Live data from Hacker News

Hiring discrimination: a problem for men in female-dominated occupations

journals.plos.org

651–660 of 666 posts

Re: Hiring discrimination: a problem for men in female-dominated occupations

#651

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chess statistics do not show evidence of a significant difference: https://en.chessbase.com/post/what-gender-gap-in-chess

That is obviously garbage statistics, isn't it? The conclusion they've drawn about the female distribution is based entirely on the performance of one female player. And they're obfuscating rank ordering with rating gap. Also, for an unexplained reason, they only consider Indian players. That's weird, isn't it? Why Indian? Let's investigate. Using the Oct 20th 2020 data, since the Oct 6th 2020 data isn't available on…

Oh, and one other thing, at a meta level: The entire construction of the author's argument is to pick a statistical measure with a wide standard deviation, instead of a better one that would use more data to get a low standard deviation. Then he finds that one real-life outcome is within that wide standard deviation.

Not only that, he defines it via the exponentially increasing ELO rating distribution, instead of rank order, and that would have the effect of piling up a bunch of lower ranked players together within one standard deviation of the mean. This means it would be virtually impossible to get a result 1 standard deviation out, let alone 2.

Re: Hiring discrimination: a problem for men in female-dominated occupations

#652
post #641

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's my main issue with SV-mentalities moving into the safety-critical space like autonomous driving

I have mixed feelings. On the one hand you don’t want to kill people but on the other hand a lot of the big players in regulated industries are stagnant, complacent and inefficient. A good example would be SpaceX. Compared to their competitors they move faster, are innovative, cheaper and despite that they are reliable when it counts . Most of their failures were well calculated risks that helped them move faster. I…

I agree with you that the old corps in these industries are stagnant, but also recognize when there's a gap in the way new entrants approach safety-critical problems.

One example is the Uber incident that killed a person. If you read the NTSB report, it seems like they intentionally programmed a delay into a safety critical system in order avoid nuisance braking. From a safety-critical standpoint, deliberately slowing the action of a time-sensitive safety mitigation is big error in engineering judgement. Imagine if I reprogrammed your home smoke detectors to wait for an hour to determine if there's really a fire because you were annoyed that they went off every time your baked. My suspicion is they did this because their software wasn't really ready but they wanted to push it to market for testing.

Another example that has had some controversy in the industry is SpaceX using only touchscreens. I don't know where they settled, but a few years back they were adamant that they don't need physical controls. We've all probably experienced issues where a touchscreen doesn't respond as intended. Automotive manufacturers have walked back this idea on a lot of their models because they recognize all the additional failure modes that touchscreens introduce.

My worry is that sometimes "innovation" is really just forgetting (or not knowing) the lessons learned from the legacy players.

The traditional players like Boeing have had their own problems, but IMO they are more due to management than engineering. With the 737MAX, the engineering processes were in place. They had a hazard analysis that said MCAS shouldn't be a single-point failure; it seems they just didn't follow their own engineering processes due to budget and schedule pressures. That's a different animal than not having the safety-critical culture to define those processes in the first place (but not any less egregious).

Re: Hiring discrimination: a problem for men in female-dominated occupations

#653

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The skew only means the smartest 1% of men are smarter than the smartest 1% of women. I don't think you can put it like that. Even if the IQ (or similar "cognitive capacity" score) distribution is broader&shallower for males, it doesn't mean what you had said. Judith Polgar was #7th in chess rankings, even if overall number of players scored with ELO is counted in millions?

How could it not mean that? Are you arguing with my 1% figure or the concept I was trying to relay? The concept is correct IMO, the percentage is a guess.

Dumb people need to be handheld into understanding your precise meaning because you can't assume they'll attach correct qualifiers so that the sensible meaning is inferred. (And even then it probably won't work.) The purpose of your post was to communicate with dumb people.

Re: Hiring discrimination: a problem for men in female-dominated occupations

#654
post #178
post #67

During my career, I've seen enough discrimination in the name of DEI as well. But what bothers me more is the ageism. The number of times an old person has been rejected from a job is too damn high. The reasons have always been "he may not work well with young people", "seniority complex", "he is over qualified" etc. Most of the times, they were more than qualified. I fear when I am into 40s or 50s, I will face the s…

Quoted post unavailable.

Would you please stop posting flamewar comments to HN? You've done it so often that I've started to wince when I see your username.

This has nothing to do with your views; I don't have any idea what they are and haven't read the context in this thread. I just saw this comment because it was flagged, and I recognize that this happens a lot with your account. That's not cool and not what this site is for.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Hiring discrimination: a problem for men in female-dominated occupations

#655
post #579

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Identical twins aren't exposed to identical environments; if the programmed response was particularly sensitive to small input variations, genes could completely determine interaction with the environment and identical twins could still be very different.

Which is my point. Environment shapes the individual.

No. Genetics shape how the individual responds to the environment. Just because you can change the environment and get different results doesn't mean it's not due to genetics.

Re: Hiring discrimination: a problem for men in female-dominated occupations

#656

Throwaway. I'm happy to have more women in tech and hope it occurs or continues. However, virtually everyone recruiting in tech has observed some toxic diversity initiatives, I would venture. Some examples I have seen personally or one degree removed from me. - pressure on HMs to hire more women despite 95% of applicants being male - people in interview panels openly saying "but he's a white man" / "do we want to hir…

Totally agree with you. It's becoming toxic in many companies.

Re: Hiring discrimination: a problem for men in female-dominated occupations

#657
post #551

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Referral bonus to fix a problem of a funnel ... Does not sound wrong. Sound actually very smart. Hiring freezes except diversity hires ... Sounds wrong.

Financially incentivizing people to hire people of a particular race or gender doesn't sound wrong to you? If it were "white" or "men", people would have a cow , and rightfully so. But encouraging discrimination in the reverse direction is just fine?

What does "cow" mean here? Online dictionaries weren't helpful

Re: Hiring discrimination: a problem for men in female-dominated occupations

#658

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It has nothing to do with intelligence curves. Agreed. A vast majority of supposedly "high tech" jobs are solidly average intelligence, including coding, so if anything women should be rewarded in such positions because males' wider variance in I.Q. cuts both ways. It's only pure delusional thinking that keeps up the "muh I.Q. is one of the highest" attitude among "tech" bros.

Programmers are not solidly average intelligence at all. Everybody writing software is at the upper end, even if defined very loosely to mean something like top 10% of Americans. Note that among SAT scorers, the top 11% of males score >700 on the math section and top 7% of females score >700. This isn't some super-elite group, and you're already looking at 1.6x as many men. But you're arguing somehow that we should s…

> Everybody writing software is at the upper end

Gah. You need to insert "and does it well"

Re: Hiring discrimination: a problem for men in female-dominated occupations

#659
post #566

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "blue" is the side that is pushing DEI to the detriment both of my family > I will vote for [red] until "blue" stops with DEI. And this is why equality in America is still an issue.

It depends on how you define equality. My definition is "people are judged on their abilities and character, not by the color of their skin, gender, orientation, etc.". Not "every pairwise combination of race and gender is proportionally represented in college admissions and high-paying jobs". As an Asian, I don't expect that Asians are proportionally represented in the NFL despite the fact that I'd love to have a jo…

> I haven't seen any evidence that red is hindering equality

So, I’m going to provide a single example of how it is, to provide it is, but there’s more than one.

The very easy and historically obvious example is American slavery. One group of people -judged by race not ability or character- was forced to be slaves. this is first case of being judged on race. Easy obvious and hard to argue with.

We freed the slaves but “grandfathered” white people with the rights to vote. They did not vote pro-slaves, they voted for their own interests. Surprising no one, former slaves with no rights (who are still tormented and killed by white people) did not advance economically or educationally - regardless of their abilities or character.

Once they got the protected right to vote, it was mid 1900s. That’s 100 years. 100 years of being unable to protect their interests due to their race. Along the way they had redlining, keeping them without growing wealth in poor neighborhoods with poor education. This limits their ability to go to college and grow, like those Ivys you mentioned (pretending there wasn’t explicit race based admission).

Historically black neighborhoods were redlined, keeping them black. You can look up a map and find the explicit lines of race in most cities. They’re poorer with worse education. This was all explicitly due to race.

Today, you can find red gerrymandering along those historic race lines to break up the voting blocks so this group of people have weaker voting power.

Voter ID laws, voter registration scrubbing, tons of examples of continuing disenfranchisement.

That’s due to race. 150 years since the civil war.

It’s very easy to say you want your race over represented in Ivy league schools but you’re ok if not all races are, and other races can have the NFL. How do you feel about legacy admissions at Ivys? The same group of rich white ivy grads in office that want to end DEI will certainly protect legacy system a lot harder. It’s about “merit” until it’s the next challenge to their children’s admission.

Red spent a long time keeping black people from having full rights and full ability to succeed based on their true ability. Breaking down DEI rules used to help push up black people may let Asians shine now, but you’ve seen how other people are treated, so be careful who you lay with.

Re: Hiring discrimination: a problem for men in female-dominated occupations

#660

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's kind of ageism-adjacent, but I wonder if some of it is a bias that expects that past 40 you shouldn't really be needing to apply to jobs by resume drops any more. I really wish people would stop this. I don't really keep in touch with many coworkers due to time. My friends tend to come from outside of work and they're not software devs. It definitely is age-ism adjacent; having to "network" to get a job is muc…

> I don't really keep in touch with many coworkers due to time. My friends tend to come from outside of work and they're not software devs. 'friend' is a much higher bar than 'somebody in your network'. plenty of folks i worked with over the years, who i haven't heard from in decades, but i'd move them to the head of the line if they called up asking about work. i remember who got shit done and who didn't, and don't…

I'm not even sure it's higher so much as orthogonal.

Like, I have close friends who I still wouldn't necessarily give a special recommendation about simply because I have no idea what it would be like to work with them on a work project. Or even in some cases, I suspect it wouldn't be all that great because they're obvious slackers about work-type stuff; like when we plan things together, I know I'll need to double check their part of it.

Whereas there are work-colleagues I am absolutely not "friends" with but would recommend for almost any role in a heartbeat.

And there are a very small number that are both: a hard-working colleague who has also become a friend. Those are the people I'd consider quitting my job to start a company with.

Post reply on HN