Debating, Sexual Discrimination & Numbers

There's been a lot of chat recently about how women are under-represented and under or over performing at IVs, Worlds etc. depending on what result you want from it. So I've decided to do what any good number cruncher would do in this scenario; I'm going to put some numbers on it.

For this I'm using the tabs from the recent National Law Debates in Galway and from the Cork IV in December. This is as they are the two most recent tabs I have and I am confident that I was able to identify female names from male names (I wouldn't be so confident with a Worlds or Euros tabs). I also used the total speaks for the competition, not the individual speaks. I could make up some valid reason, but it's 99% because I'm lazy and it's easier to work with.

IV	Male Mean	Male Standard Deviation	Female Mean	Female Standard Deviation
Cork	362.2577	28.45621	361.3617	25.18145
Galway	372.2174	21.89606	370.8286	23.90482

What does this teach us? Apart from the fact that judges at Galway were more generous, it clearly shows that there is no meaningful difference between an average male or female speaker. The boxplot of the cumulative results from both IVs also shows this in a nice visual way. It also shows that the 25% and 75% quartiles lie essentially at the same point, showing that the distributions are essentially the same. A t-test gives the probability of there being no difference in the actual means as 0.772; for there to be a statistically significant difference, that number would have to be less than 0.05.

So one thing is abundantly clear from this; there is no discernible bias towards male speakers from judges.  One thing that has to be remembered here though, is that these were all mostly Irish judges. My own admittedly stereotyped view of the world would suggest that a bias is more likely to exist in not-so-liberal countries and thus would be more prevalent at Worlds (this is the angle I'm selling to try to get a research grant).

Where a difference does appear is in participation numbers. In both IVs the proportion of male to female speakers is approximately 2:1 (32.7% female in Cork, 33.6% male in Galway). Given the small total sample size, the 95% confidence interval (i.e. the range of possible values) for the true proportion of female debaters is between 27.3% and 39.35%. Clearly this is where there is a problem.

As a white, heterosexual, private-schooled male (and thus not part of any oppressed minority), I'm not going to spend too much time discussing the various options available to the debating community to help solve this problem. Just to say that when it comes to participation, I think the onus is much more on the individual societies to up their game in recruitment, training and retention than on changing the rules of the game. There clearly is nothing wrong with the game itself which handicaps women.

George Lee: Vain or Victim?

A mere nine months ago, George Lee was elected to the Dáil. His election was indicative of the mood at the time; the public had become staunch Fine Gael supporters, mainly due to them being "not Fianna Fáil" as much as anything else. Lee, by his own admission, similarly picked FG as they essentially have no prima face stand-point on economic issues like the rest of the opposition parties do, and so would be maleable to his suggestions. This is not unusual; Garret FitzGerald joined FG for the same reason, and nearly managed to transform the party and move it away from it's traditional roots of being the large farmers party. I don't blame Lee for that choice; it makes sense if you want to have an immediate impact to choose a platform that will let you do that rather than joining some smaller party or runing as an independent.

However, FG seemed to give Lee the cold shoulder, and treat him as a sort of circus act. They'd wheel him out to get the crowd in, and then force him to hand things over to the big boys, Enda and Richard, when things got serious. Sure, he's only a journalist who doesn't know anything about politics right? They didn't treat him like a serious politician but expected him to have the loyalty of a serious politician. Big mistake.

Lee is a damn good economist by any measure, as his pre-RTE career shows. Yet FG, were slow to bring him into the fold and let him help craft policy. Why? There's the sense of seniority about politics in Ireland, that age somehow makes you more qualified, that years spent helping people with medical cards makes you an expert on the economy, that you have to do your time in the back benches before moving up. Kenny was presumably wary of the wrath of the other backbenchers if he promoted young Lee too quickly. That would seem to have cost him a great electoral and governing assest.

The worst thing coming from it though, is that now we have a very high profile example of how closed a shop politics is. We all knew about the nepotism, but to see a major political party essentially give up a very well educated, very well known. very intelligent, trusted voice on the economy tells me that these politicians are out first to look out for their own. This is a huge disincentive to experts from all fields to trying to get involved in politics. When people talk about the detachment of politicians from everyday life; this is what we mean! In any business, not only do you want to best people, you promote them when you find them and you do all you can to keep them.

That all being said, I do think Lee may have been a little premature in going. He should have known that politics here isn't going to change over night. He got a front bench offer when he made the threat, and he should have realised the power his high profile gave him to embarass FG. He could be doing something today to help the country but he was too proud and self-rightous to accept the offer when it was made. Who cares if it was made under duress? Practically every decision in politics is made under duress.

My Problem with Neo-Nazis

Or one of them anyway.

I just can't seem to understand why neo-nazis deny the Holocaust. Assuming that the hate Jew, fags, crips and all who where murdered in the death camps, surely it's more consistent with their mindset to be proud of having wiped six million "undesirables" off the face of the planet.

I could understand Germans wanting to deny the Holocaust. The massive guilt of having to deal with that can lead to a very natural human response of denial, which I'm sure we've all done at some point. As a nation however, the German people seem to be taking it very maturely and more than willing to openly talk about it.

Why would neo-Nazis deny the Holocaust? It doesn't make their cause any more palatable to normal people, it only shows them as being further on the edges of the mainstream discourse than one could have possible imagined. Is it a natural response to them seeing the jewish people get "sympathy" territory and treatment from the international community and they want to snuff out that? If so, then they grossly overestimate how much influence they have, which shows them to be complete buffoons when it comes to political awareness on top of everything else.

It just doesn't make any logical sense!

The Greatest Show on Earth

Superbowl XLIV is a mere three days away. I am literally wetting myself with excitement. 


The Superbowl trail is littered with monumental stories, implausible comebacks and Goliaths being laid low. If New Orleans win on Sunday though, you'd find it hard to get a better story or find a city more in need of that win than any other. Only a few shorts years ago, the city was destroyed and the Saint's stadium the Superdome housed thousands of the homeless despite suffering terrible damage itself. Drew Brees decided to come to New Orleans, not only because nowhere else would have him, but because he genuinely wanted to help a city on it's knees.

Brees has managed to turn the fortunes of the team around, and has led them to a first ever Superbowl appearance. I've seen videos from New Orleans when they beat the Vikings for the NFC Championship; the place went mental. The whole city has been lifted by this. Not only that, but the whole team and Brees in particular have been incredibly active in the city, helping out with whatever charity work they can. Brees has even moved his principle residence to New Orleans, an unusual event for an NFL pro. 


If Brees and the Saints win it, it couldn't happen to better guys and neither could it be more important for a city.


That is the story. Unfortunately, it's Payton Manning and the Colts that stand in their way. As much as I want the Saints to win, I just can't see it happening in reality. The Colts are the complete package, with only a perceived weakness in special teams as their only constant criticism. The Colts defence can do a good enough job on the New Orleans line to make life tricky for Brees, and I can't see the Saints brutish but unsophisticated defence stopping the most intelligent quarter-back in the game from picking up another Superbowl MVP to weigh down his already groaning trophy shelf. 


There's been alot of chat about the possibility of Dwight Freeney not playing. It's a factor, but I don't think there's enough in the Saint's defence to stop the key Colts plays. If the game is to be won or lost by either side, it's when the Colts have it that matters. If the Saints defence can actually get to Manning again and again and make hits without giving away oodles of penalty yards, and if they can shut down the Colts running game, and if their man-coverage secondary can hold up; then they have a chance. 


That's a lot of if's though.