7 ms·

This reminds me of when the Australian government did blind recruitment. "Blind recruitment means recruiters cannot tell the gender of candidates because those

by sqrt_1 4y ago

This reminds me of when the Australian government did blind recruitment. "Blind recruitment means recruiters cannot tell the gender of candidates because those details are removed from applications." "The trial found assigning a male name to a candidate made them 3.2 per cent less likely to get a job interview. Adding a woman's name to a CV made the candidate 2.9 per cent more likely to get a foot in the door." https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-30/bilnd-recruitment-trial-to-improve-gender-equality-failing-study/8664888 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-30/bilnd-recruitment-tri...

throwawaylinux 4y ago
The intersectionality hypothesis is just constantly destroyed by evidence like that, and this voice modulator experiment. And yet it seems to be evangelized more fervently than ever in academic institutions, governments, journalism, etc. It's really a weird, strange kind of twilight zone. Alleged experts are just spouting totally unfounded (and even contradicted by evidence) assertions and stating them as fact. Some of them really hurtful and hateful even. And few dare to call them out, demand evidence for their unproven claims, or demand metrics and results of improvements they claim their policies would result in. It's like a nutty cult that's being ruled by fear. In my opinion it is also profoundly damaging to the cause of actually improving inequality and reducing discrimination and reducing division.
- reverius42 4y ago
  What is the intersectionality hypothesis? This is a phrase I'm not familiar with.
  - chitowneats 4y ago
    The hypothesis is that women, racial minorities, etc, are discriminated against universally in modern society.
  - GolDDranks 4y ago
    I haven't heard of it either, but "intersectionality" means (according to Google, but in my experience, sounds accurate.) > Intersectionality is a theoretical framework rooted in the premise that human experience is jointly shaped by multiple social positions (e.g. race, gender), and cannot be adequately understood by considering social positions independently.
    - macrolocal 4y ago
      This feels like saying that (generalized) linear regressions without interactions are inadequate. And criticisms of intersectionality seem to be that (a) high order interactions are statistically volatile and (b) multivariate averages miss important information. Is it deeper than that?
  - pcthrowaway 4y ago
    I think the person you're responding to is referencing intersectional feminism (more recently mainstream in social justice and feminism discussions), which is perhaps somewhat related to what's being discussed, but really not the topic at hand. What is relevant is that the general discourse focuses more on systemic differences in opportunity to disadvantaged groups. In this case, we're talking about women as the ostensibly disadvantaged group. I think what people fail to understand though, is that marginalization can take many forms. If women are less likely to continue interviewing after rejection, this doesn't mean that they have the same opportunity; instead, it suggests that systemic factors play into this. The "intersectional" take on this is really focused on how different components of identity work together to shape an individual's experience, in subtle ways that compound. Hence, just growing up in a society where young women and men have even mildly different attitudes impressed upon them from a young age, can have more noticeable effects on their outcomes much later in life
    - parineum 4y ago
      >it suggests that systemic factors play into this No it doesn't. This is a false dichotomy. It can be any number of things, including something systemic, but only one explanation of many is eliminated. All that it suggests is that interviewers don't discriminate (against women).
  - adamsb6 4y ago
    That any disparity between any demographic groups is wholly attributable to bias.
    - BurningFrog 4y ago
      In other words: correlation is causation.
    - Spivak 4y ago
      That's not at all what intersectionality is. It's just a name for the fact that the hardships you face as, say, a black woman isn't the union of the hardships of women and the hardships of black folks. They don't exist independently. This was an important idea because feminist movements focused almost exclusively on white women and it assumed this was fine because "rising tide raises all ships" and that white women had a better chance of having their voices heard -- but it didn't shake out that way and this was the reason. That's the reason today there's a lot of focus on black trans women because activists are trying not to repeat this mistake. > any disparity between any demographic groups is wholly attributable to bias Unless you're literally arguing that some groups are genetically superior or inferior, or that something in the Y chromosome just really draws you to programming this statement is true by definition -- that's what bias means. If you’re like oh well part of the wage gap is explained by women not being as aggressive in salary negotiations your options are either that there is a bias somewhere or resorting to gender essentialism.
      - Der_Einzige 4y ago
        What the hell is up with HN today? Why is this downvoted so much? Get ahold of yourself HN users!
  - lioeters 4y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersectionality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersectionality
  - 8note 4y ago
    afaik its a restatement of Simpson's Paradox[0] If you're a member of two different minority groups, your experience is not described by taking a union of the bad things from each. Eg. If being black results in 3% less <> and being a woman results in 5% less <>, then being a black woman does not result in 8% less <>. [0]: https://youtu.be/ebEkn-BiW5k https://youtu.be/ebEkn-BiW5k
- nerdponx 4y ago
  How do you know that this result is not caused specifically by HR people attempting to counteract discrimination?
- junofan 4y ago
  You don’t see the behind-the-scenes stuff. There are a lot of threats.
- thrown_22 4y ago
  Pygmies cast long shadows at sunset. This is not people interested in truth, this is people who want to control how you think. No different to the racists of yesteryear, especially since the current wokesters are the grandchildren of klan members.
  - samplatt 4y ago
    >racists of yesteryear Or the racists of currentyear. >the current wokesters are the grandchildren of klan members No they're not. I'm definitely not.
  - tomjakubowski 4y ago
    > the current wokesters are the grandchildren of klan members uh, what?
    - thrown_22 4y ago
      - nomdep 4y ago
        Calling someone “African American” is a symptom of the real problem: pretending you can know how a person is just by knowing their skin color.
        thrown_22 4y ago
        The point is that Obama is the child of a rich Kenyan international student and a rich American white woman. He's had none of the experiences an African American (defined as the black skinned descendants of US slaves) has had and there was no one in either of his families who would have. Calling that African American is a bit like calling a chihuahua a wolf.
        olivejun 4y ago
        Its weird that you inadvertently acknowledge the effect of slavery in this country on black americans by using Barack Obama as an example of affirmative action gone awry(?) Those experiences of the descendants of slaves you mentioned are the reasons why race is so important when it comes to building wealth and prosperity in your community.
- Vt71fcAqt7 4y ago
  >Alleged experts are just spouting totally unfounded (and even contradicted by evidence) assertions and stating them as fact. This is because their principal theory of demographics — that all group differences are entirely due to one group's use of power to undermine the other — is wrong. There are many factors involved in group differences, and they are all being completley ignored because of political correctness. Even to say that sexism sometimes only indirectly causes disparity in enmplpyment - as an example, teachers/mentors investing more time in boys - is becoming problematic because it posits that interviewers themselves may possibly not be overtly or implicitly sexist. The idea that not only the "system," but each member in the powerful group is out to get all minorities/women, is ridiculous and, as you say, hateful.
  - throwawaylinux 4y ago
    > The idea that not only the "system," but each member in the powerful group is out to get all minorities/women, is ridiculous and, as you say, hateful. It is, and you see it in this person's comment. It was actually surprising to them that they did not observe discrimination. They have been indoctrinated to believe without evidence that the society they live in is a sea of hateful and/or ignorant bigots who oppress and discriminate. The oppressed classes are indoctrinated to believe they are under constant attack and oppression by their neighbors and friends and colleagues. And the oppressor classes believe they hold some responsibility and shame for these real or imagined atrocities. It's just a hell of a way to go through life, and I can't see anything much good coming from it. I'm not saying for a minute that discrimination does not exist, that it should not be addressed and reduced, or that it can not concentrate in organizations and positions of power, before people start accusing and denouncing me.
- faeriechangling 4y ago
  What is the “intersectionality” hypothesis? I felt intersectionality was a concept so obvious, that intersecting identities create unique experiences that might not be shared by other members of the constituent identities, as to be unremarkable. The example frequently given is the proverbial workplace that in order to hire enough black people and women, hires many black men on the factory floor and white women in the offices while black women don’t get hired and despite this people declare that equity has been accomplished. People paid attention to women’s issues and black issues, but not the INTERSECTION of those issues. My criticism is that intersectionality is that it’s blindingly obvious and there is limited value in literally deviding up identity groups into an exponentially expanding amount of subgroups. Once you start exploring the intersection of 3 identities you’ve already kind of lost the plot and may as well start talking about issues on the personal/individual level. I have no idea what people THINK intersectionality means. I think people who know what that word means keep using it without explaining it and people get really confused and think it’s just a general term for woke ideology and never stop to think what the “intersection” they’re referring to is.
  - jwarden 4y ago
    > Once you start exploring the intersection of 3 identities you’ve already kind of lost the plot and may as well start talking about issues on the personal/individual level. At the limit, intersectionality approaches individualism.
  - SpicyLemonZest 4y ago
    Most people in my circles understand "intersectionality" to refer to exactly the claim you're disputing, that it's good to identify and focus on an exponentially expanding amount of subgroups. I don't think this is an unreasonable interpretation - the Center for Intersectional Justice, a large nonprofit in the area, says one example of intersectionality (https://www.intersectionaljustice.org/what-is-intersectionality https://www.intersectionaljustice.org/what-is-intersectional...) is that you shouldn't attempt to address the gender pay gap without also thinking about race, socioeconomic status, and immigration status.
    - 4y ago
- seer-zig 4y ago
  > And yet it seems to be evangelized more fervently than ever in academic institutions, governments, journalism, etc. When you know the agendas and world views of those same people, everything starts to make sense. It's quite unfortunate to say the least, but hopefully more people wake up.
- random314 4y ago
  There are experiments in the opposite direction too if you are feeling really upset. The claims are not unproven and this was not a properly randomized experiment unlike the far more extensive one I cite below https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2021/08/18/name-discrimination-jobs https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2021/08/18/name-discriminati...
  - throwawaylinux 4y ago
    The claim is not that discrimination exists. Of course it does. The claims basically amount to any inequity between groups is due to discrimination, except in the cases where the inequity "favors" the oppressed class (and where oppressed and oppressor classes have no real objective criteria or definitions, aside from what intersectionality experts claim them to be). And that institutional policies of discrimination are an the acceptable and effective way to deal with this inequity, but also you must not refer to them as systemic or institutional discrimination.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
carabiner 4y ago
3% more/less likely is a tiny effect. What is the power of this result? Isn't there always noise in this type of thing? I bet the normal variation in responses for the same group submitted to separate groups of companies exceeds 3%. That is, I could send 1,000 resumes to one batch of companies and 10.0% would get interviews. I could send the same 1,000 resumes to a different batch, and 10.3% would get interviews. Boom 3% difference for the same candidates.
- faeriechangling 4y ago
  Yeah I wouldn’t think anything of this if it were 3% the other direction… that’s a measurement error.
- timr 4y ago
  > 3% more/less likely is a tiny effect. What is the power of this result? Isn't there always noise in this type of thing? A result does not have "power". An experiment has power -- the ability to detect a a given effect size a certain percentage of the time -- but a result is either statistically significant, or it is not. As for "noise", statistical significance takes random noise into account. That is the point of the calculation -- it asks if a given result exceeds the threshold of what you'd expect to find at random some percentage of the time. If it does, the result is deemed significant. A 3% difference could be enormous, or it could be miniscule. We can't say anything based on this information alone, and certainly can't say it's "likely a tiny effect". On a sample of thousands, a 3% difference is big. On a sample of tens, a 3% difference is small.
  - LordDragonfang 4y ago
    >On a sample of thousands, a 3% difference is big. Not really. Only if it is many, many thousands. Assuming a totally random acceptance rate of 1/5: a = 0; b = 0; for (c of Array(1000)) { if (Math.random() > .8) a++; if (Math.random() > .8) b++; } console.log(`a=${a}, b=${b}, a is ${(a/b - 1)*100}% more likely than b`) > a=209, b=201, a is 3.9800995024875663% more likely than b literally the first run. And even in absolute terms, I got this on the third run: >a=192, b=219, a is -12.328767123287676% more likely than b That's an absolute difference of 2.7%. Again, 100% random data.
golemotron 4y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women-are-wonderful_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women-are-wonderful_effect
- smeej 4y ago
  I wondered if it was this, or a difference of expectation. If you have an expectation that someone won't interview well and they surprise you, you'll be more likely to note their positive characteristics and move them forward. Likewise, if you expect someone to interview well and they disappoint you, you'll be more likely to note their negative characteristics and won't move them forward. This will be true even if the interviewees give nearly identical interviews. Does that explain this? If a woman finds herself being compared to an interviewer's expectations for men instead of the interviewer's expectations for women, she does worse, and vice versa.
commandlinefan 4y ago
My HR department has started blacking out identifying resume details - including dates and durations of employment, so for all I know, I could be looking at somebody with one year of experience who changes jobs every two months.
- dudul 4y ago
  What was the rationale? That it was a proxy for the candidate's age? That sounds like pushing things a bit far.
  - commandlinefan 4y ago
    They didn’t tell us, but that’s our best guess.
- chii 4y ago
  did those actions/methods result in any better hiring outcomes than before? Or is it basically the same as security theatre?
- CamelCaseName 4y ago
  Perhaps they already screen out people with short job stints? Though you should be able to estimate duration based on the bullet points.
- patrakov 4y ago
  This is quite dangerous, because it creates bias against people whose CV is not a traditional CV, but more like a portfolio, with works that uniquely identify the author. My own CV would be way too gray if one excludes my contributions to various open-source projects and articles that I have written - all of which would be identifying. Another class of extreme examples would be public political figures. There is only one person who has successfully implemented a city-wide smoking ban. There is only one person who was a minister of finance, and then worked on in-game economics.
  - intelVISA 4y ago
idontwantthis 4y ago
This is nothing like that.

by sqrt_1 4y ago

throwawaylinux 4y ago

The intersectionality hypothesis is just constantly destroyed by evidence like that, and this voice modulator experiment. And yet it seems to be evangelized more fervently than ever in academic institutions, governments, journalism, etc. It's really a weird, strange kind of twilight zone. Alleged experts are just spouting totally unfounded (and even contradicted by evidence) assertions and stating them as fact. Some of them really hurtful and hateful even. And few dare to call them out, demand evidence for their unproven claims, or demand metrics and results of improvements they claim their policies would result in. It's like a nutty cult that's being ruled by fear. In my opinion it is also profoundly damaging to the cause of actually improving inequality and reducing discrimination and reducing division.

reverius42 4y ago
What is the intersectionality hypothesis? This is a phrase I'm not familiar with.
- chitowneats 4y ago
  The hypothesis is that women, racial minorities, etc, are discriminated against universally in modern society.
- GolDDranks 4y ago
  I haven't heard of it either, but "intersectionality" means (according to Google, but in my experience, sounds accurate.) > Intersectionality is a theoretical framework rooted in the premise that human experience is jointly shaped by multiple social positions (e.g. race, gender), and cannot be adequately understood by considering social positions independently.
  - macrolocal 4y ago
    This feels like saying that (generalized) linear regressions without interactions are inadequate. And criticisms of intersectionality seem to be that (a) high order interactions are statistically volatile and (b) multivariate averages miss important information. Is it deeper than that?
- pcthrowaway 4y ago
  I think the person you're responding to is referencing intersectional feminism (more recently mainstream in social justice and feminism discussions), which is perhaps somewhat related to what's being discussed, but really not the topic at hand. What is relevant is that the general discourse focuses more on systemic differences in opportunity to disadvantaged groups. In this case, we're talking about women as the ostensibly disadvantaged group. I think what people fail to understand though, is that marginalization can take many forms. If women are less likely to continue interviewing after rejection, this doesn't mean that they have the same opportunity; instead, it suggests that systemic factors play into this. The "intersectional" take on this is really focused on how different components of identity work together to shape an individual's experience, in subtle ways that compound. Hence, just growing up in a society where young women and men have even mildly different attitudes impressed upon them from a young age, can have more noticeable effects on their outcomes much later in life
  - parineum 4y ago
    >it suggests that systemic factors play into this No it doesn't. This is a false dichotomy. It can be any number of things, including something systemic, but only one explanation of many is eliminated. All that it suggests is that interviewers don't discriminate (against women).
- adamsb6 4y ago
  That any disparity between any demographic groups is wholly attributable to bias.
  - BurningFrog 4y ago
    In other words: correlation is causation.
  - Spivak 4y ago
    That's not at all what intersectionality is. It's just a name for the fact that the hardships you face as, say, a black woman isn't the union of the hardships of women and the hardships of black folks. They don't exist independently. This was an important idea because feminist movements focused almost exclusively on white women and it assumed this was fine because "rising tide raises all ships" and that white women had a better chance of having their voices heard -- but it didn't shake out that way and this was the reason. That's the reason today there's a lot of focus on black trans women because activists are trying not to repeat this mistake. > any disparity between any demographic groups is wholly attributable to bias Unless you're literally arguing that some groups are genetically superior or inferior, or that something in the Y chromosome just really draws you to programming this statement is true by definition -- that's what bias means. If you’re like oh well part of the wage gap is explained by women not being as aggressive in salary negotiations your options are either that there is a bias somewhere or resorting to gender essentialism.
    - Der_Einzige 4y ago
      What the hell is up with HN today? Why is this downvoted so much? Get ahold of yourself HN users!
- lioeters 4y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersectionality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersectionality
- 8note 4y ago
  afaik its a restatement of Simpson's Paradox[0] If you're a member of two different minority groups, your experience is not described by taking a union of the bad things from each. Eg. If being black results in 3% less <> and being a woman results in 5% less <>, then being a black woman does not result in 8% less <>. [0]: https://youtu.be/ebEkn-BiW5k https://youtu.be/ebEkn-BiW5k
nerdponx 4y ago
How do you know that this result is not caused specifically by HR people attempting to counteract discrimination?
junofan 4y ago
You don’t see the behind-the-scenes stuff. There are a lot of threats.
thrown_22 4y ago
Pygmies cast long shadows at sunset. This is not people interested in truth, this is people who want to control how you think. No different to the racists of yesteryear, especially since the current wokesters are the grandchildren of klan members.
- samplatt 4y ago
  >racists of yesteryear Or the racists of currentyear. >the current wokesters are the grandchildren of klan members No they're not. I'm definitely not.
- tomjakubowski 4y ago
  > the current wokesters are the grandchildren of klan members uh, what?
  - thrown_22 4y ago
    - nomdep 4y ago
      Calling someone “African American” is a symptom of the real problem: pretending you can know how a person is just by knowing their skin color.
      - thrown_22 4y ago
        The point is that Obama is the child of a rich Kenyan international student and a rich American white woman. He's had none of the experiences an African American (defined as the black skinned descendants of US slaves) has had and there was no one in either of his families who would have. Calling that African American is a bit like calling a chihuahua a wolf.
        olivejun 4y ago
        Its weird that you inadvertently acknowledge the effect of slavery in this country on black americans by using Barack Obama as an example of affirmative action gone awry(?) Those experiences of the descendants of slaves you mentioned are the reasons why race is so important when it comes to building wealth and prosperity in your community.
Vt71fcAqt7 4y ago
>Alleged experts are just spouting totally unfounded (and even contradicted by evidence) assertions and stating them as fact. This is because their principal theory of demographics — that all group differences are entirely due to one group's use of power to undermine the other — is wrong. There are many factors involved in group differences, and they are all being completley ignored because of political correctness. Even to say that sexism sometimes only indirectly causes disparity in enmplpyment - as an example, teachers/mentors investing more time in boys - is becoming problematic because it posits that interviewers themselves may possibly not be overtly or implicitly sexist. The idea that not only the "system," but each member in the powerful group is out to get all minorities/women, is ridiculous and, as you say, hateful.
- throwawaylinux 4y ago
  > The idea that not only the "system," but each member in the powerful group is out to get all minorities/women, is ridiculous and, as you say, hateful. It is, and you see it in this person's comment. It was actually surprising to them that they did not observe discrimination. They have been indoctrinated to believe without evidence that the society they live in is a sea of hateful and/or ignorant bigots who oppress and discriminate. The oppressed classes are indoctrinated to believe they are under constant attack and oppression by their neighbors and friends and colleagues. And the oppressor classes believe they hold some responsibility and shame for these real or imagined atrocities. It's just a hell of a way to go through life, and I can't see anything much good coming from it. I'm not saying for a minute that discrimination does not exist, that it should not be addressed and reduced, or that it can not concentrate in organizations and positions of power, before people start accusing and denouncing me.
faeriechangling 4y ago
What is the “intersectionality” hypothesis? I felt intersectionality was a concept so obvious, that intersecting identities create unique experiences that might not be shared by other members of the constituent identities, as to be unremarkable. The example frequently given is the proverbial workplace that in order to hire enough black people and women, hires many black men on the factory floor and white women in the offices while black women don’t get hired and despite this people declare that equity has been accomplished. People paid attention to women’s issues and black issues, but not the INTERSECTION of those issues. My criticism is that intersectionality is that it’s blindingly obvious and there is limited value in literally deviding up identity groups into an exponentially expanding amount of subgroups. Once you start exploring the intersection of 3 identities you’ve already kind of lost the plot and may as well start talking about issues on the personal/individual level. I have no idea what people THINK intersectionality means. I think people who know what that word means keep using it without explaining it and people get really confused and think it’s just a general term for woke ideology and never stop to think what the “intersection” they’re referring to is.
- jwarden 4y ago
  > Once you start exploring the intersection of 3 identities you’ve already kind of lost the plot and may as well start talking about issues on the personal/individual level. At the limit, intersectionality approaches individualism.
- SpicyLemonZest 4y ago
  Most people in my circles understand "intersectionality" to refer to exactly the claim you're disputing, that it's good to identify and focus on an exponentially expanding amount of subgroups. I don't think this is an unreasonable interpretation - the Center for Intersectional Justice, a large nonprofit in the area, says one example of intersectionality (https://www.intersectionaljustice.org/what-is-intersectionality https://www.intersectionaljustice.org/what-is-intersectional...) is that you shouldn't attempt to address the gender pay gap without also thinking about race, socioeconomic status, and immigration status.
  - 4y ago
seer-zig 4y ago
> And yet it seems to be evangelized more fervently than ever in academic institutions, governments, journalism, etc. When you know the agendas and world views of those same people, everything starts to make sense. It's quite unfortunate to say the least, but hopefully more people wake up.
random314 4y ago
There are experiments in the opposite direction too if you are feeling really upset. The claims are not unproven and this was not a properly randomized experiment unlike the far more extensive one I cite below https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2021/08/18/name-discrimination-jobs https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2021/08/18/name-discriminati...
- throwawaylinux 4y ago
  The claim is not that discrimination exists. Of course it does. The claims basically amount to any inequity between groups is due to discrimination, except in the cases where the inequity "favors" the oppressed class (and where oppressed and oppressor classes have no real objective criteria or definitions, aside from what intersectionality experts claim them to be). And that institutional policies of discrimination are an the acceptable and effective way to deal with this inequity, but also you must not refer to them as systemic or institutional discrimination.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

carabiner 4y ago

3% more/less likely is a tiny effect. What is the power of this result? Isn't there always noise in this type of thing? I bet the normal variation in responses for the same group submitted to separate groups of companies exceeds 3%. That is, I could send 1,000 resumes to one batch of companies and 10.0% would get interviews. I could send the same 1,000 resumes to a different batch, and 10.3% would get interviews. Boom 3% difference for the same candidates.

faeriechangling 4y ago
Yeah I wouldn’t think anything of this if it were 3% the other direction… that’s a measurement error.
timr 4y ago
> 3% more/less likely is a tiny effect. What is the power of this result? Isn't there always noise in this type of thing? A result does not have "power". An experiment has power -- the ability to detect a a given effect size a certain percentage of the time -- but a result is either statistically significant, or it is not. As for "noise", statistical significance takes random noise into account. That is the point of the calculation -- it asks if a given result exceeds the threshold of what you'd expect to find at random some percentage of the time. If it does, the result is deemed significant. A 3% difference could be enormous, or it could be miniscule. We can't say anything based on this information alone, and certainly can't say it's "likely a tiny effect". On a sample of thousands, a 3% difference is big. On a sample of tens, a 3% difference is small.
- LordDragonfang 4y ago
  >On a sample of thousands, a 3% difference is big. Not really. Only if it is many, many thousands. Assuming a totally random acceptance rate of 1/5: a = 0; b = 0; for (c of Array(1000)) { if (Math.random() > .8) a++; if (Math.random() > .8) b++; } console.log(`a=${a}, b=${b}, a is ${(a/b - 1)*100}% more likely than b`) > a=209, b=201, a is 3.9800995024875663% more likely than b literally the first run. And even in absolute terms, I got this on the third run: >a=192, b=219, a is -12.328767123287676% more likely than b That's an absolute difference of 2.7%. Again, 100% random data.

golemotron 4y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women-are-wonderful_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women-are-wonderful_effect

smeej 4y ago
I wondered if it was this, or a difference of expectation. If you have an expectation that someone won't interview well and they surprise you, you'll be more likely to note their positive characteristics and move them forward. Likewise, if you expect someone to interview well and they disappoint you, you'll be more likely to note their negative characteristics and won't move them forward. This will be true even if the interviewees give nearly identical interviews. Does that explain this? If a woman finds herself being compared to an interviewer's expectations for men instead of the interviewer's expectations for women, she does worse, and vice versa.

commandlinefan 4y ago

My HR department has started blacking out identifying resume details - including dates and durations of employment, so for all I know, I could be looking at somebody with one year of experience who changes jobs every two months.

dudul 4y ago
What was the rationale? That it was a proxy for the candidate's age? That sounds like pushing things a bit far.
- commandlinefan 4y ago
  They didn’t tell us, but that’s our best guess.
chii 4y ago
did those actions/methods result in any better hiring outcomes than before? Or is it basically the same as security theatre?
CamelCaseName 4y ago
Perhaps they already screen out people with short job stints? Though you should be able to estimate duration based on the bullet points.
patrakov 4y ago
This is quite dangerous, because it creates bias against people whose CV is not a traditional CV, but more like a portfolio, with works that uniquely identify the author. My own CV would be way too gray if one excludes my contributions to various open-source projects and articles that I have written - all of which would be identifying. Another class of extreme examples would be public political figures. There is only one person who has successfully implemented a city-wide smoking ban. There is only one person who was a minister of finance, and then worked on in-game economics.
- intelVISA 4y ago

idontwantthis 4y ago

This is nothing like that.