6 ms·

Blind auditions and gender discrimination

88 points by kmod 7y ago

dang 7y ago
Url changed from https://medium.com/@jsmp/orchestrating-false-beliefs-about-gender-discrimination-a25a48e1d02 https://medium.com/@jsmp/orchestrating-false-beliefs-about-g..., which points to this.
- zepto 7y ago
  Why? They are both by the same author but don’t have the same content.
  - dang 7y ago
    They mostly overlap and the author references this one from that one. We have a weak preference for niche sites as compared to platforms like medium.com. Most importantly, though: threads are incredibly sensitive to initial conditions. The current article has a more crisply defined scope. If we start from something generic like "false beliefs about gender discrimination", an unsubstantive, angry flamewar is guaranteed. But if we start from something specific like a well-reported study that turned out to be wrong, there's at least a chance that the discussion can keep its head. Edit: especially if the first comments don't chop it off (see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21329159 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21329159).
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
growlist 7y ago
Something I'm sceptical about: the idea that introducing people that look different magically automatically leads to better performing teams. Questioning this verges on heresy in this day and age, yet there seem to be plenty of companies that are utterly lacking in (superficial) diversity, yet (rather inconveniently for diversity cheerleaders) somehow make massive profits in spite of their handicap. Another one: women are paid less than men for the same work. If this were the case, companies would - because they could do an equivalent job to a man for less money - simply hire all women workforces which due to their lower wage bill would outcompete and destroy companies that employed men. Yet - again somewhat inconveniently! - the real world refuses to match the theory.
- zorpner 7y ago
  These are both exaggerated strawmen -- characterizing the benefits of diverse teams as "introducing people that look different magically automatically leads to better performing teams" is disingenuous, as is the assumption in your second example that systemic bias is economically rational. As it takes an order of magnitude more effort to refute bullshit than to produce it, I'll wait for real arguments before engaging further.
  - atom-morgan 7y ago
    It's not bullshit when there are plenty of people in the industry saying exactly that.
    - bsder 7y ago
      "In Search of Excellence: Lessons from America's Best-Run Companies" is still published. People in business say many things--they are often completely full of it.
    - krageon 7y ago
      Just because many people say it does not mean it isn't bullshit. It is easy to be wrong.
- crummy 7y ago
  > If this were the case, companies would - because they could do an equivalent job to a man for less money - simply hire all women workforces which due to their lower wage bill would outcompete and destroy companies that employed men. That assumes company made up of perfectly rational human beings. If members of the company are sexist it might not work out that way.
  - viklove 7y ago
    Then you should be able to start a company in the same industry as these sexists, abuse this fact, and run them out of business because your operating costs are lower!
4ntonius8lock 7y ago
From the article: > Unfortunately, it is not clear what else the journalists could be expected to do in this case. After all, they just quoted directly from some values in a published, peer reviewed study. I feel this is a bit naive or condescending to journalists. In many professions you are required to take statistics courses. After all, they are essential to reading studies. And reading studies is something professionals should do. I have only a cursory knowledge of statistics, but enough that if I read the paper I can pretty easily spot the issues mentioned in the article. If a news article mentions a study in passing without depth, it could be forgiven. But writing a whole article on a study based solely on the summary of the researcher is lazy. I think the author of the article might be acting naive with the lack of reporting standards shown by news organizations on this type of articles. The reality is the study came to an unpopular conclusion. News organizations, like politicians, won't touch that stuff.
elznebelyk 7y ago
Yep, white and asian men are being massively discriminated against and we are all lying about it for some reason. Asian males need to outperform a female counterpart to be given the same opportunities. Why we are pretending this is a good thing is beyond me.
nickpsecurity 7y ago
Blind auditions are one technique I push as an alternative to just selecting people based on their attributes. The authors just shredded one study. Given size of HN, it's survey time: what are all the good studies you know of it working, not working, etc?
- blast 7y ago
  This was a replication attempt that came up with the opposite results: https://www.voced.edu.au/content/ngv%3A77108 https://www.voced.edu.au/content/ngv%3A77108
- belorn 7y ago
  Are you asking for technique for hiring processes or employee retention? From observation, I see very fair hiring process in companies that treat employees as replaceable cogs that get trained, used and within a few years replaced. One place that I know which operate like that has equal hiring ratios, gender ratio of almost 50/50, pays exactly the same for both women and men, and are extremely unflexible in terms of work hours, task selection/satification and pay. As a result they also have a very high churn rate.
- AstralStorm 7y ago
  Not sure if shredded. The author detected no significant bias in blind auditions due to gender. This may or may not mean that blind auditions are more effective in equalizing opportunities - are fair.
  - weberc2 7y ago
    How could it mean that blind auditions are fairer if it didn’t detect a gender bias signal to begin with? Genuine question?

88 points by kmod 7y ago

dang 7y ago

Url changed from https://medium.com/@jsmp/orchestrating-false-beliefs-about-gender-discrimination-a25a48e1d02 https://medium.com/@jsmp/orchestrating-false-beliefs-about-g..., which points to this.

zepto 7y ago
Why? They are both by the same author but don’t have the same content.
- dang 7y ago
  They mostly overlap and the author references this one from that one. We have a weak preference for niche sites as compared to platforms like medium.com. Most importantly, though: threads are incredibly sensitive to initial conditions. The current article has a more crisply defined scope. If we start from something generic like "false beliefs about gender discrimination", an unsubstantive, angry flamewar is guaranteed. But if we start from something specific like a well-reported study that turned out to be wrong, there's at least a chance that the discussion can keep its head. Edit: especially if the first comments don't chop it off (see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21329159 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21329159).

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

growlist 7y ago

Something I'm sceptical about: the idea that introducing people that look different magically automatically leads to better performing teams. Questioning this verges on heresy in this day and age, yet there seem to be plenty of companies that are utterly lacking in (superficial) diversity, yet (rather inconveniently for diversity cheerleaders) somehow make massive profits in spite of their handicap. Another one: women are paid less than men for the same work. If this were the case, companies would - because they could do an equivalent job to a man for less money - simply hire all women workforces which due to their lower wage bill would outcompete and destroy companies that employed men. Yet - again somewhat inconveniently! - the real world refuses to match the theory.

zorpner 7y ago
These are both exaggerated strawmen -- characterizing the benefits of diverse teams as "introducing people that look different magically automatically leads to better performing teams" is disingenuous, as is the assumption in your second example that systemic bias is economically rational. As it takes an order of magnitude more effort to refute bullshit than to produce it, I'll wait for real arguments before engaging further.
- atom-morgan 7y ago
  It's not bullshit when there are plenty of people in the industry saying exactly that.
  - bsder 7y ago
    "In Search of Excellence: Lessons from America's Best-Run Companies" is still published. People in business say many things--they are often completely full of it.
  - krageon 7y ago
    Just because many people say it does not mean it isn't bullshit. It is easy to be wrong.
crummy 7y ago
> If this were the case, companies would - because they could do an equivalent job to a man for less money - simply hire all women workforces which due to their lower wage bill would outcompete and destroy companies that employed men. That assumes company made up of perfectly rational human beings. If members of the company are sexist it might not work out that way.
- viklove 7y ago
  Then you should be able to start a company in the same industry as these sexists, abuse this fact, and run them out of business because your operating costs are lower!

4ntonius8lock 7y ago

From the article: > Unfortunately, it is not clear what else the journalists could be expected to do in this case. After all, they just quoted directly from some values in a published, peer reviewed study. I feel this is a bit naive or condescending to journalists. In many professions you are required to take statistics courses. After all, they are essential to reading studies. And reading studies is something professionals should do. I have only a cursory knowledge of statistics, but enough that if I read the paper I can pretty easily spot the issues mentioned in the article. If a news article mentions a study in passing without depth, it could be forgiven. But writing a whole article on a study based solely on the summary of the researcher is lazy. I think the author of the article might be acting naive with the lack of reporting standards shown by news organizations on this type of articles. The reality is the study came to an unpopular conclusion. News organizations, like politicians, won't touch that stuff.

elznebelyk 7y ago

Yep, white and asian men are being massively discriminated against and we are all lying about it for some reason. Asian males need to outperform a female counterpart to be given the same opportunities. Why we are pretending this is a good thing is beyond me.

nickpsecurity 7y ago

Blind auditions are one technique I push as an alternative to just selecting people based on their attributes. The authors just shredded one study. Given size of HN, it's survey time: what are all the good studies you know of it working, not working, etc?

blast 7y ago
This was a replication attempt that came up with the opposite results: https://www.voced.edu.au/content/ngv%3A77108 https://www.voced.edu.au/content/ngv%3A77108
belorn 7y ago
Are you asking for technique for hiring processes or employee retention? From observation, I see very fair hiring process in companies that treat employees as replaceable cogs that get trained, used and within a few years replaced. One place that I know which operate like that has equal hiring ratios, gender ratio of almost 50/50, pays exactly the same for both women and men, and are extremely unflexible in terms of work hours, task selection/satification and pay. As a result they also have a very high churn rate.
AstralStorm 7y ago
Not sure if shredded. The author detected no significant bias in blind auditions due to gender. This may or may not mean that blind auditions are more effective in equalizing opportunities - are fair.
- weberc2 7y ago
  How could it mean that blind auditions are fairer if it didn’t detect a gender bias signal to begin with? Genuine question?