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

141–150 of 162 posts

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

#141

Post by smt88 »

CyberRabbi wrote: post #135
smt88 wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> we have to start supporting each other Do you currently feel that white men are not supportive of one another? Or were you referring to a subcategory of white men? > Give it time What do you expect time to change?

White men especially in America tend to pathologically see the world through an individualistic lens and ignore their identity. Things will change as more and more of us start to become conscious of the identity for which the system hates us.

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?

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

#142

Post by ip26 »

klyrs wrote: post #140
ip26 wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a sense you might argue HN culture relishes the destruction of all dogmas. Left or otherwise.

No, I might have argued that about usenet when I was first exposed to the internet in the early 90s, but I'm not nearly so naive today. Endless flamewars that never change minds. The same people saying the same shit time and time again. Dogmas don't die, they simply fade away when their adherents do.

Sure, we’re on the same page more or less :)

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

#143

Post by koonsolo »

throwaway894345 wrote: post #137
koonsolo wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> that the anti-female bias must be even stronger elsewhere Where does it mention that there is an overall anti-female bias?

> Combating bias requires understanding how and where it manifests. In light of the substantial gender imbalance in real-world investments, our results suggest a larger-than-expected bias against female entrepreneurs in other settings. The reasoning appears to be something like, "Because there is a disparity, there must be an anti-female bias somewhere and since there's only a pro-female bias here, the elsewhere anti…

Indeed. It can't be that hard to first look at all applications for funding, and then see which ones actually get funded. It wouldn't surprise me that there would be an overall pro-female bias. It wouldn't fit certain political agendas though.

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

#144

Post by CyberRabbi »

smt88 wrote: post #141
CyberRabbi wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

White men especially in America tend to pathologically see the world through an individualistic lens and ignore their identity. Things will change as more and more of us start to become conscious of the identity for which the system hates us.

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

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

#145

Post by freeflight »

ttt0 wrote: post #138
freeflight wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand how that follows from the parent comment? The comment rightfully points out that in the US people are mostly classified by their superficial looks vs their actual ethnicity. Which leads to the situation that quite a diverse field of ethnicities and cultures are boiled down to very generalized "white/black/yellow/whatever" groups. Case in point: The recent shooting in a Colorado grocery store was, r…

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 group separately to say that the European culture(s) are overall much different from, let's say, African culture(s).

You don't need to but if you don't it often ends up with generalizations where there are not "European culture(s)" or "African culture(s)" but only the singular versions of them and the only differences are made out between these two.

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

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.

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

#146

Post by wazoox »

dstick wrote: post #107
wazoox wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, in France there was a large scale "anonymous CV" experiment, and going against what was expected, made people from minorities or poor neighbourhoods more disadvantaged. https://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2011/04/04/le-cv-anon...

Just shooting from the hip here, but isn't that expected because their CVs would be worse due to the current climate putting them at a disadvantage? My gut feeling is that you need to have that system in place for many years to even the playing field first. Starting with fresh graduates getting equal chances, and then slowly letting that effect build up year after year.

Well, from the article: "This result, which the researchers themselves describe as "unexpected", could be linked to the fact that the named CV allows the recruiter to be more sympathetic to shortcomings in the application letter ("gaps" in the curriculum, little experience)."

That shows two things: inequality is real, and some recruiters are actively trying to compensate for it, which has a positive effect overall.

The inequality problem is unfortunately a very tough nut to crack, that would require several decades of consistent policy, which is completely unattainable in the current political situation (with governments randomly changing policies every few years in a direction or another).

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

#147

Post by geoduck14 »

damagednoob wrote: post #54
throwaway894345 wrote: post #49

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.

I think the two of you are in violent agreement.

> violent agreement

I'm using this phrase the next time my daughters are playing and they start to yell at each other.

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

#148

Post by da_big_ghey »

fakedang wrote: post #111
da_big_ghey wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

no, we are need to allow people who have desiers to come here 4 good life n success, no filter for sex. in India IIT is 64% man, so you are only penalise unfair men by these action. we are needing to let almost any person who want to be in America to be here not have a nother restricting.

Are you sure about that 64% number? At my IIT, it was more a 6:1 ratio.

bad research on my part, i think i found result from american university first. here it is saying 8% woman: https://www.indiatoday.in/education-today/featurephilia/stor...

but point is same: if we are creating quota for female to imigrate that has unfair penalisation on men. we are ought to have admit almost any person who is desiring for to be here and working.

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

#150

Post by achillesheels »

analyst74 wrote: post #104
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…

By creating racial tension, the upper class in control of media can distract people's anger away from class division.

It’s very profitable to pitch “neo-natal” progeny of recent immigration (>1965) with those with European ancestries which carry natural inter-generational momentum. Trying to find an “equalizing” rainbow trail is a violent red herring, yet has perpetual support because it’s sympathizing.

Ending the drug war is better politics.

Post reply on HN