Construct_validity

Is there a major distinction between a headache and a migraine? For some people, "migraine" seems to refer to a severe debilitating condition that renders one unable to do anything else; others seem to use the term loosely as interchangeable with bad headaches. Does the term migraine denote a clinical diagnosis, or can one simply decide if their headache counts as a migraine?

Lots of people talk about how the dearth of women in high-paying careers is due to systemic sexism (anything ranging from subtle discouragement of little girls up to more overt sexism in hiring/advancement decisions). You frame the issue as simply a matter of women choosing different careers or prioritizing things other than money. As with all complex issues, the end result may be a mix of these root causes.

In your opinion, how much of the wage gap (and career gap) is due to sexism vs. choice? That is, in a world without sexism, and if all people were raised in a gender-neutral way from birth, what proportion of these gaps do you think would go away?

Also, what do you say to women who have experienced explicit sexism in their careers, especially if they're concerned that your work may be used by bigots who are dismissive of real hardships that women have and continue to face?

That's fair, and we shouldn't judge women for choosing different careers (and teaching is a vital and wonderful profession!). That being said, I think your argument somewhat sidesteps a major issue at play.

For example, I work in a field (public health) with is female-dominated, except at the top, where most of the upper-level researchers and supervisors are men. It wouldn't surprise me if, controlling for level, men and women earn the exact same: in your book, that would count as zero wage gap. But isn't it still somewhat problematic that men dominate the high-ranking positions? Now if that's entirely a matter of choice - if women inherently value extra leave and flexibility over rank and pay - that's fine. But, if even part of it has to do with either childhood socialization (e.g. girls are raised to be meek and boys to be competitive) or biases in determining promotions, then your data still wouldn't capture the harmful effects of sexism.

I'm guessing that when the admins were seeing a concrete example unfolding in front of them of how online forums could cause substantial damage, they were moved to crack down on other subreddits that were likely harmful.

What's the process for setting initial odds for an election (or other event)? And how about the process for updating odds as more info (and betting patterns) becomes available?

I'm imagining a boardroom full of experts shouting over assorted polls and historical data, then finally the boss is like, "12/1 it is."