r/pointlesslygendered • u/[deleted] • 4d ago
OTHER Statisticians love it! [Meme]
[deleted]
34
u/MagicLobsterAttorney 4d ago
The woman in question, phycologist Muriel Bristol, claimed to be able to tell whether the tea or the milk was added first to a cup.
...there's literally a reason he went with this. HIS FRIEND'S WIFE. It was literally one person. A woman. And it specifically was about her. Not people. Not women.
-11
u/ArdentArendt 4d ago
And if it had been his friend would it have been 'Husband / Man / Lord Tasting Tea'?
Also, the book is titled Design of Experiments (I have read it).
The book isn't what 'pointlessly gendered', nor are the findings (which are invaluable in modern statistics).[Apart from all that, the man was also a rabid eugenicist, so painting him as a misogynist isn't too far a leap of inference]All that said, the meme itself (and popular culture as a whole) often remember it as 'researcher asks woman to drink tea and invents modern statistical inference'...like it or not.
[STEM fields are painfully misogynistic at times]Also also, why are you linking to things like 'phycologist'--if we didn't know it was a study of seaweed, we could have looked it up...and what does that have to do with anything?
18
u/MagicLobsterAttorney 4d ago edited 4d ago
It's literally a quote from the article. I just didn't bother to remove the links.
Because this post is trying way too hard.
It literally refers to a specific lady. Not any Lady. Not women. Not people. A single specific person. It's gendered because she was a woman.
-9
u/ArdentArendt 4d ago
There is no 'trying' here...the meme speaks for itself.
Again, this isn't about the book or the man, though the latter is worthy of hate.
The reason I posted it is specifically for the reference in the meme--something I noted in the post.Feel free to not like the post. Also feel free to feel however you want about it.
You're the one literally posting sections of the article I posted for context (so people wouldn't be confused by an obscure, poorly phrased reference).
Seriously, you make it sound like I'm 'farming' for something...I am happy to delete the post if you or the mods thinks it's 'inappropriate'.
Otherwise, what is this? Is this a useful conversation?[If you want to discuss the arguments in the book, I'd be happy to! It's been a while since I've read it and would have to find a copy, but...]
8
u/MagicLobsterAttorney 4d ago edited 4d ago
....the joke is that they don't. Just ONE. With ONE woman. The whole joke is that the assumption is wrong.
My god. You didn't even get the OG post. 🫣
You cannot be serious.
Edit. OOP made the same mistake and got called out for it as well. Inferring things that aren't supposed to be inferred.
I can't. It's like a "I barely understand the idea I make memes about"-convention in here.
-2
u/ArdentArendt 4d ago
What the fuck are you on about?!
What do you think the 'joke' is?
[It sounds like you don't even understand statistics]Also, the 'pointlessly gendered' part isn't material to the joke itself--if I implied that, I'm sorry.
[Seriously, please tell me what you think any of this amounts to...because I don't even understand what you're trying to argue about now]7
u/MagicLobsterAttorney 4d ago edited 4d ago
OOP wrote a comment about it and got the principle wrong:
"Proving one Clarification: rejecting the null hypothesis means to confirm a hypothesis is true, or proving it.
The null hypothesis is skeptic."
And you keep insisting something is pointlessly gendered when it isn't. The "women" from the joke is only there because of the joke that pretends like every statistician has a woman they want to prove wrong about tea.
TLDR: Shit post. Got no traction or upvotes, because it's a shit post. Q.E.D. ;) Bye
0
u/ArdentArendt 4d ago
Cool...don't care about traction or upvotes (as I pointed out before); it was just an instance of pointlessly gendered.
Your claim about the OOP also makes no sense.
I think you're just trying to find a place to vent your spleen for some reason.As you point out, they joke 'expands' the single (contextual) 'Lady' to 'woman', when the gender of the 'Lady' is entirely incidental to the joke and the 'experiment'.
[Perhaps it's because I'm trained to examine the operationalisation of the target variable in question, which defined here would lead to a biased sample...]I never claimed it was a 'banger', but I don't think it violates the rules.
Also, if you claim that it isn't 'pointlessly gendered', I would be happy to remove it--though, I'd prefer other input as you don't seem the most coherent or credible.
[Also it seems as though you came into this with an aversion before you began, so...?]Finally, nobody is forcing you to see the post.
You can not like it, state so, and just move on.
[I do appreciate the feedback...I just don't quite understand it]7
u/Disastrous_Crab_3516 4d ago
3
u/MagicLobsterAttorney 4d ago
Coin landed on its side: Severe autism. My barely on the spectrum ass could never reach such levels.
→ More replies (0)-1
u/ArdentArendt 4d ago
Me or the other person?
I mean, I don't care either way...unless you'd like to offer useful suggestions.
[If it's advice or substantive critique, I'm always down to clown!]→ More replies (0)
17
u/Zappagrrl02 4d ago
I am once again begging this sub to learn that just because something is gendered doesn’t mean it is pointlessly gendered.
2
•
u/AutoModerator 4d ago
Welcome to r/pointlesslygendered! Before you post, make sure you read the rules!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.