Really interesting text, thanks.
But I think this last statement
"or Texas schools to waste money copying Wisconsin."
was meant to be the other way around
Simpson's Paradox
31–40 of 52 posts
Re: Simpson's Paradox
#32Judea Pearl has formalized a resolution to Simpson's Paradox: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.34.... An oversimplification of his idea would be to say that given assumptions about the causal independence of variables, it becomes clear which way you should group the data. Although it's not always possible to make these independence assumptions, much of the time they are obvious and uncontrover…
Well, it certainly makes more sense to look at the by department data rather than the aggregate data. But I would say that the fact that we see such large disparities in which departments are applied to is already enough to refute the idea that male and female applicants are pretty much the same, and that therefore it would be pretty reckless to conclude any sex discrimination based on the difference in acceptance rates.
Re: Simpson's Paradox
#33 I had a hard time understanding the last graphic, because I was reading on an iPad, and the sliders don't work. I thought it was all static, and couldn't match the numbers in the graph with the previously mentioned numbers, as the defaults of the sliders do not give a simpson's paradox.
Re: Simpson's Paradox
#34FWIW, Simpson's paradox is a "veridical" paradox, not a "vertical" paradox as noted in the article. Apparently veridical isn't yet accepted by spelling checkers. (As I'm writing, Chrome offers the single suggestion "vertical" for my "veridical".)
Re: Simpson's Paradox
#35Judea Pearl has formalized a resolution to Simpson's Paradox: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.34.... An oversimplification of his idea would be to say that given assumptions about the causal independence of variables, it becomes clear which way you should group the data. Although it's not always possible to make these independence assumptions, much of the time they are obvious and uncontrover…
Well, it certainly makes more sense to look at the by department data rather than the aggregate data. But I would say that the fact that we see such large disparities in which departments are applied to is already enough to refute the idea that male and female applicants are pretty much the same, and that therefore it would be pretty reckless to conclude any sex discrimination based on the difference in acceptance ra…
[deleted]
Re: Simpson's Paradox
#36That is some sexy javascript.
thank you! :D
Re: Simpson's Paradox
#37Those interactive charts and graphs!! (My first encounter with vudlab and am loving it!)
Re: Simpson's Paradox
#38Really interesting text, thanks. But I think this last statement "or Texas schools to waste money copying Wisconsin." was meant to be the other way around
I may have read it wrong, but I think the statement is correct. Texas minorities outperformed Wisconsin's, but the stats made it look like Wisconsin's minorities did better.
Re: Simpson's Paradox
#39Really interesting text, thanks. But I think this last statement "or Texas schools to waste money copying Wisconsin." was meant to be the other way around
I may have read it wrong, but I think the statement is correct. Texas minorities outperformed Wisconsin's, but the stats made it look like Wisconsin's minorities did better.
To elaborate: Black students in Texas outperform black students in Wisconsin, hispanic students in Texas outperform hispanic students in Wisconsin, and white students in Texas outperform white students in Wisconsin.
Overall test scores are higher in Wisconsin only because white students in both states are the highest scoring group, and Wisconsin schools have a higher proportion of white students than Texas schools.
To the extend that any of this can be copied, it would probably be better for Wisconsin to improve the test scores of its ethnic groups to Texan levels, rather than for Texas to emulate Wisconsin's lilly-whiteness.
Re: Simpson's Paradox
#40Reading up on Simpson's Paradox again made me realize something: women retrieving custody more often than men appears to me to be a perfect example of Simpson's Paradox. Overall, women get custody more often than men, this is true, but if you consider only the cases where men actually asked for or attempted to retrieve custody, this is no longer true[0]. [0]: http://www.villainouscompany.com/vcblog/archives/2012/04/c…
How to interpret that, though? Seems likely to me that who asks for custody would be influenced by their chances of receiving it. How many of those cases are "contested custody"?
Then that article places the claim "Additional evidence, however, indicates that women may be less able to afford the lawyers and experts needed in contested custody cases (see “Family Law Overview”) and that, in contested cases, different and stricter standards are applied to mothers." without providing any data. So it ends up being a propaganda piece, which makes it not very trustworthy.