Do you have the same standards for accepting evidence in papers as you have when you look for bias in your field? Or is the notion of sample sizes and anecdotal evidence alien to theoretical phycicist. You seem very eager to call your colleages sexist on very thin ground.
Women astronomers have had lower success rates with proposals to use the Hubble Space Telescope. Until they finally tried blind reviewing (so reviewers didn’t know the identity of the proposers), and the discrepancy went away. H/t @welt_womanhttps://twitter.com/astroalexamon/status/1074762433200316416 …
-
-
-
If one sex is consistently seeing fewer proposals accepted until a blind review process is used, at which point the discrepancy goes away, as was just stated, then yes, a reasonable person would conclude there was sexism at work, since that's literally what the evidence shows.
-
The main point is that the data is too scarce to justify the accusation of discrimination, many effects that correlate with sex may be the underlying cause or it might even be a total fluke. It's not even the first cycle women rank better.
-
You're acting as if this is the 1st evidence ever of sexism in that field. When paired with everything else (such as the evidence that caused them to try blinding) this is just the cherry on top. Plus, we know about implicit bias. There is no accusation of malicious intent here.
ಸಂವಾದದ ಮುಕ್ತಾಯ
ಹೊಸ ಸಂವಾದ -
-
-
"I'm so surprised", said no woman ever.
ಧನ್ಯವಾದಗಳು. Twitter ಇದನ್ನು ನಿಮ್ಮ ಕಾಲರೇಖೆಯನ್ನು ಉತ್ತಮಗೊಳಿಸಲು ಬಳಸುತ್ತದೆ. ರದ್ದುಗೊಳಿಸುರದ್ದುಗೊಳಿಸು
-
-
-
This is consistent with the introduction of blind auditions to orchestras, and rates of code acceptance on GitHub when the sex is unknown. Blinding the gender of work product seems to give women a much fairer evaluation.
-
There are studies on that. Works for Metropolitan Opera orchestra auditions as well as it works for IT.
- 1ಮತ್ತಷ್ಟು ಪ್ರತಿಕ್ರಿಯೆ
ಹೊಸ ಸಂವಾದ -
-
-
Shocked, not shocked.
@Laurie_Garrett published a great article recently in BMJ describing the systematic gender inequality in science. It'll be a new required reading for my environmental public health studentshttps://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k5232 …ಧನ್ಯವಾದಗಳು. Twitter ಇದನ್ನು ನಿಮ್ಮ ಕಾಲರೇಖೆಯನ್ನು ಉತ್ತಮಗೊಳಿಸಲು ಬಳಸುತ್ತದೆ. ರದ್ದುಗೊಳಿಸುರದ್ದುಗೊಳಿಸು
-
-
-
It's almost like sexism is a thing everywhere.
- ಸಂವಾದದ ಮುಕ್ತಾಯ
ಹೊಸ ಸಂವಾದ -
-
-
This is exactly why I'm thinking of sending out resumes with a man's name for a minute.
-
It’s why so many professionals use initials-
ಸಂವಾದದ ಮುಕ್ತಾಯ
ಹೊಸ ಸಂವಾದ -
-
-
Let’s not let that crap continue when Webb finally gets online
-
Well, blind review seems to be a half measure. The robust way would be to have gender parity on the review board.
-
Edward, you assume that gender parity on the board would guarantee fair selection? Misogyny is not limited to men only. Also, their may be other factors skewing the results (age, experience, fame). Blind review seems like a damn good idea.
-
There are no guarantees in this world. Parity would promote a healthy environment. While the blind review is just setting traps on people who should do the damn right thing. And no procedure can stay ”blind” in the long run.
-
Did you look at the numbers? Did you even read the article?? What fraction of the proposals were by male vs female pi's? Are you serious about equality of outcome quotas?
-
Am I the only one to find "blind" and "telescope" put together in one sentence funny
-
Yes
ಸಂವಾದದ ಮುಕ್ತಾಯ
ಹೊಸ ಸಂವಾದ -
ಲೋಡಿಂಗ್ ಸಮಯ ಸ್ವಲ್ಪ ತೆಗೆದುಕೊಳ್ಳುತ್ತಿರುವಂತೆನಿಸುತ್ತದೆ.
Twitter ಸಾಮರ್ಥ್ಯ ಮೀರಿರಬಹುದು ಅಥವಾ ಕ್ಷಣಿಕವಾದ ತೊಂದರೆಯನ್ನು ಅನುಭವಿಸುತ್ತಿರಬಹುದು. ಮತ್ತೆ ಪ್ರಯತ್ನಿಸಿ ಅಥವಾ ಹೆಚ್ಚಿನ ಮಾಹಿತಿಗೆ Twitter ಸ್ಥಿತಿಗೆ ಭೇಟಿ ನೀಡಿ.