Alors ? On biaise ?
Face à des mensonges, l’effet idéologique est six fois plus élevé pour [les economistes] qui penchent très à droite par rapport à ceux qui penchent très à gauche. Autre enseignement, les hommes affichent un biais de 42 % supérieur à celui des femmes...
Les économistes piégés par leurs biais idéologiques :
▻https://www.alternatives-economiques.fr/christian-chavagneux/economistes-pieges-leurs-biais-ideologiques/00088468 #economie #religion #capitalisme
Pas vraiment un paywall, non, @aude_v , c’est la même chose que Libé ou d’autres : si tu te connectes toujours avec la même adresse IP tu ne peux lire que 3 articles mais si en plus tu navigues toujours en navigation privée, là c’est ... illimité ;)
(et merci pour les compléments !)
Ha tiens ? C’est peut-être un bug ? Je ne trouve pas de rubrique où ce soit mentionné mais un bandeau m’nnonçant le nombre de lectures restantes s’affiche bien à chaque fois que je vais sur le site. Peut-être un bug à leur signaler ? Veux-tu que je copie l’article ici ?
L’étude complète est là : ▻https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/91958/1/MPRA_paper_91958.pdf
Et les annexes de méthodologie par là : ▻https://www.dropbox.com/s/h4j20fuuz4mzwyt/Who%20Said%20or%20What%20Said_Online%20Appendix.pdf?dl=0
Women’s visibility in academic seminars: women ask fewer questions than men
Alecia Carter, Alyssa Croft, Dieter Lukas, Gillian Sandstrom
Physics and Society, arXiv:1711.10985, le 29 novembre 2017
▻https://arxiv.org/abs/1711.10985
▻https://arxiv.org/pdf/1711.10985
The attrition of women in academic careers is a major concern, particularly in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics subjects. One factor that can contribute to the attrition is the lack of visible role models for women in academia. At early career stages, the behaviour of the local community may play a formative role in identifying in-group role models, shaping women’s impressions of whether or not they can be successful in academia. One common and formative setting to observe role models is the local departmental academic seminar, talk, or presentation. We thus quantified women’s visibility through the question-asking behaviour of academics at seminars using observations and an online survey. From the survey responses of over 600 academics in 20 countries, we found that women reported asking fewer questions after seminars compared to men. This impression was supported by observational data from almost 250 seminars in 10 countries: women audience members asked absolutely and proportionally fewer questions than male audience members. Men and women differed in the importance they attributed to different factors preventing them from asking questions, with women rating internal factors (e.g., not working up the nerve) as more important than men. Furthermore, our observations indicated that the gender of the first person to ask a question predicted the gender imbalance in subsequent questions, with proportionally fewer questions asked by women when a man was the first to ask a question. A longer time for questions was associated with less of an imbalance, but attempts to manipulate the time for questions in two departments were unsuccessful. We propose alternative recommendations for increasing women’s visibility at these events and suggest that our results are best explained by internalized gender role stereotypes about assertiveness.
How will Brexit affect your business?
▻http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2017-01-23-how-will-brexit-affect-your-business
Fill in UKIE’s online survey to help build a bigger picture
Misperceiving Bullshit as Profound Is Associated with Favorable Views of Cruz, Rubio, Trump and Conservatism
▻http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0153419.g001
no causal inferences can be drawn. One cannot conclude that conservatism leads to bullshit receptivity. What can be concluded is that conservatism is positively associated with seeing profoundness in bullshit statements and that those who have favorable views of Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, and Marco Rubio are more likely to judge bullshit statements as profound compared with individuals who have less favorable views of these candidates.
Second, we want to note that the sample of the present study probably is not representative of the US as our study is restricted to the specific sample of #Amazon_Mechanical_Turk workers and has a relatively small sample size for an online survey.
J’allais le dire : N=196 et possible #biais_d'autosélection
(je découvre le terme SLOP (self-selected listener opinion poll) dans WP[en] ▻https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-selection_bias (la version française est particulièrement floue sur ce sujet et ne mentionne pas explicitement le cas, très fréquent, où c’est l’individu enquêté qui décide d’appartenir à l’échantillon))
L’étude s’appuie sur une autre de novembre 2015
On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit
►http://journal.sjdm.org/15/15923a/jdm15923a.html
dont il me semblait bien qu’on avait déjà parlé ici. C’était via la chronique au Monde de Pierre Barthélémy
►http://seenthis.net/messages/467924
Trump voters earn more and are better educated than the typical American — Quartz
▻http://qz.com/679589/trump-voters-earn-more-and-are-better-educated-than-the-typical-american
L’homme barbu, ce porc sexiste… (#selon_une_étude_récente)
The Association Between Men’s Sexist Attitudes and Facial Hair
▻http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-015-0637-7
Facial hair, like many masculine secondary sexual traits, plays a significant role in perceptions of an array of sociosexual traits in men. While there is consensus that beards enhance perceptions of masculinity, age, social dominance, and aggressiveness, the perceived attractiveness of facial hair varies greatly across women. Given the ease with which facial hair can be groomed and removed entirely, why should some men retain beards and others choose to remove them? We hypothesized that men with relatively sexist attitudes would be more likely to allow their facial hair to grow than men with less sexist attitudes. Men from the USA (n = 223) and India (n = 309) completed an online survey measuring demographic variables, ambivalent sexism, and facial hair status. After controlling for demographic variables, men with facial hair were significantly higher in hostile sexism than clean-shaven men; hostile sexism was a significant predictor of facial hair status over and above demographic variables; and facial hair was more frequent among ambivalent and hostile sexists than among benevolent and non-sexists. It is suggested that sexist men choose to grow facial hair because it maximizes sexual dimorphism and augments perceived masculinity and dominance.
Rappelons le biais inhérent aux études scientifiques qui ciblent surtout des représentants des catégories dominantes qui sont comme les auteurs des études et que ces derniers ont sous la main. Voir la notion de #WEIRD. J’ai pas lu l’étude en entier mais au premier regard je vois déjà :
« The majority(78.6%)
of participants were university educated, with 54.5% pos-
sessing an undergraduate degree and 24.1% a postgraduate
degree. A further 20.1% had been educated up to secondary
school. Only seven participants had received less than sec-
ondary school education »
L’étude :
▻http://link.springer.com.sci-hub.io/article/10.1007/s10508-015-0637-7
(Et, est-il la peine de l’ajouter, ces WEIRD sont très éloignés de l’image qu’on a tendance à acoller au terme « barbus »)
BBC News - Census consultation has option to replace 200-year-old survey
▻http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23943490
The census faces its biggest shake-up in its 200-year history under Office for National Statistics proposals.
An online survey could replace the study - carried out every 10 years - or information could instead be collated using data already held by government.
The plans will be fleshed out and put out to consultation this month before Parliament makes a decision in 2014.
