612
613

Rant/VentingWe built voice modulation to mask gender in technical interviews. Here’s what happened. (self.TheRedPill)

submitted by beginner_

Summary: Women do worse than men in technical interviews online. Of course it must be because of patriarchy so the voices of the candidates gets scrambled that gender isn't recognizable and in other cases actually reversed so that women sound like men and vice-versa.

It turns our women sounding like men do weben worse than women sounding like women. So women actually got judged less harshly than men.

https://archive.is/NhXha


Body

A well known technical hiring company sees from it's data that women do much worse than men in their interviews. The interviews take place on an online platform including voice call and hence from voice alone the interviewer will know the gender of the candidate. Because of course genders are equal it can't be that woman do worse and women are getting treated worse than men.

So they change the whole platform that voices of candidates are now on the fly modulated to sound neutral or of the opposite sex. So women now sound like men and vice versa.

They did about 300 interviews and then analyzed the results. Officially the found no gender gap but then the article clearly says men that sounded like women did better than men that sounded like men and women that sounded like men did worse than women that sounded like women. The obvious conclusion being that it's not women that get oppressed but preferred treatment. Their experiment showed the exact opposite of what they wanted to show.


Lessons Learned:

  • Women really are worse than men in technical areas
  • When you look closely it turns out that it's actually men that get treated unfairly not women

[–]McCoop_ 137 points138 points  (6 children)

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

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (4 children)

Proper rounding - 4 and below is rounded down, 5 and higher is rounded up.

[–]killm3throwaway 10 points11 points  (3 children)

Nah, anything below 5 gets round down, anything above rounded up. You're forgetting the infinitie numbers between 4 and 5

[–][deleted] -4 points-3 points  (2 children)

This is the description of a method of rounding iteratively from the last digit, although it leads to artifacts like 0.444445 getting rounded to 1.

[–]AcrossHallowedGround 4 points5 points  (0 children)

...No you look at the digit right behind the place you're rounding to. If it's a 5, you look at the next one, if that is above 5, round up, else round down.

[–]auglon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It depends on the amount of decimals you choose to use. If you use 2 decimals 0.444445 will become 0.44. If you go choose to round to closest whole number it becomes 0, because its closer to 0 than 1.

[–]ModeratorPaperStreetVilla 163 points164 points  (84 children)

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

[–]Modredpillschool 172 points173 points  (59 children)

It gets funnier. The author at the end starts spinning up her hamster trying to figure out why women quit more often after rejection and settles on the theory that it shows oppression throughout women's lives because they had more attrition events causing them to be more worn down and ready to quit.

No fucking joke.

[–]Rimeheart 34 points35 points  (18 children)

All that damn coddling has made them weak to the real world.

I imagine if they actually got treated equally their whole lives, IE face rejection as children onward they would not quit so soon.

[–][deleted]  (17 children)

[deleted]

    [–][deleted] 42 points43 points  (11 children)

    One of my plates is a grad student. She recently applied to a military scholarship that offers to pay 50% of her student debt for service. Her first attempt was two semesters ago. Reason for failing? They never emailed her back.

    "Well did you call them?"

    "No, I hate talking on the phone."

    She calls, after hours, leaves a voicemail. Weeks go by.

    "They never called back."

    Long story short, she reaches someone, they redirect her, she gets some info, complains that the recruiter was "really rude," switches branches, starts all over, has to be told by me to actually go in person, complains she "has no time" (this bitch sleeps 10 hours a day), then she finally goes in, receives her processing packet and says "it's too much work" to finish it. A 15-page questionnaire is too much work to wipe $100k worth of debt. God forbid she makes it in, they're gonna have this chick on suicide watch when she realizes she has to get up at 0500 every morning and take orders in a rank-structured environment.

    Womens' biggest obstacle to opportunity and advancement is themselves. Every time.

    [–][deleted]  (2 children)

    [removed]

      [–][deleted] 26 points27 points  (1 child)

      Oh, she's never going to get it. Her CV is far too light. I just wanted to see if there was something she would actually work for instead of it being handed to her. It ended predictably. She's a WASP. She could literally drop out of school tomorrow and still be guaranteed a better life than more than half the men here.

      Also, kudos for pegging her exact undergrad major and minor. Shocker, right? She's racking up debt for daddy with a doctoral program now (that her parents begged her not to go to). We all know the type.

      [–]Forcetobereckonedwit 3 points4 points  (0 children)

      -We all know the type.-

      Yes we do, and we fuck the type frequently. Pampered children really.

      [–]sharp7 2 points3 points  (1 child)

      I agree with the other guy. Why bother applying when its so obvious she aint gonna get it.

      Maybe you just want to foster a "try harder" mentality I guess?

      [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

      I don't have to foster anything. She's a plate, not an LTR. This was more curiosity to see if she'd actually take the steps needed to do something as simple as apply for a scholarship.

      [–]beginner_[S] 2 points3 points  (3 children)

      Off topic but the real problem is the system. The fact that you have to rack up 100k+ of debt to get a degree in psychology is a joke. Also the fact that for the most retarded job you need some kind of degree just to have a chance to get it...Yeah for many mediocre college students it would be better to get into a trade.

      The system where I live is much better (in fact some US-Politicians are very interested in it) because at around age 16 you are given the choice (if you are smart enough of course) to do another 4 years of school till about 20 and then University or you can do an apprenticeship that usually last 3 years and is available for many different types of jobs from IT stuff (Service desk level), mechanics, landscaping or common office jobs (commercial apprenticeship as the translator says). During those 3 years you also have school and you have different level of school. In fact you can later still go to University if you did the right school level and pass the tests. And you already earn some money during these 3 years.

      So this means many people are doing an apprenticeship and do not rack up any debt at all. And even if your parents are poor going to University isn't that big of a deal as most of the cost is covered by state through taxes and you get some money from state (up to 12k per year, but it's not that much due to high living costs) which you don't have to pay back at all!

      [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (2 children)

      It's closer to $180, but it's for a doctorate at a private school. Still a shitty deal. What country do you live in?

      [–]SingularPlural 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      Sounds very much like Germany.

      [–]beginner_[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      See here. The chart/image on the right is interesting but not in English. End of orange is approximately 16 years old and start of University approx. 20 years if you went there directly not repeating any years.

      [–]snorted_the_red_pill 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      Thanks to feminism they've been told that they're pretty little snowflakes - unique and delicate.

      And feminism has told men to treat them like pretty little snowflakes.

      Fun fact for you, kids: Delicate little snowflakes are not a structurally safe building material! WHO THE FUCK WOULD HAVE GUESSED!?

      [–][deleted] 18 points19 points  (4 children)

      Women rarely face rejection in life. Men on the other hand face rejection ten fold, thus making men more capable of getting back up on the horse/bike, rather than giving up.

      [–]ether_reddit 8 points9 points  (3 children)

      Close.. I think it's more like women don't get as much fair criticism and feedback growing up, so they have less of a sense of where they need to improve -- they get more points just for showing up. However, this gender difference might be disappearing now since all kids seem to be coddled the same way now, and when they hit university it's the first time having to deal with the real world.

      [–][deleted]  (2 children)

      [deleted]

        [–]ether_reddit 2 points3 points  (1 child)

        It's the first time in these young millennials' lives where they have to cope with environments that aren't carefully constructed for them, and filled with a lot of people that aren't all like them. This is why (IMHO) they are flipping their biscuit with things like BLM and crying oppression when professors ask them to challenge their preconceived notions of the world.

        [–]TRP VanguardWhisper 28 points29 points  (4 children)

        Heh. She arrives at the exact opposite of the truth.

        Human beings display an adaptive response to almost everything. Push on them, and they get stronger over time.

        Women aren't weak because they have been worn down by too much adversity... they are weak because they haven't been built up by enough adversity.

        This is also why we see womanish behaviour in those men who have been most coddled and protected.

        [–]ether_reddit 13 points14 points  (1 child)

        This would also explain why women who have actually made something out of their lives have no patience for the rest of women, and want nothing to do with the feminists that want women to be coddled -- they realize that in order to get somewhere, you have to work hard, rather than beg for it to be handed to you.

        [–]Forcetobereckonedwit 4 points5 points  (0 children)

        -beg for it-

        bend over for it

        FTFY

        [–]snorted_the_red_pill 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        There's this female scientist (behavioural, I believe) on TED who talks about this thing called grit. See here.

        She explains much better than I could.

        [–]gjs628 114 points115 points  (15 children)

        Anyone can use women's logic to come to any conclusion they like. I mean, Hitler saw a bedbug on one of his Jewish neighbours and smacked it, thus accidentally killing the poor man. He became so concerned at the state of Jewish bedbugs he wanted to help all Jews by gassing them to kill their parasites. Unfortunately, Hitler should've gone to Specsavers, because by the time he got his glasses on and realised the gas was killing Jewish people as well, 6 million had died. It was really just one big misunderstanding. There's no way Hitler would possibly want them dead because he saw them as vermin deserving of extermination. No, he was just a nice guy that made a slight error in judgement.

        And anyone who disagrees with me is a bigoted, Germanophobic shitlord who should be castrated and have their nuts fed to them in a pasta dish. You weren't there, you didn't see it for yourself, so you can't prove me wrong.

        See what I did there? Using female logic, you can believe the most insane ideas possible. Doesn't matter if there's even a shred of truth to them whatsoever.

        [–]recon_johnny 65 points66 points  (0 children)

        Using the old Hitler comparison.

        It's a bold move, Cotton. Let's see if it pays off.

        [–]RED_PILL_TRUTH 13 points14 points  (0 children)

        you pulled it off. well done. hahaha

        [–][deleted]  (7 children)

        [deleted]

          [–]2Overkillengine 16 points17 points  (1 child)

          He removed reason and accountability from his thought process.

          [–]snorted_the_red_pill 1 point2 points  (0 children)

          Ah.

          So he took a leaf from Jack's book?

          [–]Theotropho 8 points9 points  (4 children)

          Suggestion: learn to engage your empathy instead

          [–][deleted]  (3 children)

          [deleted]

            [–]Theotropho 1 point2 points  (2 children)

            Empathy has "gotten me laid" lots of times. It works better than thinking of their internal dialogue as a hamster.

            [–][deleted]  (1 child)

            [deleted]

              [–]Theotropho 0 points1 point  (0 children)

              No, I'm new here. It's rather shocking, how you betas carry on.

              [–][deleted] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

              This post hits so close to home it's triggering.

              [–]Endorsed ContributorBluepillProfessor 0 points1 point  (0 children)

              The hamster wields frightening power.

              [–]TRP VanguardCyralea 10 points11 points  (2 children)

              Step 1: Blame everyone else

              Step 2: Go endlessly digging for any evidence that even remotely supports step 1

              Women in a nutshell.

              [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

              This right here. I used to waste energy fighting this but I realized that its actually a useful process. It works to make losers continue to become losers. The destructive process ALWAYS comes out in the future to show them they fucked up and they realize it once too late that they suck at life since they refuse to realize they need to improve at things early on.

              [–]iwantt 8 points9 points  (0 children)

              Where does it say women have more attrition events?

              The author was wondering how many attrition events happen in pursuit of a stem degree, as opposed to during the interview process.

              The author didn't state women receive more attrition events, just that they're more likely to drop out because of them.

              Let's not hamster a hamster for the sake of hamstering

              [–]ModeratorPaperStreetVilla 6 points7 points  (0 children)

              Ugh. I hate popsci articles for that. Want to know why social sciences are mocked as not real science?

              Idiots who think throwing some statistics then give them a license to speculate.

              [–]dareealmvp 4 points5 points  (11 children)

              There was a research paper saying rejection lights up the same areas in the brain as physical pain, meaning to your nervous system, rejection = physical pain.

              It is well known that men have a much higher tolerance for pain than women do, only excepting the times when she is about to give birth to a baby, which is when a lot of pain killing hormones are being naturally secreted in her body.

              It stands quite a reasonable conclusion thus that women wouldn't be able to handle rejection as good as men could (may be except when they're about to give birth to a baby?).

              [–]ether_reddit 2 points3 points  (8 children)

              It is well known that men have a much higher tolerance for pain than women do

              Really? I've heard the exact opposite.

              [–]dareealmvp 2 points3 points  (1 child)

              I've heard the exact opposite.

              This is why you must double check everything you hear to determine if it's from a feminist source. The "Women are strong and independent and don't need no man" imperative has been exaggerated beyond ridiculous limits even to the point of falsifying facts.

              http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=97662

              Study after study has shown that men have a higher tolerance for pain than women, according to researchers who seem to be making some progress in figuring out why.

              "Men and women differ in their pain tolerance," says psychologist Roger Fillingim of the University of Florida, who has spent years trying to learn why. "There's no debate on that."

              [–]BPasFuck 2 points3 points  (4 children)

              Women get a painpass from a lot of people for childbirth. Don't buy it.

              In other, more equivalent and common moments and incidents you will find men tend to bear pain and discomfort with more stoicism.

              [–]Caucasian-African 4 points5 points  (3 children)

              I don't mean to be crass, but having a baby is like taking a gigantic shit. Basically, it's coming out one way or another. The pain can not be avoided or stopped (without drugs, of course), so I don't even consider that pain tolerance.

              Pain tolerance is whether you bow out or persist when under pain that CAN be avoided.

              [–]BPasFuck 1 point2 points  (2 children)

              Yep. The only reason women 'tolerate' it, is because they have no choice.

              [–]Endorsed ContributorBluepillProfessor 1 point2 points  (1 child)

              The histrionics suggest they don't tolerate it well at all. I have literally taken shits more painful than our 3rd child was. I am talking 3 day, sweating, grunting, bleeding, vomiting from the pain and crying shits that were WAY more painful than all of labor, even the 8 minutes of pushing. She made a single "Ooooh and that was it. I am not buying the hysterics any more.

              [–]BPasFuck 1 point2 points  (0 children)

              In my more generous moments, I'll allow that perhaps it is hugely painful--to them-- because they've been so insulated from most pains most of their lives.

              But then there's times where it seems like some of your more calculating cunts are already thinking about using the experience to club their men with.

              [–]Starcruiser28 1 point2 points  (0 children)

              In my experience it is true, Men seem to have more tolerance to pain. I know I do.

              [–]fingerthemoon 0 points1 point  (1 child)

              Maybe giving birth really isn't all that painful and just another female lie to gain sympathy? I had kidney stones and the nurse told me she had 5 children and her kidney stones were far more painful than birth.

              [–]dareealmvp 0 points1 point  (0 children)

              again, like I said, there are a lot of pain killing hormones being secreted naturally in a woman's body while she is giving birth. That's why that nurse's kidney stones might have been more painful than birth. Giving birth to babies is a colossal job in itself. So it isn't exactly something that can be said as a woman trying to gain sympathy. It could easily be genuine, depending on how much those painkilling hormones are being released and the entire composition of the body itself. Shorter women are going to have a harder time giving birth to a baby, for example. And there's no way to determine that until you become female yourself and experience it.

              [–]Endorsed ContributorJamesSkepp 38 points39 points  (1 child)

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

              Same experience here. She gets angry, spiteful, I can literally see hate in their eyes. From "you're attractive, open me" to "you fucking loser/total ignore" in maybe one second.

              [–]strat_op 21 points22 points  (17 children)

              This is the most important point. I think that women are well capable to reach sufficient capabilities in technical jobs, maybe with a small handicap, but still. However they lack dedication and fighting spirit.

              [–][deleted] 20 points21 points  (16 children)

              Exactly, OP really missed the data, which the reviewers caught flat out. Taking the idea that women cluster around the mean, there's no reason to believe they aren't going to do just fine in anything that doesn't need massive amounts of physical strength.

              But Anyone with any time in the working world knows, what you know only gets you so far... Those soft talents are really what separate winners from the losers.

              [–]strat_op 14 points15 points  (14 children)

              I remember a study, can't find it now on my phone, only blogpost - https://brainsize.wordpress.com/2014/07/18/the-iqs-of-fortune-500-ceos/ - TRP is always a bit quick with the "women are not capable" argument. Yes, statistically they may be distributed closer to the mean, that doesnt however exclude excellence. I know several female colleagues who do magnificient work and their limiting factor is always a social/behavioral one, i.e. not handling criticism/mistakes well, overemotion, taking things personal and/or judging their self-worth on outside factors only.

              [–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

              The judging self-worth by external factors is the noose so many hang themselves with. I've seen so many quality coworkers and students psych themselves out of a promotion or good grade because they thought they weren't doing well simply because they weren't actively validated. Nobody gave them a prize for their A paper or patted their back for improving efficiency in the work place.

              I do blame parents for this one, as mine is the generation of "positive reinforcement." Fuck that. I didn't get praise for doing what I should be doing, I got punished for not doing it or doing shit I shouldn't. Then I got to the military and started getting punished for other people fucking up so I learned low-level management skills to keep my own ass out of the fire. If gunny ain't happy, ain't nobody happy.

              Then when I started working I was a "stellar employee" simply for doing what the fuck I was paid to. That's how low society sets the bar today. I screw off less than others so that makes me a quality worker, not quality performance, not exceptional skill, just focus. Think about that. With the bar set that low women still struggle to reach it because they require validation beyond a paycheck. That's why they struggle in concrete fields like math and science where you don't get praise or recognition just for showing up.

              [–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (7 children)

              Exception that proves the rule.

              How capable women are or not is no concern of an enlightened man. He's too busy building his worth to care... unless one gets in the way, then, gloves are off

              [–]strat_op 15 points16 points  (6 children)

              I think you didnt get my point. Assuming that every women you face is by nature more stupid than you is a mistake, you are underestimating. Your quote sounds good but is meaningless. You are applying the IQ statistic wrong when you assume that the lower standard deviation will allow for a given advantage. You are overgeneraling and are confusing the probability of statistics with the provisional nature of the conclusion.

              [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

              Since I'm well above the mean it's a good assumption

              [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

              Yeah, I get you there. Never underestimate people.

              [–][deleted]  (2 children)

              [deleted]

                [–]strat_op 2 points3 points  (0 children)

                I dont really know an answer to that. I think the main problem is that women are missing the experience of criticism and thougher environments. I think the main problem lies in the constant comparison every women does to everyone. This is a general problem of our connected instagram world but women tend to construe the mere existence of something even partly better as a devaluating factor. I think one would have to constantly tell himself what his achievements are and that those are unaltered by everyday occurences. Write them down, memorise them like a mantra. Second, like stonepimple said before, you need to firstly focus on yourself and not try to misconstrue any work related evaluation as a social cue meaning that criticism automatically means, someone else is doing it better. This may be the case but women tend to overestimate this. I can only give general advise here as I think most men have build some kind of coping mechanism unconsciously over time. This may also be harder for any women to achieve, as it manly centers around emrion control, something rarely thaught. Hope that helps.

                [–]Caucasian-African 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                I believe this is something everyone must force themselves to do.

                Suppose you are interviewing for a job you really want. The interviewer asks you a question and your response is awkward, or you say something wrong. As you realize your mistake, your "heart sinks" a bit, or you get a flash of dread/panic.

                Ignore and suppress that feeling, and push through it. It's ok to have self-doubt, but be able to push through it when you must (as opposed to wallowing in it). Also, when you go home later and think about your screw-up, you can feel some dread then, but don't doubt your capabilities and don't dwell on it for too long. Process your mistakes and move on...

                [–]snorted_the_red_pill 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                IQ is an unusual measuring factor, to be sure.

                I mean, each decade increases by about 10 points from the last one - meaning that on average, our grandparents were (according to the IQ test) mentally retarded. This is why we're constantly creating new tests - to recalibrate them to 100.

                IQ is really more of a measurement of how abstract our thought gets - your grandfather who was born on a farm would consider cows as working animals, linked with the process of milking; whereas we would consider cows as animals that moo with four legs.

                [–]Senior EndorsedMattyAnon 7 points8 points  (0 children)

                Taking the idea that women cluster around the mean

                Less intelligent too on average (statistics quashed and IQ tests now adjusted to make it easier for women).... and a smaller distribution around the mean.

                This means there are vastly less very-intelligent women. Sure thing women - have your equality of opportunity. But there will never be equal numbers of you at the top, even if you did one day magically get the hang of taking risks and rolling with the punches.

                [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                Comes back to the basics... they are fucking worthless at life. They have no idea what real difficulty is and when they do meet it they quit at life.

                [–][deleted] 71 points72 points  (42 children)

                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.

                [–]Endorsed ContributorJamesSkepp 35 points36 points  (40 children)

                when data starts rolling in that doesn't fit the PC feminazi narrative

                More and more, I'm beginning to think that it's not "just" feminazis that don't want to hear that. It's more like "nobody" want's to hear it. It's rejecting the facts both as logical dismissal ("i know it's right, i'm just gonna ignore it and push the other view") and emotional dismissal ("this data is bullshit because its done by fucking white males").

                [–]TRP Vanguard: "Dark Triad Expert"IllimitableMan 65 points66 points  (32 children)

                because its done by fucking white males

                It's hilarious to me that the demography that have contributed the most to modern civilization (straight white men) have the least credibility in arguments, are the most hated and have the least free speech. Literally taking the people who gave you mathematics, philosophy, electricity, the internet, bla bla bla and saying if they conduct a study it doesn't mean shit because they're white men (racist and misandrist). We live in fucking clown world I swear.

                [–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

                This is collectivism in a nutshell. They don't argue against the merits of the individual contributions or attributes, nor do they seek to defend their own individual rights - by definition.

                If they were concerned with fair and equal individualistic rights, then they'd have no platform on which to argue since it's already illegal to discriminate based on sex and has been for quite some time.

                Instead they argue for a more pragmatic collectivist approach to claim that it's not their rights as individuals that are trampled or oppressed, by rather their rights as women. To do this they necessarily have to create and in-group and an out-group. This why the contributions of individual men to society are not relevant to their argument - they are not a part of the in-group. This dichotomy is essential to the platform, because it is on this that all other arguments rest.

                Individual men have done wondrous things for society, but because they are in the out-group their successes are not their own, but rather the result of the system oppression of the in-group. In their narrative, the in-group would have contributed just as much if not more, had they not been oppressed. Of course this collectivist approach is ridiculous because anyone with a working brain can immediately see how they themselves undermine any achievement of their own constituency because it flies in the face of their own narrative. Successful women, blacks, gays, transgendered, etc, are labeled as anomalies because they refuse to acknowledge the individualism of a meritocracy. It's just the most surreal thing. Fucking Marxists.

                [–]TheRedThrowAwayPill 7 points8 points  (1 child)

                It's who ever is sitting on the throne of patriarchy today. That's who third wave feminazis will aim for.

                Many other cultures have contributed to aggregate knowledge of the world. Almost exclusively by men.

                You as white males get the privilege of being nagged to death about how men have been shaping the world for so long.

                [–]2 Senior Endorsed Contributorvengefully_yours 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                Those who do, shape the world. Those who don't "do" whine about it. So I'm OK with being nagged about building the world we live in.

                [–]TheRedThrill 13 points14 points  (21 children)

                Remember that India also helped pioneer initial mathematics.

                [–]DarthRoach 10 points11 points  (1 child)

                The mathematics that kickstarted the modern technological revolution were all invented in the 17th and 18th centuries.

                [–]azrap1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                Yes it's true that calculus and analysis were developed rather recently. They were invaluable to understanding physics, whether it be mechanics, thermodynamics, and electromagnetism.

                But they still depended on algebra to form the rules for transforming and relating functions. Don't discredit the history of mathematics just because some really applicable stuff was discovered in Europe.

                [–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (18 children)

                And Arabs, and Greeks gave us philosophy, and with the internet being a DARPA gig, it very well could have been Japanese as easily as Germans who brought us the internet.

                [–][deleted]  (1 child)

                [deleted]

                  [–]antariusz 4 points5 points  (11 children)

                  ? Not sure if you're serious? Almost everyone at darpa is a caucasian male.

                  [–]2 Senior Endorsed Contributorvengefully_yours 2 points3 points  (10 children)

                  What color are most Germans? Let's see, I'm German heritage, blond hair, blue eyes, typical white guy. Who were the engineers that worked DARPA? Where did the space program come from? Swept wings on aircraft? Countless other things from central Europe involving math, engineering, and science?

                  But...

                  The Arabs gave us modern math, astronomy, the concept of zero, and many more things upon which our modern world is built.

                  [–][deleted]  (2 children)

                  [deleted]

                    [–]Ochreata 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                    That's how we ended up with black holes...

                    [–][deleted]  (6 children)

                    [removed]

                      [–]2 Senior Endorsed Contributorvengefully_yours 0 points1 point  (5 children)

                      Don't know the difference between calc and basic mathalgebra?

                      Mmmmkkay.

                      [–][deleted]  (4 children)

                      [removed]

                        [–]jsalathe 0 points1 point  (2 children)

                        The Japanese were nowhere near as technologically advanced as Germans at the end of WW2

                        [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

                        Their aeronautics may not have been on par with the Germans, but the Japanese accomplished quite a bit scientifically during WWII and received similar treatment to Nazi scientists who were brought over in Operation Paperclip. They have made substantial strides in robotics and electronics throughout the years and continue to do so. To dismiss them as "unadvanced" compared to the Germans or caucasians as a whole is a bit misguided.

                        [–]jsalathe 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                        Operation Paperclip recruited German scientists who led the field in a variety of sciences. The Japanese had no analogous scientists who were imported by the U.S. Government. In 1945 we sent a few of our scientists to interview the infamous Unit 731 doctors who had done experiments on Chinese prisoners.

                        German scientists provided the U.S. with the basis for jet engines, liquid rockets, guidance systems, electronics, medicine and other fields. Japanese scientists taught us that anthrax kills, which we already knew.

                        [–]RedMoonAscendant 1 point2 points  (2 children)

                        I think I've reformed to be one of the biggest pro-white racists out there, but I think I'm gonna have to call bullshit here.

                        Arabic numerals (this is the hint). Look into mathematics history. There are some serious heavyweights that weren't white.

                        [–]TRP Vanguard: "Dark Triad Expert"IllimitableMan 1 point2 points  (1 child)

                        Type "list of philosophers/physicists/mathematicians/composers" or whatever you like in Google. 80-90% of the faces and portraits you see will be of white men. Want to see a row of black faces? Type "list of rappers/basketball players/boxers".

                        It is what it is.

                        [–]RedMoonAscendant 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                        True. It was my inner sperg speaking up. But back in the dawn of prehistory, there were some amazing non-white civilizations. For whatever reason they died out and went away. White is right today.

                        [–]TRPDispenser 3 points4 points  (2 children)

                        demography that have contributed the most to modern civilization

                        That's just false. Straight white male is way too narrow. Alan turing was gay, and if anything his genious was diminished because of the straight white men in power because they thought homosexuality was wrong.

                        A lot of math came from India. Japanese are inventing shit all the time. India is about to launch a space program which will provide cheaper transport than SpaceX.

                        I agree with you on the fact that "men" have contributed more to society. But saying that it's the "straight white male" contributed the most is asinine.

                        [–]Sdom1 3 points4 points  (0 children)

                        Your argument would be better suited to, "White men are responsible for inventing every piece of modern civilization." He didn't say that, he said straight white men contributed the most, which they have.

                        [–]Endorsed ContributorBluepillProfessor 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                        demography that have contributed the most to modern civilization

                        LOL, let me Trolololololololzzzz for you and provide the answer:

                        Jews. Hands down, beyond any doubt. Sorry.

                        [–]gjs628 10 points11 points  (6 children)

                        End of the day, proving women to be overly emotional, incapable, time-wasting drawbacks to society, doesn't achieve anything. Those with open minds already know this, and those with feminist mindsets will ignore ALL the data no matter how conclusive it is. If a bearded guy came down from the sky in a beam of light and walked up to a Christian claiming to be Jesus, the Christian would bow down and grovel. But show that to Dawkins, and he'll simply say "There's no proof you're Jesus, you came down using a wire and special effects." Jesus then brings a dead man back to life. "He was unconscious and all you did was wake him up." Literally Jesus could draw him into space, blow the planet up, and he would still say, "It's not real, you just gave me some sort of hallucinogen". For some people, absolute proof is no more convincing to them than a whispered rumour, and a whispered rumour is seen as absolute proof for those who want it to be.

                        I'm done trying to convince people of things. If they don't want to know then I'm happy for them to be worse off and live in ignorance, it doesn't affect me in the slightest.

                        [–]RedEyesBlueShades 8 points9 points  (2 children)

                        I'm done trying to convince people of things. If they don't want to know then I'm happy for them to be worse off and live in ignorance, it doesn't affect me in the slightest.

                        Which is why I'm not gonna try to convince you that Dawkins would happily accept Jesus' "reality" if he was capable of passing some tests which Dawkins would be more than happy to design.

                        [–]gjs628 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                        That's actually a good point; I hadn't thought of that! My only real point was to demonstrate that people with firm beliefs aren't often ready to accept opposing beliefs no matter how blatantly obvious they are. It works assuming Dawkins would be happy to accept the result either way, Feminists on the other hand would - when "Jesus" passes their tests - just stand their with their fingers in their ears yelling "LALALALALA NOT LISTENING TO THIS MISOGYNY" Thinking about it, this is exactly why Psychics consistently fail testing - their own tests are conducted in environments set up by them, but the moment a third-party scientific method is applied it all goes down the toilet. I would think that a psychic would remain psychic at all times, and not find that "my abilities aren't working because the spirits are angry at your disbelief in me, they refuse to cooperate until you stop testing me". How many times have I heard that one before.

                        [–]Endorsed ContributorJamesSkepp 5 points6 points  (2 children)

                        it doesn't affect me in the slightest.

                        Ah, but the thing is it DOES affect you. Vide "rape culture", PC, SJW, trigger warnings, and pushing for self censoring b/c someone might get offended.

                        [–]gjs628 3 points4 points  (1 child)

                        Sorry, I worded that wrong; I meant to say it doesn't affect me emotionally when I try to tell somebody something and they either don't believe me or ignore me. It used to bother me, until I realised that people only come to you with their problems because they want sympathy, not an actual solution. Women are especially bad for this.

                        [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                        Data, facts, stats, anything with results is a fucking death sentence to the bullshit narrative. God forbid you have RESULTS showing they are fucking worthless

                        [–][deleted] 26 points27 points  (10 children)

                        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.

                        [–]Endorsed Contributorvandaalen 2 points3 points  (0 children)

                        I.e. direct, confident language is preferred over timidity and roundabout wording simply because we're judging based on a 'male standard'.

                        There could be a little bit of truth in that though. I have done a couple of interviews and if you haven't, you'll be very surprised to find out how different men and women actually respond to the same questions.

                        Not only are their answers completely different, but their approach at things and problems is also completely different, if you leave the territory of simple memorized knowledge.

                        Women will always take a more emotional point of view and men will always take a more sober approach.

                        Unnecessary to say that dependent on the specific task one approach could be rated better than the other.

                        [–]SingularPlural 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                        There's no need for exploding heads. Only more feminist drivel.

                        Most would simply argue that any behavioral differences are due to upbringing and social conditioning into traditional gender roles, which is of course dictated by the patriarchy.

                        [–]well-ok-then 0 points1 point  (1 child)

                        If the interview was for pre-k teachers, women would have done better than men. This study doesn't mean men are better than women. Men and women are different. More men are inclined to be good network engineers and tend to be better at writing their name in the snow. Why is this something we have to FIX?

                        [–]MaxBrodin 0 points1 point  (4 children)

                        It's simple really - men have larger and denser brains. Even in equal body mass males and females, males have about 10% more brain volume . The brain that males have is denser. Multiply the larger volume by larger density and you will see why men outperform women on technical interviews.

                        Disparities in how certain brain substances are distributed may be more revealing. Notably, male brains contain about 6.5 times more gray matter -- sometimes called 'thinking matter" -- than women. Female brains have more than 9.5 times as much white matter, the stuff that connects various parts of the brain, than male brains. That's not all. "The frontal area of the cortex and the temporal area of the cortex are more precisely organized in women, and are bigger in volume," Geary tells WebMD. This difference in form may explain a lasting functional advantage that females seem to have over males: dominant language skills.

                        [–]redartist 6 points7 points  (2 children)

                        This sounds like broscience. At least when we compare men to men.

                        A lot of men with large heads are working as postmen, a lot of men with small heads are CEOs.

                        Better examples can be found here: http://sciencevsfeminism.com/

                        [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (1 child)

                        Phrenology is an abandoned pseudoscience from the 1800s looking for a correlation between the size and shape of the cranium and level of intelligence.

                        No modern scientist takes it seriously anymore, but there probably is something to the density of grey matter.

                        [–]Sdom1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                        From what I've seen, cranial volume has a correlation to intelligence, it's just not a perfect correlation. From what I remember it was quoted at .4

                        [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                        And whales (insert feminist joke here) have even larger brains than men. Does that make whales smarter than people? Your science sources are shit.

                        [–]x7e2 15 points16 points  (2 children)

                        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.

                        [–]Endorsed Contributorsqerl 5 points6 points  (1 child)

                        Had a big meeting today. One of the first questions wasn't about the health of the company (which was what the meeting was about) but rather why the new CEO didn't have more women on the executive committee. So nevermind skills or qualifications, there should be more women because vagina.

                        [–]tsudonimh 6 points7 points  (0 children)

                        The Nintendo AGM was held recently, and the first question from the floor was why there were no women on the board of directors.

                        [–]Senior Contributorexit_sandman 12 points13 points  (2 children)

                        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.

                        [–]ether_reddit 1 point2 points  (1 child)

                        If feminism focused less on whining about men pushing them down, and focused more on helping women get over their anxieties and deal properly with the real world, I might actually start supporting them!

                        [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

                        Feminism isn't trying to do that unfortunately. It's a sexual strategy for gathering the most resources for women with the least amount of effort. Why work and solve problems when you can convince everyone that you deserve free handouts because of the patriarchy?

                        [–]tsudonimh 44 points45 points  (14 children)

                        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.

                        [–]rockytheboxer 10 points11 points  (0 children)

                        At least they published the results at all.

                        [–][deleted] 11 points12 points  (0 children)

                        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.

                        [–][deleted] 19 points20 points  (1 child)

                        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 6 points7 points  (0 children)

                        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 8 points9 points  (1 child)

                        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.

                        [–]TRP VanguardArchwinger 7 points8 points  (0 children)

                        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 3 points4 points  (0 children)

                        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 5 points6 points  (0 children)

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

                        [–]meh613 2 points3 points  (2 children)

                        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.

                        [–]Starcruiser28 0 points1 point  (1 child)

                        You obviously did not read the entire article, the fact was evident that females did not interview well and quit after a few bad interviews.

                        The actual issue is not who gets treated poorly or discriminated against in the interviewing process but shows how men are more resilient and competitive and learn from their failings, where women are more concerned about how they are perceived thus will quit instead of looking bad.

                        [–]meh613 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                        The actual issue

                        ... is the broken system for hiring good people. There's a nice reward for anyone who fixes it.

                        [–][deleted]  (3 children)

                        [deleted]

                        [–][deleted] 12 points13 points  (1 child)

                        it's not a wage gap, it's an earnings gap, and it's not a systemic problem that society can solve at the corporate level. Parents teaching kids to fail properly would be a much better message. It gets no traction, because it puts responsibility squarely on the girl, which most professional victims abhor.

                        [–]redpillliger 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                        Not just professional victims. Society at large hates giving women agency in their actions. Everything bad that happens is the responsibility of some outside force, whether that's the "patriarchy" or even just fate, nothing is ever their fault.

                        [–]2Sepean 3 points4 points  (0 children)

                        There are literally no economists who believe in the wage gap as anything but a reflection of women on average choosing lower wage careers and working less.

                        [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                        [...] 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.

                        [–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (3 children)

                        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.

                        [–]2insickness 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                        Interesting point but if the tranny aspect were the problem, the male-to-female "trannies" in this experiment would have problems also. More specifically, you could say that a female communication style in general tends to be less confident and thus the discrepancy.

                        I could entertain an argument that women in STEM feel less confident than men in STEM overall (although there are plenty of socially retarded men in STEM and women tend to be better socially than men overall). However, let's just say that women in STEM are less confident because of societal messaging. The answer still isn't affirmative action. Handouts would actually have the opposite of the desired effect: women would feel less confident because they would feel like they are there because of the handout.

                        [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

                        Right. And female cognitive deficits have nothing to do with it. Nice try.

                        [–]Eyes_Of_The_Dragon 5 points6 points  (0 children)

                        I think raisins3142 makes a good point, and it would interesting to see if they reran the experiment with someone transcribing the candidate's speech so that no one hears anything, but the candidate would still hear the interviewers.

                        [–]OneInAZillion 0 points1 point  (0 children)

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

                        [–]1PantsonFire1234 0 points1 point  (0 children)

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

                        [–]trpthrowaw 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                        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...

                        [–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

                        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.