6 ms·

I did not find this very nuanced. The comments from Pallesen seem to try to advocate for extremes. One such comment: "Table 4 presents the first results compar

I did not find this very nuanced. The comments from Pallesen seem to try to advocate for extremes. One such comment: "Table 4 presents the first results comparing success in blind auditions vs non-blind auditions. . . . this table unambigiously shows that men are doing comparatively better in blind auditions than in non-blind auditions. The exact opposite of what is claimed." I had a look at the linked paper. And it is true that the table shows that women perform worse in blind auditions. However, the paper does not claim that this table shows that women perform better. Instead the paper elaborates on the options of why women perform worse by arguing the following: "One interpretation of this result is that the adoption of the screen lowered the average quality of female auditionees in the blind auditions. Only if we can hold quality constant can we identify the true impact of the screen." The paper goes on to explain how they discovered that during blind auditions there were a lot more under-qualified women and that this was skewing the data. They discovered this because they had the names of all the participants and saw that some women would participate in both blind and non-blind auditions while others would only participate in blind ones. The following was the papers conclusion on this matter: "When we limit the sample to those who auditioned both with and without a screen, the success rate for women competing in blind auditions is almost always higher than in those that were not blind."

leereeves 7y ago
Why would blind auditions lower the average quality of female auditionees, and not male auditionees? That seems like searching for an explanation that fits a theory. Worse, the authors acknowledge that blind auditions were part of a larger effort to recruit more women, but fail to account for other aspects of that effort. They simply attribute the entire effect to the blind auditions. But it seems likely that orchestras that were actively trying to recruit more women (like the NYPhil, which the paper claims increased the percentage of women in the orchestra from least in the nation to most) would have hired more women with or without blind auditions. Original paper: https://www.nber.org/papers/w5903.pdf https://www.nber.org/papers/w5903.pdf
- dx87 7y ago
  It might lower the average quality of female auditionees because you'd get females that aren't good enough to play in the orchestra, but told themselves that the only reason they weren't previously selected is because they're female. Males haven't been told "the only reason you weren't selected is because you're male", so you're not going to have less skilled males auditioning who think their sex is the only reason they didn't pass previous auditions.
  - d0mine 7y ago
    Would you explanation work for example for sprinters (where men are objectively faster)? What does it tell about the quality of the explanation?
    - EForEndeavour 7y ago
      Orchestral skill isn't anywhere near as quantifiable as the time taken to sprint a given distance, so this comparison is irrelevant as far as I can see, though I welcome clarification. The entire point is that there is no objective measure of playing ability, which allows conscious and subconscious biases to affect audition decisions, which is why blind auditions make sense for choosing orchestra performers, but is not required (let alone practical) for choosing sprinters.
      - d0mine 7y ago
        It precisely the point that when we can easily measure results, it clear that the adhoc excuses in the grandparent comment are just that.
        EForEndeavour 7y ago
        No, the point is that sprint times are judged by well-validated and understood instrumentation whose results are easily replicable. Conversely, the outcome of an orchestra audition is decided by human judges, and we know that humans are subject to conscious and unconscious biases that affect their ultimate decision. We can easily measure the eventual decision of the audition, but the audition process itself is much more difficult to scrutinize, unlike your example of a sprint race. That's why your original challenge to compare this audition situation to a sprint race does not apply.
kuzehanka 7y ago
> "One interpretation of this result is that the adoption of the screen lowered the average quality of female auditionees in the blind auditions. Only if we can hold quality constant can we identify the true impact of the screen." There's something of a repeating theme lately. Study of blind interviews/tests in various fields => women found to underperform despite experimental controls and expectations => commentary and authors grasp at straws to explain the result with anything but the fact that perhaps men and women don't have the same performance envelope in every walk of life. How many more of such studies and straw-grasping explanations will we have to go through before someone considers occam's razor?
- CathedralBorrow 7y ago
  Would you care to enlighten us with the truth?
  - taneq 7y ago
    They're suggesting that women, on average, just aren't as good as men at some things (and vice versa): > perhaps men and women don't have the same performance envelope in every walk of life
    - mafuy 7y ago
      No, they are suggesting that the top performing women just aren't as good as the top performing men. A small but important difference. I believe what they said is right. At the same time, I also believe that the worst performing men perform worse than the worst performing women - males have a wider spread of ability.
  - jabgrabdthrow 7y ago
    He’s just rejecting the null hypothesis, asking for a working theory in its place is a bit of a rhetorical fallacy
  - d0mine 7y ago
    even if the average might be the same, the tails of the distribution may differ e.g., IQ distribution https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2015/10/02/sorry-girls-but-the-smartest-people-in-the-world-are-all-men/ https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2015/10/02/sorry-girls-bu... (a man is more likely to be a fool or genius)

leereeves 7y ago

Why would blind auditions lower the average quality of female auditionees, and not male auditionees? That seems like searching for an explanation that fits a theory. Worse, the authors acknowledge that blind auditions were part of a larger effort to recruit more women, but fail to account for other aspects of that effort. They simply attribute the entire effect to the blind auditions. But it seems likely that orchestras that were actively trying to recruit more women (like the NYPhil, which the paper claims increased the percentage of women in the orchestra from least in the nation to most) would have hired more women with or without blind auditions. Original paper: https://www.nber.org/papers/w5903.pdf https://www.nber.org/papers/w5903.pdf

dx87 7y ago
It might lower the average quality of female auditionees because you'd get females that aren't good enough to play in the orchestra, but told themselves that the only reason they weren't previously selected is because they're female. Males haven't been told "the only reason you weren't selected is because you're male", so you're not going to have less skilled males auditioning who think their sex is the only reason they didn't pass previous auditions.
- d0mine 7y ago
  Would you explanation work for example for sprinters (where men are objectively faster)? What does it tell about the quality of the explanation?
  - EForEndeavour 7y ago
    Orchestral skill isn't anywhere near as quantifiable as the time taken to sprint a given distance, so this comparison is irrelevant as far as I can see, though I welcome clarification. The entire point is that there is no objective measure of playing ability, which allows conscious and subconscious biases to affect audition decisions, which is why blind auditions make sense for choosing orchestra performers, but is not required (let alone practical) for choosing sprinters.
    - d0mine 7y ago
      It precisely the point that when we can easily measure results, it clear that the adhoc excuses in the grandparent comment are just that.
      - EForEndeavour 7y ago
        No, the point is that sprint times are judged by well-validated and understood instrumentation whose results are easily replicable. Conversely, the outcome of an orchestra audition is decided by human judges, and we know that humans are subject to conscious and unconscious biases that affect their ultimate decision. We can easily measure the eventual decision of the audition, but the audition process itself is much more difficult to scrutinize, unlike your example of a sprint race. That's why your original challenge to compare this audition situation to a sprint race does not apply.

kuzehanka 7y ago

> "One interpretation of this result is that the adoption of the screen lowered the average quality of female auditionees in the blind auditions. Only if we can hold quality constant can we identify the true impact of the screen." There's something of a repeating theme lately. Study of blind interviews/tests in various fields => women found to underperform despite experimental controls and expectations => commentary and authors grasp at straws to explain the result with anything but the fact that perhaps men and women don't have the same performance envelope in every walk of life. How many more of such studies and straw-grasping explanations will we have to go through before someone considers occam's razor?

CathedralBorrow 7y ago
Would you care to enlighten us with the truth?
- taneq 7y ago
  They're suggesting that women, on average, just aren't as good as men at some things (and vice versa): > perhaps men and women don't have the same performance envelope in every walk of life
  - mafuy 7y ago
    No, they are suggesting that the top performing women just aren't as good as the top performing men. A small but important difference. I believe what they said is right. At the same time, I also believe that the worst performing men perform worse than the worst performing women - males have a wider spread of ability.
- jabgrabdthrow 7y ago
  He’s just rejecting the null hypothesis, asking for a working theory in its place is a bit of a rhetorical fallacy
- d0mine 7y ago
  even if the average might be the same, the tails of the distribution may differ e.g., IQ distribution https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2015/10/02/sorry-girls-but-the-smartest-people-in-the-world-are-all-men/ https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2015/10/02/sorry-girls-bu... (a man is more likely to be a fool or genius)