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

Gender, race, and entrepreneurship: A randomized field experiment on investors

papers.ssrn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 162 posts

Re: Gender, race, and entrepreneurship: A randomized field experiment on investors

#151

Post by ttt0 »

freeflight wrote: post #145
ttt0 wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could make a similar argument about ethnics groups instead of race. Every categorization is a generalization until you get down to a single individual. Races are just as valid as specific ethnic groups, they just have a broader definition. You don't have to list and compare each and every ethnic group separately to say that the European culture(s) are overall much different from, let's say, African culture(s).

> You could make a similar argument about ethnics groups instead of race. Colloquially they are pretty much interchangeable as rarely anybody uses "race" in the proper modern anthropological context. Which is problematic in its own right as it keeps rather outdated concepts alive even when the scientific community, for the most part, considers them untenable. > You don't have to list and compare each and every ethnic…

> Colloquially they are pretty much interchangeable as rarely anybody uses "race" in the proper modern anthropological context.

Seems like a straw man to be honest, but I don't know, maybe it's true. Not sure what the "modern" context is either, since some people were trying to convince me that "according to the science" biology basically doesn't exist or that you're born as a blank slate, but oh well.

> Some cultural groups in Europe and Africa can have more in common than comparing European with European/African with African groups due to the wide diversity among cultural groups even inside the same geographical region.

Any example?

> But in actuality neither Europe nor Africa are culturally homogeneous.

That's right, but there is much more overlap within Europe and Africa respectively in terms of basically everything you can think of than between them.

> A reality that's too often lost in the discourse when cultures are compared like they are monolithic blocks, particularly when these blocks are defined by color of skin.

Again, the same thing can be said about ethnic groups. Ethnic groups are not a monolith either.

Plus, a skin color is one of the features of an ethnic group. There are no asian Nigerians, there are no black Ukrainians, etc. Sure, you might become a citizen or marry a person of some ethnic group, but that doesn't necessarily make you a part of it.

Re: Gender, race, and entrepreneurship: A randomized field experiment on investors

#152

Post by achillesheels »

john_moscow wrote: post #136
68020 wrote: post #92

As a 'white' father of 3 who has been unemployed for the past few years I can tell you that this paper is sole crushing. Its a monument to how backwards common perception is to reality. Its a declaration from academia to never stop finding ways at punishing (me, my wife and 3 daughters) for my sin of being born white/male/pre1990. From what I have seen, people like me are under-represented in most office environments…

That's because you probably value independence and critical thinking. You are probably teaching your kids to focus on personal growth, learn from the work environment, look for opportunities, be competitive and keep increasing their own bargaining power. At least, that's what I'm teaching mine. Except, this makes you a threat to the corporations. They don't want you. They want to have someone replaceable, who will fu…

See The Organization Man

Fortunately there are many opportunities now to take petty savings and ramp up some moral autonomy.

Re: Gender, race, and entrepreneurship: A randomized field experiment on investors

#153

Post by tinyhouse »

ttt0 wrote: post #151
freeflight wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You could make a similar argument about ethnics groups instead of race. Colloquially they are pretty much interchangeable as rarely anybody uses "race" in the proper modern anthropological context. Which is problematic in its own right as it keeps rather outdated concepts alive even when the scientific community, for the most part, considers them untenable. > You don't have to list and compare each and every ethnic…

> Colloquially they are pretty much interchangeable as rarely anybody uses "race" in the proper modern anthropological context. Seems like a straw man to be honest, but I don't know, maybe it's true. Not sure what the "modern" context is either, since some people were trying to convince me that "according to the science" biology basically doesn't exist or that you're born as a blank slate, but oh well. > Some cultura…

It's true skin color is a feature of an ethnic group. But it's not a unique feature. Most of the middle east is white (a bit darker than the average white American but still white). In the US they are classified as white even though they have very little in common with the majority group of white Americans. Basically what I really want to say is that environment is the main thing that defines people, not skin color. The environment someone is raised in is far more important than skin color. African Americans for example makes much more sense to me as a classification than blacks.

Re: Gender, race, and entrepreneurship: A randomized field experiment on investors

#154

Post by ttt0 »

tinyhouse wrote: post #153
ttt0 wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Colloquially they are pretty much interchangeable as rarely anybody uses "race" in the proper modern anthropological context. Seems like a straw man to be honest, but I don't know, maybe it's true. Not sure what the "modern" context is either, since some people were trying to convince me that "according to the science" biology basically doesn't exist or that you're born as a blank slate, but oh well. > Some cultura…

It's true skin color is a feature of an ethnic group. But it's not a unique feature. Most of the middle east is white (a bit darker than the average white American but still white). In the US they are classified as white even though they have very little in common with the majority group of white Americans. Basically what I really want to say is that environment is the main thing that defines people, not skin color.…

> The environment someone is raised in is far more important than skin color. African Americans for example makes much more sense to me as a classification than blacks.

So you want to essentially just exclude from blacks, like what, Sub-Saharan Africans? I don't know American demographics in detail, but I imagine that African Americans have to make up an overwhelming majority of the black population, so would that really make any difference? Or is it just another rebranding? Breaking things down to specific ethnic groups is surely useful in some cases, but is it really for everything? And I'm not sure what the point of that even is or what problem is it supposed to fix. It's still skin color, just a little bit more specific. I mean, you can be a white kid raised in the exact same environment as African Americans and that doesn't make you an African American in any stretch of imagination.

I wouldn't mind being more specific about it, but I just don't get why replacing race with ethnic groups would change anything. Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but my impression is that you want to reject race just for historical reasons, but at the same time you want to keep ethnicities around, because you're still not crazy enough to take it to its full logical conclusion, go full Lysenkoism and deny genetics all together. Probably going to change in near future and this seemingly progressive idea will be considered as a serious thought crime, but hey, what do I know.

Re: Gender, race, and entrepreneurship: A randomized field experiment on investors

#155

Post by [deleted] »

tristor wrote: post #62
throwaway894345 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> yet don't point this out and suggest that we should look for negative female/asian bias elsewhere 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.

> must exist elsewhere, and more powerfully so in order to explain the gender gap. Why is anti-female bias the only possible explanation of the gap? Why is that the only acceptable hypothesis? It's a possibility, it might even be probable, but there seems to be an exclusionary focus both in your comments and in the abstract.

[deleted]

Re: Gender, race, and entrepreneurship: A randomized field experiment on investors

#156

Post by [deleted] »

tinyhouse wrote: post #33

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…

[deleted]

Re: Gender, race, and entrepreneurship: A randomized field experiment on investors

#157

Post by smt88 »

CyberRabbi wrote: post #144
smt88 wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What system(s) hate you? Aren't most governments and corporations still majority white and majority male? > Things will change as more and more of us start to become conscious of the identity for which the system hates us. And then what will you do?

> What system(s) hate you? Media, academia, corporate hiring, government policy. Places where “be less white” is official policy. [1] > And then what will you do? Form advocacy organizations, lobby groups, PACs, legal defense funds. Same thing every other organized group does. [1] https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/366132

All the systems you mentioned have more far more white men than the US as a whole, so are you arguing that white men hate themselves?

US: 60% white[1]; 49% male[1]; ~31% white & male[2]

Media: 75% white[3]; 50% white & male

Academia: 40% white & male[4]

College Professors: 53% white & male[5]

House: 73% white[5]

Senate: 89% white[5]

All elected offices in the US in 2014: 65% white & male[2]

President: 100% white & male

I'm too lazy to keep going, but I feel like I've made my point. Neither white people nor white men are underrepresented in any position of power or wealth. So how can it be that these systems (that people in their demographic control) are against them?

1. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/IPE120219

2. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/10/08/65...

3. https://journalistsresource.org/race-and-gender/newsroom-div...

4. https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=61

5. https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/g...

Re: Gender, race, and entrepreneurship: A randomized field experiment on investors

#158

Post by CyberRabbi »

smt88 wrote: post #157
CyberRabbi wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What system(s) hate you? Media, academia, corporate hiring, government policy. Places where “be less white” is official policy. [1] > And then what will you do? Form advocacy organizations, lobby groups, PACs, legal defense funds. Same thing every other organized group does. [1] https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/366132

All the systems you mentioned have more far more white men than the US as a whole, so are you arguing that white men hate themselves? US: 60% white[1]; 49% male[1]; ~31% white & male[2] Media: 75% white[3]; 50% white & male Academia: 40% white & male[4] College Professors: 53% white & male[5] House: 73% white[5] Senate: 89% white[5] All elected offices in the US in 2014: 65% white & male[2] President: 100% white & ma…

First you made a logical leap. Simply because these institutions may be nominally majority white does not preclude the ability for them to biased against whites. I never claimed these institutions were minority white, only that they were biased against whites, so you also attacked a straw man.

You also did not address the widespread corporate training material adopted from Robin D’Angelo. If the system were biased towards whites, why would it train its employees to shun their white identity? Would you consider a system whose corporations asked their employees to “be less black” biased against black people?

What percentage of Biden’s cabinet do you consider white?

Re: Gender, race, and entrepreneurship: A randomized field experiment on investors

#159

Post by viklove »

somedude895 wrote: post #134
68020 wrote: post #92

As a 'white' father of 3 who has been unemployed for the past few years I can tell you that this paper is sole crushing. Its a monument to how backwards common perception is to reality. Its a declaration from academia to never stop finding ways at punishing (me, my wife and 3 daughters) for my sin of being born white/male/pre1990. From what I have seen, people like me are under-represented in most office environments…

As a non-American this is so bizarre to me. You get people so full of concern for the hypothetical woman in banking making 100k a year who just can't get that promotion, or the hypothetical black Harvard graduate who gets rejected from tech jobs, while they only show disgust for the unemployed guy living in a trailer with his family and friends ODing dropping dead like flies, simply because of the color of his skin.

I'm curious where you're from, because this trend seems to be occurring all over the western world (for example they yellow-vest protests in France, etc.)

Re: Gender, race, and entrepreneurship: A randomized field experiment on investors

#160

Post by throwaway894345 »

fastball wrote: post #95
throwaway894345 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> yet don't point this out and suggest that we should look for negative female/asian bias elsewhere 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.

If your ideas are not falsifiable you're a terrible scientist. If your goal is to "find evidence for X" instead of "find out the truth" (wherever that leads you), you're a terrible scientist. I think it is pretty clear which is happening in this case, no?

I'm not so sure it's so clear cut. What if you want to find the truth and advance our collective understanding without risking your career by putting too fine a point on your research and offending the powerful ideologues who have demonstrated time and again their ability to make life hard for dissenters? Having read a bit of the article, it seems like they've done a good job of using subtext to point out that the data doesn't fit the narrative without making their subversion too obvious. Perhaps we would argue that they should be forthright about their dissent, but that's also easy to say for us who have little to lose. Moreover, I don't necessarily think it's a good idea for scientists to weigh in too much on ideological affairs, even if it means they support my priors (which may or may not be what you're suggesting). Thinking like that is what got us into this mess in the first place.
Post reply on HN