3 ms·
Sounds like a strong case for intentionally skewing investment decisions towards women founders, as if the general population is unconsciously biased towards me
by skywhopper 13y ago
Sounds like a strong case for intentionally skewing investment decisions towards women founders, as if the general population is unconsciously biased towards men, then there are likely many women founders who could generate a great return on investment but who aren't being given the chance to do so.
- paulbaumgart 13y agoUnfortunately, value investing in the venture capital world doesn't tend to work out so well, because of the power-law distribution of startup outcomes.
- Fomite 13y agoGiven the many fits pitched about the female founders conference, women-focused coding programs, etc. can you imagine the storm of indignation that would emerge if it ever became public that a fund was doing this?
- saiana 13y agoIt's public. Every woman knows this. Every female startup founder is painfully aware of what this study confirms. They experience this all the time.
- Fomite 13y agoI meant a deliberate choice to institutionally favor female founders to correct for what the study (and experience) has shown, which is what the poster above me suggested. It's a suggestion I actually agree with, but the shitstorm that would ensue...
- Goladus 13y agoSounds like a strong case for intentionally skewing investment decisions towards women founders It's not. All the study shows is that a bias is present, and that the bias identified in the controlled test is somewhat similar to the skewed results in "pitch competitions." There's nothing in the paper showing the magnitude of effect this bias has on real-world investment decisions. The evidence you need is a prediction that not only will eliminating this bias improve returns, but that the improved returns are worth any costs associated with eliminating the bias.