19 ms·

> 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

by 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.

yetanotherphd 13y ago
It really depends on your definition of sexism, which is an ambiguous term. Suppose it were true that given a woman and man with the same resume, the woman tended to perform worse. It would them be rational to assume that, given two otherwise identical resumes, the one with the female name represented a worse candidate. To act on this information is statistical discrimination. I highly recommend you read the article.
- lutusp 13y ago
  > It really depends on your definition of sexism, which is an ambiguous term. Sexism is very clearly defined, so clearly that it can and does appear in the law, laws that, under our constitution, cannot exist if they contain any ambiguity. I can't believe you don't get this. Researchers take a resume and present it in two forms -- for example, in one resume the name is "Andrew Jones". In the other, the name is "Andrea Jones". NOTHING ELSE IS CHANGED. One letter of one word is changed, and suddenly the applicant is unqualified. That is sexism defined. > I highly recommend you read the article. I read the article, you very clearly did not. Above you believed that the resumes differed, that they actually described different people with different qualifications. That wouldn't be science. In science, for maximum effect, you change as little as possible and measure the outcome. The study measured, not reality, but people's attitude toward reality.

by lutusp 13y ago

yetanotherphd 13y ago

It really depends on your definition of sexism, which is an ambiguous term. Suppose it were true that given a woman and man with the same resume, the woman tended to perform worse. It would them be rational to assume that, given two otherwise identical resumes, the one with the female name represented a worse candidate. To act on this information is statistical discrimination. I highly recommend you read the article.

lutusp 13y ago
> It really depends on your definition of sexism, which is an ambiguous term. Sexism is very clearly defined, so clearly that it can and does appear in the law, laws that, under our constitution, cannot exist if they contain any ambiguity. I can't believe you don't get this. Researchers take a resume and present it in two forms -- for example, in one resume the name is "Andrew Jones". In the other, the name is "Andrea Jones". NOTHING ELSE IS CHANGED. One letter of one word is changed, and suddenly the applicant is unqualified. That is sexism defined. > I highly recommend you read the article. I read the article, you very clearly did not. Above you believed that the resumes differed, that they actually described different people with different qualifications. That wouldn't be science. In science, for maximum effect, you change as little as possible and measure the outcome. The study measured, not reality, but people's attitude toward reality.