Wage gap scientifically proves: women are worthless

Job interview site sound modulated women to sound like men and vice versa to prove how evil the wage gap is.
To their surprise, they found that women modulated to male voices performed even worse, and men modulated to women voices performed better.
The meaning:
A. Women are significantly worse at abilities required for tech jobs
B. Employers actually discriminate men - they would rather hire a woman of lower abilities before man of higher abilities, presumably because of female looks.

Other urls found in this thread:

blog.interviewing.io/we-built-voice-modulation-to-mask-gender-in-technical-interviews-heres-what-happened/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

I bet the jews did this

Can you fucking read you kike? Rest of it says its meaningless and negligible.

>scientifically
blog.interviewing.io/we-built-voice-modulation-to-mask-gender-in-technical-interviews-heres-what-happened/
Have you looked at the fucking page for this? There's a BANE picture in it, what kind of scientific case study has memes riddled into it?

Relax, white knights. Your dominatrixes won't leave you if you post valiantly enough in defense of the vaginal jew.

FUCK YOU IT FITS WITH MY FUCKING NARRATIVE SO I DONT NEED TO FUCKING FACT CHECK IT BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY MY POSTION IS ALWAYS FUCKING CORRECT AND SJWS ARE THE ONES WHO CITE INCORRECT UNSOURCED INFORMATION CUNT

Not an argument

>the findings don't fit the narrative
INCONCLUSIVE! NEGLIGIBLE! MEANINGLESS!

>Not statistically significant

>what kind of scientific case study has memes riddled into it
If argument X has a funny image from batman universe, argument X can't be true
>scientific case study
If it follows the basic rules of scientific method, it's already more scientific than the "science" in women and gender studies academic faculties.

There's more than enough real scientific research disproving the wage gap, don't go for cheap tabloid crap because it only makes your argument look weak.

There's loads of issues in the page besides the bane picture that makes it pseudoscience at best. Telling me something isn't an argument isn't an argument either.

It takes much more than the scientific method to make an article "scientific", that's why the term pseudoscience exists. Go get an actual degree in a science field if you want to know what I mean by that. Gender studies isn't science, comparing this to that just goes to show you know exactly how weak the article is. Also you're claiming science can prove something, it really feels like someone with a gender studies degree is more educated than you are.

A research isn't childish debatism that may or may not contain argumentative fallacies, it has to be scientifically founded onto reasonable and empirical evidence, otherwise it goes into the garbage.

This article is purely right-wing flavored SJW propaganda. Go fuck yourself, kike.

So do we change the way we treat women or do we change the way women behave/think? Something needs to be changed.

>>Also you're claiming science can prove something

Listen we all know women are fucking worthless but when the next sentence is "these are not statistically significant" then it's not a source to use for anything

You never got too much into science do you ?

> The "Sonic HedgeHog" gene in embryology
> The "Pikachu-rin" protein in retina
...

A fucking kike presenting dishonest and manipulative information though. Colour me surprised boys.

BANE?

Saved. Based Israeli, hope it isn't a trick.

People who complain about systematic -isms don't understand that it implies the current generation of that particular group has been rendered useless because of it.

Relax, tinfoil hat, the significant result that knowledge of a interviewee's gender has no real effect on the outcome of a technical interview already doesn't fit the narrative that the liberals are pushing.

weak trends become statistically significant with more N observations (or they regress to zero).

Yeah you're not wron, gender differences are psychologically embedded by birth. Men and women speak in different ways that can be generally distinguishable.

I dont think women are biologically inferior but they cant escape the fact that they have been raised to think and act like women

>when you flip a coin it's going to end up as heads.
>.... or tails

Ive never been outperformed by any women in anything physical/mental/emotional Unless she is professionally skilled (me trying to repair a tv vs a female technician). Also I find that to be fairly the same with men/boys. I am not intelligent nor "the best" at anything I just follow instructions and or try to find the most logical solution to a problem and when doing it actually try to do my best *even taking out the trash..
>>close bag
>>lift it checking nothing is leaking
>>take out trash
>>clean trash can
>>clean around trash can
>>place new newspaper at the bottom
>>replace with new bag

most people female/male just do the minimum in everything/anything they do in life..but men either try harder or are slightly better in everything.

this.

the number of cucks posting in this thread is ridiculous. All scientific experiments extrapolate wider findings from small study groups. you cant test all 7 billion people. But when this doesnt play into muh progressive liberalism it isnt viable apparently.

>not believing in psuedoscience makes you a cuck

You're right that experiments extrapolate but there has to be a reasonable amount to do that. This study self confesses that it did not have a significant enough sample because it wasn't the main focus of the experiments, it wasn't someone trying to sensor them.

This. When you do a research, you decide if the results will. be relevant and conclusive *before* you actually get the results. People who do not understand this and cannot see how doing otherwise would gravely harm the objectivity of research, have absolutely no place in science.

Most equal pay laws will benefit men more than women. They will hurt employers, and are bullshit, but young men are more likely to be outnumbered in a workspace and are naturally more likely to extort their employers for money.

Most equal wage laws simply shift the burden of proof from the employee making the claim to the employers. Meaning that even if both the employer is innocent and magically kept enough data to prove it is innocent, it still has to prove it is innocent in court, which costs $$$$$. It will be easier to settle. These laws are basically ways for dishonest or dumb employees to extort money from their employer.

Since men graduate from college less, they are most likely to be in a situation where they are outnumbered by women with the same job title. They are natural more likely to lie or stand up for themselves. Women are more likely than men to sleep with higher ups for perks. All this adds up to men being more likely to file gender discrimination lawsuits. So, feminists are fucking dumb or fucking commies who just want to hurt capitalists. It is probably a mix of the two.

There's a scientific framework around the definition of "statistically significant", according to which scientific experiments can or cannot be extrapolated to a wider population. This way the paper is right.

You are right too though, in that studies in sociology (bullshit science really) don't usually care about being statistically significant unless it harms the point they were trying to make which is the case here. The simple fact those morons got butthurt by their credo being proved wrong is laughable enough without having to care about extrapolation to a wider testing set.