This is how “scientific consensus” is achieved
(twitter.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (33)
sorted by:
The % on the last table make no sense to me.
I think it's unintentionally confusing to mask the real problem: liberal women.
The presenter is a woman who went to a small liberal arts college and was director of USGS under Obama (a "first woman", yeah). All-girls primary schools. "Anyone who is doing anything in my life [before college] was female". Didn't take her husband's name. Thinks science has to change to accommodate women having children. No real talent for or self-direction in science, but gets elevated time after time just for being a woman.
On the other hand, she wants to be objective and pretend to be an actual scientist herself, so is personally conflicted and I think that plays out in this table - which is possibly the worst way to present this data.
If the data was presented clearly the audience would say "so... basically you're the problem?" and it would be personally embarrassing and hurtful.
I believe if you look at the last column it describes the top 20% most censorious group - so 82% female, etc.
Thanks.
How are women 30% least censorious, 65% middle censorious and 82% most censorious?
If it is ''their % of the X Censorious category'' and women are just most of the sample, then how is that data breakdown a wise choice? I'm sure breaking down the data differently would have been more useful.
The three columns describe three different groups of people. The group that is least censorious is 30% female. The group of middle censorious is 65% female.
The group of crazies is 82% female.
They didn't do per capita adjustment. Transgender are a small % (tho larger than the rest of the world.). So. 16% or what ever of the most censurious are trans. So what % is trans overall? Data useless without that.
I'm glad I'm not the only one.