I spent 7 years in that field and in my particular undergrad it was hard stressed how to avoid doing so, and all the proper precautions to take to make sure it doesn't happen. Entire year long classes on it in fact.
And then I can also tell you that plenty girls ignored those rules and crafted the experiment to give them the desired result, instead of test it. It didn't even occur to them there was an issue with it, and they could not even come up with proper experiments to dodge it because of how warped their own perspectives were.
Most still passed, and most of them are probably teaching your kids or doing social work right now.
And then I can also tell you that plenty girls ignored those rules and crafted the experiment to give them the desired result
Most still passed, and most of them are probably teaching your kids or doing social work right now.
Out of curiosity was this part of a specialized statistics/data science program or some kind of social science program that has stats courses with the intention of creating "statistically literate" people in the field? I ask because most social workers and (non-STEM) teachers would never pass a stats course beyond a freshman level intro class, and often they can't even pass that. There are plenty of "graduate level" stats courses in the social sciences that relabel the intro course and charge graduate tuition for it.
Out of curiosity was this part of a specialized statistics/data science program or some kind of social science program that has stats courses with the intention of creating "statistically literate" people in the field?
It was the class designed around constructing and conducting experiments, independent of the stats classes that were prerequisite to it. Much of the first half was spent dismantling and factorizing other experiments to see how parts worked and where they went wrong. Honestly, it was a pretty solid overall course for an undergrad with very little room to blame the course for their failures.
As an aside, there was in fact a Stats Class specifically for the Social Science department, where a pregnant woman showed you how to input things into the calculator and computer programs and that was it. I was so disgusted by it I took a Stats 200 class on my own with an old man coach who made you do everything long form by hand, and its still drilled into my brain.
You say their perspectives were warped, but they were not. You are projecting onto women. Women do not think like you do. Their emotions and their instincts are their thoughts. They had an emotional connection to a particular result, and therefore, that is their reality. Then you asked them to use science and logic to prove or disprove their reality and this confused them, made them resentful (if they bothered to think about it).
Again, you fundeamentally do not understand how womens' minds work. You are projecting your own default modes of thought onto women because you are unfamiliar with any other mode of thought.
I spent 7 years in that field and in my particular undergrad it was hard stressed how to avoid doing so, and all the proper precautions to take to make sure it doesn't happen. Entire year long classes on it in fact.
And then I can also tell you that plenty girls ignored those rules and crafted the experiment to give them the desired result, instead of test it. It didn't even occur to them there was an issue with it, and they could not even come up with proper experiments to dodge it because of how warped their own perspectives were.
Most still passed, and most of them are probably teaching your kids or doing social work right now.
Out of curiosity was this part of a specialized statistics/data science program or some kind of social science program that has stats courses with the intention of creating "statistically literate" people in the field? I ask because most social workers and (non-STEM) teachers would never pass a stats course beyond a freshman level intro class, and often they can't even pass that. There are plenty of "graduate level" stats courses in the social sciences that relabel the intro course and charge graduate tuition for it.
It was the class designed around constructing and conducting experiments, independent of the stats classes that were prerequisite to it. Much of the first half was spent dismantling and factorizing other experiments to see how parts worked and where they went wrong. Honestly, it was a pretty solid overall course for an undergrad with very little room to blame the course for their failures.
As an aside, there was in fact a Stats Class specifically for the Social Science department, where a pregnant woman showed you how to input things into the calculator and computer programs and that was it. I was so disgusted by it I took a Stats 200 class on my own with an old man coach who made you do everything long form by hand, and its still drilled into my brain.
You say their perspectives were warped, but they were not. You are projecting onto women. Women do not think like you do. Their emotions and their instincts are their thoughts. They had an emotional connection to a particular result, and therefore, that is their reality. Then you asked them to use science and logic to prove or disprove their reality and this confused them, made them resentful (if they bothered to think about it).
Again, you fundeamentally do not understand how womens' minds work. You are projecting your own default modes of thought onto women because you are unfamiliar with any other mode of thought.