1. That's not the problem of anybody except the person who does not negotiate aggressively.
2. People respond differently to men and women (a fact that seems to be true across all species). We don't have a clear, testable model for why this happens.
3. Implicit bias is not scientific and not relevant. Sorry for the lengthy write-up, but this should be called out for being farcical and/or psychologically dangerous.
Implicit bias scores have no meaningful correlation with actual actions and the scores themselves will vary wildly for the same person for reasons that are unknown and unaccounted for. This lack of correlation turns it into a baseless accusation.
Lots of people accept IAT (which has a super low predictive validity) as true while rejecting IQ which has an amazing amount of predictive validity in all kinds of areas. Interestingly, higher IQ is linked to lower rates of racism and other bias. Given that programmers have on average significantly higher IQ scores relative to the general population, you would expect such things to not be the primary issues of the field.
Even if we assume implicit bias exists, does it matter if you cannot prove it has any real world effects (and such effects have not been proven). If we assume even further (against good evidence) that such implicit bias exists AND has real world effects, is there a solution?
Lots of companies force their employees to undergo implicit bias training. There are ZERO studies proving that the training works. Much more scarily, we don't know if it has other negative psychological impacts. Companies messing around with peoples heads without any supporting studies and clinical trials is EXTREMELY dangerous.
Finally, let's examine the theoretical framework for fixing implicit bias (under the assumption that it exists and that the individual does not consciously desire to be biased). We must start by either assuming that implicit outweighs explicit (radical behavioralism with no free will) or that explicit outweighs implicit.
If explicit outweighs implicit, then teach people the golden rule, tell them discrimination is bad, and call it a day because that's all you can do. Implicit bias training is sold on the basis that this is not enough and will not work. It thus carries the implication that you cannot choose to not be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc, but if you give them your money, they have the magic incantations to "pray the <bias> away".
How do you change the subconscious? The first option is new age garbage. The second is hypnosis (we can't prove hypnosis even exists). The third is operant and/or classical conditioning of the most extreme variety (to reach past the conscious and modify the subconscious -- hopefully without ripping the individual apart in the process) may be enough to do the trick (immersive re-education camps are a must in order to ensure all aspects of the subject are controlled for). Basically no other ideas exist.
TL;DR
With no solid supporting science behind the idea of implicit bias, there remains only moral panic and ideological fanaticism attempting to sell either snake-oil cures or barbaric, unethical psychological experiments of a most Stalinesque variety.
Well I suggested a handful of measures that don't involve "implicit bias training," which I agree is unlikely to work, but I question your claim that there isn't any evidence for implicit bias.
If you want to conclude that either women are just inherently inferior or else that they aren't but it's ok to systematically underpay them then I guess that's your prerogative but I'm not really interested in going down such a rabbit hole.
I would argue that women and men are different both physically and psychologically and have different interests arising from these differences.
I would further argue that negotiation is a skill that some people have and others do not. Should we refuse to reward someone for their skill in negotiation? Should we even try?
On the first count, the brains of men and women are structurally different (women have drastically more white matter and men have drastically more gray matter). The observation that men and women view the world very differently is universal. When looking at the big five personality traits, men and women consistently show far different norms. If all observations both casual and professional tend to indicate significant differences, the possibility should be seriously entertained.
If men and women are identical, why do we need women in STEM? The men we have would work just as well. If one is making the case for more people overall in STEM, then they are making an economic argument (and one that doesn't favor STEM workers -- only employers of STEM workers). If one makes a case for different life experience, then there is an acknowledgement of difference. If men and women are different, then there is a distinct possibility that one group is better or more interested in a particular field than the other. In either situation, there seems to be little case for drastic change (except for employers suppressing wages by increasing the supply of workers).
As to the second count, let's say we put two people (of the same gender for sake of limiting differences) with the same qualifications into the same job with the exception that one is more skilled at negotiation. We then force both to work for the same pay. Will that end the advantages of the more skilled negotiator? The better negotiator will still be better at getting the good projects or a faster promotion.
In the long term, the negotiation skillset will simply turn into more profit in other ways and the level of control required to prevent this from happening is so draconian as to be unthinkable.
> If men and women are identical, why do we need women in STEM? The men we have would work just as well
Because it is inherently unjust to discriminate against people because of characteristics that have no bearing on the job, such as their race and their gender. If you don't accept this premise I don't think we can have a productive discussion because it's the basic principle I'm basing my argument on.
> In the long term, the negotiation skillset will simply turn into more profit in other ways and the level of control required to prevent this from happening is so draconian as to be unthinkable.
Maybe. So what? Careless drivers are still more likely to injure themselves than careful ones even if we make everyone wear a seat belt; it does not follow that making everyone wear a seat belt is pointless.
I accept the premise of equal opportunity, but you are insisting on equal outcome (and asserting that it is a foregone conclusion). Everyone is equal under the law, but that does not mean that everyone has the same qualities or qualifications.
If you can show me a company that is refusing to hire a woman, then I'll be right there with you opposing them. If a company is forcing a woman to work for lower pay because she is a woman, then I'll be right there with you opposing them. When you ask me to discriminate against someone because they are better at negotiating, I cannot offer support.
Blind moral assertion IS NOT FACT.
You assert that we must have the same number of men and women because it is the moral thing to do. You further assert that this moral imperative is so absolute that the use of force to compel other people is perfectly fine.
At its basis, this is no different than relatively small things like prohibition or large things like the inquisition or communist re-education camps.
EDIT: to answer your first statement in more concrete terms, I believe men and women make different choices because they are different (as stated at the top of that post). If you are insistent on forcing women into STEM whether they like it or not, there should be more to that argument than symmetry. What you quoted addresses one part that line of thought.
Yes, if you take it as a given that implicit bias is fake or irrelevant then very few companies could be described as discriminatory. I didn't assert that we "must have the same number of both genders" either, or that any means are permissible to achieve greater gender equality. You're letting your imagination run wild.
> Because it is inherently unjust to discriminate against people because of characteristics that have no bearing on the job, such as their race and their gender. If you don't accept this premise I don't think we can have a productive discussion because it's the basic principle I'm basing my argument on.
Is it ok to discriminate based on one's personal characteristics?
I'm pretty sure woman who is technically good as well as good negotiator gets equal salary as man with same abilities. Women (and men) who are bad negotiators are discriminated because of their personal characteristics, not because of their gender.
Or are you saying that certain skills should not be valued in job market, because they're less prevalent in one of the genders' iconic image?
If you want to reply to a comment further downthread you can click on the timestamp. I do not know why it works that way but replying to a common parent is confusing.
That article just says women negotiate less/worse. I'm saying good negotiator will get paid regardless of gender. Wether women can negotiate as good as men is another question. But as I said in another comment, this is skill issue, not gender issue. Wage gap studies that have controls throughout the board show there's no significant pay difference. My anecdata confirms that.
We can cross "negotiate less" off the list, since the article controls for that and finds women who do negotiate are less successful. It is possible that women are three times worse negotiators across the board but it strikes me as far more likely that the well documented tendency of assertive women to be perceived as "shrill" or "bossy" is a significant factor.
2. People respond differently to men and women (a fact that seems to be true across all species). We don't have a clear, testable model for why this happens.
3. Implicit bias is not scientific and not relevant. Sorry for the lengthy write-up, but this should be called out for being farcical and/or psychologically dangerous.
Implicit bias scores have no meaningful correlation with actual actions and the scores themselves will vary wildly for the same person for reasons that are unknown and unaccounted for. This lack of correlation turns it into a baseless accusation.
Lots of people accept IAT (which has a super low predictive validity) as true while rejecting IQ which has an amazing amount of predictive validity in all kinds of areas. Interestingly, higher IQ is linked to lower rates of racism and other bias. Given that programmers have on average significantly higher IQ scores relative to the general population, you would expect such things to not be the primary issues of the field.
Even if we assume implicit bias exists, does it matter if you cannot prove it has any real world effects (and such effects have not been proven). If we assume even further (against good evidence) that such implicit bias exists AND has real world effects, is there a solution?
Lots of companies force their employees to undergo implicit bias training. There are ZERO studies proving that the training works. Much more scarily, we don't know if it has other negative psychological impacts. Companies messing around with peoples heads without any supporting studies and clinical trials is EXTREMELY dangerous.
Finally, let's examine the theoretical framework for fixing implicit bias (under the assumption that it exists and that the individual does not consciously desire to be biased). We must start by either assuming that implicit outweighs explicit (radical behavioralism with no free will) or that explicit outweighs implicit.
If explicit outweighs implicit, then teach people the golden rule, tell them discrimination is bad, and call it a day because that's all you can do. Implicit bias training is sold on the basis that this is not enough and will not work. It thus carries the implication that you cannot choose to not be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc, but if you give them your money, they have the magic incantations to "pray the <bias> away".
How do you change the subconscious? The first option is new age garbage. The second is hypnosis (we can't prove hypnosis even exists). The third is operant and/or classical conditioning of the most extreme variety (to reach past the conscious and modify the subconscious -- hopefully without ripping the individual apart in the process) may be enough to do the trick (immersive re-education camps are a must in order to ensure all aspects of the subject are controlled for). Basically no other ideas exist.
TL;DR With no solid supporting science behind the idea of implicit bias, there remains only moral panic and ideological fanaticism attempting to sell either snake-oil cures or barbaric, unethical psychological experiments of a most Stalinesque variety.