[gr3ml1n]

No, it doesn't. This is a dramatic reach and complete misunderstanding of the stats. The data in table 5 is not statistically significant.

If you go down to table 6 (which is also incredibly weak), it shows the opposite: men are advancing at a higher rate than women in blind auditions.

Andrew Gelman reviewed the link as well and agreed:

https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2019/05/11/did-blind-...

[kenjackson]

Table 5 is stat sig. There’s not a p-value given but the effect sizes are large. The knit place it’s not is the semi-final and final rounds with their smaller sizes.

And table 6 shows blind auditions significantly increased the chances of women advancing from the preliminary round and winning in the final round. However women were less likely to advance past semifinals when auditions were blind. But still a net win.

Gellman is focused on the “several fold” and “50% claims” it made. But the paper shows 11.6 and 14.8 point jumps, which are supported by the paper.

[gr3ml1n]

Re-read the original link, posted again below. The claims you're making are specifically addressed and are wrong.

There are multiple critical reviews of this paper. It is well-known to be largely nonsense.

http://www.jsmp.dk/posts/2019-05-12-blindauditions/blindaudi...

[kenjackson]

I’ve read it and the author doesn’t address them. Unless they have access to additional data, such as their claims about the standard errors in Table 5 (only the Finals result has large enough errors to possibly discount). The original paper is pretty clear.