The other perspective.

I thought the magic of the Silicon Valley, demonstrated over and over across my lifetime, was that really talented people can break off and make more money for themselves in their own venture... Because they're bright and talented and smarter than their bosses. Like showbiz, only for real.

If you're not getting what you're worth, why not just leave?

You aren't considering that the bias might be subconcious, though

You aren't considering that the bias might be subconcious, though

How can people whos sole purpose is to make money subconsciously waste millions of dollars in a manner that everyone scrutinizes with a magnifying glass to avoid lawsuits.

Thats like subconsciously ignoring the cut artery spurting blood while actively looking for blood

First- One's subconscious is one's own beeswax. It's not an automatic transmission, removable for inspection and repair, and it's silly to talk about it that way. And dangerous, in legal context.

Secondly- People are subconsciously mean to me because I'm short. Or Midwestern. Or middle-aged. Or just so damn good-looking.

Who in the world promised that everyone would be treated the same at all times? Or that variations in treatment would be held to fully undetectable levels?

This is bad stuff to see in the Silicon Valley. In government or academe, such wretchedness might be expected.

lujlp, they did exactly that by ignoring women in the workplace 50 years ago, or 100 years ago, or 250 years ago. The free market isn't new.

And another thing, when, EXACTLY, will men no longer be blamed for every single adversity a woman might face in her life?

For gods sake the feminist movement likes to trace its origins to the 14th century writtings of
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_de_Pizan

And at the very least the late 18th century.

Its been at least 250 to 500 years now. When are men going to stop being blamed for everything?

lujlp, they did exactly that by ignoring women in the workplace 50 years ago, or 100 years ago, or 250 years ago. The free market isn't new.

2015 - 50 = 1965

Now I wants born until 1979, but I do seem to recall reading about women entering the marketplace to work (as though no woman had ever worked a job EVER before feminism came along) and as a result of the new influx of workers, the whole supply and demand thing, wage for everyone fell.

I dont see how that is "ignoring"

Is your argument that women were treated as equally in the workplace in 1979 (or 1965) as they are today?

@ Lujup:
"How can people whos sole purpose is to make money subconsciously waste millions of dollars in a manner that everyone scrutinizes with a magnifying glass to avoid lawsuits." (sic)

AAHHHAHAHAHAHAHHHHAAAHHAHAHAHAHAHHHAHAH!

Why wouldn't a male business owner want a female worker?

It's not like they want time off with pay to give birth, or want time off with pay to take care of sick kids or family members, or leave the company after being trained to get married and raise kids, or want day care at work.

Oh.

And another thing, when, EXACTLY, will men no longer be blamed for every single adversity a woman might face in her life?

The day after pigs evolve wings and learn to fly.

I can catch bacon in my mouth if you throw it in my direction.

I can catch bacon in my mouth if you throw it in my direction.

IOW if you miss it's the man's fault for throwing badly?

It is amusing to see so many here assuming that people are rational actors and that it is simply a matter of a little focused analytical thought and the most qualified choice will just pop up.

What have studies shown? That the same resume will be ranked higher if the name on it is male instead of female or if it sounds like the name of a white man over an African-American one. This is not a conscious bias and women and men, whites and minorities both do it equally. It's also clear that when someone is a member of a minority group they suffer from confirmation bias, as Bob illustrates above. If a man is a bad worker, he's just Jim the layabout, whereas a woman is emblematic of her entire sex.

This is not to say I think Pao's case should have won, but the idea that her argument is foolish because it is predicated on illogical behavior by her employers is laughable. I think it is common in Silicon Valley, as it is in STEM, where a bunch of people are convinced that they are always rational actors despite the plethora of evidence in the other direction.

If a man is a bad worker, he's just Jim the layabout, whereas a woman is emblematic of her entire sex.

If a (white) man is a bad worker, he can be let go with no repercussions. If a woman or a minority is a bad worker, the employer has to worry about lawsuits and government agencies making his life hell if he fires her.

Do you think that might have some effect on hiring decisions?

@ Astra

"Confirmation bias" is simply humanity's survival instinct that is in our lizard brain. Any confirmation (justified or not) simply confirms its need.

A lot of business owners love what they do but not the business aspect of it. Confirmation bias lessens that pain by providing a "comfort" level that "business" will be taken care w/o much of their time/effort. They can then can do the "fun" stuff.

It's not fair but it is normal and present in everyday life.

Look at "hands up don't shoot", the reaction to Indiana's law, and the acceptance of Hillary's "delete 'em if you got 'em" actions. The literal truth is not as important as the "perception".

It's not fair but it is normal and present in everyday life.

Indeed. The point is that confirmation bias is a tool but that many people are blind to how and when they are applying it. This can be particularly notable in places like Silicon Valley where so many are convinced that they are rational actors.

"Is your argument that women were treated as equally in the workplace in 1979 (or 1965) as they are today?"

None of them got drafted. None of them were protesting to get drafted. Equality sounds nice, but privilege is better.

If a woman or a minority is a bad worker, the employer has to worry about lawsuits and government agencies making his life hell if he fires her.

Do you think that might have some effect on hiring decisions?

Elaine Pao's husband has also made a habit of taking his former employers to court (a fact that I believe was not presented during her case but certainly has some weight in the minds of us outside the jury). It isn't just women and minorities who can sue in this great nation.

I also think that people overestimate the danger of lawsuits compared to everyday injustices. A colleague's husband just lost his job for reasons that are illegal and discriminatory (and were captured in writing). They have received no assistance from our employer, the state, or the EEOC. What is notable in Pao's case is that she has the money to be able to pursue a case in court (and afford it when she lost).

@ Astra, who wrote:

'What have studies shown? That the same resume will be ranked higher if the name on it is male instead of female or if it sounds like the name of a white man over an African-American one.'

I'd contend that these studies show that people reading resumes are acting entirely as rational actors. Your assumption is that people reading resumes are reacting solely to the work-defined content of the resume (and ranking them accordingly) and ignoring the employment implications.

But a person reading resumes is not conducting an objective analysis of work qualifications, they are looking at resumes from the point of view of employment - which is a much bigger question that just 'can he/she do the work?' - and many, many people know from experience and observation that female employees can have lots of employment issues which have little or nothing to do with their qualifications to do the work. Some have been discussed here already - higher rates of sickness and absenteeism, all of the employment issues around pregnancy and children, and of course the ever-present threat of litigation and/or regulatory action for a whole variety of causes.

These are all perfectly-rational motivators and influencers (I get that you may not like them, but that doesn't change the fact that they are) - why would you expect people to ignore them? More than enough people, at least, to show bias in a properly-designed random study?

A person with any hiring experience, faced with two essentially-identical resumes, will likely rate the one that appears to be that of a female lower than the one that appears to be that of a male. This is certainly bias - but a bias that is likely based on real experience. It would be no different than a person hiring for a job in cash management who down-grades a resume which includes details of a conviction for theft - the person can probably count money as well as anybody, it's just that experience shows that they are likely to be a worse employment risk. Why would you take that risk when you have another resume in your hand, for a person just-as-well-qualified, who does not present that risk? It is a completely-rational choice. You just don't like the reasons for it, but those reasons don't care what you think.

llater,

llamas

Okay, then, llamas, but in that case you can't ding people like Pao for going to court because you are arguing for behavior that, however rational you may find it, is illegal.

Crid makes a great point in response to NicoleK's question about possible "subconscious" bias:

"Secondly- People are subconsciously mean to me because I'm short. Or Midwestern. Or middle-aged. Or just so damn good-looking."

My mother told me that some people don't like Jews and some things would be harder for me because of it. The suggestion (which I believe I took) was to work harder, not to seek a judicial remedy.

First, ladies, check your privilege.

(yeah, I've been saving that one)

I was told a long time ago by my first boss that always hire the smartest people you can find. I would abstract that out a bit and substitute in best for smartest. Tho I'll allow that many times one is a predictor for the other.

As I tell young folks who are new at working:

1. show up on time
2. barring that, call in to say you'll be late or indisposed
3. do what is asked of you
4. there is always something to do at work

Do these things reliably, and you'll be ahead of most of your cohort.

If you're not getting what you're worth, why not just leave?

Crid nails it. You only get paid what someone thinks you're worth, not a penny more.

Bob asks:

Why wouldn't a male business owner want a female worker?

Well, since they only get paid 75 cents on the dollar, it makes a great deal of sense to hire women.

It isn't just women and minorities who can sue in this great nation.

No, but in actions like this, it helps a lot. I can tell you that I once was tasked with another fellow to supervise a black student in his work study program.

We were dissatisfied with his product, his effort, ability to keep to a schedule, the whole lot of it. So we went to the our boss to ask that the student be let go at the end of the semester.

I'll quote you what we were told: I'll fire both of you before I let him go. He was very desirous of having a black student succeed. So we decided to give this student grunt work that kept him busy and out of our hair, but didn't really matter. Which is to say we didn't allow his performance to influence our own employment evaluations.

Eventually the student screwed up big time, and the boss transferred him to another department, but that's a whole 'nuther story.

@ Astra:

- I didn't 'ding' Pao for anything.

- I'm not arguing for any behavior - just pointing out that it is entirely-rational. Doesn't mean I agree with it, necessarily.

- It's not a question of whether I 'find it' rational. The facts don't care what I think, just as they don't care what you think. I merely pointed out objective facts and showed how they would impact a rational actor.

Having got that out of the way all the things I didn't say or do, I'll now state a couple of opinions, which you may feel free to respond to:

- Pao's lawsuit illustrates exactly what I am pointing out - employing a woman carries heightened risk of litigation and/or regulatory action, because female employees can have causes of action in tort, and regulatory consequences from their employment, which no man has (in any realistic sense). I'll wager that there are 1000 cases/regulatory actions of/for gender discrimination filed by/on behalf of women for every 1 filed by/on behalf of men.

- If there were not these inherent drawbacks to hiring women, there would be no need for laws that try and create equality. I simply don't buy the 'inherent, unconscious, irrational bias' argument as being the sole reason that employers are less likely to hire women. It's been my experience that most biases these days evaporate in the face of a balance sheet. And you'll notice that most examples of irrational gender bias in hiring always have to hark back 10-20-30 years or more.

- In a long career in engineering, I have worked with a number of female engineers. All were good engineers and I was proud and pleased to work with them. But I'm not an employer - how they did their work was all I had to care about.

If I had been their employer, you can't tell me that I have to ignore the fact that all but one of those women - I'm going to say 1 in 20 - had children and quit the workforce - either simply not returning after maternity leave, or quitting shortly thereafter. And all the laws and good intentions in the world won't change that simple reality, which may be observed in all walks of life, all across the nation. Female employees, on the whole, taken as a group, have less to offer an employer than comparable male employees.

llater,

llamas

"they did exactly that by ignoring women in the workplace 50 years ago, or 100 years ago, or 250 years ago. "

Why weren't those women hired? Because they weren't qualified. Why weren't the qualified? You can lay that one at the feet of the education establishment. Women who were accepted into higher education at all got shunted off into "finishing schools" and the like. And yes, there were a fair number of women doing the shunting.

A few women persisted and got a real educuation in spite of it. Those women got hired.

> It is amusing to see so many here
> assuming that people are rational
> actors and that it is simply a
> matter of

"It"? "Simply"?

It's "amusing" that someone seemingly enthusing for harsh and intrusive measures of government intervention in the workplace would chide others for simplistic reasoning. NOTHING'S simpler than taking command, right?

God, I hate the American mind.

Seriousballs. It's two-thousand-God Damn-fifteen. Aren't we too old for this teenage prattle about "rational actors" and "subconsious bias"?

Do you WANT America run like the seventh grade?

Because I swear to God, there are people living on your tax dollars who'll be happy to make that happen for you.

I didn't 'ding' Pao for anything.

Pardon me: I meant "you" in the general sense rather than directed. "One" would have been better.

I simply don't buy the 'inherent, unconscious, irrational bias' argument as being the sole reason that employers are less likely to hire women. It's been my experience that most biases these days evaporate in the face of a balance sheet.

My sole point originally was not to defend Pao's lawsuit, challenge concerns about women (or more particularly mothers) in the workplace, or (no Crid, I really wasn't) endorse "harsh or instrusive measures of government intervention in the workplace." I was pointing out that the data show the unconscious biases in how we judge minority groups exist and they do affect hiring and promotion decisions. They are not the sole or perhaps even dominant effect but to say, as Silicon Valley types often do, that they are capable of objectively identifying quality without understanding the ways humans organize and simplify information is naive.

Why weren't those women hired? Because they weren't qualified. Why weren't the qualified? You can lay that one at the feet of the education establishment. Women who were accepted into higher education at all got shunted off into "finishing schools" and the like. And yes, there were a fair number of women doing the shunting.

Yes, my mother graduated from college Magna Cum Laude back when that actually meant something, in 1946.

She had to take a science class and picked Geology which she loved.

Her professor begged her to change her major to Geology because she was so good at it, but her parents would not hear of it....
So her degree was in Music and English.

She had an interest in law school, but told me, that in order to be admitted, a woman needed to have a father who was an attorney, and no brothers, to carry on the trade.

So, in fact, it was really nepotism disguised as equal opportunity.

> I was pointing out that the
> data show the unconscious biases
> in how we judge minority

First of all...

Well, first of all, speak for yourself. My judgment is superb. Graceful, accurate, exemplary.

Then, first of all, don't pretend you can share your darling "data" about the interior lives of other people without making plans to do something about it. I see no reason to trust you…

And finally, first of all:

…I see no reason to trust your "data." Amy's chirping about "science-based" this and "rational" that is the opposite of logic: These are prayers and koans for a religion where none is needed, at least in the lives of sensible people. Decency and fairness in the workplace, as in all realms, will be an inherent human enterprise, always. People who pretend it can be reduced to spreadsheets and policy and law are bullshit artists.

Don't be a bullshit artist. And don't be a coward: If you can't stand competitive econmic pressure, stay home and do your nails.

As I tell young folks who are new at working:

show up on time
barring that, call in to say you'll be late or indisposed
do what is asked of you
there is always something to do at work

Do these things reliably, and you'll be ahead of most of your cohort.

Also (and expanding on the "there is always something to do" line), show some initiative and learn new skills. Depending on the line of work you're in, that can be one of the most important things to do.

As a Unix sysadmin... it drives me nuts when "peers" talk about how they wish they knew stuff I knew, or were more involved with things, but only do exactly what's spelled out for them. Even worse are those that ask for (some nearly demand) that those of us that are more senior somehow impart this knowledge on them magically. They don't get (even after we explain it) that this knowledge was gained through learning and exploring things on our own.

Even some of the company stuff that you can't learn outside of work, I'm one of the best at, because I took the time to dig into it when I could and learned how it worked.

Yah. I'm with Astra.

Ppen, even if you are with Astra (and I am not) this was not the case for that. Pao's argument sounded great till the defense got a chance to talk. I don't care what your gender is, trying to get your boss fired is not a good way to advance. Especially when the top ranks are a partnership. After some of the clearly documented shenanigans she pulled I wouldn't want to pull her in as a partner. I would have to spend half of my time checking to see if she shoved a knife in my back.

> it drives me nuts when "peers"
> talk about how they wish they
> knew stuff I knew

I feel Miggy's pain in deep and poignant ways. On Thursday afternoon, I almost wept as othersnin my department attempted to "talk tech"... Sentences started three times, then choked in spittle...

'How do these people make money at this?''

"A person with any hiring experience, faced with two essentially-identical resumes, will likely rate the one that appears to be that of a female lower than the one that appears to be that of a male. This is certainly bias - but a bias that is likely based on real experience."

Yes. You are going into the reason behind the bias, of course. But the original assumption was that there was no bias.

Research shows there is bias, though. Whether or not the bias comes from a logical place is not the issue. We know that when the group of the candidate is not known, they are more likely to get hired... for example, auditioning musicians behind a curtain got more women hired. There's the famous race/resume study.

So yes, people do act illogically. It's hard to quantify "Well not hiring Suzie has cost us 10,000 in lost earnings!" It's rare you can point to a specific worker and say it was his/her fault.

That is just a bad assumption NicoleK not proof of irrationality. And there are good reasons for people to lie in those cases as well. Just like no one ever lost their job due to obamacare. After all, that is the law.

Mind you, I agree that people are irrational. Just that those studies don't prove irrationality.