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

Why Women Don’t Apply for Jobs Unless They’re 100% Qualified (2014)

hbr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 116 posts

Re: Why Women Don’t Apply for Jobs Unless They’re 100% Qualified (2014)

#91

Post by J-dawg »

danso wrote: post #84
metaphorm wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

why doesn't it make it invalid? there are many situations where considering the mean is so deeply distorting as to make any conclusions drawn from it either unreasonable or outright false. I think calls for greater clarity and attention to detail when doing data analysis are well-considered and we should be _deeply suspect_ of claims made based on statistical aggregates, and particularly the mean average which is one…

I don't argue that statistical analysis can be distorting, in fact, of course it can be. All data collection of any sort is at best a limited picture of what we think is reality. But that doesn't make aggregates useless because outliers exist. Just because Stanford freshman swimmer Katie Ledecky is faster than some Olympic gold medal-winning mens relay teams [0] doesn't invalidate the observation that the average man…

>as if the purported problems that women face are only substantial once it can be proven that all women are worse than all men.

This is a total misrepresentation of what I'm saying. I'm more than fine with women being helped. What I'm saying is, don't do it in a way that excludes men with the same problem.

Re: Why Women Don’t Apply for Jobs Unless They’re 100% Qualified (2014)

#92

Post by burkaman »

Jach wrote: post #86
burkaman wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no guilt involved. The whole concept of "privilege" is about factors out of your control, nobody should feel guilty for being white or male or anything else, and I'm sorry if someone gave you that impression. And as I said in another comment, it's not an on-off switch. "Male privilege" doesn't mean "your life must be great", it means on average you have more and better opportunities that may or may not resul…

As a concept "privilege" is useless except as rhetoric to get what you want against your supposedly more privileged enemies. I think your defending language is sloppy here: ""Male privilege" doesn't mean "your life must be great", it means on average you have more and better opportunities that may or may not result in a better life." That's not what it is supposed to mean at all, it's supposed to mean men on average…

I agree with pretty much everything in this comment, except the word "enemies". We're discussing emergent trends in society that can't be blamed on any group of (living) individuals, it doesn't have to be framed as a conflict.

I guess I don't really see where we disagree. Of course there's more to life than your gender, of course other things matter, of course these various attributes are complicated and aren't purely beneficial. None of this means we have to stop talking about gender, it's not like nobody talks about class and education and culture and whatever else. All of it matters, we should talk about all of it.

Can you expand on this point:

> So what if the average man has more opportunities etc. if when you look at the distribution no individual man fits the average?

I haven't really done any statistics since high school so I'm probably missing your point.

Re: Why Women Don’t Apply for Jobs Unless They’re 100% Qualified (2014)

#93

Post by wrs »

Mz wrote: post #29

This is the take away here: What held them back from applying was not a mistaken perception about themselves, but a mistaken perception about the hiring process. This is critical, because it suggests that if the HP finding speaks to a larger trend, women don’t need to try and find that elusive quality, “confidence,” they just need better information about how hiring processes really work. This fits exactly with my ex…

The "old boy network" isn't just literally about knowing the other "old boys" (though that's obviously important), it's about a shared understanding of how things actually work, as opposed to how the publicly-exposed information says things work. So just networking with people isn't enough--you need to know the unspoken reality of how to make further progress.

(This from someone who has painfully learned not to take any rule or process literally in the real world. There's a reason I like computers.)

Re: Why Women Don’t Apply for Jobs Unless They’re 100% Qualified (2014)

#94

Post by danso »

J-dawg wrote: post #91
danso wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't argue that statistical analysis can be distorting, in fact, of course it can be. All data collection of any sort is at best a limited picture of what we think is reality. But that doesn't make aggregates useless because outliers exist. Just because Stanford freshman swimmer Katie Ledecky is faster than some Olympic gold medal-winning mens relay teams [0] doesn't invalidate the observation that the average man…

> as if the purported problems that women face are only substantial once it can be proven that all women are worse than all men. This is a total misrepresentation of what I'm saying. I'm more than fine with women being helped. What I'm saying is, don't do it in a way that excludes men with the same problem.

Where does this article exclude men with the same problem? You're mad because this article focuses on what the author found interesting in her survey of professionals, a survey she conducted because she was initially skeptical of a widely-quoted aphorism from pop best-sellers like Lean In?

The article's author decided to challenge that belief with a systematic analysis and she reports that it is not confidence that is the main factor. Yet you choose to interpret the problem as self-confidence because you, yourself, feel a lack of confidence. Furthermore, you accuse the author of excluding men, because you choose to see her efforts as a zero-sum game.

Re: Why Women Don’t Apply for Jobs Unless They’re 100% Qualified (2014)

#95

Post by Mz »

wrs wrote: post #93
Mz wrote: post #29

This is the take away here: What held them back from applying was not a mistaken perception about themselves, but a mistaken perception about the hiring process. This is critical, because it suggests that if the HP finding speaks to a larger trend, women don’t need to try and find that elusive quality, “confidence,” they just need better information about how hiring processes really work. This fits exactly with my ex…

The "old boy network" isn't just literally about knowing the other "old boys" (though that's obviously important), it's about a shared understanding of how things actually work, as opposed to how the publicly-exposed information says things work. So just networking with people isn't enough--you need to know the unspoken reality of how to make further progress. (This from someone who has painfully learned not to take…

I agree. But in a predominantly heterosexual world, simply being female makes it hard to access that info. Many of the men who have that knowledge only want to talk to me in order to determine if I will sleep with them. (So if they are faithfully married, they may just not want to talk to me.) That's a genuine barrier to gaining that knowledge.

But I have found it helpful to focus on finding a way to get access to the information I need rather than just bellyaching about "sexism."

Thank you for commenting.

Re: Why Women Don’t Apply for Jobs Unless They’re 100% Qualified (2014)

#96

Post by themashedmind »

str33t_punk wrote: post #41
Fraztastic wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then you're selecting for people who are overconfident blowhards, who don't really know as much as they think they do.

but what ng is saying is that if someone is lacks too much confidence they are not useful. His example shows this --- the under confidant but knowledgable person does not contribute their knowledge when needed so they are not useful despite their knowledge.

Not useful? That's harsh.

Could it be argued that not enough care is being taken by the team to solicit the thoughts of the less shouty members? If an organisation didn't want to hire or deal with said folk, perhaps it's a good thing for those looked over?

Research seems to suggest that a more diverse workforce (of all varieties) leads to more successful businesses. And my own personal experience leads me to believe that skilled folk come in some weird and wonderful packages. I know which path I would choose.

Re: Why Women Don’t Apply for Jobs Unless They’re 100% Qualified (2014)

#97

Post by burkaman »

metaphorm wrote: post #87
burkaman wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I of course do not have any say over other people's feelings, and I think it's obvious that asking someone to strive for something is not the same as forcing them. But the belief that women deserve equal rights is also not just a feeling, it's a core principle that you either agree with or you don't. What I am recommending (not demanding) is that people try to separate feelings and principles, so that your morals are…

but what you said is "you SHOULD feel this way" not "I have a vision of a better world were we all strive for greater equality". your word choices matter. also, while we're on the subject of communication, I would like to point out that there has been enormous and widespread political backlash that is due in no small part to the poor communication strategy by many leftist movements. many (most?) people absolutely do…

I mean we're all human, we all have biases, and we're all affected by interactions, so I get what you're saying. I care about how I'm spoken to as well, I don't mean to act like some superior being unaffected by human emotions. To use your phrasing, I would like to live in a world where equal rights is such a fundamental moral truth that the communication style of its supporters doesn't really matter. I too am frequently annoyed and angered by people marching under the flag of feminism, but I try my best to judge everyone's arguments on their merits rather than their fans. I think everyone would personally benefit from this, it makes life more pleasant, and that's what I wanted to say in my comment.

I would also like to live in a world where people give each other the benefit of the doubt. When you read my initial comment, did it really seem more like that I was trying to police someone's thoughts, rather than just recommending a different way of thinking? Especially on a casual internet forum, I generally try to interpret a comment in the best way I can. If someone is really intending to be an asshole then it'll become clear soon enough.

Re: Why Women Don’t Apply for Jobs Unless They’re 100% Qualified (2014)

#98

Post by taeric »

watwut wrote: post #62
taeric wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sadly, you are showing with this post that you actually would not be a good potential ally. Seriously, by focusing the discussion on this point and in this fashion, you are literally stalling progress. If there are problems that can be fixed, fix them. If you have concerns that we are leaving more feminine men in the back ranks, address those. But to turn the discussion into chastising people is to hurt the debate. A…

I think that good start would me not to imply he is feminine for having low confidence. For that matter, not to call guys feminine ju because they have something in them that is more likely to be found in women. It is like calling women masculine just because she likes hardware. I think that this matter if your goal is equality. People being afraid to show side of them that is not stereotypical matters.

You are implying that feminine is somehow a bad trait. That is terribly misguided.

That is, if you want progress, stop seeing "feminine men" as somehow a derogatory statement. If you see women arguing for things that you feel you don't have as a man, realize that there is something that would have to set you apart from many men for this to be true.

Now, should overconfidence be a masculine trait? I'd argue not. But I would not place confidence on anyone claiming it is not seen that way in the present world.

Re: Why Women Don’t Apply for Jobs Unless They’re 100% Qualified (2014)

#99

Post by taeric »

J-dawg wrote: post #63
taeric wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sadly, you are showing with this post that you actually would not be a good potential ally. Seriously, by focusing the discussion on this point and in this fashion, you are literally stalling progress. If there are problems that can be fixed, fix them. If you have concerns that we are leaving more feminine men in the back ranks, address those. But to turn the discussion into chastising people is to hurt the debate. A…

I don't understand your logic here. If we're saying that losing out on good but low-confidence candidates is a bad thing for a company, and we want to fix it, why don't we adapt our processes to favour the people being disadvantaged ? If this ends up helping women more than men, then fantastic. But why bring gender into our solution at all? Focussing on one gender just because we think they are more affected by an is…

Evidence shows that it does affect one gender more than the other. There is no "thinking" involved with this. Raw data showing that we pay women less than men is plentiful and fairly conclusive.

So, my logic here is your debate is to simply get people arguing that are on the front lines. You are the one that "thinks" you are just as affected as women in this. If you truly feel that you want to help, drop your self persecution and help.

Again, do I think you are purposely sidelining actual progress? No. I doubt that. However, I do think discussing what are feminine and masculine traits is a distraction. And the most likely outcome from the position you are advertising.

Re: Why Women Don’t Apply for Jobs Unless They’re 100% Qualified (2014)

#100

Post by euyyn »

J-dawg wrote: post #68
mikeash wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rather than being upset that the focus is on women, why don't you be grateful that there's so much attention given to the problems people experience due to low confidence and self-esteem, and use the various bits of advice given "for women" to help your own situation too? Trying to help one group doesn't mean you're trying to hurt another group. Focusing on women doesn't make someone anti-men. That's what groups like…

Sorry for repeating myself, but why bring gender into it at all? If we have collectively decided that helping people with low self-confidence is a good thing, why not leave it at that? If more women than men get helped in the process, then I'm fine with that.

It's much easier to make a study comparing women to men than one comparing "low self-confidence people" to "highly-confident people".

Helping in the form of advice to the job seekers: as Mike said, the advice applies equally to the men in the same situation.

Helping in the form of making employers aware, so they can optimize their job descriptions: It incidentally helps men of low self-confidence too. Notice, tough, that being socialized into assuming a requirement is hard instead of "not really" isn't the same as not being confident. And that some commenters here are defending that a candidate that lacks the confidence to even apply for a job isn't worth their time considering.

Post reply on HN