From: usenet2@vyznev.invalid
On 2009-05-10, James A Donald wrote:
> On Sun, 10 May 2009 07:46:14 -0800, Bill Swears
>
>> James, when you point out that statistics that
>> disagree with your world view must therefore be false,
>> you aren't really saying anything about anybody other
>> then yourself...
>
> But these are not actual statistics - actual statistics
> would be
> "we sent out a bunch of resumes, and resumes
> with male names got more interview requests for
> the same resume as resumes with female names"
>
> Instead, these results are that they interviewed the
> people who looked at the resumes, and their
> interpretation of their words was that those who
> recieved the resumes did not think much of the
> candidates with female names on the resumes."
They sent out resumes with a questionnaire asking "would you hire this
person?" Admittedly, that's not *quite* the same thing as sending out
resumes and asking "I'd like to work for you, will you interview me?",
but it's about the closest one can get in a blind experiment, at least
in academia where anyone trying to submit an actual resume under a
fake name would be easily and immediately caught.
In any case, if you can think of any mechanism that would make people
*more* likely to discriminate on the basis of sex *because* they know
that they're responding to a survey rather than a real application,
I'd very much like to hear it.
At this point, you do sound very much as if you're grasping at straws.
Had the researchers in fact done exactly as you suggest above, I
suppose you'd then be claiming the results to be meaningless due to
only counting interview requests and not actual job offers?
--
Ilmari Karonen
To reply by e-mail, please replace ".invalid" with ".net" in address.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
