> As someone running a technical recruitment agency, I can assure you that - statistically speaking - it is true that someone having built stuff in Clojure is more likely to be a good engineer than someone who did JQuery all the time.
Would you care to share those statistics? While we're at it let's also be sure to define "good engineer."
That's not a statistic, nor is it quantifiable. I'm not taking issue with your experience, I'm taking issue with the fact that you've implied your claim has quantitative rigor to it, because I'm extremely skeptical that's the case.
For what it's worth, I'm challenging you as someone who is neither a JavaScript developer nor a Clojure developer. I'm of the opinion that biases like the one the author laments are perpetuated (in part) by this leaky arguments from "statistics" that never appear.
Don't get hung up on the language. People sometimes say "statistically speaking" to mean "Based on my experience over a large number of tests". It doesn't mean "I applied a test of statistical significance to arrive at my conclusion".
You're then meant to combine their stated experience with their stated credentials and your assessment of their trustworthiness to arrive at some conclusion.
This imprecision may annoy you but it is a common way of speaking English so it's probably not in your interest to fight over the choice of wording.
Sure, I understand what you're saying. But I'll continue to challenge the use of language like that. In my opinion, saying something is true "statistically speaking" is more grievous than saying something like, "I'm 99% sure." Both are artifacts of the English language, but I think the former carries much more quantification behind it, implicitly speaking. In that sense it's not just about informal use of language.
This is because saying something is true "statistically" is a claim made in both scientific and casual contexts. It's mentally taxing to figure out which context is in play - someone could have come into this thread with actual statistics and said the same phrase, verbatim. Therefore (as I see it), it's realistically plausible that someone could read the original comment and come away believing recruiters have done actual statistical analysis a la TripleByte to arrive at their conclusion.
In english, "statistically speaking" can mean you are making a claim about the odds of something rather than a 1:1 correspondence. It is extremely common and absolutely correct.
For example I have not run a study but I am very confident that, statistically speaking, tall people are better at basketball than short people. I am saying that I have an opinion that if you were to try and choose good basketball players, biasing yourself towards the tall people will increase your odds of making a good choice. I use the phrase "statistically speaking" to make it clear I am not saying "All tall people are better at basketball than short people".
In a lot of contexts you will drop the phrase completely because you are talking to other smart people and they will know that the context of your statement is in the realm of populations and odds, but online there are a lot of pedants with poor communication skills so you have be extra clear.
If you believe this is about pedantry and the literal meaning of words, you’ve missed my point. However, you’re speaking to it: the commenter used the phrase “statistically speaking” to indicate their confidence in their assertion. I’m taking issue with the fact that they used the phrase - which, as you say, is strong enough to describe the way taller people are better at basketball - to generalize that Clojure developers are more likely to be qualified than JavaScript developers.
Idiomatically, any way you use the phrase implies great confidence in the corresponding claim. But I have not seen any substantial explanation of why this effect makes sense, which makes me extremely suspicious that the effect exists at all. I don’t particularly care about whether they’ve conducted a peer reviewed study. I care about whether or not their heuristic is backed by anything empirical. “I’ve noticed this...” doesn’t cut it, no matter how fast and loose you want to play with the literal meaning of the word in context.
It doesn't imply great confidence, it is literally saying a different thing. You seem to think it means the same thing as "scientifically speaking" or "I have evidence that". It very often means only "related to statistics". That's it. No epistemological claims needed.
"I'm so going to win the lottery"
"On average ... no you aren't" / "Statistically speaking ... no you aren't" / "If you work out the odds ... no you aren't" / etc.
If I ask you a question about some gambling game, you are going to think about it in a statistical way. I mean you will think in terms of populations and samples and odds, not that you will go perform experiments and then do a statistical analysis of that evidence in order to come to a scientific conclusion.
I, like you, am riled up by people using puff words to inflate the apparent credibility of claims, often claims that have little or no basis for actual credibility.
But I think that "statistically speaking", as it is used by nearly all English speakers, means "speaking about these groups in aggregate", not "speaking as a statistician". It doesn't even mean something about an empirical basis, it means talking about groups. I agree pretty much entirely with freshhawk's analysis.
Now, aside from _word choice_, your skepticism about whether the original poster has any empirical basis at all for their claim... well, fair enough.
The commenter said "statistically speaking" to justify part of their point. I am directly challenging their assertion and requesting evidence that they have 1) actually quantified something in more than a hand wavey manner, and 2) found the (falsifiable) conclusion they stated, based on that analysis.
I'm deeply skeptical. People like to throw around percentages and references to statistics to justify their biases, but I don't think the commenter has done nearly enough to motivate the conclusion that the modal Clojure developer is more likely to be a "good engineer" than the modal JavaScript developer.
Next time you have a blocked toilet, and the plumber says it's a problem with 'ABC' why don't you just tell him that's not quantifiable! and then tell him you think it's 'XYZ' that's the problem.
If someone who interviews thousands of people and finds a correlation between those who have some clojure experience and quality, I believe him.
For the simple reason that most programmers don't try very hard and anyone taking the time to even learn a rarely used language is demonstrating a positive quality that most don't.
If the plumber can explain to me in coherent reasoning why the problem is likely with 'ABC', I'm not going to challenge it. Especially if they don't handwave about statistics they almost assuredly don't have and I have no domain experience in plumbing. That analogy doesn't work.
I stand by my point: using words like "statistically" and "correlation" perpetuate biases which may not have a rational basis. In this entire thread no one has explained why Clojure programmers are more likely to be "good" than JavaScript programmers (nor has "good" been defined!). I could just as plausibly state that someone tried to learn Clojure because they perceive it to be a buzzword, just as JavaScript programmers are often accused of playing buzzword bingo with web development frameworks.
Empirically speaking, we haven't ended up anywhere. No matter how sure you are of this phenomenon, unless you try to make its observation more robust, it will continue to be a microcosm of the tech hiring industry. Heuristics often belie subtle biases that do not actually have a foundation in truth.
most programmers don't try very hard and anyone taking the time to even learn a rarely used language is demonstrating a positive quality that most don't.
Would you care to share those statistics? While we're at it let's also be sure to define "good engineer."