51–60 of 162 posts
From abstract: ” Female entrepreneurs received 9% more interested replies than males pitching identical projects and Asians received 6% more than Whites. Our results suggest that investors do not discriminate against female or Asian entrepreneurs when evaluating unsolicited pitch emails and that future research on investor biases should focus on networks and in-person interactions.” In other words: The preferred resu…
We're spending so much time and energy to quantify various 'biases' ; only to find there is no bias. This is good. We're finally living is a post-racial society with no specific group discrimination.
Now if western societies can move on from affirmative action policies and all the other nonsense at the top of their daily agenda while China leaves them all in the dust.
I never understand why classify people on their looks. Talking primarily about the US. There is such a wide spectrum of white people coming from different cultures. Also, you're considered Asian if you're a Chinese immigrant but also if you were born in the US to Chinese descent let's say. The main common thing between the two groups is looks. Same for Africans and African Americans who are both classified as blacks…
There was a brief period during which the popular aspiration was to deny or try to combat our racial biases, but we seem to be increasingly giving ourselves over to them.
From abstract: ” Female entrepreneurs received 9% more interested replies than males pitching identical projects and Asians received 6% more than Whites. Our results suggest that investors do not discriminate against female or Asian entrepreneurs when evaluating unsolicited pitch emails and that future research on investor biases should focus on networks and in-person interactions.” In other words: The preferred resu…
Your summary is incorrect. They are not taking their results to indicate that their assumption is incorrect, but rather that the anti-female bias must be even stronger elsewhere to overcome the significant pro-female bias at initial stages.
As long as there aren't as much women studying all kinds of engineering, you're going to see disparaties in the workforce. Lets stop trying to force equal distribution but rather equal opportunity. Funny thing to see is that as a country becomes MORE developed, women tend to be LESS inclined to attend STEM studies.
Source for the above: https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/02/the-more...
From abstract: ” Female entrepreneurs received 9% more interested replies than males pitching identical projects and Asians received 6% more than Whites. Our results suggest that investors do not discriminate against female or Asian entrepreneurs when evaluating unsolicited pitch emails and that future research on investor biases should focus on networks and in-person interactions.” In other words: The preferred resu…
Your summary is incorrect. They are not taking their results to indicate that their assumption is incorrect, but rather that the anti-female bias must be even stronger elsewhere to overcome the significant pro-female bias at initial stages.
I wondered why they didn't report results for black versus white. Interestingly, they didn't run that: "After long and thoughtful consideration, we discarded the idea of assigning African-American names to our fictitious entrepreneurs. First, there has been a concern about the ability to disentangle race and socioeconomic perception by using distinctly African-American names (Fryer and Levitt (2004)). Second, and mos…
> are there unambiguously African-American names? The part you quoted seems to say exactly that: there are unambiguously African-American names, but they are associated with low-class, low education backgrounds. Which might confuse the statistics as then the choice would not be purely about race but race and socioeconomic status.
I mean, it's possible. Faced with two people who (they believe) have identical backgrounds, I may discriminate against the black one purely because I dislike black people. But equally, I may have imperfect knowledge about two people, and knowing that one is black makes me associate them - consciously or not - with different things. That might then affect my willingness to give them a job.
This is close to the difference between "taste-based" and "statistical" discrimination, in economists' terms.* Normally we care about both, so why not try to find out about it?
It also seems unlikely that Asian names are free of associations, including e.g. associations about being hard working and/or nerdy, which might matter in a study like this.
* Though, I don't think it's identical. You might dislike someone (taste-based discrimination) based on your associations with their ethnicity. And you might predict purely from their ethnicity, holding everything else constant, that they would do worse in a job (statistical discrimination). (E.g. if it's a sales job and you believe buyers are racist.)
From abstract: ” Female entrepreneurs received 9% more interested replies than males pitching identical projects and Asians received 6% more than Whites. Our results suggest that investors do not discriminate against female or Asian entrepreneurs when evaluating unsolicited pitch emails and that future research on investor biases should focus on networks and in-person interactions.” In other words: The preferred resu…
Your summary is incorrect. They are not taking their results to indicate that their assumption is incorrect, but rather that the anti-female bias must be even stronger elsewhere to overcome the significant pro-female bias at initial stages.
From a strictly scientific standpoint, you can’t really draw such “must be” conclusions. It could also very well be that the input into the existing funnel is low; I.e that there is a lower percentage of female founders because females make a lower percentage of the applicant pool.
And, to be clear, the disparity could also be due to stronger biases further into the investment process!
It’s just that we don’t know whether it’s the former or the latter (or some combination), and based on the research here it is inappropriate to draw that specific conclusion. That’s not a scientific approach.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it’s worth noting that that finding is not universal, and other studies do find the opposite. My brief skim through Google scholar does seem to show a fairly divided field here. http://www-2.rotman.utoronto.ca/facbios/file/Whitening%20MS%... https://www.alexandria.unisg.ch/19805/1/Cole%20et%20al.%2020... https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/36436480/Gender_et_bia...
Those are from decades ago
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your summary is incorrect. They are not taking their results to indicate that their assumption is incorrect, but rather that the anti-female bias must be even stronger elsewhere to overcome the significant pro-female bias at initial stages.
That's the problem - their results show a bias against white and/or male entrepreneurs in this study on gender and race, yet don't point this out and suggest that we should look for negative female/asian bias elsewhere. The results speak for themselves but the abstract and mindset is indicative of what they were really looking for in the first place.
I’m confused, the study does suggest we look for anti-female bias elsewhere. Indeed, the authors seem to argue that it must exist elsewhere, and more powerfully so in order to explain the gender gap.