If you don't know what 'p' is, or how to read 'p< or p> .05' then you don't know stats. All I have to do is say "the article is published, and articles are usually published if they are less than .05."
It's fine that they're not running countries? Frankly, I think if this WORLD were run by women there would DAMN FEWER wars. You see, when you undergo the pain of having a baby-child, you're not terribly keen to see him/her go off to war. So, if in charge of a government, I kinda-sorta think they'd try to avoid conflict-that-kills - like finding a middle-ground that satisfies no one. Those usually work rather well ...
It's fine for the analysis your article is reporting on because you can control for that in your analysis. It's about the method used, rather than the results of the research.
Oh, bollocks! I know stats when I see them. There is no pleasure in understanding what they mean because stats are very often wrong, wrong, wrong. It's the mathematics that fascinates people like you. The maths don't interest me in the least. It is the subject that matters and how the stats might apply to the subject in a given circumstance. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. It depends. And THAT is the real challenge ... !
"I don't care about stats because I don't know how to argue against them"-LafayetteBis, 2020. Know the math to argue against the stats, or argue with them. Easiest thing to do, slide the rug right from out of them.
Bollocks! It is neither the maths nor the subject that matters. It is the "technique". Some economic analysts like to use arcane econometric means to come up with a well-written document (university, work, government.) It's like playing in the sandbox with toys. But what is the definitive/tangible consequence of the work? Nada, rien, niente, zip, tipota, nix! Just because an economic analysis is numeric in nature does not necessarily make it either correct or even meaningful. And, especially with economics where - by the time one knows whether a prediction has got it right or not - the subject-matter has changed. It's significance has been denatured because economics is about human-beings, and we are highly unpredictable creatures. (So, "Don't "p" on me .. !" ;^)
Yeah, it's called external validity. I'm pointing out Maquiscat's problem is the article lacks internal validity. External validity can include 'so what'? But you need both. Without strong internal validity, you can't have strong external validity.
Yes, you need both. But you cannot have them! Whyzzat? Because economics is the study of the behaviour of human-nature. And we are beings that change abruptly their ways and means and habits ...
Call me biased, but women make better leaders in a world without war. They have better verbal skills, less ego driven, better social skills and cognition, less risk takers, prefer group input, don't overestimate their intelligence (like men), violence avoidance and they are a lot nicer then men.
Another sexist thread by a liberal slant. What if it is a male that identifies as a female? What if a female goes through an addadictomy,,,,is she disqualified for your data research?
Sadly, that is as stereotyping as anything negative out there. Look at all of the Karen's we've had spring up as of late.
Nope, "Karen" is the stereotyping......I can prove all of that with scientific studies....except for the nice part.
"Karen" would only be stereotyping if I tried to apply it to all women, or to all white women. However, the factual behavior is indeed out there. These women would certainly not make good leaders. No one is a good leader simply because they are of one sex or the other. Good leadership requires multiple factors.
Correlation/causation. What shows that it's purely the nature of being female as opposed to their upbringing? I would venture to say that the very existence of Karens shows it's more nuture than nature. However I will concede that more women are nutured that way.
Definitely. Perhaps women are better in some ways, while men are better then others. Men still make up the majority of Nobel Prize Winners: There is a huge difference: Anyone is free to study areas in which women are better. Anyone who studies areas in which men are better is blacklisted.
Men seem to be worse in many respects for one simple reason. When anyone makes the slightest negative generalization about women, many women work to get that person blacklisted. When someone makes huge negative generalizations about men, few men are offended, and very few men try to cancel them. Thus, only negative generalizations about men are heard or studied. In broad terms, men's tolerance of criticism makes men look bad.
As for the subject of the thread: Question: Do female leaders cope better with COVID? Answer: Possibly yes. Until researchers are free to study the benefits of female leaders and male leaders, we would never know.
The question is, is that because they are better in those areas, the are more men in those areas so odds fall as they should, or is there bias in the selection?
When you leave that observation too broad scoped, that is where you run into problems. For example, most women do not have the strength and endurance to make it as fire fighters. However, there are plenty of women out there who do have strength and endurance above many of the male firefighters. If we discount a woman simply because she is a woman (or a man for being a man) instead of looking at the individual then we are in the wrong. Equality is not about women (or whatever category you want to use) being the exact same as men, but in not using their group as an automatic qualifier or disqualifier.
My daughter in law is a wildland firefighter. She married my son of the same trade. He married her because she is 100% women. Nothing masculine about her I can assure you.