Re: IETF Diversity Question on Berlin Registration?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu, April 18, 2013 1:51 pm, Pete Resnick wrote:
> On 4/17/13 2:21 PM, Dan Harkins wrote:
>> Look, bias stinks and when it exists its stench is detectable.
>
> Dan, leaving aside all of your other comments for the moment (many of
> which are straw men that nobody but you have suggested, speaking of
> fallacies), this one comment is a serious problem since it is so
> demonstrably false.

  I'm sure I speak alone when I say that I hope you are only leaving my other
comments aside for a moment and will return to them later. I would actually
like to see a response that doesn't snip a 30-40 line post into 1 sentence.

  If you would like to engage me off-list, I welcome that.

>                                 Bias creeps in in all sorts of
undetectable ways; if
> it was always detectable, lots of statisticians and psychologists and
> survey designers would be out of jobs. Aside from simple methodological
> data collection problems, bias is often caused by completely unconscious
> (and sometimes well intentioned) behaviors when it comes to human
> endeavors. The literature on this topic is so extensive that I can't
> even imagine why you would even suggest the opposite.

  Now we're playing a subtle word game here. A bias that a statistician
might add is demonstrably different than what Melinda Shore has
_repeatedly_ referred to as "gender bias". So when I'm talking about
bias I'm talking about a form of discrimination based on gender. It is
the intentional passing over of a more qualified woman in favor of a
less qualified man. Exactly the same thing that is being referred to
when she says:

  "I'm telling you that I think the numbers are highly suggestive of bias".

What numbers are those? The observable numbers about I* leadership.
What is the bias being suggested? It is a bias against women. Straw
man? I think not.

  A statistician might put bias in his statistical result and a survey
designer might put bias in a question to elicit a favored result,
intentionally or unintentionally. But we both know that is not what
we're talking about here.

>> We already know "who we are".
>
> That's an interesting claim, and at least at first glance given other
> comments on the list, again seemingly false. As Adrian commented,
> perception is important. If it seems to some folks that the ratio of men
> to women throughout the IETF is 70:1, should it turn out that it is
> closer to 10:1 and the numbers in leadership are closer to 30:1, that
> would not only indicate that we don't "already know 'who we are'", but
> it could also be an interesting indication of why there might be
> statistical bias in the selection of leadership. (Or not. But it seems
> worthy of examination.)

  "We" are a volunteer standards organization that operates on a
consensus basis. For the purposes of "who we are" the number of
women that register for a meeting should be as relevant as the number
of people who register that are left handed, flat footed or double jointed
(for the record I am all three). In other words, not at all. There may be
a statistical bias in the selection of leadership that favors left-handedness
or maybe it disfavors left-handedness. Is that interesting? Maybe to
someone. Is it worthwhile in finding out "who we are"? No.

  Dan.






[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]