5 ms·

This had been tried before, and it failed spectacularly. Women did even worse. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-30/bilnd-recruitment-trial-to-improve-gender

This had been tried before, and it failed spectacularly. Women did even worse. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-30/bilnd-recruitment-trial-to-improve-gender-equality-failing-study/8664888 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-30/bilnd-recruitment-tri...

saintPirelli 8y ago
They will replicate the results, quietly implement a different protocol and never talk about it again for sure.
mamon 8y ago
This matches my experience in IT: sometimes recruiters prefer to hire a girl, even if less qualified, just for sake of having a girl in the team, because it is "improving the morale" :)
- deelowe 8y ago
  There are tons of studies out there showing monocultures are bad for business. In your case, I'm sure your IT department had to interact with women on occasion. Having women on the team will allow the group to be aware of social considerations specific to women that they may otherwise miss. The people who reviewed and approved the designs for our office space were all males. Guess what they forgot to put in the women's restrooms? When women complained, they put an open trash can next to the toilet with no lid... The problem with the whole conversation around this topic is everyone pretending that women and men on average have the same level of skills and experience as each other. Then they act shocked when there are so few qualified male nurses or female mechanics. Businesses only care about this topic, because it helps them design products and provide services that address a wider market. So, maybe they should just admit they don't always hire the absolute technically best candidate as the goal is to improve the social structure of the team.
  - klohto 8y ago
    Thank you. I have never considered this view. I always hear it’s for the team’s good to be more diverse but never why it’s good to be diverse... I still believe quotas should not be applied everywhere but your example shows an excellent point that they are beneficial in some cases.
- roberto 8y ago
  Do they also hire "boys"? I think the term you're looking for is "women".
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
bduerst 8y ago
Where are the results of this Australian study? That news article doesn't list them. Following through on their source [1], it says that the study outcome actually favors women and minority candidates, but it doesn't say how much, or talk about statistical signifance. It seems like the experiment design has been criticized on this one study too, and not releasing the results seems suspect. The study also cites that blind auditions were a success for Orchestras [2]: >In a well-known study analysing data on auditions and hiring by orchestras over this period, Goldin & Rouse (2000) found that the use of blind auditions had a major impact on gender bias in orchestras, increasing the likelihood of female musicians being selected by 25-40%. [1] http://behaviouraleconomics.pmc.gov.au/projects/going-blind-see-more-clearly-unconscious-bias-australian-public-service-aps-shortlisting http://behaviouraleconomics.pmc.gov.au/projects/going-blind-... [2] https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.90.4.715 https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.90.4.715
- fiestaman 8y ago
  The study states that after anonymization of resumes women were around 3% less likely to get picked and men around 3% more likely. Data were statistically significant at the 99% level. http://behaviouraleconomics.pmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/projects/unconscious-bias.pdf http://behaviouraleconomics.pmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/p... Page 13
tomp 8y ago
Don't you mean, succeeded spectacularly? If the composition of candidates was changed when less biased/irrelevant information was displayed, arguably the selection could only be more meritocratic, not less.
- Fomite 8y ago
  That is only true assuming the selection criteria that weren't blinded were themselves free of bias. That's very rarely true. And if it's not true, arguably what you've done is removed the adjustment variables that could correct the bias, rather than the bias itself.
  - 706f6f70 8y ago
    > were themselves free of bias. At what point do we start growing people solely for the purpose of leading unbiased existences away from all of humanity? Of course these existences are isolated from all humanity lest they associate the human that gives them food with positivity, or someone having a bad day with negativity. And of course, we kill these unbiaseds shortly after every selection process, since the mere process of selection itself, generates bias. Some SF writer must have beaten me to this right?
    - Fomite 8y ago
      Note that, like many machine learning examples of the recent past, the evaluator themselves need not be biased. Just the data.
- black-tea 8y ago
  Failed because this kind of thing is always done for feminism. It's not done to get closer to a meritocracy.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
manigandham 8y ago
Failed at what exactly? >> The trial found assigning a male name to a candidate made them 3.2 per cent less likely to get a job interview. Adding a woman's name to a CV made the candidate 2.9 per cent more likely to get a foot in the door. Seems like it did the job of removing existing bias when details were blind.

saintPirelli 8y ago

They will replicate the results, quietly implement a different protocol and never talk about it again for sure.

mamon 8y ago

This matches my experience in IT: sometimes recruiters prefer to hire a girl, even if less qualified, just for sake of having a girl in the team, because it is "improving the morale" :)

deelowe 8y ago
There are tons of studies out there showing monocultures are bad for business. In your case, I'm sure your IT department had to interact with women on occasion. Having women on the team will allow the group to be aware of social considerations specific to women that they may otherwise miss. The people who reviewed and approved the designs for our office space were all males. Guess what they forgot to put in the women's restrooms? When women complained, they put an open trash can next to the toilet with no lid... The problem with the whole conversation around this topic is everyone pretending that women and men on average have the same level of skills and experience as each other. Then they act shocked when there are so few qualified male nurses or female mechanics. Businesses only care about this topic, because it helps them design products and provide services that address a wider market. So, maybe they should just admit they don't always hire the absolute technically best candidate as the goal is to improve the social structure of the team.
- klohto 8y ago
  Thank you. I have never considered this view. I always hear it’s for the team’s good to be more diverse but never why it’s good to be diverse... I still believe quotas should not be applied everywhere but your example shows an excellent point that they are beneficial in some cases.
roberto 8y ago
Do they also hire "boys"? I think the term you're looking for is "women".

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

bduerst 8y ago

Where are the results of this Australian study? That news article doesn't list them. Following through on their source [1], it says that the study outcome actually favors women and minority candidates, but it doesn't say how much, or talk about statistical signifance. It seems like the experiment design has been criticized on this one study too, and not releasing the results seems suspect. The study also cites that blind auditions were a success for Orchestras [2]: >In a well-known study analysing data on auditions and hiring by orchestras over this period, Goldin & Rouse (2000) found that the use of blind auditions had a major impact on gender bias in orchestras, increasing the likelihood of female musicians being selected by 25-40%. [1] http://behaviouraleconomics.pmc.gov.au/projects/going-blind-see-more-clearly-unconscious-bias-australian-public-service-aps-shortlisting http://behaviouraleconomics.pmc.gov.au/projects/going-blind-... [2] https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.90.4.715 https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.90.4.715

fiestaman 8y ago
The study states that after anonymization of resumes women were around 3% less likely to get picked and men around 3% more likely. Data were statistically significant at the 99% level. http://behaviouraleconomics.pmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/projects/unconscious-bias.pdf http://behaviouraleconomics.pmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/p... Page 13

tomp 8y ago

Don't you mean, succeeded spectacularly? If the composition of candidates was changed when less biased/irrelevant information was displayed, arguably the selection could only be more meritocratic, not less.

Fomite 8y ago
That is only true assuming the selection criteria that weren't blinded were themselves free of bias. That's very rarely true. And if it's not true, arguably what you've done is removed the adjustment variables that could correct the bias, rather than the bias itself.
- 706f6f70 8y ago
  > were themselves free of bias. At what point do we start growing people solely for the purpose of leading unbiased existences away from all of humanity? Of course these existences are isolated from all humanity lest they associate the human that gives them food with positivity, or someone having a bad day with negativity. And of course, we kill these unbiaseds shortly after every selection process, since the mere process of selection itself, generates bias. Some SF writer must have beaten me to this right?
  - Fomite 8y ago
    Note that, like many machine learning examples of the recent past, the evaluator themselves need not be biased. Just the data.
black-tea 8y ago
Failed because this kind of thing is always done for feminism. It's not done to get closer to a meritocracy.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

manigandham 8y ago

Failed at what exactly? >> The trial found assigning a male name to a candidate made them 3.2 per cent less likely to get a job interview. Adding a woman's name to a CV made the candidate 2.9 per cent more likely to get a foot in the door. Seems like it did the job of removing existing bias when details were blind.