5 ms·

Or even if the number of women just stays the same. Is the effort to level the playing field then deemed a 'failure' if the results don't change in the way they

Or even if the number of women just stays the same. Is the effort to level the playing field then deemed a 'failure' if the results don't change in the way they're expected to? That's the important question here, especially since there have now been preliminary experiments in tech interviews suggesting such an outcome is not implausible: http://blog.interviewing.io/we-built-voice-modulation-to-mask-gender-in-technical-interviews-heres-what-happened/ http://blog.interviewing.io/we-built-voice-modulation-to-mas...

mathw 9y ago
If you've removed possible bias from your hiring process, then you have to accept an imbalance is either a result of uneven retention inclusive-or something operating earlier in the process of training your candidates. The point is to remove as many obstacles as possible. We want the best to get the jobs, but if the are barriers based on gender or race or religion that's potentially denying us a brilliant woman, or black man, or Muslim. It doesn't necessarily mean you end up at 50/50, I'm quite willing to accept that the sexes might be biologically different in brain structure and that this might mean one sex might have different average aptitudes, but I won't accept a societal construct on top of that. You should never hear that someone shouldn't try to do something because of their sex. Never. Well unless it involves the more obvious anatomical differences. The average man is going to have some difficulty becoming an effective wet nurse.
- OscarCunningham 9y ago
  If 50/50 isn't the target, how will we know when we get there?
  - tednoob 9y ago
    Do you have to know the target? Correct for bias you have, then question what it is upstream that is creating that bias.
    - OscarCunningham 9y ago
      How do we correct for the bias if we don't know what the unbiased state would look like?
      - PeterisP 9y ago
        You ensure a fair process (without attempting to overcompensate/correct for other processes out of your control), and whatever comes out is the unbiased state. You can't escape the fact that (assuming any innate differences whatsoever) equality of opportunity will mean unequal outcomes, and equality of outcomes requires unequal opportunities.
      - tednoob 9y ago
        Frankly I do not see how 50/50, or any fixed number, can be a representation of the unbiased state. The unbiased state is unknown. If you look at what the orchestra did and remove factors you know are irrelevant for the applicants then you should move towards a more unbiased state independent of what the number actually is. The problem is to find out what bias you have. One way is to compare the people who apply with the people you hire. You can see what traits you select on, then you can decide if you think those traits are good or bad.
      - AnthonyMouse 9y ago
        > How do we correct for the bias if we don't know what the unbiased state would look like? The goal isn't to choose some specific gender balance and then take whatever steps necessary to produce it, it's to eliminate unfair bias. The way to do that is to find it, not indirectly by looking at ratios, but directly by actually finding it. High school teachers who say things like "women are no good at computers" to young women should be reprimanded etc. Poll women who didn't go into tech and ask them why not, and if any of the reasons are unjust then change them. If no one can find anything like that then the gender balance at that point is what it's supposed to be. We're obviously not there yet, but the way we know is because we keep finding things like that, not because the gender balance is uneven.
        9y ago
- hnnsj 9y ago
  I wonder, though, how companies' hiring processes alone are supposed to fix the societal biases. Isn't it a false choice when given only the two explanations: A) We fix biases in the workplace/hiring process and get a 50/50 distribution in the workplace or B) There must be biological differences. I'm personally rather convinced of a third alternative: There is some bias and even outright discrimination in some workplaces, but gender norms in society as a whole create such a big difference in the distribution of applicants/talent pool that it becomes impossible to correct as late in life as the hiring process. I think the gender norms are very deeply rooted and entwined through most aspects of life and that if we truly want to fix the problem, as opposed to get good PR and pay lip service, we need to change gender roles drastically. And that starts pretty much from pregnancy and goes way beyond recruiting.
  - 24gttghh 9y ago
    I had to scroll down too far to find this comment. Diversity hiring is treating the symptom, not the disease of segregation at birth into distinct gender roles.
- madez 9y ago
  I think it's bad to write "woman, or black man, or muslim'. Being a woman or a black man is something that is determined before birth. Your religious views are adopted after birth. That's why I think it is bad to speak of muslim people, as if that defined them the most. That leads to seperation and distrust, we-against-them. Your sex and skin colour is given, your religion can change.
  - humanrebar 9y ago
    > That's why I think it is bad to speak of muslim people, as if that defined them the most. Lots of people primarily identify by their religious affiliations. I think that's fair. > Your sex and skin colour is given, your religion can change. Ask a Muslim which will change first: their gender, their skin color, or whether Mohammed was Allah's prophet. All that being said, your point about religion and race being separate categories is fair and well taken.
    - madez 9y ago
      > Ask a Muslim which will change first: their gender, their skin color, or whether Mohammed was Allah's prophet. You are generalizing in a way that will create animosity. There are liberal people which identify as muslims. Even though most religious people identify themselves by their religious affiliations, not all do, and not everbody is religious. I think religion is a cancerous meme, that we shouldn't pay respect to. I don't even want to be asked whether I am religious, nor what religion. My name allows a funny pun in that regard: I'm Christian, but I'm not.
      - humanrebar 9y ago
        > You are generalizing in a way that will create animosity > I think religion is a cancerous meme My underlying point was that people with faith don't see their faith as a choice about the existence and character of their god (or other non-deist beliefs). It's not objective or accurate to say religion is different because it's a choice. If anyone is offended by my point, I would challenge them to rethink their assumptions about how tolerant and accepting they are.
- alkonaut 9y ago
  > We want the best to get the jobs I think it's important to remember that this might not be the case. We want the best team (or orchestra, or whatever).

mathw 9y ago

If you've removed possible bias from your hiring process, then you have to accept an imbalance is either a result of uneven retention inclusive-or something operating earlier in the process of training your candidates. The point is to remove as many obstacles as possible. We want the best to get the jobs, but if the are barriers based on gender or race or religion that's potentially denying us a brilliant woman, or black man, or Muslim. It doesn't necessarily mean you end up at 50/50, I'm quite willing to accept that the sexes might be biologically different in brain structure and that this might mean one sex might have different average aptitudes, but I won't accept a societal construct on top of that. You should never hear that someone shouldn't try to do something because of their sex. Never. Well unless it involves the more obvious anatomical differences. The average man is going to have some difficulty becoming an effective wet nurse.

OscarCunningham 9y ago
If 50/50 isn't the target, how will we know when we get there?
- tednoob 9y ago
  Do you have to know the target? Correct for bias you have, then question what it is upstream that is creating that bias.
  - OscarCunningham 9y ago
    How do we correct for the bias if we don't know what the unbiased state would look like?
    - PeterisP 9y ago
      You ensure a fair process (without attempting to overcompensate/correct for other processes out of your control), and whatever comes out is the unbiased state. You can't escape the fact that (assuming any innate differences whatsoever) equality of opportunity will mean unequal outcomes, and equality of outcomes requires unequal opportunities.
    - tednoob 9y ago
      Frankly I do not see how 50/50, or any fixed number, can be a representation of the unbiased state. The unbiased state is unknown. If you look at what the orchestra did and remove factors you know are irrelevant for the applicants then you should move towards a more unbiased state independent of what the number actually is. The problem is to find out what bias you have. One way is to compare the people who apply with the people you hire. You can see what traits you select on, then you can decide if you think those traits are good or bad.
    - AnthonyMouse 9y ago
      > How do we correct for the bias if we don't know what the unbiased state would look like? The goal isn't to choose some specific gender balance and then take whatever steps necessary to produce it, it's to eliminate unfair bias. The way to do that is to find it, not indirectly by looking at ratios, but directly by actually finding it. High school teachers who say things like "women are no good at computers" to young women should be reprimanded etc. Poll women who didn't go into tech and ask them why not, and if any of the reasons are unjust then change them. If no one can find anything like that then the gender balance at that point is what it's supposed to be. We're obviously not there yet, but the way we know is because we keep finding things like that, not because the gender balance is uneven.
      - 9y ago
hnnsj 9y ago
I wonder, though, how companies' hiring processes alone are supposed to fix the societal biases. Isn't it a false choice when given only the two explanations: A) We fix biases in the workplace/hiring process and get a 50/50 distribution in the workplace or B) There must be biological differences. I'm personally rather convinced of a third alternative: There is some bias and even outright discrimination in some workplaces, but gender norms in society as a whole create such a big difference in the distribution of applicants/talent pool that it becomes impossible to correct as late in life as the hiring process. I think the gender norms are very deeply rooted and entwined through most aspects of life and that if we truly want to fix the problem, as opposed to get good PR and pay lip service, we need to change gender roles drastically. And that starts pretty much from pregnancy and goes way beyond recruiting.
- 24gttghh 9y ago
  I had to scroll down too far to find this comment. Diversity hiring is treating the symptom, not the disease of segregation at birth into distinct gender roles.
madez 9y ago
I think it's bad to write "woman, or black man, or muslim'. Being a woman or a black man is something that is determined before birth. Your religious views are adopted after birth. That's why I think it is bad to speak of muslim people, as if that defined them the most. That leads to seperation and distrust, we-against-them. Your sex and skin colour is given, your religion can change.
- humanrebar 9y ago
  > That's why I think it is bad to speak of muslim people, as if that defined them the most. Lots of people primarily identify by their religious affiliations. I think that's fair. > Your sex and skin colour is given, your religion can change. Ask a Muslim which will change first: their gender, their skin color, or whether Mohammed was Allah's prophet. All that being said, your point about religion and race being separate categories is fair and well taken.
  - madez 9y ago
    > Ask a Muslim which will change first: their gender, their skin color, or whether Mohammed was Allah's prophet. You are generalizing in a way that will create animosity. There are liberal people which identify as muslims. Even though most religious people identify themselves by their religious affiliations, not all do, and not everbody is religious. I think religion is a cancerous meme, that we shouldn't pay respect to. I don't even want to be asked whether I am religious, nor what religion. My name allows a funny pun in that regard: I'm Christian, but I'm not.
    - humanrebar 9y ago
      > You are generalizing in a way that will create animosity > I think religion is a cancerous meme My underlying point was that people with faith don't see their faith as a choice about the existence and character of their god (or other non-deist beliefs). It's not objective or accurate to say religion is different because it's a choice. If anyone is offended by my point, I would challenge them to rethink their assumptions about how tolerant and accepting they are.
alkonaut 9y ago
> We want the best to get the jobs I think it's important to remember that this might not be the case. We want the best team (or orchestra, or whatever).