If there is no good evidence available on a topic the right thing to do is to be uncertain.
I agree. (Did I say something to suggest otherwise?)
The default way [...] is to form your opinions based on meta-analysis.
Given the time and inclination to do the meta-analysis (or someone else who’s already done the work), yes. Have you perchance done it or read the work of someone else who has?
I agree. (Did I say something to suggest otherwise?)
On this topic it seems like your position is that you know that employers act irrationally and don’t hire woman who would perform well.
My position is that I don’t know whether or not that’s a case. That means you have a smaller confidence interval. I consider the size of that interval unjustified.
Given the time and inclination to do the meta-analysis
In the absence of that work being done it’s not good to believe that one knows the answer.
My position is that I’ve seen an awful lot of evidence, both scientific and anecdotal, that seems best explained by supposing such irrationality. A few examples:
Another study of attitudes to hiring finding that for applicants early in their career just changing the name from female to male results in dramatically more positive assessment. (The differences were smaller with a candidate several years further into his/her career.)
A famous study by Goldberg submitted identical essays under male and female names and found that it got substantially better assessments with the male name. (I should add that this one seems to have been repeated several times, sometimes getting the same result and sometimes not. Different biases at different institutions?)
In each case, of course one can come up with explanations that don’t involve bias—as some commenters in this discussion have eagerly done. But it seems to me that the evidence is well past the point where denying the existence of sexist biases is one hell of a stretch.
I agree. (Did I say something to suggest otherwise?)
Given the time and inclination to do the meta-analysis (or someone else who’s already done the work), yes. Have you perchance done it or read the work of someone else who has?
Not very.
[EDITED to fix a punctuation typo]
On this topic it seems like your position is that you know that employers act irrationally and don’t hire woman who would perform well. My position is that I don’t know whether or not that’s a case. That means you have a smaller confidence interval. I consider the size of that interval unjustified.
In the absence of that work being done it’s not good to believe that one knows the answer.
My position is that I’ve seen an awful lot of evidence, both scientific and anecdotal, that seems best explained by supposing such irrationality. A few examples:
The study we’ve been discussing here.
A neurobiologist transitions from female to male and is immediately treated as much more competent.
Another study of attitudes to hiring finding that for applicants early in their career just changing the name from female to male results in dramatically more positive assessment. (The differences were smaller with a candidate several years further into his/her career.)
A famous study by Goldberg submitted identical essays under male and female names and found that it got substantially better assessments with the male name. (I should add that this one seems to have been repeated several times, sometimes getting the same result and sometimes not. Different biases at different institutions?)
Auditioning orchestral players behind a screen makes women do much better relative to men.
In each case, of course one can come up with explanations that don’t involve bias—as some commenters in this discussion have eagerly done. But it seems to me that the evidence is well past the point where denying the existence of sexist biases is one hell of a stretch.