9th July 2010, 4:34 PM
You're retroactively looking at noisy data and assuming your own conclusion is the explanation for it. It's just like talking to that annoying racist on that other forum I visited.
<img src="http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/upload/2010/07/feminist.jpeg">
Do some actual science, find some actual science, something, just don't look at something as statistically noisy as who's at the top of a gambling ring and assume it means women are inferior at it. What did you do, if anything, to exclude the possibility that there MAY just be some social factors involved?
Yeesh, I'm having the same conversation I had months ago, only I've switched out gender for race.
<img src="http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/upload/2010/07/feminist.jpeg">
Do some actual science, find some actual science, something, just don't look at something as statistically noisy as who's at the top of a gambling ring and assume it means women are inferior at it. What did you do, if anything, to exclude the possibility that there MAY just be some social factors involved?
Yeesh, I'm having the same conversation I had months ago, only I've switched out gender for race.
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." ~ Charles Babbage (1791-1871)