Men and Women's performance disparity in tech interviews maintains if interviewer is unaware of sex - Polidicks

[quote]The setup for our experiment was simple. Every Tuesday evening at 7 PM Pacific, interviewing.io hosts what we call practice rounds. In these practice rounds, anyone with an account can show up, get matched with an interviewer, and go to town. And during a few of these rounds, we decided to see what would happen to interviewees’ performance when we started messing with their perceived genders.[/quote] [quote]After running the experiment, we ended up with some rather surprising results. Contrary to what we expected (and probably contrary to what you expected as well!), masking gender had no effect on interview performance with respect to any of the scoring criteria (would advance to next round, technical ability, problem solving ability). If anything, we started to notice some trends in the opposite direction of what we expected: for technical ability, it appeared that men who were modulated to sound like women did a bit better than unmodulated men and that women who were modulated to sound like men did a bit worse than unmodulated women.[/quote] Sauce: [url]http://blog.interviewing.io/we-built-voice-modulation-to-mask-gender-in-technical-interviews-heres-what-happened/[/url]

Well no shit, there's something called [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_dimorphism"]sexual dimorphism[/URL]. We need to research this more without fear of political incorrectness.

[quote][b]Once you factor out interview data from both men and women who quit after one or two bad interviews, the disparity goes away entirely.[/b][/quote] Important highlight I think. The other train of thought the article seems to have about what may create the disparity in the headline: [quote]As it happens, women leave interviewing.io roughly 7 times as often as men after they do badly in an interview. [...] Also note that as much as possible, I corrected for people leaving the platform because they found a job... In a study investigating the effects of perceived performance to likelihood of subsequent engagement [...] women underrated their own performance more often than men. Afterwards, participants were asked whether they’d like to enter a [contest] in which they could win cash prizes. Again, women were significantly less likely to participate, with participation likelihood being directly correlated with self-perception rather than actual performance. In a different study [...]: For women, realizing that they may no longer be at the top of the class and that there were others who were performing better, “the experience [triggered] a more fundamental doubt about their abilities to master the technical constructs of engineering expertise [than men].”[/quote] Kinda sounds like a self-confidence thing? [QUOTE=orgornot;50640456]Well no shit, there's something called [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_dimorphism"]sexual dimorphism[/URL][/QUOTE] That's already presuming biological reasons. It's also possible that the effect is related to social products like men deriving more value from being competitively successful rather than cooperatively, centering their worth around their career, or being put in the role of single earner - causing them to fight harder for better job positions, and eventually gaining more experience.

My favorite part of this is when they demonstrated that women actually have an advantage in interviews compared to men: [quote]men who were modulated to sound like women did a bit better than unmodulated men and that women who were modulated to sound like men did a bit worse than unmodulated women[/quote]

Numbers, percentages, fractions... Then there is reality. People really need to stop basing their ideals of others on research and simply be neutral. Commonsense is getting harder and harder for some people to get a grasp on these days, or is it just me who thinks that?

[QUOTE=shadowboy303;50640810]Numbers, percentages, fractions... Then there is reality. People really need to stop basing their ideals of others on research and simply be neutral. Commonsense is getting harder and harder for some people to get a grasp on these days, or is it just me who thinks that?[/QUOTE] I don't understand, do numbers and research not represent reality? Common sense doesn't accurately describe complex systems sometimes, so research is necessary.

[QUOTE=shadowboy303;50640810]Numbers, percentages, fractions... Then there is reality. People really need to stop basing their ideals of others on research and simply be neutral. Commonsense is getting harder and harder for some people to get a grasp on these days, or is it just me who thinks that?[/QUOTE] What does this have to do with anything? I don't really see your point.

[QUOTE=shadowboy303;50640810]Numbers, percentages, fractions... Then there is reality. People really need to stop basing their ideals of others on research and simply be neutral. Commonsense is getting harder and harder for some people to get a grasp on these days, or is it just me who thinks that?[/QUOTE] yeah who cares about all these numbers and fractions we should just base all our science on zodiac signs and omens.

[QUOTE=shadowboy303;50640810]Numbers, percentages, fractions... Then there is reality. People really need to stop basing their ideals of others on research and simply be neutral. Commonsense is getting harder and harder for some people to get a grasp on these days, or is it just me who thinks that?[/QUOTE] So, reject logic for gut feelings? That doesn't seem right.

What I was trying to say is: People will change their views on other people based on claims that go against common sense, I'm not saying research is bad and of course there is always going to be bias somewhere but the modern person has become so a custom to blindingly accepting it the moment they are informed about it, completely forgetting what they thought of the subject in the past and then blasting anyone who opposes that train of thought. (Que tin foil hat, :tinfoil:) I really can't convey my opinion too well so I'll go back to lurking.

[QUOTE=shadowboy303;50640912]What I was trying to say is: People will change their views on other people based on claims that go against common sense, I'm not saying research is bad and of course there is always going to be bias somewhere but the modern person has become so a custom to blindingly accepting it the moment they are informed about it, completely forgetting what they thought of the subject in the past and then blasting anyone who opposes that train of thought. (Que tin foil hat, :tinfoil:) I really can't convey my opinion too well so I'll go back to lurking.[/QUOTE] it's almost like [I]information[/I] is meant to [I]inform[/I] people

[QUOTE=shadowboy303;50640912]What I was trying to say is: People will change their views on other people based on claims that go against common sense, I'm not saying research is bad and of course there is always going to be bias somewhere but the modern person has become so a custom to blindingly accepting it the moment they are informed about it, completely forgetting what they thought of the subject in the past and then blasting anyone who opposes that train of thought. (Que tin foil hat, :tinfoil:) I really can't convey my opinion too well so I'll go back to lurking.[/QUOTE] I had minimal prior knowledge on the subject and this is (as far as I can tell) scientific research, so why shouldn't I accept it? Or are you saying we should do further research and not accept this single article as law? In that case, that's a good idea, but just saying "use common sense" doesn't really convey that.

People are ignoring a huge problem: this isn't how interviews are typically conducted, and this method of interviewing (without the voice masking) already appears to have eliminated a lot of the gender disparity that exists in tech interviews. (Men getting advanced to the next round 1.4x more often is a better result than what exists in the real world) Perhaps there's something about face-to-face interviewing that's causing the bulk of the problem?

[QUOTE=shadowboy303;50640912]What I was trying to say is: People will change their views on other people based on claims that go against common sense, I'm not saying research is bad and of course there is always going to be bias somewhere but the modern person has become so a custom to blindingly accepting it the moment they are informed about it, completely forgetting what they thought of the subject in the past and then blasting anyone who opposes that train of thought. (Que tin foil hat, :tinfoil:) I really can't convey my opinion too well so I'll go back to lurking.[/QUOTE] Because common sense is not always right. Otherwise you'd still be smearing piss on your wounds to heal them. Unless you can prove the bias, this seems like a pretty decent experiement. [editline]3rd July 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Zeke129;50640985]People are ignoring a huge problem: this isn't how interviews are typically conducted, and this method of interviewing (without the voice masking) already appears to have eliminated a lot of the gender disparity that exists in tech interviews. (Men getting advanced to the next round 1.4x more often is a better result than what exists in the real world) Perhaps there's something about face-to-face interviewing that's causing the bulk of the problem?[/QUOTE] Confidence maybe? That's something that is far more visible via body language, and is a topic of their experiment.

[QUOTE=JohnnyOnFlame;50641010]Because common sense is not always right. Otherwise you'd still be smearing piss on your wounds to heal them. Unless you can prove the bias, this seems like a pretty decent experiement. [editline]3rd July 2016[/editline] Confidence maybe? That's something that is far more visible via body language, and is a topic of their experiment.[/QUOTE] Since when was "smearing piss on your wounds to heal them" ever common sense? Just because people did it in the past doesn't mean it's common sense.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;50640985]People are ignoring a huge problem: this isn't how interviews are typically conducted, and this method of interviewing (without the voice masking) already appears to have eliminated a lot of the gender disparity that exists in tech interviews. (Men getting advanced to the next round 1.4x more often is a better result than what exists in the real world) Perhaps there's something about face-to-face interviewing that's causing the bulk of the problem?[/QUOTE] Rather than suggesting there's "something missing" to account for the fact that this study doesn't align with your beliefs about sexism in industry, can you show some actual evidence that women are discriminated against in interviews? Because this seems much more meaningful than "women make less on average, so it's sexism".

[QUOTE=sgman91;50641041]Since when was "smearing piss on your wounds to heal them" ever common sense? Just because people did it in the past doesn't mean it's common sense.[/QUOTE] By definition if a lot of people do it and it's recommended you do it it's "common sense". There is no static definition of "common sense." It evolves with time.

[QUOTE=srobins;50641122]Rather than suggesting there's "something missing" to account for the fact that this study doesn't align with your beliefs about sexism in industry, can you show some actual evidence that women are discriminated against in interviews? Because this seems much more meaningful than "women make less on average, so it's sexism".[/QUOTE] You can't reason with those type of people, if not the interviews it's something else - but it's always something. In any case, this is just a single study, more would be preferable to see how it replicates.

[QUOTE=geel9;50641222]By definition if a lot of people do it and it's recommended you do it it's "common sense". There is no static definition of "common sense." It evolves with time.[/QUOTE] That's not common sense at all. It's very likely that with something like mentioned, a so called 'specialist' suggested that people should do that and others took them at their word. Common sense is specifically what a common clear thinking person might think without special training or instruction.

[QUOTE=gokiyono;50640842]What does this have to do with anything? I don't really see your point.[/QUOTE] The reproducibility of behavioral studies is less than 50%. Indicating that at this time, most of those are too deeply flawed to take seriously.

[QUOTE=Dr. Evilcop;50640932]I had minimal prior knowledge on the subject and this is (as far as I can tell) scientific research, so why shouldn't I accept it?[/QUOTE] This is the point, "as far as you can tell". How many people read through--let alone fully understand and then form their own conclusion based upon--the scientific reports they take to be the truth? Mind, the problem there isn't that the person doesn't look at all of the research and form their own conclusion (or lack thereof) based on the findings, it's that they accept someone else's conclusion as the truth. Science is far less precise than most people seem to think. Not to say there's a better option for understanding the world, but things that claim to be "science" should always be viewed with a degree of skepticism.

[QUOTE=Marik Bentusi;50640729]Important highlight I think.[/QUOTE] Yes i agree, the reason why men objectively outperform women in this task shines through pretty interestingly. [QUOTE=Marik Bentusi;50640729] The other train of thought the article seems to have about what may create the disparity in the headline: -- Kinda sounds like a self-confidence thing? [/QUOTE] It comes down to a lack in perseverance mainly... if that is triggered because of a larger lack of confidence in women or not is not possible to be extrapolated from this, but its still very interesting. Maybe this gives credence to the points people sometimes bring up that females are cradled a bit too much in our society? [QUOTE=Marik Bentusi;50640729] That's already presuming biological reasons. It's also possible that the effect is related to social products like men deriving more value from being competitively successful rather than cooperatively, centering their worth around their career, or being put in the role of single earner - causing them to fight harder for better job positions, and eventually gaining more experience.[/QUOTE] Why are you assuming this is a social rather then a biological trait? did you solve nurture vs nature? [editline]4th July 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=shadowboy303;50640810]Numbers, percentages, fractions... Then there is reality. People really need to stop basing their ideals of others on research and simply be neutral. Commonsense is getting harder and harder for some people to get a grasp on these days, or is it just me who thinks that?[/QUOTE] The problem is that people are wired to treat people differently based on certain traits in certain fields. knowing where the bias lays is interesting and worthwhile. I do hold to the 'if we all stopped labelling people in how they are different or marginalized wed be far better off and everyone would get along better" thought. [editline]4th July 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=geel9;50641222]By definition if a lot of people do it and it's recommended you do it it's "common sense". There is no static definition of "common sense." It evolves with time.[/QUOTE] You dont know what the word means, common sense implies a result deducted without prior training or expertise other then what is expected from the average joe. 1+1 = 2 is common sense reasoning because the average joe has had some basic math. what you describe is common knowledge... and its true that it can be common knowledge that frogs can turn into princes if you kiss them on the mouth. in other words something that is believed to be true by a majority therefore it is common knowledge no matter if it is factually true or false. [editline]4th July 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=archangel125;50642625]The reproducibility of behavioral studies is less than 50%. Indicating that at this time, most of those are too deeply flawed to take seriously.[/QUOTE] Not every behavioural study is created equal, the problem is that a lot of unis get their bachelors study with a test sample not even worthy of a preliminary study (say 20 people) about 'who likes the colour blue most' published. Then some social activist blog picks it up and runs with it, often giving it its own spin to support their narative... This study however seems like a reasonable preliminary. [editline]4th July 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=DaMastez;50643012]This is the point, "as far as you can tell". How many people read through--let alone fully understand and then form their own conclusion based upon--the scientific reports they take to be the truth? Mind, the problem there isn't that the person doesn't look at all of the research and form their own conclusion (or lack thereof) based on the findings, it's that they accept someone else's conclusion as the truth. Science is far less precise than most people seem to think. Not to say there's a better option for understanding the world, [B]but things that claim to be "science" should always be viewed with a degree of skepticism[/B].[/QUOTE] You mean like... peer reviewed? if the experts in the field take a look at it and say it looks legit at first glance, it holds value to take their word on it. Does that mean its the end all be all? no, fuck no... science is a never ending work in progress. Mistakes will be made on the road of success but thats not a reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater... More an argument to try and find ways to improve the efficiency of peer review and paper publishing protocols, like is being done now with sociology studies since science has shown that there is a problem there... Yes... Science did, science auto corrects and auto improves if applied, it works... bitches.

[QUOTE=Blizzerd;50643030]Why are you assuming this is a social rather then a biological trait?[/QUOTE] I don't, that's why I put a "It's also possible that" in front of that part. Whole point of that reply was to balance out "gotta be biology" with "could also be social".

[QUOTE=orgornot;50640456]Well no shit, there's something called [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_dimorphism"]sexual dimorphism[/URL]. We need to research this more without fear of political incorrectness.[/QUOTE] Even hinting at the notion that men and women are different on a fundamental level will get you burned at the stakes. In Sweden at least.

[QUOTE=archangel125;50642625]The reproducibility of behavioral studies is less than 50%. Indicating that at this time, most of those are too deeply flawed to take seriously.[/QUOTE] Women performing poorly in interviews in general is a well documented trend. augmenting this to the tech field specifically might help explain some of the disparity in that field.

[video=youtube;p5LRdW8xw70]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5LRdW8xw70[/video] An excellent documentary everyone should watch.

[QUOTE=Radical_ed;50643708]Women performing poorly in interviews in general is a well documented trend. augmenting this to the tech field specifically might help explain some of the disparity in that field.[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure most of the disparity in the tech sector takes its source much earlier than the interview stage. The disparity is already clear in tech degrees with males outnumbering females 4 to 1. Currently females aren't as interested as males in working in tech.

[QUOTE=geel9;50641222]By definition if a lot of people do it and it's recommended you do it it's "common sense". There is no static definition of "common sense." It evolves with time.[/QUOTE] Common sense is human instincts pretty much, it's something you don't need to be told

[QUOTE=Zeke129;50640985]Men getting advanced to the next round 1.4x more often is a better result than what exists in the real world[/QUOTE] How do you know this?

That's it folks, case closed. This one non-peer reviewed blog study that only shows a graph of one data point, doesn't show many statistical controls or results, has definitely proven that sexism in the tech industry is not real