A small tool to view real-world ActivityPub objects as JSON! Enter a URL
or username from Mastodon or a similar service below, and we'll send a
request with
the right
Accept
header
to the server to view the underlying object.
{
"@context": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams",
"https://spinster.xyz/schemas/litepub-0.1.jsonld",
{
"@language": "und"
}
],
"actor": "https://spinster.xyz/users/Eriomra",
"attachment": [],
"attributedTo": "https://spinster.xyz/users/Eriomra",
"cc": [
"https://spinster.xyz/users/Eriomra/followers"
],
"content": "<p>I’ve been told a lot by men I know that there is a natural and biologic distinction between men and women’s intellectual abilities. <em>Men are simply just more able to be at the top</em>, they say. They use for that two examples: video games and chess, two games where <em>“of course women participate and can play”</em> but where the top players are overwhelmingly male.</p><p>I think this article is a brilliant demonstration of how flawed this reasoning is. They show that of course if you have a participation gap, it is only logical that you will not have as much women at the top. For that, in the article, the author compared statistically the female population of chess players to the same male population, and demonstrates that they have the same distribution.</p><p>Moreover, from the article:</p><blockquote><p><em>“But this does not answer our questions. Is, for example, a gap of 167 points between the male and female top players unexpectedly large? To answer this question, we are now going to look at all ratings as a single pool, dropping the gender identifiers altogether. We then randomly draw 17,899 ratings from this pool. These form the “overrepresented” group, and the remaining 1,165 ratings form the “underrepresented” group. These numbers are exactly the numbers of male and female players in our data, but we have instead created completely arbitrary groups with these numbers of individuals. We record the top rating in both groups. We repeat this process 100,000 times. (For the aficionados: we are following the logic of permutation tests.)</em></p></blockquote><blockquote><p><em>Guess what? The difference between the top ratings in the Overrepresented and Underrepresented groups is a whopping 153 points on average (with a standard deviation of 93). Again, remember that these groups are completely identical to each other except in their number of individuals. The mere fact that the underrepresented group constitutes only 6.1% of the population causes a large difference in top ratings. In this light, the real gap of 167 points could easily be due to chance instead of due to a real difference between women and men, just like the gap in our thought experiment. It is that simple.”</em></p></blockquote><p>I found that it was a very clear explanation: <a href=\"https://en.chessbase.com/post/what-gender-gap-in-chess\"></a><a href=\"https://en.chessbase.com/post/what-gender-gap-in-chess\" rel=\"ugc\">https://en.chessbase.com/post/what-gender-gap-in-chess</a></p>",
"context": "https://spinster.xyz/contexts/18f6bc8d-50fd-4a7d-8c13-86b146f0821d",
"conversation": "https://spinster.xyz/contexts/18f6bc8d-50fd-4a7d-8c13-86b146f0821d",
"id": "https://spinster.xyz/objects/4f020d5c-c555-4185-8770-42071ee32e34",
"published": "2020-11-12T08:53:03.026467Z",
"repliesCount": 1,
"sensitive": false,
"source": "I've been told a lot by men I know that there is a natural and biologic distinction between men and women's intellectual abilities. *Men are simply just more able to be at the top*, they say. They use for that two examples: video games and chess, two games where *\"of course women participate and can play\"* but where the top players are overwhelmingly male.\n\nI think this article is a brilliant demonstration of how flawed this reasoning is. They show that of course if you have a participation gap, it is only logical that you will not have as much women at the top. For that, in the article, the author compared statistically the female population of chess players to the same male population, and demonstrates that they have the same distribution.\n\nMoreover, from the article:\n> *“But this does not answer our questions. Is, for example, a gap of 167 points between the male and female top players unexpectedly large? To answer this question, we are now going to look at all ratings as a single pool, dropping the gender identifiers altogether. We then randomly draw 17,899 ratings from this pool. These form the “overrepresented” group, and the remaining 1,165 ratings form the “underrepresented” group. These numbers are exactly the numbers of male and female players in our data, but we have instead created completely arbitrary groups with these numbers of individuals. We record the top rating in both groups. We repeat this process 100,000 times. (For the aficionados: we are following the logic of permutation tests.)*\n\n> *Guess what? The difference between the top ratings in the Overrepresented and Underrepresented groups is a whopping 153 points on average (with a standard deviation of 93). Again, remember that these groups are completely identical to each other except in their number of individuals. The mere fact that the underrepresented group constitutes only 6.1% of the population causes a large difference in top ratings. In this light, the real gap of 167 points could easily be due to chance instead of due to a real difference between women and men, just like the gap in our thought experiment. It is that simple.”*\n\nI found that it was a very clear explanation: https://en.chessbase.com/post/what-gender-gap-in-chess",
"summary": "",
"tag": [],
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"type": "Note"
}