Can fake names create bias in interviewing?

It doesn’t seem like a real argument that, generally speaking it is unknown whether race or gender bias is more of a determinant in hiring decisions than hair color bias. Is that an argument you consider rational?

HR policies do have measurable outcomes. It's a question of what you think those measurements describe. A diversity hiring HR policy is a counter-action to the existing subconscious bias favoring white men, and a long term effort to squelch subconscious bias favoring white men by increasing exposure to diverse races/genders. Let's collect some long term data and analyze the result measurements, instead of pretending subconscious bias favoring white men doesn't exist.

The second sentence of your 3rd to last comment:

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

This is definitely proposing that the disparity in computing graduates could be due to bias in admissions. This is very explicit.

> I specifically said that this statistic approach is an impossible debate because fundamentally it assumes everything down the chain (elementary school, parenting, society) is not prone to similar gender bias. In reality, all of those things are prone to gender bias.

The onus is on you to prove that bias exists. Otherwise, this entire chain of reasoning boils down to the a priori assumption that any disparity is the result of bias. We conclude that disparity exists because of bias. We also conclude that bias exists because of disparity. This is circular logic.

> If or until such a time as that genetic evidence is discovered, I see no reason to believe that women, by nature, are inherently less capable or interested in STEM - therefore, the only useful statistic in a debate on hiring results (i.e. 38% are women) is that 50% of humans are women.

There is plenty of evidence to suggest that this is the case:

* Contrary to your earlier suggestion that women are less prevalent in stem due to being steered towards housework, the countries where women and men have the closest participation in housework actually have some of the lowest percentages of women in stem [1].

* Women form the minority in STEM in almost every country.[2] All across Europe, North America, Asia, South America, and Africa women make up the minority of STEM graduates. In every country in the study outside of Africa and the Middle East (which, to reiterate, are counter intuitively some of the most misogynistic countries in the world) women made up less than 1/3rd of STEM graduates. When the same pattern is consistent across widely varying societies and cultures then it's extremely difficult to attribute the disparity in STEM to culture.

* There is ample evidence to suggest that girls are inherently more social than boys. Newborn girls direct more attention towards human faces than boys, and newborn boys direct more attention towards mechanical objects than newborn girls [3].

Here's some additional reading from psychology publications:

https://www.pnas.org/content/108/8/3157.full

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/095679761245893...

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/rabble-rouser/201707...

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/rabble-rouser/201707...

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-equality_paradox

2. https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/02/the-more...

3. https://www.math.kth.se/matstat/gru/5b1501/F/sex.pdf

Suggesting a thing as a possible factor and explicitly stating a thing is a factor are two different actions. I also suggested 3 or 4 other things that may be factors. And I left out 1,000 things that may be factors. It seems like a reasonable person would understand this concept - that statistics at one level are not evidence of an argument, in either direction. The questions I posed were rhetorical representations of the endless path you initial argument goes down: 38% of hires were women but only 20% of graduates were women. That doesn't mean anything on it's face.

> The onus is on you to prove that bias exists.

Numerous studies have shown that bias exists. This is not generally argued by anyone but the most ardently privileged. I mean, you do agree that bias did exist, right? Like, slavery, women disenfranchised. Those things happened and bias was the cause, right? So if it did exist, when exactly did it cease to exist? And the onus is on you to provide the widely accepted evidence that bias has ceased to exist.

> There is plenty of evidence to suggest that this is the case:

No, there is literally zero evidence. Your interpretation of various cultures and evidence that men are not genetically identical to women is not evidence that men have a genetic aptitude/predilection towards STEM.

institutionalized racism affects generation after generation. but somehow you want to tell those affected, "everything is fair now, move along"

I wrote that you "alleged that there may be discrimination against women in university education". Saying instead that you "suggested [discrimination against women in admissions] as a possible factor" is just rephrasing the same thing. I posted evidence that refutes your suggestion, which absolutely is relevant to this conversation.

> It seems like a reasonable person would understand this concept - that statistics at one level are not evidence of an argument, in either direction

So you're saying you also have no evidence that bias works against women, because "statistics at one level are not evidence of an argument, in either direction"? If we have no evidence of bias against women, then why is it justified to explicitly discriminate in favor of women? Almost every justification for affirmative action in hiring women I've heard has been that discrimination is necessary to counteract bias against women.

How is someone going to prove that women face bias when statistical arguments are invalid? I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that if we continue down this line of reasoning (or lack thereof) it's going to boil down to statistics magically becoming relevant again when they indicate bias against women.

> Numerous studies have shown that bias exists. This is not generally argued by anyone but the most ardently privileged.

These studies better not rely on statistics... :)

> I mean, you do agree that bias did exist, right? Like, slavery, women disenfranchised. Those things happened and bias was the cause, right? So if it did exist, when exactly did it cease to exist?

Slavery did exist, but that is overwhelmingly on the basis of race. This comment chain has so far been about women. This smells like whataboutsim.

Women's disenfranchisement ended a century ago. By now women make up the majority of university graduates. Premiere technology universities like MIT, Harvey Mudd, Cal Tech, and Carnegie Mellon admit women at significantly higher rates than men - often more than 2x. At my company, we hire female tech graduates at over twice the rate of men. We're setting a quota (despite this being probably illegal) to make our company's tech workforce 33% women even though women make up 20% of Does this sound like bias against women?

> No, there is literally zero evidence.

I'm sorry but if you really did read through all the sources I posted, then at this point I really do feel that you're being willfully ignorant in writing this. I can respect people who don't find the evidence convincing, but to say that "there is literally zero evidence" immediately after being presented several pieces of evidence is a very strong indicator that you're not participating in this discussion with good faith. But to give you the benefit of the doubt I'll assume you are and will address your last point:

> Your interpretation of various cultures and evidence that men are not genetically identical to women is not evidence that men have a genetic aptitude/predilection towards STEM.

You're right, showing that all cultures and societies have disproportionately larger male graduates in STEM does not, in and of itself, prove that men have any sort of genetic predisposition. But it does prove that society and culture is not a strong factor regarding the low representation of women in STEM. Every society has a lower percentage of women in STEM. From the North America, to Europe, to Asia, to Africa, to South America. Rich countries and poor countries. Secular countries and religious countries. So culture and society does not have a strong effect of women in STEM. There is some correlation between gender equality and women's participation in STEM - but it's the opposite of the prevailing narrative; the data suggest that more women go into STEM when countries are misogynistic. So, I guess we could roll back women's rights to boost female participation in STEM but that's probably not a good idea.

Now, we've ruled out culture as a determining factor in why women have low participation rates in STEM so what else could it be? There's really only a couple ways to explain population-wide differences, the proverbial "nature vs. nurture" question. And we've ruled out nurture, so that leaves nature as a feasible cause. And again, I posted several other pieces of evidence including evidence that shows that men and women have different predilection towards people vs. things immediately after birth.