming to have done just that, and get it published in a social science journal, proving the point. :)
I'd be curious in seeing what the results are when the customer and banker are both male and both female.
Male:Male was 2.26 sexist, Female:Female was 2.64, according to the graph.
I missed that. Thank you.
No problem! I missed it too the first few times... I don't know why, but that graph is oddly hard to parse. I feel it would have been better as a 2x2 grid.
I think it is because you see the lines and think 'linear relationship' rather than 'only 4 points here'.
I think so, too. It probably says something about the low quality of statistical education regarding the representation of data that the authors used a line graph. Unless maybe they did a version with each person having mosaicism and the connected bits in between are meaningful :D