2 ms·

I question the unspoken assumption that there should be an equitable split of male and female voices on the program. An alternative hypothesis is that the most

I question the unspoken assumption that there should be an equitable split of male and female voices on the program. An alternative hypothesis is that the most interesting people skew male, or at least the ones willing to talk into a microphone. You have to at least consider this hypothesis before jumping to the conclusion of bias in the reporting.

rectang 8y ago
It seems like you're using "interesting" as an absolute metric, which I think is highly dubious for an aesthetic quality. Another explanation is that interviewing people in positions of authority is unavoidable and those people are disproportionately male at present. But the point of this article is that they looked at the data and it didn't reveal what they expected.
- spacehome 8y ago
  I didn't really mean to use the word that way. I mean more in the sense of "serving This American Life's storytelling goals". The best of their programs are very thought-provoking, and I'll end up thinking about them long after the show is over. I don't think I could articulate what TAL's goals are exactly, but I do find some of them "interesting", and that's what I hope for when I tune in. I meant the word to encompass a lot of different qualities. For instance if a story is told better with a first hand account of an authority, then that authority is of interest to the story, and hence that authority is interesting (as he or she relates to the story).
rule_follower 8y ago
Isn't it one of the great assumptions of our age that everyone is "equal" and ought be proportionally represented in every endeavor? And that inequitable representation is evidence of a moral or actual crime against the under represented? (At least in cases when an official oppressor class is over represented and an official victim class is under represented. And also when participating in the endeavor is desirable.)
- loco5niner 8y ago
  Well, everyone is "equal" in value as a human being, but it is incorrect to say that everyone is equal in talent or potential. Take the Olympics for example. Different body types, genetically predetermined before birth, will give certain people advantages in one sport, but disadvantages in other sports. Tall people have a huge advantage in volleyball, basketball, etc, but not soccer. Kenyans have an advantage at long distance running, but I doubt they are a common sight in the powerlifting arena. Want to climb Mt Everest? More than likely, a Sherpa would go with you, because they have unique physical qualifications. There's nothing inherently "better" about all these people, but they do happen to have an inherent advantage when it comes to performing specific tasks. The argument that all people ought to be proportionally represented in every endeavor ignores the basic fact that people have distinctly different skill sets based on their genetic makeup.
- spacehome 8y ago
  No, of course not, to both questions. All people should be treated equitably under the law, and we decided it’s illegal to discriminate along a very small number of dimensions for the essentials of life: employment and housing. But people are not equal at all. Some people are better tenants or employees than others, and it’s ethical to discriminate along those lines. And, yes, some people are better interviewees, too.
  - loco5niner 8y ago
    Good points all. Some people are more disciplined, motivated, and responsible than others and that should be rewarded.

rectang 8y ago

It seems like you're using "interesting" as an absolute metric, which I think is highly dubious for an aesthetic quality. Another explanation is that interviewing people in positions of authority is unavoidable and those people are disproportionately male at present. But the point of this article is that they looked at the data and it didn't reveal what they expected.

spacehome 8y ago
I didn't really mean to use the word that way. I mean more in the sense of "serving This American Life's storytelling goals". The best of their programs are very thought-provoking, and I'll end up thinking about them long after the show is over. I don't think I could articulate what TAL's goals are exactly, but I do find some of them "interesting", and that's what I hope for when I tune in. I meant the word to encompass a lot of different qualities. For instance if a story is told better with a first hand account of an authority, then that authority is of interest to the story, and hence that authority is interesting (as he or she relates to the story).

rule_follower 8y ago

Isn't it one of the great assumptions of our age that everyone is "equal" and ought be proportionally represented in every endeavor? And that inequitable representation is evidence of a moral or actual crime against the under represented? (At least in cases when an official oppressor class is over represented and an official victim class is under represented. And also when participating in the endeavor is desirable.)

loco5niner 8y ago
Well, everyone is "equal" in value as a human being, but it is incorrect to say that everyone is equal in talent or potential. Take the Olympics for example. Different body types, genetically predetermined before birth, will give certain people advantages in one sport, but disadvantages in other sports. Tall people have a huge advantage in volleyball, basketball, etc, but not soccer. Kenyans have an advantage at long distance running, but I doubt they are a common sight in the powerlifting arena. Want to climb Mt Everest? More than likely, a Sherpa would go with you, because they have unique physical qualifications. There's nothing inherently "better" about all these people, but they do happen to have an inherent advantage when it comes to performing specific tasks. The argument that all people ought to be proportionally represented in every endeavor ignores the basic fact that people have distinctly different skill sets based on their genetic makeup.
spacehome 8y ago
No, of course not, to both questions. All people should be treated equitably under the law, and we decided it’s illegal to discriminate along a very small number of dimensions for the essentials of life: employment and housing. But people are not equal at all. Some people are better tenants or employees than others, and it’s ethical to discriminate along those lines. And, yes, some people are better interviewees, too.
- loco5niner 8y ago
  Good points all. Some people are more disciplined, motivated, and responsible than others and that should be rewarded.