51 ms·

At least partly. When I was starting out, I would apply to dev positions only to get offers to interview for lower-paid QA positions. After changing to a gender

by lyaa 4y ago

At least partly. When I was starting out, I would apply to dev positions only to get offers to interview for lower-paid QA positions. After changing to a gender-neutral nickname and removing all female-identifying terms from my resume, I got the interviews for dev positions.

walkhour 4y ago
You claim "at least partly" and then proceed to prove it with anecdotal evidence. You'd need to prove it with a study similar to the ones that send identical CVs to companies, just changing one thing, which is what they want to discover if there's bias against.
- caente 4y ago
  I think anecdotal evidence is almost literally what "partly" means.
  - walkhour 4y ago
    Obviously not, see my other comment. Anecdotal evidence is part of the evidence, it doesn't allow you to claim part of the explanation is your anecdotal evidence.
- drewcoo 4y ago
  No. A single anecdote is sufficient to merit "at least partly." You can say it's not generally proved. But it also wasn't a universal claim.
  - walkhour 4y ago
    At least partly means part of the explanation is what follows. Not that there's at least single case of what follows in the world. Do you realize how absurd language would be if what you claim is true? For example: - Is is true latino men are discriminated against when applying for florist positions? - Yes, it happened once. Literally any group would be "party discriminated" in every possible scenario according to how you define "at least partly".
    - yarrel 4y ago
      Every number is a number, including zero. Therefore some number of members of any given group have been discriminated against. Therefore any group is indeed discriminated against. You can't argue with objective mathematical proof. Slightly more seriously, if someone is discriminated against for being part of a group, you don't get to appeal to the fallacy of composition applied to all groups in order to claim that there is no discrimination against that individual. Yes, yes, you're not actually writing out that argument, you're just leaving its ingredients lying around next to a naked flame. Entirely seriously, here is your proof: https://www.r-bloggers.com/2019/12/modeling-salary-and-gender-in-the-tech-industry/ https://www.r-bloggers.com/2019/12/modeling-salary-and-gende... Now switch to some other attempt at distraction via reducio of the actual argument.
- vijaybritto 4y ago
  The onus is on the victims. Hmm, this sounds very familiar..
  - walkhour 4y ago
    Hmmm yes, we can't just make universal rules out of personal experiences, this sounds very familiar.
- lyaa 4y ago
  I am not obliged to defend every statement I make with a study for my thoughts and experiences to be worth sharing. Also, anecdotal evidence is evidence. Not as generalizable as controlled studies but not as worthless as you seem to think. In any case, I have done the five minutes of googling you seem to want. Biases in evaluating resumes based on gender and other such factors are not new nor unknown: here is an early study from 1986[1], 1988[2], 1999[3], 2001[4], 2007[5]. Feel free to visit google scholar and look more studies by yourself. [1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0022103186900466 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0022103186... [2] https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2F0022-3514.55.2.178 https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2F0022-3514.5... [3] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1018839203698 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1018839203698 [4] https://spssi.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/0022-4537.00239 https://spssi.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/0022-4... [5] https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2006-23339-007 https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2006-23339-007
  - walkhour 4y ago
    You can sure share your thoughts, and I can share my thoughts on whether you're correct, I'm just pointing out it's not proven your personal experience proves discrimination is part of the explanation. None of those studies support your original claim. They support the more broader claim that women are discriminated in the job market. > Not as generalizable as controlled studies but not as worthless as you seem to think. Sorry, a single data point, by itself, when you share it attempting to generalize, is worse than worthless, since it can be terribly misleading.
    - lyaa 4y ago
      Do you not see the logical link by which these more general studies contextualize and support my earlier statements?
      - walkhour 4y ago
        I see why you may think that way, but I don't think you're right. I guess for you it's a given QA jobs are "inferior" to SWE jobs. I guess you believe the articles you linked proof women tend to get "inferior" jobs just because they're women? (I haven't read the articles, although I believe this to be true). I just can't make the jump that this applies to QA jobs (granting they are "inferior"). That would imply "inferior" jobs are always overrepresented by women, and there are counterexamples to this, by almost any definition of "inferior".

by lyaa 4y ago

walkhour 4y ago

You claim "at least partly" and then proceed to prove it with anecdotal evidence. You'd need to prove it with a study similar to the ones that send identical CVs to companies, just changing one thing, which is what they want to discover if there's bias against.

caente 4y ago
I think anecdotal evidence is almost literally what "partly" means.
- walkhour 4y ago
  Obviously not, see my other comment. Anecdotal evidence is part of the evidence, it doesn't allow you to claim part of the explanation is your anecdotal evidence.
drewcoo 4y ago
No. A single anecdote is sufficient to merit "at least partly." You can say it's not generally proved. But it also wasn't a universal claim.
- walkhour 4y ago
  At least partly means part of the explanation is what follows. Not that there's at least single case of what follows in the world. Do you realize how absurd language would be if what you claim is true? For example: - Is is true latino men are discriminated against when applying for florist positions? - Yes, it happened once. Literally any group would be "party discriminated" in every possible scenario according to how you define "at least partly".
  - yarrel 4y ago
    Every number is a number, including zero. Therefore some number of members of any given group have been discriminated against. Therefore any group is indeed discriminated against. You can't argue with objective mathematical proof. Slightly more seriously, if someone is discriminated against for being part of a group, you don't get to appeal to the fallacy of composition applied to all groups in order to claim that there is no discrimination against that individual. Yes, yes, you're not actually writing out that argument, you're just leaving its ingredients lying around next to a naked flame. Entirely seriously, here is your proof: https://www.r-bloggers.com/2019/12/modeling-salary-and-gender-in-the-tech-industry/ https://www.r-bloggers.com/2019/12/modeling-salary-and-gende... Now switch to some other attempt at distraction via reducio of the actual argument.
vijaybritto 4y ago
The onus is on the victims. Hmm, this sounds very familiar..
- walkhour 4y ago
  Hmmm yes, we can't just make universal rules out of personal experiences, this sounds very familiar.
lyaa 4y ago
I am not obliged to defend every statement I make with a study for my thoughts and experiences to be worth sharing. Also, anecdotal evidence is evidence. Not as generalizable as controlled studies but not as worthless as you seem to think. In any case, I have done the five minutes of googling you seem to want. Biases in evaluating resumes based on gender and other such factors are not new nor unknown: here is an early study from 1986[1], 1988[2], 1999[3], 2001[4], 2007[5]. Feel free to visit google scholar and look more studies by yourself. [1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0022103186900466 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0022103186... [2] https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2F0022-3514.55.2.178 https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2F0022-3514.5... [3] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1018839203698 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1018839203698 [4] https://spssi.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/0022-4537.00239 https://spssi.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/0022-4... [5] https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2006-23339-007 https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2006-23339-007
- walkhour 4y ago
  You can sure share your thoughts, and I can share my thoughts on whether you're correct, I'm just pointing out it's not proven your personal experience proves discrimination is part of the explanation. None of those studies support your original claim. They support the more broader claim that women are discriminated in the job market. > Not as generalizable as controlled studies but not as worthless as you seem to think. Sorry, a single data point, by itself, when you share it attempting to generalize, is worse than worthless, since it can be terribly misleading.
  - lyaa 4y ago
    Do you not see the logical link by which these more general studies contextualize and support my earlier statements?
    - walkhour 4y ago
      I see why you may think that way, but I don't think you're right. I guess for you it's a given QA jobs are "inferior" to SWE jobs. I guess you believe the articles you linked proof women tend to get "inferior" jobs just because they're women? (I haven't read the articles, although I believe this to be true). I just can't make the jump that this applies to QA jobs (granting they are "inferior"). That would imply "inferior" jobs are always overrepresented by women, and there are counterexamples to this, by almost any definition of "inferior".