4 ms·

From abstract: ” Female entrepreneurs received 9% more interested replies than males pitching identical projects and Asians received 6% more than Whites. Our re

From abstract: ” Female entrepreneurs received 9% more interested replies than males pitching identical projects and Asians received 6% more than Whites. Our results suggest that investors do not discriminate against female or Asian entrepreneurs when evaluating unsolicited pitch emails and that future research on investor biases should focus on networks and in-person interactions.” In other words: The preferred results were not found (females are oppressed) so we ignore wrong-think results (males seem to be) and continue to hunt evidence for preferred results elsewhere.

throwaway894345 6y ago
Your summary is incorrect. They are not taking their results to indicate that their assumption is incorrect, but rather that the anti-female bias must be even stronger elsewhere to overcome the significant pro-female bias at initial stages.
- damagednoob 6y ago
  I think the two of you are in violent agreement.
  - throwaway894345 6y ago
    We generally agree, though not violently :). I was pointing out that the effect is a bit bigger than the parent suggested. The authors aren’t abandoning their priors about anti-female bias; on the contrary they aren’t even recognizing that this evidence challenges those priors—they assume that the evidence to prove their priors must exist elsewhere and in sufficiently large effect as to counteract and dominate this pro-female bias. Note that I think it’s a fine thing to stick to one’s priors until they’ve been conclusively disproven, but recognition when the evidence obviously challenges one’s priors is my baseline for good faith. That said, I suspect this paper is written as it was because the authors thought their careers might be in danger for merely suggesting that the disparity might have a cause beyond discrimination.
  - geoduck14 6y ago
    > violent agreement I'm using this phrase the next time my daughters are playing and they start to yell at each other.
- judge2020 6y ago
  That's the problem - their results show a bias against white and/or male entrepreneurs in this study on gender and race, yet don't point this out and suggest that we should look for negative female/asian bias elsewhere. The results speak for themselves but the abstract and mindset is indicative of what they were really looking for in the first place.
  - throwaway894345 6y ago
    > yet don't point this out and suggest that we should look for negative female/asian bias elsewhere I’m confused, the study does suggest we look for anti-female bias elsewhere. Indeed, the authors seem to argue that it must exist elsewhere, and more powerfully so in order to explain the gender gap.
    - tristor 6y ago
      > must exist elsewhere, and more powerfully so in order to explain the gender gap. Why is anti-female bias the only possible explanation of the gap? Why is that the only acceptable hypothesis? It's a possibility, it might even be probable, but there seems to be an exclusionary focus both in your comments and in the abstract.
      - throwaway894345 6y ago
        I have the same questions.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
    - Guthur 6y ago
      I think the point is that there is a bias against males and white reducing the the chance of equity of opportunity, and this seem to be because the focus is consistently on equality of outcome.
      - throwaway894345 6y ago
- bhupy 6y ago
  > that the anti-female bias must be even stronger elsewhere to overcome the significant pro-female bias at initial stages From a strictly scientific standpoint, you can’t really draw such “must be” conclusions. It could also very well be that the input into the existing funnel is low; I.e that there is a lower percentage of female founders because females make a lower percentage of the applicant pool. And, to be clear, the disparity could also be due to stronger biases further into the investment process! It’s just that we don’t know whether it’s the former or the latter (or some combination), and based on the research here it is inappropriate to draw that specific conclusion. That’s not a scientific approach.
  - throwaway894345 6y ago
    Strongly agree. It would be nice if the authors nodded to the possibility that the disparity might not be attributable to VC bias at all.
- koonsolo 6y ago
  > that the anti-female bias must be even stronger elsewhere Where does it mention that there is an overall anti-female bias?
  - throwaway894345 6y ago
    > Combating bias requires understanding how and where it manifests. In light of the substantial gender imbalance in real-world investments, our results suggest a larger-than-expected bias against female entrepreneurs in other settings. The reasoning appears to be something like, "Because there is a disparity, there must be an anti-female bias somewhere and since there's only a pro-female bias here, the elsewhere anti-female bias must be so strong as to overcome the pro-female bias here to produce the disparity". There seems to be an implicit assumption that disparities are proof of bias when in fact bias is one of many potential causes of disparities.
    - koonsolo 6y ago
      Indeed. It can't be that hard to first look at all applications for funding, and then see which ones actually get funded. It wouldn't surprise me that there would be an overall pro-female bias. It wouldn't fit certain political agendas though.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
Swenrekcah 6y ago
I didn’t see any mention of it in the study but I’d hazard a guess that most VCs are heterosexual men and that might be a factor in an initial preference for women’s pitches, other things being equal.
- icare_1er 6y ago
  Still, as most men are straight, this confirms that women have an unfair advantage.
  - Swenrekcah 6y ago
    Not necessarily, it is not clear that it would be a positive thing for the woman.
michaelt 6y ago
> The preferred results were not found (females are oppressed) so we ignore wrong-think results (males seem to be) It's true that any discrimination in favour of one group would be discrimination against the opposite. But as a middle-class white guy at a big tech company, whose boss is a middle class white guy whose boss is a middle class white guy whose boss is a middle class white guy whose boss is a middle class white guy whose boss is a middle class white guy whose boss, the CEO, is a rich white guy... I don't feel very oppressed.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
MAGZine 6y ago
it's not ignore. I think they'd be remiss to not mention the detail SOMEWHERE in their study, but I'd consider it bad science to conclude some other fact that your experiment/observational study was not designed for. They should design an experiment suitable to justifying that conclusion, if that's what they wanted to prove. at best, the author's should conclude on that particular thread, "more research is needed."

throwaway894345 6y ago

Your summary is incorrect. They are not taking their results to indicate that their assumption is incorrect, but rather that the anti-female bias must be even stronger elsewhere to overcome the significant pro-female bias at initial stages.

damagednoob 6y ago
I think the two of you are in violent agreement.
- throwaway894345 6y ago
  We generally agree, though not violently :). I was pointing out that the effect is a bit bigger than the parent suggested. The authors aren’t abandoning their priors about anti-female bias; on the contrary they aren’t even recognizing that this evidence challenges those priors—they assume that the evidence to prove their priors must exist elsewhere and in sufficiently large effect as to counteract and dominate this pro-female bias. Note that I think it’s a fine thing to stick to one’s priors until they’ve been conclusively disproven, but recognition when the evidence obviously challenges one’s priors is my baseline for good faith. That said, I suspect this paper is written as it was because the authors thought their careers might be in danger for merely suggesting that the disparity might have a cause beyond discrimination.
- geoduck14 6y ago
  > violent agreement I'm using this phrase the next time my daughters are playing and they start to yell at each other.
judge2020 6y ago
That's the problem - their results show a bias against white and/or male entrepreneurs in this study on gender and race, yet don't point this out and suggest that we should look for negative female/asian bias elsewhere. The results speak for themselves but the abstract and mindset is indicative of what they were really looking for in the first place.
- throwaway894345 6y ago
  > yet don't point this out and suggest that we should look for negative female/asian bias elsewhere I’m confused, the study does suggest we look for anti-female bias elsewhere. Indeed, the authors seem to argue that it must exist elsewhere, and more powerfully so in order to explain the gender gap.
  - tristor 6y ago
    > must exist elsewhere, and more powerfully so in order to explain the gender gap. Why is anti-female bias the only possible explanation of the gap? Why is that the only acceptable hypothesis? It's a possibility, it might even be probable, but there seems to be an exclusionary focus both in your comments and in the abstract.
    - throwaway894345 6y ago
      I have the same questions.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
  - Guthur 6y ago
    I think the point is that there is a bias against males and white reducing the the chance of equity of opportunity, and this seem to be because the focus is consistently on equality of outcome.
    - throwaway894345 6y ago
bhupy 6y ago
> that the anti-female bias must be even stronger elsewhere to overcome the significant pro-female bias at initial stages From a strictly scientific standpoint, you can’t really draw such “must be” conclusions. It could also very well be that the input into the existing funnel is low; I.e that there is a lower percentage of female founders because females make a lower percentage of the applicant pool. And, to be clear, the disparity could also be due to stronger biases further into the investment process! It’s just that we don’t know whether it’s the former or the latter (or some combination), and based on the research here it is inappropriate to draw that specific conclusion. That’s not a scientific approach.
- throwaway894345 6y ago
  Strongly agree. It would be nice if the authors nodded to the possibility that the disparity might not be attributable to VC bias at all.
koonsolo 6y ago
> that the anti-female bias must be even stronger elsewhere Where does it mention that there is an overall anti-female bias?
- throwaway894345 6y ago
  > Combating bias requires understanding how and where it manifests. In light of the substantial gender imbalance in real-world investments, our results suggest a larger-than-expected bias against female entrepreneurs in other settings. The reasoning appears to be something like, "Because there is a disparity, there must be an anti-female bias somewhere and since there's only a pro-female bias here, the elsewhere anti-female bias must be so strong as to overcome the pro-female bias here to produce the disparity". There seems to be an implicit assumption that disparities are proof of bias when in fact bias is one of many potential causes of disparities.
  - koonsolo 6y ago
    Indeed. It can't be that hard to first look at all applications for funding, and then see which ones actually get funded. It wouldn't surprise me that there would be an overall pro-female bias. It wouldn't fit certain political agendas though.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

Swenrekcah 6y ago

I didn’t see any mention of it in the study but I’d hazard a guess that most VCs are heterosexual men and that might be a factor in an initial preference for women’s pitches, other things being equal.

icare_1er 6y ago
Still, as most men are straight, this confirms that women have an unfair advantage.
- Swenrekcah 6y ago
  Not necessarily, it is not clear that it would be a positive thing for the woman.

michaelt 6y ago

> The preferred results were not found (females are oppressed) so we ignore wrong-think results (males seem to be) It's true that any discrimination in favour of one group would be discrimination against the opposite. But as a middle-class white guy at a big tech company, whose boss is a middle class white guy whose boss is a middle class white guy whose boss is a middle class white guy whose boss is a middle class white guy whose boss is a middle class white guy whose boss, the CEO, is a rich white guy... I don't feel very oppressed.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

MAGZine 6y ago

it's not ignore. I think they'd be remiss to not mention the detail SOMEWHERE in their study, but I'd consider it bad science to conclude some other fact that your experiment/observational study was not designed for. They should design an experiment suitable to justifying that conclusion, if that's what they wanted to prove. at best, the author's should conclude on that particular thread, "more research is needed."