Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

We built voice modulation to mask gender in technical interviews

blog.interviewing.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 369 posts

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

#271

Post by Jemmeh »

mpweiher wrote: post #258
Jemmeh wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, I went back and edited my comment but you had already posted. The reason we need to figure out the confidence gender gap issue is because it leads to less opportunities for women. Anyone who is less confident is going to have less opportunities. But for various reasons, women tend to have a lot less confidence than men. Yes, that's something that is partially internal to each person. But the fact that large gr…

It is just as hard, or harder, for men who are not confident to just say 'well, be more confident', so again, not a gendered issue.

But women are more frowned upon for being confident than men.

Again, see this study regarding women vs men asking for raises: https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/cfawis/bowles.pdf

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

#272

Post by BoysenberryPi »

mwcampbell wrote: post #98
BoysenberryPi wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because your actual interview will not be text-based and if their goal is to simulate an actual interview scenario where you will be speaking out loud an expected to form coherent thoughts to questions on the fly this comes closer to doing so than text based.

And why shouldn't the actual interview be text-based? Yes, that would be a drastic change, and it would render on-site interviews pointless. But then again, it would eliminate a lot more biases, e.g.based on accent and disabilities.

You're basically putting up a straw-man and attacking it at this point. I never claimed the actual interviews should be verbal but the fact is they are and they are preparing you for what actual interviews are like not what ideal interviews are like.

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

#273

Post by omginternets »

bduerst wrote: post #232
omginternets wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That paper has little, if anything, to do with aphextron's point. It's a study of brain anatomy. Here's some directly-relevant literature, which points to a systematic preference for occupations in men vs women: [0] [0] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/38061313_Men_and_Th...

Hence saying it was largely debunked from a biological perspective. aphextron didn't elaborate on the source of the psychological differences. I was pointing out that it wasn't biological and most likely cultural.

And that's completely irrelevant to the current discussion.

BTW it's not even debunked from the biological perspective. It's debunked from a brain anatomy perspective.

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

#274

Post by theoh »

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…

So you think egalitarianism is a bad idea because your hunch is that existing prejudices are totally justified, and should not be challenged -- it's a waste of time!

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

#275

Post by jsprogrammer »

lotharbot wrote: post #233
jsprogrammer wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to be confirming my guess (perceiving a "standard trolling technique" === "preconception"), but I am not looking for supporters or detractors, only justification for the original claim: >These are both more common speaking patterns with women. It is incorrect to ask for "only observed" data in this instance, but I also was clear to state that it was only an example of data that could be presented. >parallels…

>> "(perceiving a "standard trolling technique" === "preconception")" You claimed preconception about the topic . Perceiving trolling is a preconception about your rhetorical technique . Don't overlook that important nuance. >> [SNIP -- attempts to justify] I don't care whether you are or aren't justified in rejecting the data (I have no dog in this fight.) I'm simply noting that you seem to give off the impression t…

I claimed preconception about a topic. I do not know which; I only assume that a downmodder had something in mind. I suppose it's possible they are completely random downmods from wandering bots.

> I'm simply noting that you seem to give off the impression that you're not genuinely interested, or open to being persuaded.

You're not the first person to conflate me writing and giving attention to something as being "not genuinely interested". I honestly do not understand this perception, particularly when I am discussing details of things brought up deeper into a conversation. Why would I waste my time on such trivialities?

>The line I quoted ("this pattern has only been observed with women") was an unreasonable, extraordinary standard of proof.

You'll note that line is not in this particular thread. It is however related and I agree that it was poor.

>I'm just trying to help you understand what about your behavior might be causing people to perceive you as worthy of downvotes. I'm trying to give you insight as to how, if you are interested in genuine dialog, you can make that clear to others. Because your posts thus far create a very different perception than that.

Thank you for writing out your perceptions, even though you only downvoted one of my posts. I don't think the perceptions you describe as others perhaps having accurately characterize me, though. I am not attempting to create a particular perception; I'm only trying to have an on-topic discussion: an absolute claim was made that seemed to lack observed evidence -- and despite many posts discussing it now, no real evidence has been shown.

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

#276

Post by jsprogrammer »

Jemmeh wrote: post #117
jsprogrammer wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The NYT blog post starts out discussing regional dialects, then presents a study of 23 Southern Californians aged 18-22... The only study the post links to is paywalled and the link to a conference paper is dead. Your second link is also paywalled.

I've found most studies to be paywalled in general aside from the free abstract. Not really sure what to do about that.

You could quote the relevant part of the study, or, not link to paywalls.

[It's not your fault, just the current reality.]

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

#277

Post by etjossem »

hueving wrote: post #211
Tyr42 wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is evidence to the contrary, where they have run this experiment in the real world. This is for Orchestras. As late as 1970, the top five orchestras in the U.S. had fewer than 5% women. It wasn’t until 1980 that any of these top orchestras had 10% female musicians. But by 1997, they were up to 25% and today some of them are well into the 30s. In the 1970s and 1980s, orchestras began using blind auditions. Candi…

The supply of women with related degrees from uni is too low. If only 20% of the candidates qualified on paper are women, then a perfectly blind hiring process would result in 20% women. Expecting something else implies some fundamental misunderstanding of math.

20% is (coincidentally) the percentage of CS degrees awarded to women. They get only 10% of entry-level software jobs.

We don't get to blame supply until those numbers match.

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

#278

Post by [deleted] »

mpweiher wrote: post #260
artpepper wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But something is driving women out of CS programs (unless you buy the argument that women just aren't interested in programming). Steps that make the profession as a whole less biased against women, might also help to encourage more women to major in CS.

Why do you find that 'argument' hard to buy? I find it trivially true from observation and all empirical data I can find (if you remove the absolute)

[deleted]

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

#279

Post by MaysonL »

mpweiher wrote: post #260
artpepper wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But something is driving women out of CS programs (unless you buy the argument that women just aren't interested in programming). Steps that make the profession as a whole less biased against women, might also help to encourage more women to major in CS.

Why do you find that 'argument' hard to buy? I find it trivially true from observation and all empirical data I can find (if you remove the absolute)

Ada Lovelace, Grace Hopper, and App Camp for Girls refute your bs.

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

#280

Post by teamfrizz »

mplewis wrote: post #270
mpweiher wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you find that 'argument' hard to buy? I find it trivially true from observation and all empirical data I can find (if you remove the absolute)

Because without data, it's a circular argument. "Women aren't interested in programming, so none of them go into programming professionally. Why don't women go into programming professionally? Because they aren't interested." Separate out whether women are interested from whether women are being forced out for other reasons (harassment, gender imbalance in the field, etc).

There is literally nothing circular about that. You're just saying the same thing twice.
Post reply on HN