We built voice modulation to mask gender in technical interviews (2016)
blog.interviewing.io
blog.interviewing.io
interviewing.io runs an interviewing platform.
They noticed women were performing worse than men.
They built a voice modulator to mask the gender of candidates.
Masking had no effect on interview performance for any scoring criteria.
They speculate that gender differences in outcomes are caused by women quitting more quickly in response to negative feedback.
I remember getting pulled over for speeding with a female in the passenger seat. Afterwards, she was quite adept at pointing out exactly when he made up his mind and the outcome could not be changed.
Now if they had written the second part of the title like, "You won't believe what happened next!" that would be clickbait.
If you'd like to clearly differentiate it from a more stringent definition of clickbait, I guess one could call it clickbait by omission.
It's like when you pretend to have thrown a nut to a squirrel, but in reality you just made a gesture. The squirrel will go look for the nut regardless. You not throwing a 'decoy' nut isn't the important part w.r.t. the desired outcome. You still 'baited' them.
Anything that leads to a reader/viewer asking "Why?/What?", and which triggers the human curiosity that leads to a click - constitutes clickbait.
Such content may later disappoint or cause annoyance to the reader/viewer; but they still clicked, which is all that matters.
They could have, but that’s background information supporting the article’s topic, not its findings. You and several others will walk away with that finding from their research, and I will walk away having read and understood the interest in better understanding how attrition affects outcomes. I wouldn’t have any clue that I could learn that from the title you suggest. If they’d tried to cram the point of interest I found into the title, it would be derided as editorializing. The title is probably the best they could do: we had a hypothesis. Implicit in that is some findings and some further line of questioning. Sure that’s “clickbait” in a literal sense, but it’s a title. If you could fit the article in the title you wouldn’t have a distinction between articles and titles. You’d have tweet. Just one. Choose your wording carefully!
Is so common it must be in some clickbait 101 subreddit wiki
idk if this makes sense but i have a more stereotypically "confident" inflection, like my phrases don't rise in pitch at the end, i don't have the "creaky voice" thing etc. i also notice women tend to use more superlative optimistic phrasing ("perfect" vs "good" in response to something) and less definite language (prefacing more often with "i feel" or "maybe").
this is all obv anecdotal but i'm guessing i could guess male vs. female even if the pitches were modulated to be equal. shame there's no example of how male voices sounded modulated.
like the female example they gave it's still extremely apart from how normal men talk, i didn't have to focus at all. though tbh my first thought was it sounded like a gay male so maybe it sort of works?
"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-tri...
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.
> 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.
Is it deeper than that?
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
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).
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.
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 <>.
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.
Or the racists of currentyear.
>the current wokesters are the grandchildren of klan members
No they're not. I'm definitely not.
uh, what?
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.
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.
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.
How do trans immigrant women feel about the gender wage gap? How do male Irish steelworkers feel about it? So on and so forth… and don’t you dare tell anybody their identity group and their unique intersection of those identities isn’t important.
It’s an ideology I would try to convince my enemies to adopt to encumber them with endless amounts of petty political bickering so they never got anything done.
This whole intersectionality business is spreading way too fast, being too prominent in the media and front and center everywhere to not be at least encouraged by an hostile nation.
At the limit, intersectionality approaches individualism.
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.
https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2021/08/18/name-discriminati...
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.
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.
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.
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
>a=192, b=219, a is -12.328767123287676% more likely than b
I think I get what you're going for here -- you're trying to simulate a coin flip? -- but what you've actually done is made successive draws from a uniform random number generator. The software is designed to return numbers that fall along the interval [0,1) with equal probability. Thresholding the numbers and dividing their counts is not a meaningful transformation; the result is still just a uniformly distributed random number. It's like...the ratio of heads in two identical, unfair coins or something.
If all "random numbers" were uniform like this, then no, we wouldn't expect an X% difference to be any more or less likely based on the magnitude of the underlying sample. But when we're talking about something like a a population mean, then the behavior of the errors on estimates is very different indeed, and most estimates cluster around the true (aka population) value:
https://online.stat.psu.edu/stat415/lesson/9/9.4
As the sample size for an experiment of this sort gets larger, the bell curve of expected errors gets sharper and sharper, and it becomes increasingly less likely to see errors >= X, for any value X. In the limit of large N, the distribution of sample errors around a known mean approach a normal distribution:
https://www.jmp.com/en_us/statistics-knowledge-portal/t-test...
For what it's worth, the expected proportion of N heads in M coin flips is modeled using the binomial distribution, which is also bell-shaped and illustrates the same idea:
This model is built on the assumptions that if candidates are actually totally equally likely to be picked (the null hypothesis for the experiment above), any given candidate has a p=.2 chance of being hired (given an arbitrary but reasonable hire vs interview ratio of 1:5). Which is just a weighted coin flip. This is indeed a binomial distribution, and my point is that results ±3% of the mean (p*M), even at M=1000, are still fairly probable. When comparing two such results, it's almost expected.
The part where you did this in a loop, with two calls per iteration, and then divided the counts and called it a percentage is wrong. It's certainly not a Binomial distribution. It's just the ratio of two binomial random variables.
This is wrong. That is a very meaningful transformation. It is the standard way (https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/240338) to turn a uniform distribution into a Bernoulli distribution.
Getting a single value with Bernoulli distribution is called a Bernoulli trial (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernoulli_trial). Repeating this gives you a Binomial distribution (see your own wikipedia link).
Long story short: GPs code is a perfectly valid way of sampling the Bernoulli distribution. It is inefficient because it needs so many random values, but it mimics the actual process happening in real life making it easier to understand than generating a Binomial sample from the Binomial distribution's CDF.
The OP didn't do what was described in the SO post. They did something else -- they calculated the ratio of two binomial random variables, and presented that as a percentage.
Also, no, the SO comment you've cited doesn't describe how to generate a "Bernoulli distribution" (not a thing, btw; it's called a binomial distribution) from a uniform distribution. It tells how to make a single Bernoulli trial...but even that isn't what OP did.
This is how you actually do what you're discussing (draw from the Binomial CDF given a uniform RNG, via a table):
https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1427288/how-to-samp...
So this Wikipedia article is a fever dream? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernoulli_distribution
> they calculated the ratio of two binomial random variables, and presented that as a percentage.
Ok, now I'm confused. I 100% agree with that statement. I thought your whole point was that OPs code was not a valid way to sample from a binomial distribution?
But then what is your criticism? Are you arguing that the Binomial distribution does not model the original experiment correctly?
> I thought your whole point was that OPs code was not a valid way to sample from a binomial distribution?
The code OP posted was just taking the ratio of two binomial random variables. It's not "sampling from a binomial", except (perhaps) in the sense that each of those random variables was the result of independent coin flips.
We really need to be more precise in our terminology here. "Sampling from a distribution" can mean a lot of things. Based on the sibling comments, it seems like they were trying (?) to sample from the binomial CDF.
Setting this aside, my high-level point was OPs calculation doesn't have anything to do with error distributions.
I know it to mean only one thing: Generating a value in such a way, so that if that process were to be repeated, the generated values follow the given distribution. How exactly this is done is irrelevant, as long as the distribution is correct. See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudo-random_number_sampling.
> [...] it seems like they were trying (?) to sample from the binomial CDF.
This is technically unclear usage of terminology. You can not actually sample from a CDF. But it is clear that you are referring to Inverse transform sampling (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse_transform_sampling) – where you sample from a Uniform distribution and use that sample to generate a sample form a non-uniform distribution using that distribution's CDF.
> The code OP posted was just taking the ratio of two binomial random variables. It's not "sampling from a binomial", except (perhaps) in the sense that each of those random variables was the result of independent coin flips.
Once again: Since the Binomial distribution is the distribution of a series of independent coin flips, doing a series of independent coin flips is a perfectly valid way of sampling the binomial distribution.
> Based on the sibling comments, it seems like they were trying (?) to sample from the binomial CDF.
As they explain in the sibling comment, they generate two samples from the binomial distribution and compare them to each other the same way the original authors did. What they achieve by this is sampling from the same random variable that the original authors were implicitly sampling from. They then took multiple samples from that variable in order to get a feel for its distribution, to confirm their original point: That 3% is not an uncommonly big value under that distribution.
> Setting this aside, my high-level point was OPs calculation doesn't have anything to do with error distributions.
So I don't quite now what you mean by "error distribution". I assume you mean the distribution of the random variable that had the value of 3% in the article? If so, then OPs calculation does – as explained – have a lot to do with that distribution. It does not calculate that distribution, but it samples from it, which is a useful way to get a feel for a distribution without having to do any fancy mathematics or research.
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.
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.
Makes sense. Men are conditioned to experience rejection more than women. Considering reproductive dynamics, men may even be biologically adapted to rejection to a greater degree than women. I'll bet there's some interesting studies out there on, for example, sexually dimorphic cortisol levels/activity.
Then, once women became interested in them, there was often constant pressure to get a better job, in order to move through the expected life stages.
I think that this regular rejection, plus the pressure to fight upward, is what trains and motivates men to keep going.
The key of course is framing your experience. I think the submission’s parallel between interviewing and dating is a good observation. In both cases you need to be willing to realize that rejection can be because of something you can control, but it also can be because of something you can’t. Another thing is once you experience it enough rejection loses its sting. The handful of hours you spend pursuing a job or a date just isn’t a serious cost, especially if you learn something from the experience.
This gap manifests itself in women applying for less-senior positions than men (on average), and more specific applications being biased in favor of men. It also manifests in promotion cases at big companies: men are more likely to ask, but women are a lot more likely to succeed. Women who would be qualified are less likely to try if they think they might fail. At a previous place where I worked, we had many initiatives to help women on these factors: using broad job applications for specific positions and encouraging attempts at promotions, for example. These initiatives actually worked.
My wife and I experience this in terms of writing. She has an MFA and is an incredible writer, but she rarely submits or publishes her work because she is afraid that people will reject it. I am an average writer (maybe above average, but not near her skill level), and I try to blog approximately monthly and regularly post my work in various online forums. She once tried to console me when one of my blog posts got a few hundred readers, and I didn't realize what she was doing. I was happy to have a few hundred, but she told me that if it were her, she would have been very upset at the reception.
I believe this might be a direct result of presentation in movies. For example, She-Hulk had a scene where I'm quite convinced that it's hurting women, despite contrary intentions. The male Hulk had to overcome plenty of challenges to become halfway stable. The female Hulk skipped all that. But then, how do girls learn the value of grit if their role models don't need it?
It's a proclamation that you should already have everything figured out, because you're dealing with it every day. Yet, what if you don't have shit figured out? What if your confidence is cratered? What if you have crippling anxiety?
These are not women specific issues, and the male role model "grit and hard work" model doesn't convey to men that you can lean on others. However, there are so many more male role models with different ways to grow and improve, whereas women are really treated as not needing to.
Perhaps that hasn't been portrayed in a while, but then again, when was the last time men and boys actually had a role model and one with actual "grit"? Yes, we have male protagonists, and ones with substantial authority and muscle growth, but it's been a long time since I've actually seen a legit role model.
The reason you can't easily convey a value about depending on others is that modern storytelling requires that every character must be significantly flawed. Having one character lean on others only is called for if that creates an opportunity where said character can be betrayed, which is useful for dramatic purposes.
Look at any plot from a movie before the 2000's that's focused on a strong male character. Usually there's a subplot where he's got to rely on some other guy or inspire other men to take action when they otherwise wouldn't.
> However, there are so many more male role models with different ways to grow and improve, whereas women are really treated as not needing to.
This is reality. You are describing the quintessential male experience. Having to start with nothing and work your way up (or fail) is what it is to be a man. We are not told we are handsome or attractive by anyone but our mother unless we find a partner who can express that or if we are a 9 or above on the decile scale. Women aren't as greatly valued for their problem solving capability as they are for their beauty and reproductive capability. That's just how it is based on how the sexes differ, and it isn't even something that necessarily has to be fixed. People who deviate from the norm shouldn't be forced into roles that don't suit them as individuals, and those who it a norm shouldn't have to give up who they are in order to satisfy the minority.
Indeed and it goes further than mere compliments. Women actually don't need to be successful at a career or be resilient to failures or "strong" - they can still have a good life with a family and be wealthy by being supported by a successful man. Men typically can't do that so they need all this grit and self-determination.
All that role model and life advice stuff isn't just made up for no reason, it's there to help people get a good life for themselves in the world that they exist in.
I'm reminded of a time I was in a circle of people from various backgrounds, and the person in the middle of the circle asked the women to raise their hands if they've ever been told they are pretty by anyone besides their mother. Every single one of them raised their hands, even the ones who weren't conventionally attractive. The men were then asked to raise their hands if they've ever been told they are handsome by anyone besides their mother. Not a single man in the circle raised his hand, and this group included a few particularly popular individuals with the women in this cohort. That experience isn't representative of everyone, but it told me a lot.
> All that role model and life advice stuff isn't just made up for no reason, it's there to help people get a good life for themselves in the world that they exist in.
Choosing a role in life is efficient. Spending one's entire life without learning the role one is suited for usually means a lot of wasted time and effort. Yet this is antithetical to what we tell young people today, which is that what is most important is who they are in the present as individuals. The individual is important, but individuality is overrated because everyone is an individual, more or less, and individuality provides no structure or framework.
Past societies figured this out because life is simply too short to blow a bunch of time figuring things out from scratch. Today, we have longer life expectency and automation has made everyday life very easy, so we've fooled ourselves into thinking that it is our individuality that we should be exploring to the exclusion of selecting roles that take the greater society into consideration.
It's quite nice all around.
Thank goodness. Hopefully the commercial break dad will die off next, though I see that caricature having more staying power.
> Gay characters are treated with more respect and nuance; they're no longer a punchline.
They are treated with more respect, yes, but I wouldn't say they are no longer a punchline entirely. They're still very much present in many current storylines because of how different they're perceived to be. Homosexual interaction on-screen is and probably always will be a sort of spectacle for the general audience. It's an improvement over gay character merely being present to be flamboyant, but I don't think their current inception in entertainment is totally flattering.
> There's no longer just Rambo McBiceps
There's no longer "Rambo McBiceps" at all, and I don't think that's necessarily a good thing. A variety of role models would be better than only having role models that are of no threat to the establishment.
Baaghi 1, 2, and 3 have pushed this character trope to the breaking point, and it's hilarious.
I'm happy that we now have male lead who are weak, yet still win. Emmett in the Lego movie, Rango, the guy from Fantastic Beasts. They don't win by becoming more violent, but by providing an alternative to violence.
Lord of the Rings is also a treasure trove of great male role models.
What qualities do you consider "legit" in this regard?
The whole girlboss thing isn't that omnipresent, though there are still some leftovers of the whole Disney princess "just be as you are and it will be fine" era.
Then the ones who are writing stories involving physical prowess don't have business doing so if they are expecting a sizable audience. Some people just want the fantasy that femininity magically creates masculine results. That's fine. The rest of the world isn't going to take it any more seriously than they would a film about a chimp being elected president.
... than super heroes. Which are a hugely successful genre.
A film about chimp being elected president can be a smash hit, if not a classic masterpiece, as can most silly ideas. That doesn't mean it has the same chance to do so as a super hero flick. My point still stands. People might watch the chimp film out of morbid curiosity, and the might find it funny, but it would be unlikely to be considered "great" or even "good". Nobody seriously buys that there would be any circumstance that a non-human would be elected president. People can buy a world where, if a super power was obtainable, that those powers would be used for good and evil. It's a fundamental type of fantasy. Nobody fantasizes about being President Chimp. Yet even children fantasize of flying, shooting fireballs, being invincible, having gigantic muscles, and any number of things you'll find super heroes doing.
Switch out President with freedom fighter, and the reboot/prequel Planet of the Apes trilogy certainly fits as a modern semi-believable sci-fi hit.
Not really. Perhaps that was true in 2008 when the MCU started, but as the years go on, it gets less and less serious, yet continues to rake in more and more money. Turns out, people just like big action set pieces with large CGI budgets. Compare that to a movie like The Northman which is all about the hero's journey yet was a commercial failure, in part because it wasn't flashy enough to capture the general public's attention.
People are more simple-minded than you give them credit for.
That's giving the movie industry more credit than they give themselves with the Oscars.
My sister has 3 kids under 10. Every day they watch at least 3 movies, some of them atleast presentable as childlike learning, the others are just "whatever Netflix puts on"
I would argue the most damage has come from the near complete and utter erosion of social communities. As the saying goes, "It takes a village [community] to raise a child." I can't name a role model in my community. In fact, I have no community that I can access without the Internet.
We went from "Survive together; thrive together" to "every man for himself" way too rapidly.
It's obvious advice but so many people had absent parenting and ended up as failures and need to be told the absolute basics. If they get this advice from social media or corporate media, they are being led in the wrong direction.
Obviously some parents are undeniably negligent, but let's take care not to blame them as a homogenous cohort.
My point is that yes, there are a lot of people out there searching for life advice and self improvement. They suck it up from books, movies, social media, the news. Some of that advice is absolute crap and some of it is beneficial.
There are absolutely people who will see personalities in movies and try to take something from that. In fact I’d say none of us are immune from doing it.
Children learn implicitly from the behaviours they see - mostly mimicking others.
Adults do the same thing. However most adults think they make conscious/rational choices, and they think they are not driven by subconscious behaviours.
I am not saying we learn to be killers by watching murder mysteries. I am saying we subconsciously learn some behaviours from the media we watch.
But that is the plot of pretty much every story about a woman in a role traditionally held by men, see for example Captain Marvel.
She-Hulk skips that part because that's not what the show is about; there are literally hundreds of shows or movies you can watch if that's the plot line you're looking for.
Biology is powerful but it is not the only factor...
I think a lot of that hypothesis is hand-picking a few movies and then saying "and that's why xyz".
My father is parenting like his own father was. And with his wife than my grandfather did with my grandmother (and hopefully i'll manage to act the same). Also have the same politics and the same engagement my grandmother had (and same character, so he does has some flaws :) ). My father was adopted. As he isn't a hippie living in the middle of nowhere or a trophy wife living in a top10 US city in an affluent area thank to the money his partner earned, i'd say genetics have really little influence on your character.
I mean, if you met old ladies from brittany, or from Ireland (and probably any rural area that din't get TV until the 70s), and compare them to those you met in CA or WA, it would be obvious than culture is the primary influence over genetics.
I guess my sister have my genetic grandmother hair? But rather than being meek and subordinate to her husband, my sister is a hard-headed britton who doesn't let anyone step on her toes, so she clearly takes from our non-genetic grandmother (and btw, our genetic grandaunt, despite being more liberal and feminist than our genetic grandmother, act basically the same with her husband, so i can confidently state that this particular character trait is not from any genetic material on our father side).
Twin studies with twins in different countries? Because my guess is that culture permeate everything.
But I do agree that this scene you're talking about doesn't make much sense at that point in the plot (probably would have been better latter). It felt more like a lecture to the audience (these jabs have improved but can still be cringy). Audiences like demonstration instead of instruction. But I think later episodes are better demonstrating instead of lecturing.
I do want to point out that the adversities that men and women face are different. I can say that the first 3 episodes, as a man, I didn't really connect with Jennifer as a character. She seemed like a caricature (maybe women view this differently?). As the show progressed this changed though and it was easier to build attachment. I mean it is a superhero show, everyone is a bit of a caricature anyways, but it definitely had a rough start in hooking me.
[0] One could argue that the show is following the hero's journey. From this perspective, getting super powers is the call to adventure. Her not wanting to be a Hulk is the refusal of the call. I'm not sure what the supernatural aid is. But crossing the first threshold would probably be her first case with Abomination.
I learned the value of a friendly demeanor and a permanent smile from SpongeBob and I’m not even a sponge. You don’t have to resemble a fictional character in any way for you to be able to idolize them.
He also does a scathing analysis of She-Hulk: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9Rt0en0f_pU
As for the difference of observed performance some explanations can be easily found (even if it doesn’t mean they are true). Men are far likelier to be on the autistic spectrum than women and CS is may be the most suited domain for people on the spectrum
This would be great, but the question remains what to do if the jobs men prefer are being paid more than jobs women prefer. Is sexism why that's the case, or is there some other driving factor why society is valuing male preferred jobs higher?
Or is it just that the work itself is valuable (to someone), and also that's how much it takes to get someone to do it?
Yes, supply and demand is generally the driving factor for how things are priced.
Employers engage in cartel behaviour to suppress wages, regardless of scarcity
Obviously, no. Which sexist entity, or group, do you propose to be the culprit behind price-fixing entire industries?
1: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-30/bilnd-recruitment-tri...
This is the most reasonable idea I think I have seen so far on the thread.
By all means, keep the ideas rolling.
This is important and I do not think the underlying cause(s) are necessarily simple or obvious.
* "Woman Who Switched to Man's Name on Resume Goes From 0 to 70 Percent Response Rate" https://www.nysscpa.org/news/publications/the-trusted-profes...
* "applications randomly assigned a female name exhibit a 41% higher probability of being invited to move forward in the interview process than those with male names" https://economics.yale.edu/sites/default/files/marley_finley...
I saw a study a few years back where someone was looking at number of applications required to get a job vs number of tries made by applicants. They reported a similar result.
Could this be helped simply by coaching? Just knowing that on average it takes N tries is useful.
[1] https://hbr.org/2014/08/why-women-dont-apply-for-jobs-unless...
I think that those who are more resilient of rejection end up producing children more often.
I also believe men are more conditioned to accept rejection from potential sexual partners, so the job knockbacks are not taken personally.
Who's to say that the two are comparable? The men who would give up may have given up earlier in the process
I was the lead engineer and was hiring for my team in a fortune 100 company. I got told to hire the worse candidate for the role because we needed more diversity. Anyone who still calls it 'reverse' sexism/racism/ageism really hasn't worked in corporate America in the last 10 years.
In my case, I've been involved in tons of engineering hiring meetings at my company and diversity has never swayed things in one direction or the other when evaluating candidate performance.
Or here's another hot take: the masking did not work. What if there is more gender signal in speech than just in voice pitch?
I don't see any mention of explicitly asking interviewers what gender they perceived the interviewee to be, and with what confidence.
Ask a trans person and they will tell you that changing your perceived speech gender is much more than just the pitch.
> You might ask why we included the second condition, i.e. modulated interviews that didn’t change the interviewee’s pitch. As you probably noticed, if you played the videos above, the modulated one sounds fairly processed. The last thing we wanted was for interviewers to assume that any processed-sounding interviewee must summarily have been the opposite gender of what they sounded like. So we threw that condition in as a further control.
It wouldn't affect things like cadence, but they did include a modulated (but not cross gender) control group.
like when i talk vs. my female peers i notice my voice doesn't rise in pitch at the end of a phrase, or go creaky. i also notice differences in word choice: it's crazy the number of people i hear saying "perfect" instead of just "thanks" when i send over a document, and definitely more women doing that than men. they also seem to qualify their words more with "i think" or "maybe" preceding a statement.
anyway i'm guessing i could do an ok job of guessing male vs female with them modulated like this.
If you want a voice modulator to improve your odds in an interview, then have it filter out uptalk.
I'd be interested in a standalone study of how effective the modulation is at masking.
Surely enough, men seem to take the advice to heart much more, with women questioning their abilities and feeling something morally off about the advice.
I have no suggestions on how this gets fixed; there's evidently something wrong in hiring when young people need to "fake" their credentials and still do very well while people who to try to be honest and humble but of objectively similar performance get rejected.
Hiring and performance in our field is still very much in the pre-science stage where we mostly do with ancient incantations and magical beliefs and vibes.
It felt weird, if I see someone better than me, I ask him to teach me. If he s an ass, he becomes my worst enemy and I wont sleep until I beat him.
Objectively she was above the average dude we had, to top all...
Women aren't being systematically oppressed ~ but confidence issues might lead them to believe that they are, even if they can't identify any actual causes.
The real systematic issue seems to me to be that women aren't getting help in the confidence apartment, hence they can't easily stay standing in the face of something that may well crush one's self-confidence.
And there may be many, many things in workplace, not just interviews, that can feel defeating... interviewers are there to filter out those who can't handle the strain of the job, those who don't have the qualifications, etc. And even if that's overcome, then the job itself may overtime wear one down.
Burnout and imposter syndrome aren't nice to run into... :/
What I didn't realize is how boring it becomes when you are that person.
I'm not sure how you can come to that conclusion.
Most women do not have career role models in our profession, or even most positions of power. Young women don't have examples of successful female computer scientists or engineers they can relate to.
And many women still come from households where their grandparents or parents told them that their main purpose in life is to be submissive and supportive of a breadwinner husband and anything else is degenerate deviation.
What's more, too many men discriminate against confident women; there's several studies that show that confident men are perceived as strong but confident women are perceived and oppressive or difficult to work with.
Why not? It feels like there's a movie made about them every other year. They also cannot go into politics, because ... women chancellors don't count, apparently.
> And many women still come from households where their grandparents or parents told them that their main purpose in life is to be submissive and supportive of a breadwinner husband and anything else is degenerate deviation.
"Many"? Granted, self-selection and all that, but zero of my female friends have said that this was a thing. I'm sure it's "many" in absolute terms, but relative to the whole population ... are you sure it's "many"?
Hmm, no? Aside from Grace Hopper and Ada Lovelace there aren't many female computer scientists who are well known and shown to be exemplary. Historic figures and people you know firsthand impact much more than fictional characters.
> They also cannot go into politics, because ... women chancellors don't count, apparently.
Who said this? An important phenomenon is that we've seen a wave of increased female participation into politics and those figures have certainly helped young women find role models.
It's literally the entire point of the article.
1. There is no interviewer bias: because women performed exactly the same even with voices that sound like men's voices. Which has the serious flaw I pointed out. I.e "we made women sound like men but they still under-performed in interviews compared to men" so therefor interviewers must not be biased. Ugh. That's terrible science. Because if interviewers can still detect gender after voice modulation then the voice modulation accomplished nothing.
2. Since the interviewers could no longer be biased, the gender gap in performance must come from something else. Oops, the experiment never proved that the interviewers couldn't detect gender. The writer goes on to talk about how bad the problem of attrition is, but I see nowhere that the writer claims performance differences disappear after controlling for attrition. And there is no proof that the attrition wasn't caused by....... women leaving after interviews they felt were sexist.
This is just piss poor science. Which explains why it's an only article and not a peer-reviewed study. And why it got no attention after it was published in 2016.
>>Once you factor out interview data from both men and women who quit after one or two bad interviews, the disparity goes away entirely.
And it definitely does not prove that the voice masking worked to hide gender.
I have personally heard interviewers say:
- a candidate is "too sexy"
- they want "hot, young Java talent"
- you were hired because "you looked good in a suit"
I listened to the examples and I don't find them convincing at all at masking gender, which is the first thing that would explain to me why they don't find any difference in their outcomes. Unless I missed something they didn't even ask the interviewers to take a guess after the interviews to get an indication of whether their pitch changing is sufficient to throw them off.
In general I'd say voice modulation isn't even remotely enough to mask someone's gender. In particular people who interview for a living can probably tell from the tone of the conversation.
Who is more likely to be more persistent to get a *specific* job: person A who has 10 other opportunities, or person B who doesn't have any other opportunities?
It is a shame the study did not attempt to quantify this aspect by asking a question post-interview ("How many other opportunities did you have?")
The authors of this "study" (if we can even call it that) didn't bother to ask, so we won't know.
Masking a woman into a male voice created a slight disadvantage, the other way a slight advantage.
Also, women underperformed men by about 0.5 on the scoring metric before the modulation.
After interviewing 100's of candidates, I realized women are more easily intimidated on average and also need to be much more careful in how they present themselves in interviews. (Some non-trivial percent of interviewers think aggressive males are confident, but aggressive women are combative. The candidate doesn't know if I am such a person when they come into the interview.)
I noticed that, on average, women with scores that match those of men (on my own scoring) significantly outperformed the men when hired.
I settled on adding 0.5 points to the score of every woman I interview (then rounding to a whole number). Also, I champion them if they are borderline in the panel discussion.
Based on the gender ratio and performance of the team I recently helped hire, this works great (when I am the interviewer).
Edit: There was a wonderful article by a VC along these lines. Some other VC bragged that their female founders were all way more competent than their average successful male founders. The first VC pointed out that this was as close as possible to incontrovertible proof that they were holding women to a higher bar before funding them. I can't find a link...
Did I understand that right? Women you interview get an automatic 0.5-1.0 handicap?
A "they almost got it, and are obviously intelligent" turns into "they froze up, but would have gotten it otherwise".
(To be clear: I've recommended hiring men that obviously froze up. I don't care how programmers perform in high stress environments. We're not trying to reboot the computer in Jurassic Park, FFS.)
That would be stressful, but not only that. Stress may come from pretty “calm” sides, like the lack of task explanation or illogical authoritative statements, indecision due to vague constraints, unreasonable time pressure, monotonous grind, working hard weeks right into the trash without any explanation (to name a few just from the top of my personal experience). Stress is something that bothers you so much for months or years but you can do nothing about it.
So you deliberately engage in gender discrimination? You just straight up give women a bonus, across the board, explicitly on account of their gender?
Imagine someone saying the inverse, "I find that men outperform women on average, so I settled on adding 0.5 points to the score of every man I interview."
There is nothing sacred about my personal opinion on how people do in interviews. I judge as objectively as I can, and that leads me to unfairly score women 0.5 points too low (based on hindsight and hired candidates' job performance).
There is plenty of scientific evidence saying that coding interviews are way more stressful for women, causing them to underperform on average. Not correcting for that would be sexist.
You understand that if your information got out, its likely to result in you being unemployable right?
"I don't get it. Why are they confessing?" "They arn't confessing, they are bragging."
Another data point that suggests that instead of suffering from systemic negative bias, women are really enjoying systemic positive bias.
If there were no unintended consequences (I hope that you do not intend this widespread discrimination) then I would be fine with you running your company that way as I would be happy with there being less competition for all the excellent women applicants, and I believe that a mixed sex workplace will outperform a solely male one. A belief I find much easier to hold than dudes prefer working with dudes or some such nonsense.
I know you probably think you’re doing a good thing by championing these laws, but in reality, your support is aiding the degredation of the natural family.
It’s a terrible tradeoff we’ve made, but it can be reversed.
On top of that fact I’ve given my own opinion - that I would be happy to employ women and that I believe a mixed workplace can outcompete ones wholly made up of men. Nowhere did I mention rebuilding the traditional family nor any other corollary.
I think you should stick to the arguments presented to you instead of inferring too much, much like the inference that because a guy might prefer working with other men that he’d prefer to work solely with other men. If you want to know my intentions it’s best you ask but I can tell you that they go as far as “I can outcompete you” and “I think you’re wrong” but no further.
Related from 2019: https://blog.interviewing.io/we-ran-the-numbers-and-there-re...
As far as I can tell from https://blog.interviewing.io/category/diversity/, they haven't done a follow-up with the same thing but more data.
My (completely instinctual, and explicitly not fact-based) theory is that perhaps women expect to do less well because they expect that women do less well. This should cause women who believed they were modulated (or that they could be) to be more likely to continue with the process because they believe that they are more likely to make it through than they otherwise would be.
My thought behind this is that if women believe that being a woman negatively impacts their employability, and their behavior changes as a result of that belief in a way that negatively impacts their employability - it would be a self-fulfilling prophesy.
> In the spirit of not giving away what we were doing and potentially compromising the experiment, we told both interviewees and interviewers that we were slowly rolling out our new voice masking feature and that they could opt in or out of helping us test it out. Most people opted in, and we informed interviewees that their voice might be masked during a given round and asked them to refrain from sharing their gender with their interviewers.
Women couldn’t be sure they would sound like women and thus be judged as women.
To me, this suggests the interviewers are slightly biased toward women, but the interview process is strongly biased toward men.
In a throwaway comment, they say that ignoring people that dropped out after 1-2 failed interviews eliminated the gender gap. To me, that suggests there are confounding factors at play.
> So if there’s no systemic bias, why are women performing worse?
is a pretty wild leap. For example there could still a tendency for men to be over-confident, and a bias toward over-confident interviewees.