The original posting of the study, by HBR, went on and on about the male/female split... but admitted that it was determined by using the "strongly gendered" Real Names of the twitter users.
And yet, not once did the article suggest that perhaps the male/female split might be because women aren't as cavalier with their Real Names, or that a significantly greater number of women have gender-ambiguous names or nicknames than men? (Girls named Charlie vs boys named Sue?)
Maybe the original study does, but it's not available thru my subscription to ACM.
Comments
The original posting of the study, by HBR, went on and on about the male/female split... but admitted that it was determined by using the "strongly gendered" Real Names of the twitter users.
And yet, not once did the article suggest that perhaps the male/female split might be because women aren't as cavalier with their Real Names, or that a significantly greater number of women have gender-ambiguous names or nicknames than men? (Girls named Charlie vs boys named Sue?)
Maybe the original study does, but it's not available thru my subscription to ACM.