5 ms·

In case anyone remembers the incident at CERN (mentioned in the article) regarding the author of this paper, I have some n=1 information. I used to work at CE

In case anyone remembers the incident at CERN (mentioned in the article) regarding the author of this paper, I have some n=1 information. I used to work at CERN when this happened, and I remember the day because there was much chatter and unrest about it. The author claimed that a woman was hired for a position instead of him, while they were the only two candidates and he had much more papers published and citations. While of course that does not mean that there is systemic sexism in CERN's hiring process because it could very well simply be that the guy is unbearable, I have heard a high-up HR employee at CERN say that women are favored when hiring. I strongly disagree with equality of outcome, since this is basically fighting inequality with sexism. I did not dare to speak my thoughts to anyone apart from very few colleague friends.

nisuni 7y ago
> I did not dare to speak my thoughts to anyone apart from very few colleague friends. I completely agree with your positions, and I am also “undercover”. I wonder how many of us are there...
brnt 7y ago
> I strongly disagree with equality of outcome, There's more to hiring than numerics, there's always the prerogative and perhaps even need to take a chance. People have not always had similar chances or abilities to produce the results you'd like to see in all candidates, but it just may be you can give a person a place to shine. The candidate that already shone may be safer, but in practice it may as well mean more of the same (that you've hired). Since you're using the same metrics (paper output etc. in your case). Sometimes more of the same is not what you need. There's a whole universe of reasons for (not) hiring someone. Pretending anyone is hiring (or even able to) based on merit is not seeing clearly. You rarely know, apart from superstar hires for identical roles they've performed elsewhere already, is all about taking a chance. You may as well freshen up the org with atypical hires, in my experience worth their shots far more than 'default' hires, which, in my view, a nearly always just hires most similar to you.
- raxxorrax 7y ago
  I don't like to push metrics like paper output or number of recitations, because I believe many understand the obvious shortcommings of that. But the alternative you are suggesting is pure favoritism, which is even worse.
  - brnt 7y ago
    It's not favoritism. It's making an educated guess, educated by numerics, personal fit, but also stuff like how many chances did this person have and am I (as the hirer) able/inclined to provide one, how did the person handle adversity (may be one of the most valuable things you get into your org), and so on. Using your estimate of what a person might do/become given a chance is not at all the same as favoritism. Favoritism is hiring people just like yourself and calling it meritocracy.
    - toomuchtodo 7y ago
      This strikes me as switching out one type of bias for another, with no proof of improvement as to the end result. As long as you're not breaking labor law, not a problem, but without stats showing outcome, you can't say it's objectively better.
      - brnt 7y ago
        Proof is hard because hiring is not replicable. However, doing nothing provides proof for the status quo, and if you are happy with that, by all means do not change. I am not, and will advocate for the contrary.
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
        weberc2 7y ago
        Honestly I'm having a hard time following your position. It sounds like you're making some kind of circular argument; that we should hire more women because they face discrimination. But the whole debate is about whether or not they face discrimination in the first place. Or maybe you're advocating for discrimination in general on the basis that a person's immutable characteristics informs about his/her character (their work ethic, resilience, etc) or their ideas (e.g., the black candidate will bring in new ideas on account of his race compared to the white candidate) with some degree of reliability? I think clarity would improve your posts.
asimpleq187 7y ago
Are you in favor of the status quo? If not, what would you change?

nisuni 7y ago

> I did not dare to speak my thoughts to anyone apart from very few colleague friends. I completely agree with your positions, and I am also “undercover”. I wonder how many of us are there...

brnt 7y ago

> I strongly disagree with equality of outcome, There's more to hiring than numerics, there's always the prerogative and perhaps even need to take a chance. People have not always had similar chances or abilities to produce the results you'd like to see in all candidates, but it just may be you can give a person a place to shine. The candidate that already shone may be safer, but in practice it may as well mean more of the same (that you've hired). Since you're using the same metrics (paper output etc. in your case). Sometimes more of the same is not what you need. There's a whole universe of reasons for (not) hiring someone. Pretending anyone is hiring (or even able to) based on merit is not seeing clearly. You rarely know, apart from superstar hires for identical roles they've performed elsewhere already, is all about taking a chance. You may as well freshen up the org with atypical hires, in my experience worth their shots far more than 'default' hires, which, in my view, a nearly always just hires most similar to you.

raxxorrax 7y ago
I don't like to push metrics like paper output or number of recitations, because I believe many understand the obvious shortcommings of that. But the alternative you are suggesting is pure favoritism, which is even worse.
- brnt 7y ago
  It's not favoritism. It's making an educated guess, educated by numerics, personal fit, but also stuff like how many chances did this person have and am I (as the hirer) able/inclined to provide one, how did the person handle adversity (may be one of the most valuable things you get into your org), and so on. Using your estimate of what a person might do/become given a chance is not at all the same as favoritism. Favoritism is hiring people just like yourself and calling it meritocracy.
  - toomuchtodo 7y ago
    This strikes me as switching out one type of bias for another, with no proof of improvement as to the end result. As long as you're not breaking labor law, not a problem, but without stats showing outcome, you can't say it's objectively better.
    - brnt 7y ago
      Proof is hard because hiring is not replicable. However, doing nothing provides proof for the status quo, and if you are happy with that, by all means do not change. I am not, and will advocate for the contrary.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - weberc2 7y ago
        Honestly I'm having a hard time following your position. It sounds like you're making some kind of circular argument; that we should hire more women because they face discrimination. But the whole debate is about whether or not they face discrimination in the first place. Or maybe you're advocating for discrimination in general on the basis that a person's immutable characteristics informs about his/her character (their work ethic, resilience, etc) or their ideas (e.g., the black candidate will bring in new ideas on account of his race compared to the white candidate) with some degree of reliability? I think clarity would improve your posts.

asimpleq187 7y ago

Are you in favor of the status quo? If not, what would you change?