We built voice modulation to mask gender in technical interviews. Here’s what happened.

McCoop_ · 2016-06-30T12:46:20+00:00

I just want to point out that you rounded 234 to "about 300". Just be careful misrepresenting data to support a perspective. We want to avoid committing the same errors that we laugh at when women do it.

Edit: clarification

PaperStreetVilla · 2016-06-30T10:54:01+00:00

As it happens, women leave interviewing.io roughly 7 times as often as men after they do badly in an interview.

Makes sense. In PUA, it was common knowledge that men took rejection much better than women.

Once you factor out interview data from both men and women who quit after one or two bad interviews, the disparity goes away entirely... it’s not about systemic bias against women or women being bad at computers or whatever. Rather, it’s about women being bad at dusting themselves off after failing

yup

the-capitan · 2016-06-30T09:37:17+00:00

we have no delusions that this is the be-all and end-all of pronouncements on the subject of gender and interview performance.

usually something like this is the death knell of a project like this. when data starts rolling in that doesn't fit the PC feminazi narrative (especially if it actively disproves that narrative is backwards), the the data collection usually gets shut down and what they already have becomes the be-all and end-all because "it's sexist" to pursue the data collection any further.

Plan_of_Action · 2016-06-30T12:29:45+00:00

The sjw explanation for this would be that the interviewing process itself is flawed and biased against women. I.e. direct, confident language is preferred over timidity and roundabout wording simply because we're judging based on a 'male standard'.

They want to believe that men and women are exactly equal and it's just patriarchy getting in the way, then when you take away the sensory perception of gender (seeing/hearing them) and judge solely based on merit they're left with a PC paradox.

If you believe that society or patriarchy is biased against women and female traits then you have to accept that there are real behavioral gender differences between men and women, which of course can't be true because equality.

Watch a feminist's head explode trying to figure this out. It puts two of their favorite myths into question.

x7e2 · 2016-06-30T15:45:30+00:00

The obvious conclusion being that it's not women that get oppressed but preferred treatment.

Anyone that's worked in a corporate environment knows this.

exit_sandman · 2016-06-30T15:19:01+00:00

Her conclusion:

Prior art aside, I would like to leave off on a high note. [...] So while the attrition numbers aren’t great, I’m massively encouraged by the fact that at least in these findings, it’s not about systemic bias against women or women being bad at computers or whatever. Rather, it’s about women being bad at dusting themselves off after failing, which, despite everything, is probably a lot easier to fix.

Now if feminists were finally getting why women are worse at dealing with failure (hint: it's not the patriarchy doing it), the world would be a much better place.

tsudonimh · 2016-06-30T09:33:27+00:00

This reads like "We want to prove that women are not worse than men. But our data consistently shows that women do not perform as well as men in interviews, even when the interviewer thinks they are interviewing a man. So it must be because women drop out of job hunting sooner than men."

It's idiotic. Their 'explanation' does not explain the reason women score lower in interviews. They're doing everything to avoid dealing with the elephant in the room.

DoofusCPA · 2016-06-30T17:23:04+00:00

There's a reason why the computer's voice in the F-22 Raptor is female.

Men hear women's voice better. We perk up and pay attention

So if any women venture here and read this: Ladies, we hear you.

Now shut up.

collegegreens · 2016-06-30T21:15:00+00:00

I work in science. As I'm sure everyone knows, the top players in this field are men. There are a few token women who get paraded around as examples of "women in science", but in every case their merit is dubious if you look further into it.

At my institution we had someone employed just to make sure the institution provided equal opportunities for women. It was a women, naturally. They presented for about 25 minutes showing dire figures about how there are more men currently employed in science than women. Right at the end a slide was briefly shown which traced the proportion of male/female all the way back to the application stage. It turned out that about 25% of applicants for any position are female, and guess what, more than 25% of those actually hired are female.

Women are given way more opportunities than men. They have special awards, special positions and special sources of funding. And, yes, they are given way more lenience in technical interviews.

I have a few theories about why this is. The first is obvious, the female interviewers are biased towards female applicants, and the male interviewers want to fuck the female applicants. But I think there is more. I think deep down everyone kinda wishes there was more equality. It's pretty embarrassing to see all the Nobel prize winners being men. I think both men and women would really like to see a woman that is actually good. So when presented with a glimmer of competence from a woman we cling on to it and brush away the defects. This always leads to disappointment and frustration later (just like when you think you've found a unicorn).

The annoying thing about all this is that after all the special treatment they get their jobs as equals to men, but there is always a man or men who are actually doing a woman's job. It just creates more work for men.

Eyes_Of_The_Dragon · 2016-06-30T16:01:52+00:00

I had a position once where I interviewed hundreds of tech people. We cringed when we had to interview women because getting a decent answer out of them was like pulling teeth. They also never discussed salary or negotiated.

Bielzabutt · 2016-06-30T18:02:27+00:00

I don't think voice modulation would do much to hide that there's a woman behind that voice. Even in video game chat, I can pretty much tell when there's a woman typing (it's rare) and when there's a man pretending to be a woman typing and when there's a man typing. Maybe it's just me but the communication of a woman is easy to pick out.

Archwinger · 2016-06-30T21:05:45+00:00

The SJWs can address this using their fallback position.

The evil patriarchy with its evil, evil gender norms is teaching girls to fail at interviews. Girls are going to use different words and speak differently and string their thoughts together in a less logical and more verbose, emotional manner when compared to boys. And interviewers are going to prefer the confident, logical manner of speech normally used by men.

So even if we mask the voices and make girls sound like men, interviewers will be turned off by their female manner of communicating -- even more put off by hearing a male voice doing it versus a female voice. And vice versa: a female voice communicating in a male way will be liked. Maybe even bonus points.

So the patriarchy is still alive and strong and discriminating against women. Just not based on their voices. It's based on the fact that women are shitty communicators and suck in an interview setting. Which is, of course, all men's fault for not teaching women how to be better men starting in grade school. Or maybe for not teaching interviewers to appreciate all forms of communication instead of cis-male-typical manners of speaking, which should probably be outlawed. Directly and confidently answering questions is aggressive and caveman-like and clearly an outdated way of deciding who to hire. People should be using interviews to screen for emotional IQ and personality!

sigmamale · 2016-07-01T01:18:13+00:00

So true and actually well known to most people. I work in IT as a researcher in a big university on the east coast. You can't believe what kind of students got scholarships for Google I/O and get other opportunities thrown at them, just for the second X chromosome. Really successful young men compete each other out while women who got an F in every CS class still get the tickets sponsored.

getRedPill · 2016-06-30T12:10:08+00:00

What are technical interviews for if the facts tell them clearly men do better, yet they prefer women

meh613 · 2016-06-30T20:39:40+00:00

it's actually men that get treated unfairly not women

Let's be fair here. Your body proved that men get treated unfairly; but said nothing about whether women are treated unfairly. The piece you've linked to has very little on how women are treated unfairly and even less proof to said claims. To be fair, though, the point was not to prove that women don't get treated unfairly, it was to examine whether men were.

nomorewheels · 2016-06-30T12:07:45+00:00

So the wage gap is there, but it's their own damn fault.

EDIT: Right, it's an earnings gap, not a wage gap. In any case, it's their own fault, not "a patriarchy's" fault.

RP-Doctor · 2016-06-30T19:54:35+00:00

[...] had there been any staggering gender bias on the platform, with a few hundred data points, we would have gotten some kind of result. So that, at least, was encouraging.

Look at that. See you know how feminists would interpret this? As a disappointing result. As a job done poorly. That's what's so insane. We could prove conclusively that everything was right with the world and feminists would be bummed they had nothing to complain about. The whole movement is just a power move by a gender that doesn't have as many useful skills in the world we live in. At the end of the day though, women aren't being discriminated against, they just, as a whole, don't have as many skills. Giving women an advantage in interviews is like giving dumb people an advantage in interviews. There's nothing to compensate for except lack of ability.

raisins3142 · 2016-06-30T12:40:56+00:00

I would look at the neutral cases primarily. A female communication style with a male voice change is likely off putting like a tranny. So there is a confounding variable there.

RationalistFaith1 · 2016-06-30T20:34:26+00:00

I never once believed "woman are mistreated in interviews", just by observing how well they're treated literally everywhere else. What gives that interviews of all places is the exception (maybe because companies can't share what happens in them)? Again clams, using plausible deniability to find ways to suck resources.

Kudos to the team who came up with the experiment.

OneInAZillion · 2016-06-30T21:58:01+00:00

I think everybody should be named Alex, then we'll see who's resumes get a call back.

PantsonFire1234 · 2016-07-01T14:00:47+00:00

More importantly though, how did the other twenty five genders do on the technical interviews?

trpthrowaw · 2016-07-06T09:35:24+00:00

NPR did an episode on this http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2016/04/22/475339930/episode-697-help-wanted

it's interesting that even the female student they interviewed was against voice modulation...

2016-07-01T06:02:19+00:00

Women really are worse than men in technical areas

I don't think the sample size or the sample of women allows you to conclude that...

But I think we can definitely conclude that "systemic bias against women" is a fantasy used by feminists to secure more resources, like a higher paycheck ("All women deserve a raise because of the patriarchy oppressing us!") or to have an easier time getting a job ("We need more diversity"), or to have more positions of power ("We need 50% of CEOs to be female!").

It's a sexual strategy, and it's sad that it's working in this politically correct society we live in. We are regressing.

Title	We built voice modulation to mask gender in technical interviews. Here’s what happened.
Author	beginner_
Upvotes	609
Comments	159
Date	June 30, 2016 9:07 AM UTC (10 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/TheRedPill
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/4qkqyo/we_built_voice_modulation_to_mask_gender_in/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/TheRedPill/we-built-voice-modulation-to-mask-gender-in.39454 https://theredarchive.com/post/39454

Comments