ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: IETF Diversity Question on Berlin Registration?

2013-04-18 16:48:03

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.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>