I've been too busy to participate in this heated, but interesting
discussion.
Not to sound naive, but isn't the group of 11 MIT Biologists supposed to be
a sample, because we are extrapolating to all science faculty at MIT? If we
are not extrapolating, then why all the debate. Proving that discri
On Wed, 14 Mar 2001 13:19:36 +, Thom Baguley
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Irving Scheffe wrote:
>> I'm quite confident that, if you examine any
>> data you want, you'll emerge with the conclusion
>> that a 4.5 to 1 ratio is, in fact, "huge." If you
>> feel otherwise, do the study and refute us
On Thu, 15 Mar 2001 18:09:26 GMT, Jerry Dallal
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Irving Scheffe wrote:
>
>> Original MIT Report on the Status of Women Faculty:
>> http://mindit.netmind.com/proxy/http://web.mit.edu/fnl/
>
>
>It is frustrating to keep getting errors when I try to access a
>printable ver
- I hate having to explain jokes -
On 14 Mar 2001 15:34:45 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (dennis roberts) wrote:
> At 04:10 PM 3/14/01 -0500, Rich Ulrich wrote:
>
> >Oh, I see. You do the opposite. Your own
> >flabby rationalizations might be subtly valid,
> >and, on close examination,
> >*do*
On 14 Mar 2001 21:55:48 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Radford Neal)
wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Rich Ulrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >(This guy is already posting irrelevant rants as if
> >I've driven him up the wall or something. So this
> >is just another poke in the eye wit
Irving Scheffe wrote:
> First, you're addressing the wrong question.
> We are not interested, in the example, in the "ability" of the
> players. We are interested in whether, over the course of the
> preceding 162 games, the Yanks outhomered the Tigers by a substantial
I think that illustrates my
in most large institutions ... the notion of performance based pay is a
myth ... since it is easy to document clear differences in performance for
faculty in different Colleges .. where pay is lopsided in favor of a
favored college (like business) even when productivity (however you define
i
Thanks again for the clarification, Jim. I think we
are in essential agreement.
To reply succinctly to your message:
1. Certainly, as a general rule
one should *always* look at distributional
shape as well as summary statistics. Feminists seldom
do, by the way, in advancing arguments about
discr
Actually, I wasn't even referring to Mr. Ulrich!
I was referring to the state of the art in
feminist analysis of "gender discrimination"
in university faculties.
I can, indeed, understand why the Landgrebian Mr. Ulrich would be
sensitive. He hasn't driven me anywhere. I'm still
calmly waiting fo
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Rich Ulrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>(This guy is already posting irrelevant rants as if
>I've driven him up the wall or something. So this
>is just another poke in the eye with a blunt stick, to see
>what he will swing at next)
I think we may take this
At 04:10 PM 3/14/01 -0500, Rich Ulrich wrote:
>Oh, I see. You do the opposite. Your own
>flabby rationalizations might be subtly valid,
>and, on close examination,
>*do* have some relationship to the questions
could we ALL please lower a notch or two ... the darts and arrows? i can't
k
On Tue, 13 Mar 2001 14:04:19 -0800, Irving Scheffe (JS)
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Actually, in practice, the decisions are seldom made
> on the basis of rational evaluation of data. They
> are usually made on the basis of political pressure,
> with thin, and obviously invalid, pseudo-rationali
Irving Scheffe wrote:
> I'm quite confident that, if you examine any
> data you want, you'll emerge with the conclusion
> that a 4.5 to 1 ratio is, in fact, "huge." If you
> feel otherwise, do the study and refute us.
>
> An even more interesting question (than
> the "hugeness" of the 4.5 to 1 ra
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Radford Neal) wrote:
>[ snip, baseball game; etc. ]
>> In this context, all that matters is that there is a difference. As
>> explained in many previous posts by myself and others, it is NOT
>> appropriate in this context to do a significance test, and ignore the
>> differen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Radford Neal) wrote:
>[ snip, baseball game; etc. ]
>> In this context, all that matters is that there is a difference. As
>> explained in many previous posts by myself and others, it is NOT
>> appropriate in this context to do a significance test, and ignore the
>> differenc
Mr. Ulrich'a comments are even more Landgrebian than his
previous ones.
For those who don't recall, Earl
Landgrebe was a Republican congressman from
Indiana in 1974. A self made man who
ran a trucking company, Landgrebe
sided strongly, if inarticulately, with Richard
Nixon during the Watergate
Thom,
This is a reasonable question to ask.
Thom:
In the original thread, I referred to
the utility function relating citations to quality, etc,
and I'm aware of numerous difficult issues regarding
the evaluation of this information. My comments, as
I indicated, were addressed primarily to the
Actually, in practice, the decisions are seldom made
on the basis of rational evaluation of data. They
are usually made on the basis of political pressure,
with thin, and obviously invalid, pseudo-rationalizations
on the basis of data that, on close examination, have
little or no necessary relatio
On Fri, 09 Mar 2001 15:53:12 +, Thom Baguley
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Irving Scheffe wrote:
>> Imagine it is 1961. Our question is, which outfield has better
>> home run hitters, the Yankees or Detroit? Here are the numbers
>> for the Yankee and Tiger starting Outfields.
>>
>> Y
in a general case like this ... where the plaintiff has to show proof of
discrimination ... the burden is especially difficult
there are some preliminaries of course ...
if the women make more than the males ... then we would agree it would be
"hard" to argue sex discrimination in terms of s
On 12 Mar 2001 14:25:41 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Radford Neal)
wrote:
[ snip, baseball game; etc. ]
> In this context, all that matters is that there is a difference. As
> explained in many previous posts by myself and others, it is NOT
> appropriate in this context to do a significance test, an
Jim:
I agree with Radford Neal's comments,
and urge careful reconsideration of the
foundation behind some of the comments
made.
For example, suppose you had a department
in which the citation data were
Males Females
12220 1298
2297 1102
The male with 12220 is, let's imagin
Radford Neal wrote:
> Yes indeed. And the context in this case is the question of whether
> or not the difference in performance provides an alternative
> explanation for why the men were paid more (one supposes, no actual
> salary data has been released).
I disagree. The original context was th
At 02:25 PM 3/12/01 +, Radford Neal wrote:
>In this context, all that matters is that there is a difference. As
>explained in many previous posts by myself and others, it is NOT
>appropriate in this context to do a significance test, and ignore the
>difference if you can't reject the null h
>Radford Neal wrote:
>>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> Recall that this baseball example was intended to clarify how one
>> should go about determining whether or not there is reason to think
>> that MIT discriminated against women faculty. From your comment, I'd
>> guess that you think t
Radford Neal wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Recall that this baseball example was intended to clarify how one
> should go about determining whether or not there is reason to think
> that MIT discriminated against women faculty. From your comment, I'd
> guess that you think that MIT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Thom Baguley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Why not think of it in terms of "Could this difference be
>produced by 6 players of equal ability influenced by a large number of random
>factors". In that case a significance test might have some value in evaluating
>the h
Irving Scheffe wrote:
> Imagine it is 1961. Our question is, which outfield has better
> home run hitters, the Yankees or Detroit? Here are the numbers
> for the Yankee and Tiger starting Outfields.
>
> Yanks Tigers
> - --
> 61 45
> 54 19
I would like to make direct contact with Dr. Scheffe. I have some comments
that I would like to direct to him but not to the mailing list. I would
appreciate it if he could contact me directly.
Dr. Robert C. Knodt
4949 Samish Way, #31
Bellingham, WA 98226
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"The point to reme
I think we've now reached an adequate point of conclusion:
To summarize Mr. Ulrich's latest post:
1. He doesn't think his previous litany of
unfounded emotional attributions is "ad-hominem."
Yet, he continues the same strategy here, characterizing
the Hausman-Steiger report as an attempt to "t
On Thu, 08 Mar 2001 10:38:59 -0800, Irving Scheffe
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Mar 2001 16:28:53 -0500, Rich Ulrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 07:49:23 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Irving
> >Scheffe) wrote:
> >
> >My comments are written as responses to the tech
On Fri, 02 Mar 2001 16:28:53 -0500, Rich Ulrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 07:49:23 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Irving
>Scheffe) wrote:
>
>My comments are written as responses to the technical
>comments to Jim Steiger's last post. This is shorter than his post,
>since I omit re
On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 07:49:23 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Irving
Scheffe) wrote:
My comments are written as responses to the technical
comments to Jim Steiger's last post. This is shorter than his post,
since I omit redundancy and mostly ignore his 'venting.'
I think I offer a little different persp
Rich,
Both Radford Neal and I have asked
for a statistical rationale supporting
your claim that a significance test
that you advocated
can provide useful information when applied
to the MIT senior biologist data. You
haven't provided one. Instead, you
cite from a web statistics guide which
in tur
- I want to comment a little more thoroughly about the lines I cited:
what Garson said about inference, and his citation of Olkey.
On Thu, 22 Feb 2001 18:21:41 -0500, Rich Ulrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
[ snip, previous discussion ]
me >
> I think that Garson is wrong, and the last 40 year
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Rich Ulrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I agree, if you don't have "statistical power," then you don't ask
> for a 5% test, or (maybe) any test at all. The JUSTIFICATION for
> having a test on the MIT data is that the power is sufficient to say
> something.
The
On Mon, 19 Feb 2001 04:27:24 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Irving
Scheffe) wrote:
> In responding to Rich, I'll intersperse selected comments with
> selected portions of his text and append his entire post below.
- I'm not done with the topic yet. But it is difficult to go on from
this point.
I thi
I think we are getting close to closure here.
"Irving Scheffe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Mon, 19 Feb 2001 02:12:46 GMT, "Milo Schield" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >But in most of your examples MORE is being claimed. In most cases
In responding to Rich, I'll intersperse selected comments with
selected portions of his text and append his entire post below.
To begin with, Rich doesn't way he wants to do a
significance test. He just knows he likes doing such a test.
To wit:
>Given group A and group B, I can do a t-test. Or
On Mon, 19 Feb 2001 02:12:46 GMT, "Milo Schield" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>But in most of your examples MORE is being claimed. In most cases, the
>claim includes an inference. Once the claim involves an inference, then a
>statistical test may be relevant.
>
>In one case, the claim was discr
I think we are getting close to closure here.
"Irving Scheffe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Mon, 19 Feb 2001 02:12:46 GMT, "Milo Schield" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >But in most of your examples MORE is being claimed. In most cases
So far, so good. We agree that if we are just compared facts of each case,
then there is no generalization, no inference and no statistical tests. We
agree that one can hypothesize anything, presume a null hypothesis, do a
re-randomization and see if what actually happened is statistically
signi
Milo:
Sure, although I don't see how that is relevant
to the MIT situation, which attributed
the current status of women there to
discrimination, based on an undisclosed
methodology.
More generally, one CAN indeed do randomization tests
on similar data even though there is no inference toward
I am going to try to stick to the statistics-related parts, in
replying to Jim Steiger.
With a fake user-name, JS wrote on Thu, 15 Feb 2001 17:34:15 GMT,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Irving Scheffe):
JS > "Rich:
"To be blunt, although your comments in this forum are often
valuable, you fell far short
Jim has consistently maintained three claims/arguments:
1. we are not trying to generalize from a small group of people to a larger
population.
2. No inference is involved (if we are not generalizing)
3. Using statsitical tests is meaningless (since no inference is involved).
I agree with his 1
Dennis,
Again, your analogies are bad, your thinking flabby and
indeterminate.
Comments are interspersed.
On 16 Feb 2001 08:25:47 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (dennis roberts) wrote:
>At 01:58 AM 2/16/01 +, you wrote:
>>Dennis,
>>
>>Having the salary data would be desirable. If, on the other
>
At 01:58 AM 2/16/01 +, you wrote:
>Dennis,
>
>Having the salary data would be desirable. If, on the other
>hand, we are only interested in the question "Did the female
>biologists at MIT perform as well as their male colleagues,"
>your comment is incorrect.
>
>The "dinky" sample size is the en
Dennis,
I think you are reaffirming something else.
The arguments are absurd.
a. People whose work is widely cited, because it is good,
get more grant dollars. Presumably, if mary has 1 citation
and a single $1000 grant, you'd think she was really outstanding.
By gosh, she's really producing
Dennis, your comments can be condensed as follows:
1. [your view] I am not doing inferential statistics in the IWF
Report, so I shouldn't have signed on as a statistician.
Comment: An absurdly provincial view. Statisticians need not do
"inferential" statistics to analyze data and their substanti
Radford:
Thanks, I agree. The data we examine do not include
salaries, and we will never be allowed to
see such data. But, of course, Dr. Gallagher's
randomization test would almost certainly find
"no significant difference" in salaries or lab space between
the senior men and women, thereby, appa
Dennis,
Having the salary data would be desirable. If, on the other
hand, we are only interested in the question "Did the female
biologists at MIT perform as well as their male colleagues,"
your comment is incorrect.
The "dinky" sample size is the entire population, and the
answer can be ascert
There are a wide variety of probabilities that may be calculated
in this situation, depending on the assumptions you want to
make, and precisely what you mean by "this result." However, if you
ask, "How likely is it that the for side won", the answer is that the
for side won. If you ask, "How li
At 10:42 PM 2/15/01 +, Irving Scheffe wrote:
>
>
>Suppose we have
>
>
> Citations Grant$
>
>Mary 10514 Million
>Fred 12000+ 23 Million
let's think about this ... just as another view of course
if we are really considering citations as a proxy for performance .
Jerry:
A quick response.
Of course the MIT situation adds layers of complexity,
relative to the "Idealized Pistons" example,
because the data involve many layers of error variance,
and the "utility function" relating any academic
performance variable and "academic worth" is
never known, even wi
Jerry,
I, of course, have no problem with randomization
tests "in general," nor did I ever claim to.
Best,
Jim Steiger
On Thu, 15 Feb 2001 21:40:30 GMT, Jerry Dallal
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Radford Neal wrote:
>>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> Jerry Dallal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wr
Rich:
To be blunt, although
your comments in this forum are often
valuable, you fell far short of two
cents worth this time.
This is not a popularity contest, it is a statistical
argument. You offered an unsupported
opinion with only one content-related
comment. Let's cut to the chase.
Please
I am just tossing in my two cents worth ...
On Thu, 15 Feb 2001 07:53:13 GMT, Jim Steiger, posting as
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Irving Scheffe) wrote:
< snip, name comment >
> 2. I tried to make the Detroit Pistons example as obvious as I could.
> The point is, if you want to know whether one populat
>
>Dr. Steiger's post states, "There were HUGE differences in the citation rates
>of senior men and women. The mean number of citations was, as I recall,
>roughly
>7000 for the men and 1400 for the senior women." The actual data were
>7032 for
>the men and 1539 for the women (with sample sizes
>Gene,
>
>You have made extended comments about
>the IWF report "Confession without Guilt?"
>(at http://www.iwf.org/news/mitfinal.pdf
>about women biologists at MIT.
>
>Some background information:
>
>
>The IWF is the second in a series criticizing
>the MIT report on the Status of W
Dear Jim:
1. Regarding my email signature, it is a spam-virus deflector.
Sorry you were confused. I've had 3 virus attempts already this week.
I'm really Jim Steiger -- see signature. I'm not really Irving
Scheffe.
2. I tried to make the Detroit Pistons example as obvious as I could.
The poin
At 07:58 PM 2/14/01 +, Irving Scheffe wrote:
>Gene,
whether gene was correct or not, it seems problematic to me to be on the
one hand be arguing that this is really not an inference problem ... and
then say that it was perfectly reasonable for a statistician to sign
his/her name to it
i
Gene,
You have made extended comments about
the IWF report "Confession without Guilt?"
(at http://www.iwf.org/news/mitfinal.pdf
about women biologists at MIT.
Some background information:
The IWF is the second in a series criticizing
the MIT report on the Status of Women.
The o
62 matches
Mail list logo
