Trusted, Automoderated users
25,837
edits
Talk:Women in STEM: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
==what does this mean?== | ==what does this mean?== | ||
d=.2 ? [[Special:Contributions/2600:8806:0:C2:D5B8:95A0:6EA:9D22|2600:8806:0:C2:D5B8:95A0:6EA:9D22]] 00:33, 25 December 2019 (UTC) | d=.2 ? [[Special:Contributions/2600:8806:0:C2:D5B8:95A0:6EA:9D22|2600:8806:0:C2:D5B8:95A0:6EA:9D22]] 00:33, 25 December 2019 (UTC) | ||
==women in STEM== | |||
We have one study in there that controls for time. In that study, having it be co-ed improves the man's chances. Inceldom rates vs. co-ed rates since 1990 is not strong evidence of the benefit of being in a co-ed class vs. not. It only shows that co-ed classes are not anywhere near enough to reverse inceldom. | |||
It's like the antidepressant argument. I can say that antidepressants '''don't work'' because suicide rates are going up. Well, that actually doesn't prove that antidepressants don't work. It's just an argument that they are not strong antidepressants and they shouldn't be used as first line treatment. To prove they don't work you need to reference a good study that isn't just correlation, which then show that yes, antidepressants don't actually work. | |||
tl;dr, framing it as "do co-ed classes improve the incels situation" is a weird question because of course it does. Framing it as "how much" is more accurate.[[User:William|William]] ([[User talk:William|talk]]) 21:20, 25 December 2019 (UTC) | |||