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

Can fake names create bias in interviewing?

blog.interviewing.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 173 posts

Re: Can fake names create bias in interviewing?

#131

Post by mamurphy »

OpieCunningham wrote: post #123
mamurphy wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are tons of people over their heads, everywhere, of all races and sexes. But as the other person who replied to you noted, people now are openly stating that they want to avoid hiring white males. >Sadly I've had to bring up my genetic background recently as a pure survival mechanism because people keep telling me to my face that they don't want to hire white men so I need to let them know I'm not white so I do…

You were stating that "things have changed" in response to my statement that white males are often hired because of subconscious bias. That there are recent diversity hiring programs does not mean that white males are no longer hired because of subconscious bias. Clearly, diversity hiring programs are new things that did not exist decades ago.

Ah, to be clear: Subconscious biases still exist to some degree. In recent years, in government and large corporations, diversity hiring goals have completely dominated the hiring process compared to subconscious biases.

I don't think you agree with that statement; if you did, would you think that it is a good result? I don't. I don't think the solution to past unfairness is to tilt the see-saw in the other direction, creating more unfairness.

You replied to another poster:

>Good. Then we're in agreement that hiring for diversity is of no detriment. Incompetent white people are hired because of subconscious bias and incompetent people of color are hired because of diversity goals. We've achieved equality.

I disagree strongly, and I somewhat agree with that poster's response to you. To me, equality means equality of process. To reclaim a phrase: equal opportunity -- not equal results. All bias is bad and should be fought against. Anti-bias training, examining disproportionate results to see if bias was an underlying cause, and race/sex-blind hiring, all are possible steps in the right direction.

To correct for subconscious bias for white males with conscious bias against them hardly seems the path towards equality.

Re: Can fake names create bias in interviewing?

#132

Post by CyberDildonics »

manfredo wrote: post #108
dragonwriter wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It most definitely is not illegal. Yes it is. > Many colleges have race and gender based quota systems. Quota systems have been repeatedly struck down in college admissions as illegal. > Governments have race and gender quota systems. Quota systems for public education (including higher education) and employment have also repeatedly been ruled illegal.

The distinction between quotas and "outcome based goals" is kind of hazy. To be clear, recruiters aren't required to hit certain targets. Leadership does tell recruiters that they're aiming for a a certain targets but as far as I know recruiters don't receive any penalty if they fall below that target.

Even telling recruiters to hire a certain demographic is discrimination. The parent post said that recruiters had large bonuses for certain demographics.

Re: Can fake names create bias in interviewing?

#133

Post by CyberDildonics »

Kluny wrote: post #75
DyslexicAtheist wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd hate to work somewhere knowing I was hired because the color of my skin and not my abilities. maybe less of an issue in non-brainy jobs, but in Tech I would feel more insecure not knowing if I got the job to fill a quota. This sounds rather disgusting to me.

As a woman with a physical disability, idgaf, I just want a job. I'm quite confident in my own abilities and require no external validation.

As a more feminine woman with a greater disability, I feel the opposite way.

Re: Can fake names create bias in interviewing?

#134

Post by CyberDildonics »

rchaud wrote: post #79
hhs wrote: post #66

I think there are lots of factors involved with names, but yeah. Even the spelling of names makes a difference. Interesting example: Dale Carnegie deliberately changed his last name from "Carnagey" to "Carnegie" so people, on some subliminal way, may associate him with the classy steel-building Andrew Carnegie family.

Charlie Sheen's birth name is Ramon Estevez. Despite it's "liberal bias", Hollywood is notorious for its preference for "Real American (TM)" names.

That's probably why his brother, Emilio Estevez was never able to make it as an actor, having a meager 47 acting credits over the course of 45 years https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000389/?ref_=nv_sr_1

Re: Can fake names create bias in interviewing?

#135

Post by [deleted] »

OpieCunningham wrote: post #123
mamurphy wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are tons of people over their heads, everywhere, of all races and sexes. But as the other person who replied to you noted, people now are openly stating that they want to avoid hiring white males. >Sadly I've had to bring up my genetic background recently as a pure survival mechanism because people keep telling me to my face that they don't want to hire white men so I need to let them know I'm not white so I do…

You were stating that "things have changed" in response to my statement that white males are often hired because of subconscious bias. That there are recent diversity hiring programs does not mean that white males are no longer hired because of subconscious bias. Clearly, diversity hiring programs are new things that did not exist decades ago.

[deleted]

Re: Can fake names create bias in interviewing?

#136

Post by OpieCunningham »

mamurphy wrote: post #131
OpieCunningham wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You were stating that "things have changed" in response to my statement that white males are often hired because of subconscious bias. That there are recent diversity hiring programs does not mean that white males are no longer hired because of subconscious bias. Clearly, diversity hiring programs are new things that did not exist decades ago.

Ah, to be clear: Subconscious biases still exist to some degree. In recent years, in government and large corporations, diversity hiring goals have completely dominated the hiring process compared to subconscious biases. I don't think you agree with that statement; if you did, would you think that it is a good result? I don't. I don't think the solution to past unfairness is to tilt the see-saw in the other direction…

> Ah, to be clear: Subconscious biases still exist to some degree.

Subconscious bias still exists to a huge degree. Studies have been done, and it is fairly obvious, that show increased diversity has a positive effect towards decreasing subconscious bias. I would propose that we give these hiring diversity goals, say, 100 years. Then we can circle back to see about making some adjustments towards a determination as to whether subconscious bias has effectively been eliminated.

> In recent years, in government and large corporations, diversity hiring goals have completely dominated the hiring process compared to subconscious biases. I don't think you agree with that statement; if you did, would you think that it is a good result?

I do agree that in recent years diversity hiring goals have increased significantly. And I do think it is a good course of action.

> I don't think the solution to past unfairness is to tilt the see-saw in the other direction, creating more unfairness.

When your vehicles steering is misaligned, do you counter steer in the other direction or do you drive around in circles all day?

> To me, equality means equality of process.

That's a lovely ideal. It doesn't exist. You've already stated that you admit subconscious bias exists "to some degree". So the process is already unequal.

With diversity hiring, more people of color will be hired, both competent and incompetent. Without diversity hiring, more white people will be hired, both competent and incompetent. There is no evidence that shows conscious bias favoring people of color results in more incompetent hires vs. subconscious bias favoring white people. That is the process: incompetent people get hired, race has nothing to do with it. In order to hire more competent people of color, diversity hiring is required (diversity is also required to, over time, progressively decrease the prevalence of subconscious bias). More people of color hired (competent or incompetent) naturally means fewer white people hired (competent and incompetent). I fail to see why that is an issue, unless you are consciously or subconsciously biased to favor white people and/or oblivious of how change is a result of action.

> To correct for subconscious bias for white males with conscious bias against them hardly seems the path towards equality.

It may hardly seem like a path towards equality, but in fact it is (see steering analogy). That it may feel "unfair", well, in regards to that all I can say is "Sorry. But think of it this way, now you know how it feels for people of color. Lack of privilege kinda sucks." If there were another method of addressing pernicious subconscious bias favoring white people I'd be all for it. Doing nothing is obviously not a solution.

Re: Can fake names create bias in interviewing?

#137

Post by manfredo »

manfredo wrote: post #84
claudiawerner wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "very clear language" you speak of actually created gaps in the law which ostensibly still abided by the letter. For instance, the SEP article on affirmative action[0] notes that employers, faced with the new act, would remove the pipeline which funneled black people into maintenance jobs but add a requirement such that anyone over a certain number of years at the company would not be allowed to transfer to anoth…

There's a lot of holes in this logic. For one Asians are hit hardest by affirmative action, but we're historically victims of racism themselves. Not to mention this had a big risk of empowering people to act in what many would probably consider a bigoted manner. Many whites feel that they face injustice due to their race [1]. Under your proposed moral framework many whites would be justified in discriminating in favo…

Edit: "we're historically victims" -> "were historically victims".

I am not Asian, I hope this typo did not unintentionally deceive readers.

Re: Can fake names create bias in interviewing?

#138

Post by OpieCunningham »

manfredo wrote: post #130
OpieCunningham wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good. Then we're in agreement that hiring for diversity is of no detriment. Incompetent white people are hired because of subconscious bias and incompetent people of color are hired because of diversity goals. We've achieved equality.

> We've achieved equality Many would debate this. At my company our new grads hired last year were 39% women while ~20% of graduates in computing related fields were women. The percentage of applicants were even lower than that. Some disagree that continuing to apply affirmative action in spite of a proportional overrepresentation of nearly 2x is equality. Granted others view things in terms of relationship with the…

Many might debate it in those terms, but generally I won't because using statistics such as you've provided cannot produce a definitive argument for either side. If 20% of graduates are women, is that because of subconscious bias favoring men in admissions or grading? Or because of subconscious bias favoring boys in elementary school towards STEM? Or because of subconscious bias in society saying boys work and girls take care of the home? Etc. Unless the answer is "No" to all of these, then 39% women in a workplace cannot be considered evidence of either equality or inequality. However, until we have some means of determining that women are genetically predisposed to disfavor STEM (and these genetics are clearly not confused with the impact of societal child rearing), we do have a statistic we can use: roughly 50% of humans are women.

Get back to me after 100 more years of progress towards equalizing race and gender through actions designed to fight subconscious bias, and then we can look at what your hiring percentages are vs. graduate percentages, and whether those actions are still necessary or sufficient.

Re: Can fake names create bias in interviewing?

#139

Post by manfredo »

CyberDildonics wrote: post #132
manfredo wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The distinction between quotas and "outcome based goals" is kind of hazy. To be clear, recruiters aren't required to hit certain targets. Leadership does tell recruiters that they're aiming for a a certain targets but as far as I know recruiters don't receive any penalty if they fall below that target.

Even telling recruiters to hire a certain demographic is discrimination. The parent post said that recruiters had large bonuses for certain demographics.

I am the root commenter. Bonuses are given regardless of the candidates' divery status, it's just that diverse candidate get a slightly higher bonus. The difference between the bonus of a non-diverse and diverse candidate is about 20%. That difference is not constant because bonuses vary based on other things like the role being hired and the amount of experience. Experienced hires have a bigger bonus than new grads - this is to counteract a past tendency to hire younger employees which led to a skewed age and experience distribution. We also have bigger bonuses to hire managers because we have a chronic shortage of them.

Re: Can fake names create bias in interviewing?

#140

Post by manfredo »

OpieCunningham wrote: post #138
manfredo wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We've achieved equality Many would debate this. At my company our new grads hired last year were 39% women while ~20% of graduates in computing related fields were women. The percentage of applicants were even lower than that. Some disagree that continuing to apply affirmative action in spite of a proportional overrepresentation of nearly 2x is equality. Granted others view things in terms of relationship with the…

Many might debate it in those terms, but generally I won't because using statistics such as you've provided cannot produce a definitive argument for either side. If 20% of graduates are women, is that because of subconscious bias favoring men in admissions or grading? Or because of subconscious bias favoring boys in elementary school towards STEM? Or because of subconscious bias in society saying boys work and girls…

> If 20% of graduates are women, is that because of subconscious bias favoring men in admissions or grading?

I'm not sure I follow. At most American universities students don't declare their major until after they are admitted. Usually not until their second year. Women already outnumber men in university by a substantial margin. Women make up 60% of students in American universities.

There are some Universities focused explicitly on engineering, but many of those actually favor women substantially. Massachusetts Institute of Technology and CalTech for instance admit women at over twice the rate of men: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2016/03/1...

I really don't see the much support for the argument that universities are discriminating against women. In fact, there's substantial evidence of the opposite.

Post reply on HN