Disaggregating data by gender has legit purposes. You do that to the data after the fact though. Setting up one survey for women and one for men pollutes the outcome.
You must suck at statistics. See? I can do it too! People who misuse statistics and data to shit on women also makes me angry.
Yes. At the time I’m commenting, 1 out of 2 questions on the “women’s” question is about the gendered nature of the question itself (50%). And 2 out of 11 on the “mens” (18%). The dataset has already been “polluted” as you describe, by the design of the questions.
I would expect a control then, a group that is asked the question without the gendered piece. But that can’t be done here on this Lemmy community now because we’ve already seen the gendered versions of the question.
Not like Lemmy is the place to do this sort of thing anyway. In addition to very limited population size, expect a higher rate of STEM folks compared to general population, meaning a higher rate of people who have had a 101 class level on statistics or better. Combined with sarcastic internet commenters. It all means unsubtle manipulations like this gendered question are going to fall flat.
Disaggregating data by gender has legit purposes. You do that to the data after the fact though. Setting up one survey for women and one for men pollutes the outcome.
You must suck at statistics. See? I can do it too! People who misuse statistics and data to shit on women also makes me angry.
Yes. At the time I’m commenting, 1 out of 2 questions on the “women’s” question is about the gendered nature of the question itself (50%). And 2 out of 11 on the “mens” (18%). The dataset has already been “polluted” as you describe, by the design of the questions.
What if the intention is to gather data on that, though?
I would expect a control then, a group that is asked the question without the gendered piece. But that can’t be done here on this Lemmy community now because we’ve already seen the gendered versions of the question.
Not like Lemmy is the place to do this sort of thing anyway. In addition to very limited population size, expect a higher rate of STEM folks compared to general population, meaning a higher rate of people who have had a 101 class level on statistics or better. Combined with sarcastic internet commenters. It all means unsubtle manipulations like this gendered question are going to fall flat.
Then comments calling out the unnecessary, ham-handed gendering should be expected data points.
You’re right.