8 ms·

I think it's worth considering that we're seeing some survivorship bias here - it's possible that she's the only woman on the panel because she thinks this way.

by _lex 9y ago

I think it's worth considering that we're seeing some survivorship bias here - it's possible that she's the only woman on the panel because she thinks this way. In other words, it's possible that other women who would have seen this event as being rooted in sexism may eventually be a part of so many similar events during their career that they effectively burn out and switch to more female friendly fields. This has been my experience working alongside women in software engineering - the ones who pay attention to how they might be treated differently leave. It's also one of the hardest things about being black in tech - you must ignore many possible slights and assume that nobody is purposefully racist. You must construct alternative narratives to explain things that you see day in and day out, otherwise it's easy to get swallowed by doubt and lose your ability to contribute effectively. I call it assuming positive intent. It's how you survive.

natch 9y ago
The causation might also run the other way. She might have survived in the field and built up this attitude because she was fortunate early on in her career to have worked with some really good people who were just focused on the science, as opposed to being into trivial stuff like workplace power games. So there might have been some luck involved. She did say that early on she worked with great people. If that's the cause of her attitude, the point about survivorship bias is still valid... but the reasons for survival are different. The luck of having a good work environment (unusual, some would say) caused the good experience and allowed her to stay in the field with a good attitude. Edit: I'm not claiming it was definitely the way I say in this particular case, versus the way you said. I'm just saying both possibilities should be considered. Also we should acknowledge that sexism does exist, apart from perceptions of sexism, which admittedly can sometimes be wrong.
randomguy23 9y ago
If you wear sexism-colored glasses, don't be surprised if everything looks like sexism. That, I think, is what she's getting at. If you're always looking for a slight, always looking for a snide remark, you'll find it. Perception shapes reality.
- jccalhoun 9y ago
  "If you wear sexism-colored glasses, don't be surprised if everything looks like sexism." and if you wear glasses that block out sexism, don't be surprised if nothing looks like sexism.
  - qznc 9y ago
    So, how should I deal with it? The only way I see is to have an objective definition, which can be objectively applied no matter which glasses I wear. What would that definition of sexism be?
    - dmix 9y ago
      No, this is silly. All language and behaviour has context. This idea that you can eliminate the shades of grey to find some absolute definition is largely what makes me uncomfortable with the more extreme proponents of this stuff. Such as those who believe particular words in isolation are always bad regardless of context. It would be much healthier culturally if we take into full consideration the meaning and intent of the accused, as well as the feelings of the apparent victim. Which I feel like the OP's comment highlights. For ex, the moderator could have been oblivious to the fact she hadn't spoken much, as the only woman there, and when he asked the question he may indeed have been so excited that he spoke for her. The kind of people who get moderator jobs at big events like this are the extrovert types. The ones who talk before listening... so I don't think that is entirely unrealistic here. An extrovert too busy looking for a chance to talk himself, instead of being sensitive to the amount others have spoken? This just as likely as him believing he could do a better job at explaining the subject, merely because she was a woman. So if we look at the objective facts: that a lone woman on a panel wasn't allowed to speak, even when her expert subject was brought up, would seem like the moderator was sexist. But digging into the context it's possible there was far more to it and this is often lost in the shades of grey when you only view it from a single perspective.
      - mark-r 9y ago
        To know the truth we would need to look at how the other panel members were treated. If the moderator spoke for them as well, or tried to but was forcefully overridden, then sexism probably doesn't come into play. But if she was the only one, well... I wish I had time to view the proceedings for myself.
imron 9y ago
> I call it assuming positive intent. It's how you survive. Assuming positive intent is generally a good way to live, and it makes life significantly less stressful.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
lr4444lr 9y ago
Or maybe she's just so classy that she can see taking the high ground offers stronger rebuke instead of objecting to the slight. Hubeny was not allowed to speak as uninterruptedly as the other panelists. I'm not really too thrilled at Talkington's outburst - it kind of makes the offense about her, not Hubeny, who if she wanted to could have asked Holt to shut up - but the sentiment was warranted if you watch more of the video for context. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Er7qPv8jsZo&t=3713s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Er7qPv8jsZo&t=3713s
- dating_advice 9y ago
  Hubeny doesn't seem like a person who would tell someone to shut up though, and sexism or not, it's basic politeness to give shy people a bit more room. Certainly after announcing that you now finally want to hear their perspective :/ I doubt that moderator can watch that part and say "yeah, that's good moderation". Just reading the FB post, I was taken aback a little, to be perfectly honest I rolled my eyes at "why is this sexism still happening" because from the description it didn't strike me as necessarily sexist. But now after having seen what a friendly and generous person Hubeny is, and even more importantly what interesting things she had to say, I'm kind of proud that it made Talkington angry and finally speak up. Hubeny may not need "white knighting", but the impetus comes from a good place IMHO. What of it if it makes the offense about Taffington? I also get mad when someone else mistreats another person in my eyes; if the victim in my eyes isn't a victim in their own comes secondary. That is probably arrogant, or even ironic because it can be disrespectful, but I feel it's usually easier to clear the air after overreacting or misreading a situation, than to muster the courage to stand up for someone after you already got used to not doing it. You have to do it when you see it, maybe after double checking, but you can't linger too long. Certainly not in a situation like that, where mustering the courage takes a lot either way. Hubeny is fine, but for Taffington this was and maybe is nerve wrecking. So kudos where kudos are due :) Thanks for the context! That post was really missing video.
  - lr4444lr 9y ago
    I didn't mean for her to tell Holt to literally "shut up", but that Hubeny handled it as she want to - which I conclude based on my confidence in her ability and stature to do so and from her follow-up comment - and she was in fact "White Knighted" as what's meant by the term to have jumped in, even if Talkington was female. Maybe I was raised in a different generation, but disrupting a staged event from the audience unless it's done to prevent clear and present danger is considered rude, and two rude behaviors (Holt's being the first) do not make etiquette, even if comes from a place of warranted indignation. That's what post-commentary media is for. It's not a workable system to praise everyone who gives into their angry instincts in the moment without regard to decorum. That's called childishness. I'm sure someone will read that as an apology for Holt. Far from it. It's about finding a time and a place to voice one's objections, not losing control and exploiting the attention of a quiet crowd, and then self-styling one's self as a crusader who "created an opening" because one gets a few pats on the back for it, and far from showing any remorse about her timing, saying "please let me not be afraid to do this again ...and again ...and again Because it was scary." Do we really want a one-woman Westboro Baptist Church of anti-sexism disrupting every event that she has decided is "scary"?
masondixon 9y ago
> it's possible that she's the only woman on the panel because she thinks this way No true scotsman. If she doesn't agree with your narrative, she is an exception. > the ones who pay attention to how they might be treated differently leave. Because they see sexism when its just normal human behaviour. Why do feminists think its okay to second-guess the male mental and emotional state? As if the same stuff never happens to males. > you must ignore many possible slights and assume that nobody is purposefully racist But ask yourself...why do you assume anything is racist in the first place instead of thinking it is just normal human behaviour? I would argue that modern feminist movements and social justice organisations like black lives matter tell people its because of their race, and train them to view everything through a racial lens. Once you are conditioned to think like this, its hard to not see everything as racism, which is maybe a nicer way to see the world, than to realise the universally humans are just dicks to each other. Instead of the enemy being a specific group, its actually potentially everyone around you. What is your take on this? I am interested to know if its well off the mark.
- _lex 9y ago
  > it's possible that she's the only woman on the panel because she thinks this way Note I said "it's possible". I did that because I can't prove it. I don't think anybody can prove either possibility. >why do you assume anything is racist in the first place instead of thinking it is just normal human behaviour? I'm not originally from the US, though I live here now. While you may look at me and see a black man, I grew up in a country where everyone was black, and therefore nobody was. As a result, I'm probably the least indoctrinated into any movement or society based on identity. The idea that I might identify with racial issues faced by American blacks was one that was forced onto me by reality. Imagine you're a black person who's never seen racism before. You'd only start assuming that the problems you face are related to race when you are repeatedly treated worse than your cohort, and when you're treated so badly that there is no plausible narrative that you can construct that will lead to another explanation. For example: Employers are shocked (and uncomfortable) when a black face shows up with your resume. Your job offers are lower and less frequent, although you're at the top of your field. People find issues with you and your work that they just can't explain, but accept and praise your work when submitted under other names. Senior leaders think you're a janitor when you lead a department. Patients refuse to be seen by you, even though you are indisputably the best in your speciality. I can go on (note these events have not all happened to me, but each has happened to someone in my inner circle). After a while, even someone who didn't know that racism existed would discover it. You're lucky you don't have to. Movements like feminism and BLM must sometimes be wrong about specific events - there's no way to really prove what's in someone's heart. And sometimes bad things happen to women and black people - things that would have happened independent of gender and race. But when there's a distinct, recurring pattern, it's really hard to pretend like nothing's wrong. Separately, you should know that racism and sexism are actually normal (meaning default) human behavior. People form groups based on similarities and exclude those who are dissimilar. These groups may include employment, or leadership at companies. Thats why this is so hard.
polotics 9y ago
This^10000! ...https://scholars.opb.msu.edu/en/publications/does-stereotype-threat-affect-test-performance-of-minorities-and--4 https://scholars.opb.msu.edu/en/publications/does-stereotype... The most interesting result is that lowered performance in adverse conditions seems to stem from the induced cognitive load of wanting to avoid confirming negative stereotypes... So internally roleplaying a WASP male really does work.
hillarysanders 9y ago
Yes. I'm a female engineer, and fairly successful one. And I do think that I have on rose colored glasses, so to speak, when it comes to workplace sexism. Often my friends or colleagues come to the conclusion that something sexist happened far before I do. I virtually always assume little actions, slights, etc. are innocent and not rooted in sexism. Because I think that usually, they are innocent. But that means I also probably miss out on (and don't have to stress out about) some sexism that occurs. And that helps me 1) not burn out like you mentioned, and 2) not be disliked by work by bringing it up and making a (potentially completely valid) fuss. So it probably helps me, oddly. I can't say that how I evaluate these kinds of things is correct, or even good, but I do think it's probably helped my career more than it's hurt.
- braveo 9y ago
  I think the important point is that everyone has to deal with bullshit, and it's generally better to assume it's not meant to intentionally hurt. I've had many occasions where someone has said something that caught me a little and offended me and I ultimately just decided they didn't mean it that way (even if they did). I do this because I know I'm not the smoothest individual out there and I have no doubt I've said some things that may have causes someone else doubt or offense when it was just me saying things in a bad manner. When you enter the work force there's a certain amount of bullshit you have to put up with. I once had the CEO of a company roll his eyes at me in the middle of a meeting and say roughly "you IT people are all the same" in front of everyone there. Sometimes it's just a part of being it the work force and you have to deal with bullshit in your day to day. It doesn't mean it's sexist, racist, or whathaveyou, it just means you're dealing with people who are oblivious or assholes.
BurningFrog 9y ago
> I think it's worth considering that we're seeing some survivorship bias here True. But there is also a "virality bias" that made us see this story in the first place. If it didn't fit a trending narrative so well we would never have heard of it. Meanwhile millions of unreported interactions happened the same day. We can't know what big picture they add up to. To me the lesson is that basing your world view on viral internet stories is one of the worst ways to understand the world.

by _lex 9y ago

natch 9y ago

The causation might also run the other way. She might have survived in the field and built up this attitude because she was fortunate early on in her career to have worked with some really good people who were just focused on the science, as opposed to being into trivial stuff like workplace power games. So there might have been some luck involved. She did say that early on she worked with great people. If that's the cause of her attitude, the point about survivorship bias is still valid... but the reasons for survival are different. The luck of having a good work environment (unusual, some would say) caused the good experience and allowed her to stay in the field with a good attitude. Edit: I'm not claiming it was definitely the way I say in this particular case, versus the way you said. I'm just saying both possibilities should be considered. Also we should acknowledge that sexism does exist, apart from perceptions of sexism, which admittedly can sometimes be wrong.

randomguy23 9y ago

If you wear sexism-colored glasses, don't be surprised if everything looks like sexism. That, I think, is what she's getting at. If you're always looking for a slight, always looking for a snide remark, you'll find it. Perception shapes reality.

jccalhoun 9y ago
"If you wear sexism-colored glasses, don't be surprised if everything looks like sexism." and if you wear glasses that block out sexism, don't be surprised if nothing looks like sexism.
- qznc 9y ago
  So, how should I deal with it? The only way I see is to have an objective definition, which can be objectively applied no matter which glasses I wear. What would that definition of sexism be?
  - dmix 9y ago
    No, this is silly. All language and behaviour has context. This idea that you can eliminate the shades of grey to find some absolute definition is largely what makes me uncomfortable with the more extreme proponents of this stuff. Such as those who believe particular words in isolation are always bad regardless of context. It would be much healthier culturally if we take into full consideration the meaning and intent of the accused, as well as the feelings of the apparent victim. Which I feel like the OP's comment highlights. For ex, the moderator could have been oblivious to the fact she hadn't spoken much, as the only woman there, and when he asked the question he may indeed have been so excited that he spoke for her. The kind of people who get moderator jobs at big events like this are the extrovert types. The ones who talk before listening... so I don't think that is entirely unrealistic here. An extrovert too busy looking for a chance to talk himself, instead of being sensitive to the amount others have spoken? This just as likely as him believing he could do a better job at explaining the subject, merely because she was a woman. So if we look at the objective facts: that a lone woman on a panel wasn't allowed to speak, even when her expert subject was brought up, would seem like the moderator was sexist. But digging into the context it's possible there was far more to it and this is often lost in the shades of grey when you only view it from a single perspective.
    - mark-r 9y ago
      To know the truth we would need to look at how the other panel members were treated. If the moderator spoke for them as well, or tried to but was forcefully overridden, then sexism probably doesn't come into play. But if she was the only one, well... I wish I had time to view the proceedings for myself.

imron 9y ago

> I call it assuming positive intent. It's how you survive. Assuming positive intent is generally a good way to live, and it makes life significantly less stressful.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

lr4444lr 9y ago

Or maybe she's just so classy that she can see taking the high ground offers stronger rebuke instead of objecting to the slight. Hubeny was not allowed to speak as uninterruptedly as the other panelists. I'm not really too thrilled at Talkington's outburst - it kind of makes the offense about her, not Hubeny, who if she wanted to could have asked Holt to shut up - but the sentiment was warranted if you watch more of the video for context. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Er7qPv8jsZo&t=3713s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Er7qPv8jsZo&t=3713s

dating_advice 9y ago
Hubeny doesn't seem like a person who would tell someone to shut up though, and sexism or not, it's basic politeness to give shy people a bit more room. Certainly after announcing that you now finally want to hear their perspective :/ I doubt that moderator can watch that part and say "yeah, that's good moderation". Just reading the FB post, I was taken aback a little, to be perfectly honest I rolled my eyes at "why is this sexism still happening" because from the description it didn't strike me as necessarily sexist. But now after having seen what a friendly and generous person Hubeny is, and even more importantly what interesting things she had to say, I'm kind of proud that it made Talkington angry and finally speak up. Hubeny may not need "white knighting", but the impetus comes from a good place IMHO. What of it if it makes the offense about Taffington? I also get mad when someone else mistreats another person in my eyes; if the victim in my eyes isn't a victim in their own comes secondary. That is probably arrogant, or even ironic because it can be disrespectful, but I feel it's usually easier to clear the air after overreacting or misreading a situation, than to muster the courage to stand up for someone after you already got used to not doing it. You have to do it when you see it, maybe after double checking, but you can't linger too long. Certainly not in a situation like that, where mustering the courage takes a lot either way. Hubeny is fine, but for Taffington this was and maybe is nerve wrecking. So kudos where kudos are due :) Thanks for the context! That post was really missing video.
- lr4444lr 9y ago
  I didn't mean for her to tell Holt to literally "shut up", but that Hubeny handled it as she want to - which I conclude based on my confidence in her ability and stature to do so and from her follow-up comment - and she was in fact "White Knighted" as what's meant by the term to have jumped in, even if Talkington was female. Maybe I was raised in a different generation, but disrupting a staged event from the audience unless it's done to prevent clear and present danger is considered rude, and two rude behaviors (Holt's being the first) do not make etiquette, even if comes from a place of warranted indignation. That's what post-commentary media is for. It's not a workable system to praise everyone who gives into their angry instincts in the moment without regard to decorum. That's called childishness. I'm sure someone will read that as an apology for Holt. Far from it. It's about finding a time and a place to voice one's objections, not losing control and exploiting the attention of a quiet crowd, and then self-styling one's self as a crusader who "created an opening" because one gets a few pats on the back for it, and far from showing any remorse about her timing, saying "please let me not be afraid to do this again ...and again ...and again Because it was scary." Do we really want a one-woman Westboro Baptist Church of anti-sexism disrupting every event that she has decided is "scary"?

masondixon 9y ago

> it's possible that she's the only woman on the panel because she thinks this way No true scotsman. If she doesn't agree with your narrative, she is an exception. > the ones who pay attention to how they might be treated differently leave. Because they see sexism when its just normal human behaviour. Why do feminists think its okay to second-guess the male mental and emotional state? As if the same stuff never happens to males. > you must ignore many possible slights and assume that nobody is purposefully racist But ask yourself...why do you assume anything is racist in the first place instead of thinking it is just normal human behaviour? I would argue that modern feminist movements and social justice organisations like black lives matter tell people its because of their race, and train them to view everything through a racial lens. Once you are conditioned to think like this, its hard to not see everything as racism, which is maybe a nicer way to see the world, than to realise the universally humans are just dicks to each other. Instead of the enemy being a specific group, its actually potentially everyone around you. What is your take on this? I am interested to know if its well off the mark.

_lex 9y ago
> it's possible that she's the only woman on the panel because she thinks this way Note I said "it's possible". I did that because I can't prove it. I don't think anybody can prove either possibility. >why do you assume anything is racist in the first place instead of thinking it is just normal human behaviour? I'm not originally from the US, though I live here now. While you may look at me and see a black man, I grew up in a country where everyone was black, and therefore nobody was. As a result, I'm probably the least indoctrinated into any movement or society based on identity. The idea that I might identify with racial issues faced by American blacks was one that was forced onto me by reality. Imagine you're a black person who's never seen racism before. You'd only start assuming that the problems you face are related to race when you are repeatedly treated worse than your cohort, and when you're treated so badly that there is no plausible narrative that you can construct that will lead to another explanation. For example: Employers are shocked (and uncomfortable) when a black face shows up with your resume. Your job offers are lower and less frequent, although you're at the top of your field. People find issues with you and your work that they just can't explain, but accept and praise your work when submitted under other names. Senior leaders think you're a janitor when you lead a department. Patients refuse to be seen by you, even though you are indisputably the best in your speciality. I can go on (note these events have not all happened to me, but each has happened to someone in my inner circle). After a while, even someone who didn't know that racism existed would discover it. You're lucky you don't have to. Movements like feminism and BLM must sometimes be wrong about specific events - there's no way to really prove what's in someone's heart. And sometimes bad things happen to women and black people - things that would have happened independent of gender and race. But when there's a distinct, recurring pattern, it's really hard to pretend like nothing's wrong. Separately, you should know that racism and sexism are actually normal (meaning default) human behavior. People form groups based on similarities and exclude those who are dissimilar. These groups may include employment, or leadership at companies. Thats why this is so hard.

polotics 9y ago

This^10000! ...https://scholars.opb.msu.edu/en/publications/does-stereotype-threat-affect-test-performance-of-minorities-and--4 https://scholars.opb.msu.edu/en/publications/does-stereotype... The most interesting result is that lowered performance in adverse conditions seems to stem from the induced cognitive load of wanting to avoid confirming negative stereotypes... So internally roleplaying a WASP male really does work.

hillarysanders 9y ago

Yes. I'm a female engineer, and fairly successful one. And I do think that I have on rose colored glasses, so to speak, when it comes to workplace sexism. Often my friends or colleagues come to the conclusion that something sexist happened far before I do. I virtually always assume little actions, slights, etc. are innocent and not rooted in sexism. Because I think that usually, they are innocent. But that means I also probably miss out on (and don't have to stress out about) some sexism that occurs. And that helps me 1) not burn out like you mentioned, and 2) not be disliked by work by bringing it up and making a (potentially completely valid) fuss. So it probably helps me, oddly. I can't say that how I evaluate these kinds of things is correct, or even good, but I do think it's probably helped my career more than it's hurt.

braveo 9y ago
I think the important point is that everyone has to deal with bullshit, and it's generally better to assume it's not meant to intentionally hurt. I've had many occasions where someone has said something that caught me a little and offended me and I ultimately just decided they didn't mean it that way (even if they did). I do this because I know I'm not the smoothest individual out there and I have no doubt I've said some things that may have causes someone else doubt or offense when it was just me saying things in a bad manner. When you enter the work force there's a certain amount of bullshit you have to put up with. I once had the CEO of a company roll his eyes at me in the middle of a meeting and say roughly "you IT people are all the same" in front of everyone there. Sometimes it's just a part of being it the work force and you have to deal with bullshit in your day to day. It doesn't mean it's sexist, racist, or whathaveyou, it just means you're dealing with people who are oblivious or assholes.

BurningFrog 9y ago

> I think it's worth considering that we're seeing some survivorship bias here True. But there is also a "virality bias" that made us see this story in the first place. If it didn't fit a trending narrative so well we would never have heard of it. Meanwhile millions of unreported interactions happened the same day. We can't know what big picture they add up to. To me the lesson is that basing your world view on viral internet stories is one of the worst ways to understand the world.