We built voice modulation to mask gender in technical interviews • Hacker News Board

Re: We built voice modulation to mask gender in technical interviews

#221

Post by omginternets » Wed, Jun 29, 2016, 9:14 PM UTC

xenadu02 wrote: post #217

omginternets wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm always surprised by the strong underlying assumption that removing interviewer/managerial bias will result in a gender ratio of 50%. There's research to suggest that this assumption is flawed: [0] Moreover, the idea that anatomy and physiology don't condition preferences or behaviors flies in the face of everything we know about human biology and (embodied) cognition. Let's recognize gender/feminist theory for wh…

You're the one introducing a 50% number, I haven't seen anyone make that assertion. There are structural problems that make the available talent pool unequal per-capita anyway (women being socially pressured out of software engineering, resulting in a lack of role models, etc. I'm sure there are plenty of other factors). Part of changing the dynamic will take decades because _currently_ a smaller percentage of all wo…

> You're the one introducing a 50% number, I haven't seen anyone make that assertion.

"Gender gap" is a fancy way of saying "not 50%". More to the point, assumptions are often unstated, as I'm sure you know.

I agree with you insofar as the mechanisms you point out are likely contributers to this so-called gap. Rather, I'm highlighting that -- unpopular though this notion may be in certain circles -- part of this effect is likely to be driven by bottom-up biological factors.

How big is this part? I haven't got a clue.

I'm copying my "tl;dr" from the above comment because it applies here as well: if we're going to have an honest debate, we have to entertain the notion that at least part of the gender gap is the result of "nature", rather than "nurture".

Re: We built voice modulation to mask gender in technical interviews

#222

Post by killface » Wed, Jun 29, 2016, 9:14 PM UTC

CobrastanJorji wrote: post #148

xienze wrote: post #147

I honestly feel like this sort of thing is a waste of time. Let's pretend someone invents the perfect "gender bias-free" system: no names, no faces, voices are flawlessly transcribed on-the-fly so you can't pick up on speech patterns. What if it works perfectly and you still end up hiring more men than women? I think exercises like this may end up giving people answers they don't want to hear. So, stop wasting time w…

I'm no expert, but isn't "let's just hire only women for a while to balance out the numbers" going to violate a whole bunch of employment regulations?

No. If you're a white male, that's bad. Anything else is diversity.

They'll come up with some bullshit like "since women aren't the majority of hiring managers, this doesn't count as discrimination" or something. Like they have with racism (where black people in America literally can't be racist).

Re: We built voice modulation to mask gender in technical interviews

#223

Post by generalledger » Wed, Jun 29, 2016, 9:16 PM UTC

cauterized wrote: post #167

zeveb wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My theory is that this is tied to (In the US) men being more tolerant of taking risks, which leads to being more tolerant of failure, which leads to being able to more easily "dust oneself off." There are some pretty obvious evolutionary psychology reasons for men to take more risks. Whether evolutionary psychology is just a bunch of just-so stories or not, that's another discussion.

There are plenty of enculturation reasons too. Doesn't need to have an evolutionary or biological basis.

I don't know if this is true, but intuitively it seems that something is more likely to be ingrained in a culture if there is already a biological basis for the behavior.

Re: We built voice modulation to mask gender in technical interviews

#224

Post by killface » Wed, Jun 29, 2016, 9:16 PM UTC

NetTechM wrote: post #192

bionsuba wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, but who cares? I'm not making a normative statement here, I'm simply stating the fact that no one will come after you if you do this. Companies and colleges say all the time that they're looking for a specific ratio of races and genders and nothing happens to them.

I think you are talking about affirmative action, not so much a specific guide to hiring process. The law states that x ratio of specific minorities have to be hired/enrolled per year as a catch up mechanism that is largely outdated in 2016. As far as University enrollment, women have led the numbers for years so that isn't really at the heart of it. More so the subjects they choose as a major/minor being the issue.…

And that also means that at some point (ideally in the very near future), we're just going to have to be OK with the idea that not all women want to be STEM majors. This necessarily and explicitly means that the ratio will never be 50/50.

We're all ok with the idea that men don't really want to be early childhood educators (Pre-k through grade 2). It's a big deal when a guy applies for those jobs, according to teachers I know. Then, of course, come the endless jokes about the pedophile trying to get a job with kids, how he is going to need a female escort when dealing with the kids, etc.

Re: We built voice modulation to mask gender in technical interviews

#225

Post by killface » Wed, Jun 29, 2016, 9:19 PM UTC

benkuhn wrote: post #15

I would really have liked to see them check whether the gender-blinding actually worked. Even if someone's voice is modulated, they may have gendered behavior patterns that could influence someone's performance ratings. I wouldn't be surprised if I could guess the gender of a voice-modulated person pretty accurately from other cues. To combat this, they could have asked the interviewer during the performance assessme…

If you're tracking the interviewer gender guess, that's a legal liability to the interviewer. I'd refuse to answer, or always put "unsure" even if I was 100% sure of the gender.

Re: We built voice modulation to mask gender in technical interviews

#226

Post by xenadu02 » Wed, Jun 29, 2016, 9:21 PM UTC

randyrand wrote: post #209

Someone off-topic but: Laws forbidding sexual and racial discrimination in hiring are a waste for everyone's time involved. Do I really want to work alongside someone that "isn't racist" or sexist just because the law forbids it? No of course not. I'd rather work next to people that aren't racist and sexists regardless of if the law forbids it. I want to work at companies where people actually want me. How difficult…

You are clearly completely incorrect... Like so obviously incorrect I'm almost shocked to see such a comment here on HN.

Making discrimination illegal sends a social signal that the behavior is bad and shouldn't be tolerated. It emboldens those who are slightly anti-discrimination (but part of the majority group) to speak out against it instead of following the herd. The few cases where actual discrimination cases are prosecuted serve to warn others that there are negative consequences to bad behavior. Over time this change in attitude transfers to younger generations that see it as normal. That leads to fewer and fewer racist/biased people in positions of power.

Often institutionalized racism and sexism are enforced by a small group of busybodies... Take Cory Booker's family story where the Real Estate agent tried to enforce a "white only" town but once they bought the house (by using a white stand-in couple) all the neighbors were totally fine with a black family moving in. It took only one bad actor to effectively segregate an entire town. I have a suspicion (but no proof) that this is generally the case - a vocal minority wants to enforce the status quo but the majority would be fine with change.

We can't stop some people from discriminating, but we can declare that we as a society think that is bad behavior and that declaration alone has positive consequences.

Re: We built voice modulation to mask gender in technical interviews

#227

Post by killface » Wed, Jun 29, 2016, 9:21 PM UTC

sliverstorm wrote: post #200

CM30 wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a good point. There are often differences in how people of different genders (and nationalities, interest groups, classes, educational levels, etc) express themselves regardless of the format, and modulating their voice doesn't really hide that. For example, I've run quite a few forums before, and I'm pretty confident I (and quite a lot of other forum admins/moderators) could reliably judge someone's gender t…

Of course completely dehumanizing the interviewer & interviewee expressly prevents any degree of culture fit selection, which could be bad for all parties.

Not just culture fit. I hire for a high-end (boutique) software consulting firm. We specialize in scale problems and engineering practice at a level few other firms can claim.

Communication is an absolute, 100% must for senior roles. If you can't competently and thoroughly talk about a technical issue, to non-technical people, and do it with a smile and while making eye contact, we're not going to hire you.

So in a sense, we're filtering out neuro-atypical people for senior roles. But they fit well in engineering roles.

Dehumanizing the interview process will literally make it impossible for us to gauge this skill.

Re: We built voice modulation to mask gender in technical interviews

#228

Post by Frondo » Wed, Jun 29, 2016, 9:21 PM UTC

Kliment wrote: post #61

grb423 wrote: post #55

Is anybody studying the reasons behind the huge gender disparity in roofing, welding or kindergarten teaching? I think there is a tremendous gender bias in those and other fields that is going unstudied, because nobody cares or because those fields aren't as cool or important .

Someone I know worked as a welder at a very high level of experience and skill. She reported constant sexist comments, abuse and obstruction from male coworkers, particularly those whose work she was sent to inspect and/or repair.

I have an aunt who's a civil engineer. When she started her business, she didn't use her first name--only her first initial--for all her professional communications. She didn't want people who didn't know her to know she was a woman.

Re: We built voice modulation to mask gender in technical interviews

#229

Post by zw123456 » Wed, Jun 29, 2016, 9:24 PM UTC

I think this is a great effort and I applaud their efforts. There are also a lot of very good points made in all the comments below, summary:

1. Simply changing the frequency of the voice does not necessarily mask gender, other intonations are still present or make the person sound perhaps gay or otherwise still feminine sounding.

2. There are other socialization issues as well as biological/chemical that make men more aggressive than women.

One of the key things I have learned over the years is an appreciation for the different way that women approach problem solving than men, both technical problem solving as well as organizational. Both have merits, but a blend can be very powerful, a diverse work group has intangible value.

I think rather than attempting to create a male avatar for women this lesson needs to be embraced more widely.

Re: We built voice modulation to mask gender in technical interviews

#230

Post by killface » Wed, Jun 29, 2016, 9:25 PM UTC

patmcc wrote: post #126

yummyfajitas wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This was studied among lawyers. Female lawyers were significantly less productive. https://www.upf.edu/rs/_pdf/jornadesGenere/GenderGaps_Ferrer...

While interesting, that's a very particular definition of "productive" - male lawyers billed more hours. That doesn't necessarily correspond to more actual work done.

Accurately and consistently measuring performance of professionals has been all but impossible for the better part of the last century.

I don't know why we keep trying. This is what peer reviews are for.