You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Nornagest comments on LW Women: LW Online - Less Wrong Discussion

29 [deleted] 15 February 2013 01:43AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (590)
Tags: lw_women gender meta

Comments (590)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Nornagest 16 February 2013 01:35:08AM *  1 point [-]

Thus, the chance that a female got an 800 on the Math SAT due to luck is higher than the chance that a male got an 800 on the Math SAT due to luck.

Shouldn't it be possible to estimate the magnitude of this effect by comparing score distributions on tests with differently sized question pools, or write-in versus multiple choice, or which are otherwise more or less susceptible to luck?

Comment author: Vaniver 16 February 2013 03:50:51AM 1 point [-]

You'd need a model of how much luck depends on those factors. Test-retest variability gives a good measure of how much one person's scores vary from test to test; apparently for the SAT the test-retest standard deviation is about 30 points. (We can't quite apply this number, since it might not be independent of score, but it's better than nothing.)

Comment author: CronoDAS 16 February 2013 01:48:43AM *  0 points [-]

That's part of the whole "getting more information" thing.

I think.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit