High-achieving men and women are described differently in reviews • Hacker News Board

Re: High-achieving men and women are described differently in reviews

#31

Post by waqf » Thu, Aug 28, 2014, 10:52 PM UTC

hownottowrite wrote: post #21

hownottowrite wrote: post #17

I'm not surprised by this, but I am surprised that the author didn't mention her past research on this topic. Her shock at the "discovery" seems a little disingenuous. http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=13513

The down vote is interesting since I actually agree with her primary research. Women should interrupt more. I've said as much when doing reviews myself.

Had I downvoted (I didn't) it would have been because I didn't see any shock in her article, real or feigned. It was clear that the effect she found was the one she was looking for.

Re: High-achieving men and women are described differently in reviews

#32

Post by bkirkbri » Thu, Aug 28, 2014, 10:58 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #6

I think this is an outgrowth of our general social tendency to judge men by what they do ("he works at a hedge fund!") and women by what they're like ("she's really sweet!"). I found this paragraph in particular interesting: > Words like bossy, abrasive, strident, and aggressive are used to describe women’s behaviors when they lead . . . . Among these words, only aggressive shows up in men’s reviews at all. It shows…

I have a pet theory that the reason that women (as well as non-traditionally-masculine men) are considered bossy, while other men are considered "go-getters" is due to a lack of the threat of violence. Not that a type-A guy is going to assault you if you don't capitulate to their authority. More that there is a perceived or possible threat.

In contrast to women who would be considered bossy or abrasive because they don't "back up" their claims to authority. I suppose that there is often a feeling of resentment that society/culture/custom is taking the place of that threat.

Again, all supposition and musing on my part. Probably much better articulated by someone writing on the subject 50 years ago!

Re: High-achieving men and women are described differently in reviews

#33

Post by melindajb » Thu, Aug 28, 2014, 10:58 PM UTC

cperciva wrote: post #20

My immediate thought when I saw this a few days ago was "sampling bias" -- not that the author had a biased sample of professional women, but rather that professional women are a biased sample of women. Given the social environment -- pushing both females and males away from what they might have preferred as a life trajectory -- I think it's very likely that the average professional woman is significantly more aggres…

Your argument is not logical. These were professionals in the same sphere: tech. And one could make the argument that the sample of men was also biased--towards men who liked tech.

No one claimed this was an iron clad peer reviewed scientific study--and I'd love to see some done on this in addition to those that already exist. Deborah Tannen is one of the more well known researchers in this area to uncover distinct gender patterns in speech that affect performance, for example.

There are now hundreds and hundreds of data points, and anecdotes. At what point is there enough evidence to convince some people that there IS a problem, and believe those of us who have experienced this exact phenomenon?

TBH this response is exactly what I thought I'd see on hacker news: attack the methodology, thus missing the forest for the trees.

Re: High-achieving men and women are described differently in reviews

#34

Post by lclarkmichalek » Thu, Aug 28, 2014, 11:00 PM UTC

spindritf wrote: post #26

blutoot wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see the problem in sampling only professional women when the hypothesis is whether professional women are rated differently than professional men. It would be problematic if this hypothesis was tested with a sample from the overall female population. Non-professional women don't have reviews to be useful to the study. What you described is an explanation for WHY they are rated different. It doesn't discredit…

hypothesis is whether professional women are rated differently than professional men The point is that you can't know whether they're rated differently (by different criteria) or actually different.

I think one of the premises you have to accept in this article is that the actual difference between women and men is less than (looking at the "has negative feedback" vs "only constructive criticism" chart) 72%. I don't find that a hard premise to accept

Re: High-achieving men and women are described differently in reviews

#35

Post by melindajb » Thu, Aug 28, 2014, 11:00 PM UTC

Shivetya wrote: post #29

I am a bit surprised, the review process I participate in would probably automatically reject the review; there is a legal check and one other whose name escapes me done with software that is really restrictive on words you can use. So I doubt these would arise in any company which has a robust legal department, you just don't do that anymore especially in writing. Mandatory HR meetings, too many electronically signe…

Did you happen to notice the author's full name and workplace? And at startups where much of the more recent notorious and egregious behavior is happening, there is no such thing as a legal department, let alone a robust one.

Re: High-achieving men and women are described differently in reviews

#36

Post by melindajb » Thu, Aug 28, 2014, 11:09 PM UTC

chc wrote: post #30

clairity wrote: post #24

it's not that women are more aggressive, it's that they're perceived as more aggressive relative to expectations (by both male & female managers). also, it's much more acceptable to challenge a woman's authority than it is a man's. when all you want to do is get things done, this social norm slows you down. you have to explain, persuade, and butter up your peers more as a woman. this is just one way that these subtle…

That may be so, but it unfortunately can't be determined from this study.

Let me understand: you think nothing of value can be determined from this study even though my entire newsfeed on facebook is full of my friends in all industries sharing it as exactly in line with their experiences?

Re: High-achieving men and women are described differently in reviews

#37

Post by vezzy-fnord » Thu, Aug 28, 2014, 11:09 PM UTC

melindajb wrote: post #33

cperciva wrote: post #20

My immediate thought when I saw this a few days ago was "sampling bias" -- not that the author had a biased sample of professional women, but rather that professional women are a biased sample of women. Given the social environment -- pushing both females and males away from what they might have preferred as a life trajectory -- I think it's very likely that the average professional woman is significantly more aggres…

Your argument is not logical. These were professionals in the same sphere: tech. And one could make the argument that the sample of men was also biased--towards men who liked tech. No one claimed this was an iron clad peer reviewed scientific study--and I'd love to see some done on this in addition to those that already exist. Deborah Tannen is one of the more well known researchers in this area to uncover distinct g…

At what point is there enough evidence to convince some people that there IS a problem, and believe those of us who have experienced this exact phenomenon?

The existence of a problem is virtually undisputed, it's the nature of it that is debated. In addition, the existence of a problem does not justify misrepresenting it, even if the intention is to raise awareness.

Re: High-achieving men and women are described differently in reviews

#38

Post by clairity » Thu, Aug 28, 2014, 11:10 PM UTC

chc wrote: post #30

clairity wrote: post #24

it's not that women are more aggressive, it's that they're perceived as more aggressive relative to expectations (by both male & female managers). also, it's much more acceptable to challenge a woman's authority than it is a man's. when all you want to do is get things done, this social norm slows you down. you have to explain, persuade, and butter up your peers more as a woman. this is just one way that these subtle…

That may be so, but it unfortunately can't be determined from this study.

yes, i wasn't really commenting on the study (the conclusions of which are not surprising) so much as trying to extend the discussion since folks may not discern the subtle underlying mechanisms at work.

it's like staring at pages of math trying to find that off-by-one error. it's much easier to see when it's pointed out.

Re: High-achieving men and women are described differently in reviews

#39

Post by melindajb » Thu, Aug 28, 2014, 11:14 PM UTC

vezzy-fnord wrote: post #37

melindajb wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your argument is not logical. These were professionals in the same sphere: tech. And one could make the argument that the sample of men was also biased--towards men who liked tech. No one claimed this was an iron clad peer reviewed scientific study--and I'd love to see some done on this in addition to those that already exist. Deborah Tannen is one of the more well known researchers in this area to uncover distinct g…

At what point is there enough evidence to convince some people that there IS a problem, and believe those of us who have experienced this exact phenomenon? The existence of a problem is virtually undisputed, it's the nature of it that is debated. In addition, the existence of a problem does not justify misrepresenting it, even if the intention is to raise awareness.

Exactly what part here is misrepresented?

Re: High-achieving men and women are described differently in reviews

#40

Post by conistonwater » Thu, Aug 28, 2014, 11:19 PM UTC

vezzy-fnord wrote: post #37

melindajb wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your argument is not logical. These were professionals in the same sphere: tech. And one could make the argument that the sample of men was also biased--towards men who liked tech. No one claimed this was an iron clad peer reviewed scientific study--and I'd love to see some done on this in addition to those that already exist. Deborah Tannen is one of the more well known researchers in this area to uncover distinct g…

At what point is there enough evidence to convince some people that there IS a problem, and believe those of us who have experienced this exact phenomenon? The existence of a problem is virtually undisputed, it's the nature of it that is debated. In addition, the existence of a problem does not justify misrepresenting it, even if the intention is to raise awareness.

> The existence of a problem is virtually undisputed

This thread includes people's opinions that this is not a real effect, and is instead the result of poor methodology, sampling bias, and whatnot.

It is really not fair to say that the problem's existence is undisputed. There are plenty of people who dispute it, and that's also a problem.