4 ms·

Precisely the question. Why indeed? Would you be more likely to hire a man than a women for an engineering role? Take the harvard implicit gender bias test f

Precisely the question. Why indeed? Would you be more likely to hire a man than a women for an engineering role? Take the harvard implicit gender bias test for one answer: https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/selectatest.html https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/selectatest.html

dongslol 10y ago
The suggestion here is that even though companies can save a bunch of money by flooding their workforces with women, they are all too obtuse to do so. 77 cents on the dollar is a huge discount. Any company that exploited this would gain an enormous advantage. So even if nearly everyone is somehow blinded by their biases, surely at least one company somewhere is smart enough to discount their biases and collect 23% in savings. Where are they? Is it possible that some company out there with unscrupulous management has already tried moneyballing the job market this way, and found it didn't work?
ar15saveslives 10y ago
> Would you be more likely to hire a man than a women for an engineering role? If they are equally good, there's a good chance I'll choose the cheaper one.
- jeremiahwv 10y ago
  Indeed, that's what we like to tell ourselves. But is that actually what's happening? Did you take the test?
  - ar15saveslives 10y ago
    Happening what? 100% equal candidates that differ only by gender? No, it's never happening.
Smaug123 10y ago
Implicit association tests probably don't work. Sources may be found at https://slatestarcodex.com/2016/08/25/devoodooifying-psychology/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2016/08/25/devoodooifying-psychol...
- disgruntledphd2 10y ago
  Well, it's a little more complicated than that. They have extremely high state-specific variance, so it's difficult to show predictive validity. They have definitely been associated with particular sets of outcomes in non-gendered/racial contexts, where you would expect the studies to be easier to run. Source: I did a bunch of them for my PhD, but my reading of the literature stopped in 2014.
flukus 10y ago
Can you do an implicit test when it's nature is made explicit?

dongslol 10y ago

The suggestion here is that even though companies can save a bunch of money by flooding their workforces with women, they are all too obtuse to do so. 77 cents on the dollar is a huge discount. Any company that exploited this would gain an enormous advantage. So even if nearly everyone is somehow blinded by their biases, surely at least one company somewhere is smart enough to discount their biases and collect 23% in savings. Where are they? Is it possible that some company out there with unscrupulous management has already tried moneyballing the job market this way, and found it didn't work?

ar15saveslives 10y ago

> Would you be more likely to hire a man than a women for an engineering role? If they are equally good, there's a good chance I'll choose the cheaper one.

jeremiahwv 10y ago
Indeed, that's what we like to tell ourselves. But is that actually what's happening? Did you take the test?
- ar15saveslives 10y ago
  Happening what? 100% equal candidates that differ only by gender? No, it's never happening.

Smaug123 10y ago

Implicit association tests probably don't work. Sources may be found at https://slatestarcodex.com/2016/08/25/devoodooifying-psychology/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2016/08/25/devoodooifying-psychol...

disgruntledphd2 10y ago
Well, it's a little more complicated than that. They have extremely high state-specific variance, so it's difficult to show predictive validity. They have definitely been associated with particular sets of outcomes in non-gendered/racial contexts, where you would expect the studies to be easier to run. Source: I did a bunch of them for my PhD, but my reading of the literature stopped in 2014.

flukus 10y ago

Can you do an implicit test when it's nature is made explicit?