Teenager on TikTok Disrupted Thousands of Scientific Studies with a Single Video • Hacker News Board

Re: Teenager on TikTok Disrupted Thousands of Scientific Studies with a Single Video

#21

Post by ASalazarMX » Fri, Sep 24, 2021, 6:29 PM UTC

corobo wrote: post #17

ASalazarMX wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn't it be detrimental if the topic was sex? you'd have to specify "female-identifying people born with a vagina". I'm not kidding, recently I read advice for lube for "people born with a vagina". Sex is not gender, it's detrimental for communication to mix the two.

Two people have said it is detrimental to communication so far yet nobody has requested any form of clarification on what I said If anything my frequent lack of punctuation needs correcting first, that has caused infinitely more confusion. Weirdly in 20 years of forum use I've never had anyone start a discussion about it.. :)

Just as with punctuation, the intended meaning is clear within context. I knew the article was about women, but reading "female-identifying people" made me do a double take.

I don't question trans women were included too, but your phrasing made me doubt if this Tiktoker's audience was mainly trans women.

Re: Teenager on TikTok Disrupted Thousands of Scientific Studies with a Single Video

#22

Post by nickthegreek » Fri, Sep 24, 2021, 7:03 PM UTC

corobo wrote: post #10

implements wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Off-topic, but do you always use the “sex identifying” construction in place of “men / women”? - it seems a bit inelegant, and if you hold “TWAW” as true also unnecessary. Not intended as snarky, but I was slightly jarred by the ACLU’s removal of the word “woman” from a Ruth Bader Ginsburg quote yesterday, and wondered whether this was now ‘a thing’ (at least in the US).

Just trying to be inclusive tbh I try to remove gender references in all of my comments, but in this instance it was relevant so I went with the most inclusive option I could think of No idea if that's a thing for you folks, I'm in the UK. I'd have to look up ACLU to see what it stands for

Your comment is easily understood and needs no further editing. I have been working on being more inclusive and appreciate seeing examples on how its done.

Re: Teenager on TikTok Disrupted Thousands of Scientific Studies with a Single Video

#23

Post by psb31 » Fri, Sep 24, 2021, 7:32 PM UTC

indrax wrote: post #11

sct202 wrote: post #6

This is odd considering Prolific makes users input a bunch of demographic info (age, sex, location, education, ethnicity/race, etc) so that researchers can target specific demographics for their surveys. Did the researchers just assume that Prolific would deliver something balanced on it's own?

I just signed up to prolific. Their onboarding tutorial/example survey references prescreening and eligibility. I'm guessing it was on researchers to filter the demographics to what was relevant to their study. I think this is actually the right approach. Some 'balancing' algorithm would have to make assumptions about what's normal, then then the excluded participants wouldn't even show up in the research data.

I think yes, since that’s what it roughly did normally if you didn’t balance. This was a change in the normal behaviour, so if you ran a study from one week the next you wouldn’t have known that your data would change dramatically without additional screening.