5 ms·

I took a quick look at the comments on this article and I find it fascinating that almost every commenter accepts the study's conclusions at face value. Having

I took a quick look at the comments on this article and I find it fascinating that almost every commenter accepts the study's conclusions at face value. Having been a HN reader for several years, I know how incredibly rare that is! The top voted comment is always something like "Correlation is not causation", "Yeah, but did the authors consider <something obvious the authors probably did consider>?", or something about how the methods does not allow one to draw very far-reaching conclusions. Even studies about gender or race discrimination always have the same kind of objections. Usually about how the purportedly discriminated against group isn't discriminated against but actually is objectively less competent and thus its worse outcome is "natural". For example, that there are fewer female than male tech entrepreneurs, I have been told, is because women are more risk-averse than men. The reason is absolutely not that investors are biased against female tech entrepreneurs. However! In this discussion, no one has yet offered the hypothesis that the purported discrimination against men could be explained by men being objectively less suitable to work in female-dominated professions than women. Perhaps men have less "emotional iq" than women or something? I find it very fascinating how the general take from a supposedly knowledgeable group of people (HN commentators) changes when the topic changes from "women are discriminated against" to "men are discriminated against"!

NovemberWhiskey 5y ago
The people who have come out with viewpoints that "gender X is under-represented vs. gender Y in position Z due to the objective superiority of gender Y wrt. quality W which is important in position Z" have ... had a hard time of it.
temp8964 5y ago
The researchers sent out identical resumes for job applications. If the general stereotype “men have less emotional iq” is the argument, it is actually discrimination based on gender stereotypes. You didn’t offer any valid methodological rebuttal to the study.
- klyrs 5y ago
  > You didn’t offer any valid methodological rebuttal to the study. On most studies regarding discrimination, HN readers clamor to rebut the methodology. That isn't happening here. Is the study bombproof, or is it possible that confirmation bias is at play?
  - temp8964 5y ago
    No. It's because this study used a common methodology widely adopted in the field. It's not like other studies which use simple statistical analyses to attribute group wage differences to discrimination.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
yeezus123 5y ago
How can you judge eq based off of a resume sent. It’s discriminatory to make vast judgments like this to the entire male gender.
xbar 5y ago
I think you are asserting bias in this audience. No doubt there is, on a lot of topics. My bias in support of this article comes from many anecdotal experiences that support the conclusions of the study and none that don't. I think your comment would indicate that I am therefore "supposedly knowledgeable" but not actually knowledgeable. I would strongly disagree: I have this scientific study and my experiential knowledge on this topic.
an9n 5y ago
> However! In this discussion, no one has yet offered the hypothesis that the purported discrimination against men could be explained by men being objectively less suitable to work in female-dominated professions than women. Perhaps men have less "emotional iq" than women or something? Well, I'll bite. If you really want to go down this road we could also start talking about how women being given time off specifically for their menstrual cycle or menopause (the latter is being seriously discussed in the media etc.) when there are no equivalent allowances whatsoever for men (despite the fact that men die younger than women!) means that women are 'objectively less suitable' for work full stop. Have you stopped to consider why the HN audience may have reacted as they have, and aren't you in fact guilty of the very thing you are accusing them of, that is, jumping to a conclusion about their thinking etc?
- Dylan16807 5y ago
  > If you really want to go down this road we could also start talking about how women being given time off specifically for their menstrual cycle or menopause (the latter is being seriously discussed in the media etc.) when there are no equivalent allowances whatsoever for men (despite the fact that men die younger than women!) means that women are 'objectively less suitable' for work full stop. I don't follow your logic. If someone takes, let's say an entire year off for menopause, but they live 5+ years longer, don't they have better working potential?
Out_of_Characte 5y ago
I think that's because the article/study doesn't provide alot of information and only reaffirms the previous study outcomes. "There was no evidence of discrimination against women in male-dominated professions or in mixed-gender professions, but the researchers did find evidence of discrimination against men in female-dominated professions." "female applicants had a 52.17 percent relative advantage" "This study only captures discrimination at the initial stages of the hiring process at entry level jobs in Sweden" >no one has yet offered the hypothesis that the purported discrimination against men could be explained by men being objectively less suitable to work in female-dominated professions than women. Perhaps men have less "emotional iq" than women or something? No such thing could have happened even if that's the case, from the study: "the group belonging of the fictitious applicants is experimentally manipulated, most commonly by randomizing the applicant’s name." "Correspondence tests can naturally only measure discrimination at the initial stage of the hiring process and may understate the true extent of hiring discrimination if it occurs at later stages of the process."

NovemberWhiskey 5y ago

The people who have come out with viewpoints that "gender X is under-represented vs. gender Y in position Z due to the objective superiority of gender Y wrt. quality W which is important in position Z" have ... had a hard time of it.

temp8964 5y ago

The researchers sent out identical resumes for job applications. If the general stereotype “men have less emotional iq” is the argument, it is actually discrimination based on gender stereotypes. You didn’t offer any valid methodological rebuttal to the study.

klyrs 5y ago
> You didn’t offer any valid methodological rebuttal to the study. On most studies regarding discrimination, HN readers clamor to rebut the methodology. That isn't happening here. Is the study bombproof, or is it possible that confirmation bias is at play?
- temp8964 5y ago
  No. It's because this study used a common methodology widely adopted in the field. It's not like other studies which use simple statistical analyses to attribute group wage differences to discrimination.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

yeezus123 5y ago

How can you judge eq based off of a resume sent. It’s discriminatory to make vast judgments like this to the entire male gender.

xbar 5y ago

I think you are asserting bias in this audience. No doubt there is, on a lot of topics. My bias in support of this article comes from many anecdotal experiences that support the conclusions of the study and none that don't. I think your comment would indicate that I am therefore "supposedly knowledgeable" but not actually knowledgeable. I would strongly disagree: I have this scientific study and my experiential knowledge on this topic.

an9n 5y ago

> However! In this discussion, no one has yet offered the hypothesis that the purported discrimination against men could be explained by men being objectively less suitable to work in female-dominated professions than women. Perhaps men have less "emotional iq" than women or something? Well, I'll bite. If you really want to go down this road we could also start talking about how women being given time off specifically for their menstrual cycle or menopause (the latter is being seriously discussed in the media etc.) when there are no equivalent allowances whatsoever for men (despite the fact that men die younger than women!) means that women are 'objectively less suitable' for work full stop. Have you stopped to consider why the HN audience may have reacted as they have, and aren't you in fact guilty of the very thing you are accusing them of, that is, jumping to a conclusion about their thinking etc?

Dylan16807 5y ago
> If you really want to go down this road we could also start talking about how women being given time off specifically for their menstrual cycle or menopause (the latter is being seriously discussed in the media etc.) when there are no equivalent allowances whatsoever for men (despite the fact that men die younger than women!) means that women are 'objectively less suitable' for work full stop. I don't follow your logic. If someone takes, let's say an entire year off for menopause, but they live 5+ years longer, don't they have better working potential?

Out_of_Characte 5y ago

I think that's because the article/study doesn't provide alot of information and only reaffirms the previous study outcomes. "There was no evidence of discrimination against women in male-dominated professions or in mixed-gender professions, but the researchers did find evidence of discrimination against men in female-dominated professions." "female applicants had a 52.17 percent relative advantage" "This study only captures discrimination at the initial stages of the hiring process at entry level jobs in Sweden" >no one has yet offered the hypothesis that the purported discrimination against men could be explained by men being objectively less suitable to work in female-dominated professions than women. Perhaps men have less "emotional iq" than women or something? No such thing could have happened even if that's the case, from the study: "the group belonging of the fictitious applicants is experimentally manipulated, most commonly by randomizing the applicant’s name." "Correspondence tests can naturally only measure discrimination at the initial stage of the hiring process and may understate the true extent of hiring discrimination if it occurs at later stages of the process."