[swatow]

Isn't the exact opposite also possible? That there are all kinds of biases in the world, but studies are being selected for (a) showing a bias against women and (b) showing that women are objectively as good as or better than men?

[tomlock]

To put it another way, the following article was posted, upvoted, and generated almost no discussion regarding its "methods" and the "evidence" it presented:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8909954

Is it possible that this is a result of there being a bias against the evidence presented in pro-woman/anti-bias articles, while pro-man articles receive little attention? Have we sufficiently offset that bias?

[xentronium]

It did generate some discussion before.

https://hn.algolia.com/?query=Is%20There%20Anything%20Good%2...

[tomlock]

Sure! But I'd think that based on history there's a fair chance that studies that show (a) are being selected for because they are factual. For example, zero women have been american presidents (although maybe that'll change soon) :). Also there is a lot of evidence that the historically assumed inverse of (b), that man are as good as or better than women, in almost every domain, has made the selection of (b) something that people immediately perceive as an anomaly, a bias. Really, it makes sense that women are better than men at some things on average, and that men are better than women at some things on average. The number of women in tech certainly shows that there's some things at least that women aren't being hired as much for. I'll have to see the data suggesting the selection of "facts" is now leaning entirely towards women, but I haven't.