4 ms·
Okay, so here is the thing: nobody wants to make the labels explicit, or to think about the minority or female labels. The reason that has come into style is b
by projectramo 9y ago
Okay, so here is the thing: nobody wants to make the labels explicit, or to think about the minority or female labels.
The reason that has come into style is because people have implicit associations and biases. And the theory is the best way to deal with them is to explicitly think about it.
Example.
You're hiring for a position. It is very technical. You see a bunch of candidates and then you just think some would be better suited to the technical role than the others.
Now, let's say you think: let me notice the gender.
Oh, this is funny. All the ones I rejected from the technical role as being "better suited to marketing" happen to be female. Am I being fair to them?
Now you reread the resume only focusing on the actual skills and you find that some of the people you rejected have stronger technical skills but you unconsciously downplayed it because of the female name.
(Or, vice versa, you rejected a male name for not being "the marketing type" when perhaps their resume suggests otherwise).
It would be better to read the resume without the gender clues. (Names removed, sorority and fraternity info removed, women organization removed etc) But without that I think we make it explicit just so we have a shot at examining the things we don't make explicit.
That is the theory, anyway.
- jrimbault 9y agoI had a philosophy teacher who once explained to me how you can only become a master of something only when you explicitly know all of its rules and are aware of all of them. A few examples: - a chess master knows all about chess - a con artist must know all the social rules to exploit them So when recruiting or making a judgment, you should be aware of all your biases.
- BearGoesChirp 9y ago>Now you reread the resume only focusing on the actual skills and you find that some of the people you rejected have stronger technical skills but you unconsciously downplayed it because of the female name. Wasn't there a recent study that removing names led to the percentage of men being interviewed increasing?
- ___another 9y agoa recent example: a github conference on diversity, see here: https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/6f1a2d/culture_war_roundup_for_week_following_june_3/dig0m7f/ https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/6f1a2d/cult...
- opportune 9y agoThe example itself is interesting (and truly very revealing) but I kind of wish you hadn't included that reddit thread with it. It was weird seeing some pretty cringey replies get so heavily upvoted. Perhaps it's just the increased anonymity of reddit that's the cause, or the particular demo browsing that subreddit.
- projectramo 9y agoThere have been several studies where placing an identical resume with a male or female name will give you different calls for an interview. If we don't make the resumes identical, I wonder if it is something about the way they present the resumes. (Other clues and so forth).
- projectramo 9y agoThere have been several studies where placing an identical resume with a male or female name will give you different calls for an interview. If we don't make the resumes identical, I wonder if it is something about the way they present the resumes. (Other clues and so forth).
- hyperdunc 9y agoA recent study of hiring practises by the government in Victoria, Australia, found that there was actually a bias towards hiring females when gender cues were removed. One of the conclusions was that they should stop removing gender cues because removing them decreased diversity.
- splintercell 9y ago> It would be better to read the resume without the gender clues. (Names removed, sorority and fraternity info removed, women organization removed etc) But without that I think we make it explicit just so we have a shot at examining the things we don't make explicit. > That is the theory, anyway. Recent studies[1] contradict your theory. 1. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-30/bilnd-recruitment-trial-to-improve-gender-equality-failing-study/8664888 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-30/bilnd-recruitment-tria...
- projectramo 9y agoIt isn't "my" theory. And secondly, as your article points out, there are other studies that suggest otherwise. There have been several studies where placing an identical resume with a male or female name will give you different calls for an interview. If we don't make the resumes identical, I wonder if it is something about the way they present the resumes. (Other clues and so forth).
- cholantesh 9y agoIt's actually only one study, and both the lead author and the conducting body have their doubts about it: >Professor Hiscox said he discussed the trial with the ABS and did not consider it a rigorous or randomised control trial, warning against any "magic pill" solution. The discussion section of the study's report also opines that the voluntary nature of recruiter selection [1] as well as the absence of a control group could skew results, and that particular recruitment processes were not studied for engendered bias before designing the trial. [1] - ie, recruiters who tended to be more supportive of diversification in the public sector would be more likely to participate
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- aquadrop 9y agoJust a thought. What would happen if some big company implemented this practice and it led to number of hired women to be even less? Will they be praised because they did it, or attacked because they now have even less women? It's not a sarcasm/anything, just interested in your opinion.
- projectramo 9y agoI don't know what others would do. I think it would be interesting to know what the reason was for the change. Is it because they present the resume differently? There have been several studies where placing an identical resume with a male or female name will give you different calls for an interview.