Highlights From The Comments On Survey Harassment Rates
Read the original on Slate Star Codex →
Follows up on
↳ SSC Survey Results: Sexual Harassment Levels By Field — Survey · Apr 2018
Summary
A Highlights-From-Comments companion to his sexual-harassment-by-field survey. brmic couldn't reproduce some of the reported correlations, so Scott removed them and conceded Figure 6 was 'barely worth it.' Comments debate whether male-skewed fields have less harassment (the TIME/Edlund/Barber gender-ratio evidence + CalTech's low rate, vs contrary Pew/Alaska data), selection bias (Rolaran), a real methodology flaw (Rachael: 'ever harassed' conflated with current industry — teenage retail jobs leak in), the startups-vs-'dinosaur-tech' distinction (Velleman), introversion as the default explanation (Doug), and Terran's finding that profession still matters after controlling for Big-5 traits. Scott graciously concedes several flaws and downplays the by-group breakdowns to discourage ingroup-vs-ingroup point-scoring.
Why this score
Quality 66 · Strong. 66 — Strong floor for a Highlights companion, lifted by Scott's genuinely good epistemic practice (conceding non-replicating correlations, removing a weak figure, flagging the 'ever-harassed' flaw). The narrower, more-methodological topic and in-the-weeds comments keep it a notch below the top companions.
Claude’s paradigm shift 40 · Moderate. 40 — Moderate. A response post; substance is the commenters'.
Real-world impact 2 · Minor. 2 — a companion to the survey post; within-discourse reach.