3 ms·

Yes, that's what "systematic bias" means. In actual observational studies, the men who are excluded from positions by gender quotas are less competent than the

Yes, that's what "systematic bias" means. In actual observational studies, the men who are excluded from positions by gender quotas are less competent than the women who replace them: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/businessreview/2017/03/13/gender-quotas-and-the-crisis-of-the-mediocre-man/ http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/businessreview/2017/03/13/gender-quot... This is why there is such intense reactions against correcting for bias: men with imposter syndrome or who are actually incompetent are afraid that they wouldn't be able to compete if the system wasn't so heavily skewed in their favor.

Chris2048 9y ago
Which statement are you answering "yes" to? I asked if the quotas "track" bias - in the sense that bias is actively measured, and quotas adjusted accordingly. I haven't read the study in your link, and might not even be qualified to interpret it, but two things stand out to me: 1) The study appears to focus on a single "event" or "snapshot" - not an ongoing, corrected process: > Our research asks what happened when the central party organisation of the Social Democratic party imposed the quota on 285 local (municipal) political parties from the 1994 election and forward. As such, it might be that the "mediocre reducing" nature of the results only apply to one-off applications of gender quotas where there previously were none. In fact, if one of the concerns is "cronyism" (or "insider bias"), then any quota requiring employment of outsiders might just be as effective at ousting the mediocre. This has nothing really to do with my question, of whether such policies actually "track" bias, because it doesn't seem this example does. 2) They use a problematic/controversial definition of "merit": > A competent politician, we argue, is a person who makes more than the median amongst politicians with similar characteristics. They directly equate personal income with competence/mediocrity, which invites all kinds of questions... Also, politics is a little different - there is a sense that politicians "represent" their populace, so the race/sex of politicians should also be more representative. Plus, politics is more "restricted" in the sense that only a certain population (size) of politicians need serve a certain national population (size) - but the restrictions (market size) in the corporate world might not be so distinct; There is plenty room for more qualified software developers.

Chris2048 9y ago

Which statement are you answering "yes" to? I asked if the quotas "track" bias - in the sense that bias is actively measured, and quotas adjusted accordingly. I haven't read the study in your link, and might not even be qualified to interpret it, but two things stand out to me: 1) The study appears to focus on a single "event" or "snapshot" - not an ongoing, corrected process: > Our research asks what happened when the central party organisation of the Social Democratic party imposed the quota on 285 local (municipal) political parties from the 1994 election and forward. As such, it might be that the "mediocre reducing" nature of the results only apply to one-off applications of gender quotas where there previously were none. In fact, if one of the concerns is "cronyism" (or "insider bias"), then any quota requiring employment of outsiders might just be as effective at ousting the mediocre. This has nothing really to do with my question, of whether such policies actually "track" bias, because it doesn't seem this example does. 2) They use a problematic/controversial definition of "merit": > A competent politician, we argue, is a person who makes more than the median amongst politicians with similar characteristics. They directly equate personal income with competence/mediocrity, which invites all kinds of questions... Also, politics is a little different - there is a sense that politicians "represent" their populace, so the race/sex of politicians should also be more representative. Plus, politics is more "restricted" in the sense that only a certain population (size) of politicians need serve a certain national population (size) - but the restrictions (market size) in the corporate world might not be so distinct; There is plenty room for more qualified software developers.