Pua online dating usernames jehovahs witness dating sites
The paper doesn’t give a lot of the analyses I want to see, and doesn’t make its data public, so we’ll have to go with the limited information they provide.
They do not provide an analysis of the population as a whole (!
Eyeballing it, it looks about 2/3 the size of the female effect, and maybe? The study has no hypothesis for why both sexes have fewer requests approved when their gender is known, without which it seems kind of hard to speculate about the significance of the phenomenon for one gender in particular.
For example, suppose that the reason revealing gender decreases acceptance rates is because corporate contributors tend to use their (gendered) real names and non-corporate contributors tend to use handles like 133T_HAXX0R.
There is a similar drop for men, but the effect is not as strong.” In other words, they conclude there is gender bias among outsiders because obvious-women do worse than gender-anonymized-women.
They admit that obvious-men also do worse than gender-anonymized men, but they ignore this effect because it’s smaller.
In other words, if you know somebody’s a woman, you’re more likely to approve her request than you would be on the merits alone.
We can’t quantify exactly how much this is, because the paper doesn’t provide numbers, just graphs.
It hides on page 16 that men also have fewer requests approved when their gender is known.
It describes the effect for women as larger, but does not report the size of the male effects, nor whether the difference is statistically significant.
Among outsiders, women do the same as/better than men when gender is hidden, and the same as/worse than men when gender is revealed.
I can’t be more specific than this because the study doesn’t give numbers and I’m trying to eyeball confidence intervals on graphs.
The study does not provide enough information to determine whether this is statistically significant.