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

High-achieving men and women are described differently in reviews

fortune.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 90 posts

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

#71

Post by cperciva »

true_religion wrote: post #66
anigbrowl wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The evidence points to the subset of women who enter CS and engineering being smarter on average than the subset of men who enter CS and engineering. Isn't this rather at odds with your hypothesis that they do well because of being more aggressive? I mean, perhaps that is true but if the data suggests that women entering those programs are in fact smarter why would your hypothesis be any more likely than the existenc…

> sn't this rather at odds with your hypothesis that they do well because of being more aggressive? I don't think that's what he said originally. He said that aggressive women are those who overcome the social pressure to not join a male dominated field like CS/tech. To give an extreme example, you can be a timid man and still join CS simply because there's no pressure against you doing so, but if you were a timid wo…

Yes, that's what I was trying to say.

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

#72

Post by cperciva »

melindajb wrote: post #62
cperciva wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe I'm misinterpreting what the author wrote, but it seems clear to me that, having identified a statistical anomaly, she is assuming one explanation -- that there is a problem with the review process -- and ignoring other potential explanations (e.g., a bias in hiring which results in non-aggressive women never being hired and thus never being reviewed).

I do think you are misinterpreting the author. 1. She states very clearly in the last line: this is a call to action to review the language in reviews for for bias, not just the scores. 2. I can see you and others here very willing to accept the possibility that women just are more aggressive and that worries me about potential bias far more than this study does. Do you see that in yourself? To be fair to you, I see…

1. She states very clearly in the last line: this is a call to action to review the language in reviews for for bias, not just the scores.

Right, and I'm taking that as saying "HR should look for bias in the language used in reviews because I think they will find it".

2. I can see you and others here very willing to accept the possibility that women just are more aggressive and that worries me about potential bias far more than this study does. Do you see that in yourself?

Do I think that women in general are more aggressive than men? No. Do I think that women in tech fields are more aggressive than men? I don't have enough evidence to form an opinion about this, but given the challenges which women must overcome in order to succeed in tech fields, I think it's entirely possible that the less-aggressive women tend to get filtered out.

3. As you state above, non aggressive women never getting hired--one possible reason could be, as others have stated is that non aggressive women do not have the emotional or financial resources to withstand the cultural assault of doing something outside of gender norms. Do you see why that's a problem? Why the stereotypes of behavior in tech/business that are predominantly male are so damaging? And why it would be so important to look at the language used here?

Absolutely. I'm not willing to jump to the conclusion that the reviews are wrong, though.

are you not struck by the difference in tone in those reviews? Or do you truly believe the women's words were "deserved?"

Given that I do not know the men or women in question, I am unable to form an opinion about whether the adjectives used to describe members of either gender were accurate.

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

#73

Post by cperciva »

true_religion wrote: post #67
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…

Interestingly, although the op uses the term 'sampling bias' which is usually used to discredit a study, the actual content of their comment doesn't seem intended to do so. What they're talking about is not a sampling bias. If more aggressive women are hired than not, that's not a sampling bias... those women are representative of the population as it exists. It's only a sampling bias, if say the study somehow select…

Whether it's a sampling bias or not depends on the conclusion you're trying to draw. I agree that there is no reason to think that the women considered were unrepresentative of women in tech; my point was that women in tech may not be a representative sample of the gender as a whole.

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

#74

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#75

Post by hownottowrite »

waqf wrote: post #31
hownottowrite wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think it was really this statement which made me crinkle my nose.

"As a woman in tech who has been called all of these things before, there is some validation in confirming with data that the pattern is real. But as a leader in tech, I’m aghast at how closely under our noses we let this live."

Her past research would seem to suggest that this finding was all but assured. But to be fair, that could just be my reading if it. I have a lot of respect for Kieran's work, so that also has something to do with it.

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

#76

Post by melindajb »

cperciva wrote: post #72
melindajb wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do think you are misinterpreting the author. 1. She states very clearly in the last line: this is a call to action to review the language in reviews for for bias, not just the scores. 2. I can see you and others here very willing to accept the possibility that women just are more aggressive and that worries me about potential bias far more than this study does. Do you see that in yourself? To be fair to you, I see…

1. She states very clearly in the last line: this is a call to action to review the language in reviews for for bias, not just the scores. Right, and I'm taking that as saying "HR should look for bias in the language used in reviews because I think they will find it ". 2. I can see you and others here very willing to accept the possibility that women just are more aggressive and that worries me about potential bias f…

I can see where you are coming from. I understand that innate perception, no matter how well intentioned, is a really hard thing to observe and think critically about in ourselves.

I just want to ask you about the last line. you truly, truly have NO opinion about what you read there? you don't think there's anything amiss or disturbing at all about the apparent pattern? I confess based on that and your answer to #3, you sound a bit, well like a robot--someone so deeply embedded in your own logic that you cannot see the larger picture. I don't think you're a hopeless misogynist at all, but I do think you might be missing something.

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

#77

Post by megaman22 »

This surprises anyone? I was engaged to a high achieving woman for a period of time. I loved her, but damn, if I had to work with her, I wouldn't put up with her personality. Very aggressive, pushy, and intolerant, to my mind. Very quick to take offense at the slightest provocation, whether offense was intended, or merely the result of ignorance or incompetence. Then again, I'm a libertarian-minded introvert, so I basically just want to let other people do their thing and have them leave me alone...

On the whole, I see the adversarial nature of gender politics that is often pushed as profoundly dysfunctional. Men and women are not the same. Each gender is better at some things and worse at others, on average. Men tend to have more variance, so you see more male geniuses and male idiots (the tails on the bell-curve are bigger), where women tend to cluster towards the mean more strongly. If we could just accept this, and spend our time trying to be happy, rather than demonizing each other, the world would be a better place.

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

#78

Post by chc »

melindajb wrote: post #36
chc wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I don't think nothing of value can be determined from the study, but I do think what clairity said can't be determined from the study. It really is entirely possible, going strictly by the findings here, that ornery women are overrepresented in this area in much the same way that upper-class white women are underrepresented among convicts.

Your experience may tell you different, and your experience may very well be right — I am definitely not qualified to say either way. I was just bemoaning that what many people seem to want to get out of this study — whether there's a difference in the way men and women are perceived in essentially identical situations — isn't actually in this study.

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

#79

Post by true_religion »

cperciva wrote: post #73
true_religion wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interestingly, although the op uses the term 'sampling bias' which is usually used to discredit a study, the actual content of their comment doesn't seem intended to do so. What they're talking about is not a sampling bias. If more aggressive women are hired than not, that's not a sampling bias... those women are representative of the population as it exists. It's only a sampling bias, if say the study somehow select…

Whether it's a sampling bias or not depends on the conclusion you're trying to draw. I agree that there is no reason to think that the women considered were unrepresentative of women in tech; my point was that women in tech may not be a representative sample of the gender as a whole.

That's true, but this is a study specifically about women in high positions in the tech field. I'm not sure its meant to be indicative of women in general, just as studies on male CEOs (e.g. the ones that claim CEOs are more sociopathic) wouldn't be meant to say anything about men in general.

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

#80

Post by dropit_sphere »

melindajb wrote: post #76
cperciva wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. She states very clearly in the last line: this is a call to action to review the language in reviews for for bias, not just the scores. Right, and I'm taking that as saying "HR should look for bias in the language used in reviews because I think they will find it ". 2. I can see you and others here very willing to accept the possibility that women just are more aggressive and that worries me about potential bias f…

I can see where you are coming from. I understand that innate perception, no matter how well intentioned, is a really hard thing to observe and think critically about in ourselves. I just want to ask you about the last line. you truly, truly have NO opinion about what you read there? you don't think there's anything amiss or disturbing at all about the apparent pattern? I confess based on that and your answer to #3,…

Please be careful brandishing intellectual superweapons.
Post reply on HN