One doesn't get to use "disproportionate" without defining and justifying a baseline; I consider the baseline the report chooses and uses disingenuous and unhelpful given its other flaws.
I don't.
I can see where Kate is coming from in this, in saying that the statistics do not support the implication that Sriduangkaew's motives were targeting vulnerable populations and professional competition. I do believe those were at least part of her motives, but this hasn't been proven statistically.
But whatever her motives, the fact remains that this is what she actually did. And what you are doing, is seeking to discredit that claim entirely, on the basis of bad statistics.
You: (1) first dismiss Mixon's claim that woc were disproportionately targeted (I note that the other thing that bothers me about that assertion is it's assuming the wrong population, which is just bad statistics.), because it doesn't support your own baseline. And although your baseline might've been necessary to support her other conclusions/implications*, using it to discredit the claim that women and woc were disproportionately targeted is still the statistical equivalent of setting up a strawman and whacking it.
When I countered this, (2) you claimed that the baseline Mixon used -- that of women and woc in SFF -- was disingenuous and unhelpful, and therefore classic How To Lie With Statistics.
But that's the one part of Mixon's report I actually find rather helpful, because it proved what I saw happening behind the scenes -- that WF/RH/BS's actions had a chilling effect on women and especially the woc in SFF, that they were being disproportionately bullied and abused and silenced, that because of hierarchies they were unable to hold her accountable. That WF/RH/BS's actions affected vulnerable populations disproportionately, caused them to suffer disproportionately, that she needed to be stopped.
I also don't see why disproportionate should be in scare-quotes, when it could not be statistically clearer that women and women of color in SFF were disproportionately affected. That you feel this is a disingenuous and unhelpful baseline and bad statistics -- imo, might say more about what you consider important, than the book you imply you've read and understood.
Hi. I'm a PhD student in the physical sciences.
I'm really happy for you.
Kate, apologies for doing this on your journal. I'm bowing out of this argument after this.
ETA: For clarification. I also think other aspects of Mixon's report, and some of her subsequent actions/inactions, are awful. I wouldn't go as far as to say that her report doesn't deserve a Hugo, but that's only because I have a very low opinion of the Hugo awards in the first place, and don't see winning it as an honor.
*2nd ETA: Apologies for the multiple edits; realized that I'd implied you had no grounds for choosing that baseline.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2015-04-08 09:31 pm (UTC)I don't.
I can see where Kate is coming from in this, in saying that the statistics do not support the implication that Sriduangkaew's motives were targeting vulnerable populations and professional competition. I do believe those were at least part of her motives, but this hasn't been proven statistically.
But whatever her motives, the fact remains that this is what she actually did. And what you are doing, is seeking to discredit that claim entirely, on the basis of bad statistics.
You: (1) first dismiss Mixon's claim that woc were disproportionately targeted (I note that the other thing that bothers me about that assertion is it's assuming the wrong population, which is just bad statistics.), because it doesn't support your own baseline. And although your baseline might've been necessary to support her other conclusions/implications*, using it to discredit the claim that women and woc were disproportionately targeted is still the statistical equivalent of setting up a strawman and whacking it.
When I countered this, (2) you claimed that the baseline Mixon used -- that of women and woc in SFF -- was disingenuous and unhelpful, and therefore classic How To Lie With Statistics.
But that's the one part of Mixon's report I actually find rather helpful, because it proved what I saw happening behind the scenes -- that WF/RH/BS's actions had a chilling effect on women and especially the woc in SFF, that they were being disproportionately bullied and abused and silenced, that because of hierarchies they were unable to hold her accountable. That WF/RH/BS's actions affected vulnerable populations disproportionately, caused them to suffer disproportionately, that she needed to be stopped.
I also don't see why disproportionate should be in scare-quotes, when it could not be statistically clearer that women and women of color in SFF were disproportionately affected. That you feel this is a disingenuous and unhelpful baseline and bad statistics -- imo, might say more about what you consider important, than the book you imply you've read and understood.
Hi. I'm a PhD student in the physical sciences.
I'm really happy for you.
Kate, apologies for doing this on your journal. I'm bowing out of this argument after this.
ETA: For clarification. I also think other aspects of Mixon's report, and some of her subsequent actions/inactions, are awful. I wouldn't go as far as to say that her report doesn't deserve a Hugo, but that's only because I have a very low opinion of the Hugo awards in the first place, and don't see winning it as an honor.
*2nd ETA: Apologies for the multiple edits; realized that I'd implied you had no grounds for choosing that baseline.