4 ms·

It's also possible that the scientists correctly infer that, even conditional on having the same resume, female applicants were overall of a lower quality. The

It's also possible that the scientists correctly infer that, even conditional on having the same resume, female applicants were overall of a lower quality. The study doesn't prove whether this disadvantage comes from people discriminating against women merely because they are women, or people correctly identifying that the women on average perform worse, even given the same resumes. It is still possible that given full information about the candidate, (not just the resume), women would not be disadvantaged.

moocowduckquack 13y ago
people correctly identifying that the women on average perform worse, even given the same resumes. Where exactly are you pulling this from?
- yetanotherphd 13y ago
  I'm giving an alternative explanation for why the female named resumes are rated worse by the professors. I'm "pulling it from" the same place you pulled your preferred explanation (that female performance conditional on the same resume is the same, and so the worse ratings were due to professors preferring males, even given the same performance, or incorrectly expecting worse performance from the females). The issue with your interpretation of the study is your selective appeal to evidence. You would like to provide evidence for the fact that worse outcomes for females are due to discrimination. But the evidence you provided is consistent with both explanations (discrimination vs actually worse performance from females)
  - moocowduckquack 13y ago
    Stop being a tosser, I haven't given a preferred explanation, I asked you where you sourced your assertion.
    - yetanotherphd 13y ago
      I asserted that both explanations are possible, which is an obvious fact to me, until it is shown that one of the explanations is wrong. I didn't notice I was replying to you, not aestra, who implicitly explained the results of the study in the way I described, when they used that study as evidence that "sexism is alive and well". Even though in this particular study, the authors (incorrectly) ignored my alternate explanation, it is in fact often discussed in this context (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_discrimination http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_discrimination). And I am sick of your side of the argument swearing at your opponents while constantly playing the victim card. Fuck you.
      - moocowduckquack 13y ago
        You do know that there are more than two sides available, you poor precious snowflake.
        yetanotherphd 13y ago
        You are clearly taking one side of a debate, whether you admit it or not, cunt.
        moocowduckquack 13y ago
        I haven't said much here, barring taking the piss out of the magic man (he's crap at magic) and posting about Freeman Dyson doing his thing with the prisoners dilemma. There are always many perspectives you can take, to insist on binary debates is just forcing false choices. Calling me a cunt won't really change that. As for why I asked you to stop being a tosser in the first place, I asked a question and immediately had you telling me what I supposedly think. That said, I really shouldn't have bothered asking you to stop, as to do that does seem to be something that is far wide of your abilities, given the evidence available here.
lutusp 13y ago
> It's also possible that the scientists correctly infer that, even conditional on having the same resume, female applicants were overall of a lower quality. Somehow you missed the point that, in the experiment, only the names were changed -- the resumes were identical, the applicants were identical, the level of experience and education were identical. Only the names were changed. The reviewers therefore judged the applicants only on the basis of gender. That's both wrong and illegal. > The study doesn't prove whether this disadvantage comes from people discriminating against women merely because they are women ... That is exactly what the study proves. Exactly. As in all good science, only one element was changed -- the name of the applicant. The reviewers changed their evaluation based solely on the applicant's gender, nothing else.
- yetanotherphd 13y ago
  Let me clarify the the alternate explanations for this study: The researchers are aware that women on average perform worse than men, even given the same resume. As a general principal, this is not ridiculous, e.g. a female boxer will perform worse than a male boxer, even given the same height and weight. You personally might believe that a resume so perfectly captures the qualities of a person, that the person's gender is no longer relevant once you have seen the rest of the resume. But that is just your opinion. So the professors are discriminating against women, but not for its own sake, but because they believe that statistically, even given the same resume, the woman would on average perform worse. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_discrimination_%28economics%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_discrimination_%28e... This kind of discrimination does not actually make women on average worse off, in the sense that it only penalizes them for their actual inferior performance, not for being women per se. On the legality, I don't know if it is legal or not. I'm guessing it is illegal but in my opinion those laws are wrong anyway.
  - lutusp 13y ago
    > You personally might believe that a resume so perfectly captures the qualities of a person, that the person's gender is no longer relevant once you have seen the rest of the resume. But that is just your opinion. Which part of this are you not getting? THE EXACT SAME RESUME WAS PRESENTED, ONLY THE NAME WAS CHANGED. Consequently, the test subject's responses measured sexism, nothing else. > I'm guessing it is illegal but in my opinion those laws are wrong anyway. At this point anyone can see what is wrong -- you don't understand the topic of discussion.

moocowduckquack 13y ago

people correctly identifying that the women on average perform worse, even given the same resumes. Where exactly are you pulling this from?

yetanotherphd 13y ago
I'm giving an alternative explanation for why the female named resumes are rated worse by the professors. I'm "pulling it from" the same place you pulled your preferred explanation (that female performance conditional on the same resume is the same, and so the worse ratings were due to professors preferring males, even given the same performance, or incorrectly expecting worse performance from the females). The issue with your interpretation of the study is your selective appeal to evidence. You would like to provide evidence for the fact that worse outcomes for females are due to discrimination. But the evidence you provided is consistent with both explanations (discrimination vs actually worse performance from females)
- moocowduckquack 13y ago
  Stop being a tosser, I haven't given a preferred explanation, I asked you where you sourced your assertion.
  - yetanotherphd 13y ago
    I asserted that both explanations are possible, which is an obvious fact to me, until it is shown that one of the explanations is wrong. I didn't notice I was replying to you, not aestra, who implicitly explained the results of the study in the way I described, when they used that study as evidence that "sexism is alive and well". Even though in this particular study, the authors (incorrectly) ignored my alternate explanation, it is in fact often discussed in this context (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_discrimination http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_discrimination). And I am sick of your side of the argument swearing at your opponents while constantly playing the victim card. Fuck you.
    - moocowduckquack 13y ago
      You do know that there are more than two sides available, you poor precious snowflake.
      - yetanotherphd 13y ago
        You are clearly taking one side of a debate, whether you admit it or not, cunt.
        moocowduckquack 13y ago
        I haven't said much here, barring taking the piss out of the magic man (he's crap at magic) and posting about Freeman Dyson doing his thing with the prisoners dilemma. There are always many perspectives you can take, to insist on binary debates is just forcing false choices. Calling me a cunt won't really change that. As for why I asked you to stop being a tosser in the first place, I asked a question and immediately had you telling me what I supposedly think. That said, I really shouldn't have bothered asking you to stop, as to do that does seem to be something that is far wide of your abilities, given the evidence available here.

lutusp 13y ago

> It's also possible that the scientists correctly infer that, even conditional on having the same resume, female applicants were overall of a lower quality. Somehow you missed the point that, in the experiment, only the names were changed -- the resumes were identical, the applicants were identical, the level of experience and education were identical. Only the names were changed. The reviewers therefore judged the applicants only on the basis of gender. That's both wrong and illegal. > The study doesn't prove whether this disadvantage comes from people discriminating against women merely because they are women ... That is exactly what the study proves. Exactly. As in all good science, only one element was changed -- the name of the applicant. The reviewers changed their evaluation based solely on the applicant's gender, nothing else.

yetanotherphd 13y ago
Let me clarify the the alternate explanations for this study: The researchers are aware that women on average perform worse than men, even given the same resume. As a general principal, this is not ridiculous, e.g. a female boxer will perform worse than a male boxer, even given the same height and weight. You personally might believe that a resume so perfectly captures the qualities of a person, that the person's gender is no longer relevant once you have seen the rest of the resume. But that is just your opinion. So the professors are discriminating against women, but not for its own sake, but because they believe that statistically, even given the same resume, the woman would on average perform worse. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_discrimination_%28economics%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_discrimination_%28e... This kind of discrimination does not actually make women on average worse off, in the sense that it only penalizes them for their actual inferior performance, not for being women per se. On the legality, I don't know if it is legal or not. I'm guessing it is illegal but in my opinion those laws are wrong anyway.
- lutusp 13y ago
  > You personally might believe that a resume so perfectly captures the qualities of a person, that the person's gender is no longer relevant once you have seen the rest of the resume. But that is just your opinion. Which part of this are you not getting? THE EXACT SAME RESUME WAS PRESENTED, ONLY THE NAME WAS CHANGED. Consequently, the test subject's responses measured sexism, nothing else. > I'm guessing it is illegal but in my opinion those laws are wrong anyway. At this point anyone can see what is wrong -- you don't understand the topic of discussion.