I wonder why. Let’s see.
In an experiment in which participants were hired [selection process?] to perform a mathematical task, both male and female managers were twice as likely to hire a man than a woman — even when the managers had no information beyond a candidate’s appearance and, therefore, gender.
Which can be profiled by the legal department for the odds of drawing in a sexual harassment lawsuit and bad PR.
Lots of departments are consulted. Putting feminism and LGBullshit on your CV is a death knell to callbacks.
Dr. Reuben continued: “The end result is not only a less diverse workforce and a male-dominated STEM field, but also a detriment to these companies for hiring the less-skilled person for the job.”
Less women go in, less women come out. If that’s the case, they’ll go out of business, what’s the problem? Unless they won’t go out of business, because the average man has more technical intelligence than the average woman (higher contradictory verbal) and hiring more men gives them an edge…. almost like it’s a cut-throat business or something??
they incorrectly believed that men are more talented in science and math, the researchers found. This bias often led to hiring the less-capable job seeker.
That makes no logical sense. Either men are better overall and the stereotype is true (as they often are) or men are worse (2nd sentence) or they’re exactly the same (premise earlier): “Previous studies have shown that this type of arithmetic task is performed equally well by men and women.”
Ah, I see where it dances around the issue. It suggests the present results were equal because previous studies it cites demonstrated that. The equal results weren’t in their dataset of this study, it is merely implied. That’s right: they’re extrapolating findings based on a completely different dataset.
STEM is a high-IQ field. Exclusively.
“If you’re hiring someone who scores less on the test, more often than not you are hiring the less qualified candidate.”
Depends on the test. A high verbal test would be a waste of paper, you don’t see many English grads in STEM.
Does that apply to the >100IQ flatter bell curve distribution of men, scored higher in that desirable/necessary category (101-160), compared to women (~80-120)? Wouldn’t that sum score make women the less qualified subject? Oh, silly me, trusting meta-analyses and decades of research. I guess if I’m to trust this reportage I should carve out half of my frontal lobe, since I won’t be needing it.
Further versions of the experiment demonstrated the difficulties of confronting negative stereotypes.
You don’t prove the stereotype false despite vested interest. This means you cannot, vis a vis, it must be true.