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

281–290 of 369 posts

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

#281

Post by cderwin »

School-Cotton wrote: post #265
killface wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am with you 100%. We keep trying to invent ways to skew the hiring towards women. Let's just stop trying to candy-coat it. You want gender ratios, so just hire based on gender ratios and deal with the fallout. This narrative that women are somehow grossly discriminated against in tech doesn't hold water anywhere I see. Every tech company is desperate to hire more women engineers to increase their diversity quotient…

> You want gender ratios, so just hire based on gender ratios and deal with the fallout. That would be illegal, at least in the US.

It also ought not be done, for its moral consequences are quite grave. While it's not an argument made above, I suspect the moral consequences of "candy-coat[ing] ... gender ratios" are equally grave, and the just solution is not to force a "fair" outcome but to instead work towards attaining a fair process. Adding artificial biases towards women does not solve a sexism problem -- at least not directly.

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

#282

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).

On the other hand, saying a gender imbalance in the field is causing a gensee imbalance in the field....

Come on.

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

#283

Post by lifeformed »

Jemmeh wrote: post #25
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…

This would be a fantastic additional thing to monitor for. It was my first thought after hearing the voice modulation clips-- even in a manly voice, someone saying, "Oh I totally sound like a dude" sounded quite feminine since most guys wouldn't say "totally." Two things I noticed from the clip on the FastCompany article-- it's modulated, but I can hear A.) Vocal Fry B.) Statements that sound like they're ending with…

What if you just used a third party, like a translator? Someone listens to the voice and recaps it in his own words.

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

#284

Post by extra88 »

etjossem wrote: post #266
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…

20% of CS degrees are awarded to women, but they get only 10% of entry-level software jobs. Please stop blaming the pipeline for the difference. Interested, qualified women are being pushed away from the field by bias and attrition, and that's a problem we should be trying to solve.

I'm sure there are problems with many hiring process and work environments that result in fewer women in those positions, However, where do the other 50% of CS degree-holding women end up if not in entry-level software jobs? If they have a greater tendency to go to graduate school or to take jobs that make use of their degree but don't fit the cookie-cutter definition of a software job, that's not a bad outcome.

My impression is there are a lot of programming jobs where having a terrible work/life balance is expected. I'm a man and I would avoid such jobs. Perhaps women, including those who earn CS degrees, are statistically more likely than men to feel the way I do about work/life balance. The result would be fewer women working in the field without the environment being sexist or discriminatory.

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

#285

Post by teamfrizz »

etjossem wrote: post #277
hueving wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I have some hiring power, and I went to uni as well, and both in a liberal state (NY). We see hundreds of applications. I can tell you that ~30% percent of my colleagues at uni were female. Exactly 0% of our applicants are female. I have no idea where these women are, but were not turning them down!

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

#286

Post by dragonwriter »

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)

> Why do you find that 'argument' hard to buy?

I find it insufficient to answer the question of whether sexism is the problem. Computer programming used to have a lot more women -- why did that change? If it was changing interest, what is the source of the gender imbalance in the change in interest? Certainly, the perception that there was gender bias in the field arose while the rate at which women were participating was dropping from its high -- was gender bias in the field part of the cause of disinterest?

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

#287

Post by cderwin »

bionsuba wrote: post #160
CobrastanJorji wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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.

> colleges say all the time that they're looking for a specific ratio of races and genders and nothing happens to them.

This was specifically found unconstitutional in Bakke (1979)[1] and had very real consequences for UC Davis. While I don't know about the internals of any state university admission programs, I find it highly unlikely any state schools would publicly acknowledge that they seek specific racial quotas as that puts them in immediate and grave legal jeopardy.

[1] https://www.oyez.org/cases/1979/76-811

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

#288

Post by amyjess »

leeny wrote: post #39
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…

Aline from interviewing.io here. Great idea!

On a similar note, I'm wondering what will happen when somebody is perceived as gender non-conforming.

Will a woman using a modulated voice to sound male come off as a woman disguising her voice, or will she come off as an effeminate gay man? There's a lot of stigma to being perceived as the latter.

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

#289

Post by etjossem »

teamfrizz wrote: post #285
etjossem wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I have some hiring power, and I went to uni as well, and both in a liberal state (NY). We see hundreds of applications. I can tell you that ~30% percent of my colleagues at uni were female. Exactly 0% of our applicants are female. I have no idea where these women are, but were not turning them down!

It sounds like you might have a problem at the sourcing stage. How do you get leads on candidates?

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

#290

Post by jomamaxx »

Jemmeh wrote: post #150
jomamaxx wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"When women try to be confident, it can get frowned upon. A man being assertive is a leader, a woman is bossy. Women are quicker to hit walls for just how confident they're allowed to be before they get the "bossy/bitchy" label thrown at them." Confidence has nothing to being 'aggressive' or 'bitchy' or even necessarily 'assertive'. Confidence usually means a lack of fear or anxiety when dealing with tough situations…

Let's say someone is confident enough to ask for a raise-- that can be seen as assertive. A man can be seen as a go-getter. But for women, that assertiveness can be seen as bitching or whining. One of the studies from the article covers this. Here is directly linked: https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/cfawis/bowles.pdf

I simply don't agree.

I don't doubt there is a 'double standard' when it comes to how men and women are perceived in different scenarios, but 'confidence' is not going to be perceived as 'being bitchy'.

So - yes - when a woman gets vocally assertive, commanding, dominant and dismissive - she can bee seen as a 'bitch' whereas a guy might be perceived as simply 'alpha'. However I would add that many guys who act like this are also considered 'jerks' or 'a-holes' - to be frank.

But - when a woman asks for a raise - which possibly a sign of confidence - this is not going to be perceived by anyone as 'bitchy'.

A woman who, when asked to explain her algorithm, does it with delight, assurance and poise - is not going to be seen as 'bitchy'.

The issue of 'power signals' and 'alpha dominance' etc. I think is a whole separate issue from regular, day to day 'confidence' for most people.

95% of guys in the workforce are not aggressive the the point of being douche-bags or considered 'hard alphas' wherein their female counterparts might run the risk of being seen as 'bitches'.

Many men who act in an overtly dominant manner actually lack confidence. If they were comfortable in their status they wouldn't need to burn any political capital by risking being a douche.

If women are disproportionately likely to be 'less confident' than this may have a lot to do with why they are perceived such a way in leadership positions.

FYI, the women that are by far the most 'confident' in business are those that have played team sports. They are used to winning, to losing, to coming together, the ups the downs - they are not 'thrown' by the small things and not afraid. They tend to be more comfortable in their own skins, and when they assume positions of responsibility they act what most of us would describe as 'more normally'.

I think the issue of day to day 'confidence' and 'potentially being perceived as a bitch' are completely different things.

I know way too many very confident women in business who wouldn't remotely be considered bitches by anyone.

Post reply on HN