1. There is experimental evidence of discrimination.
-
-
-
That worked in women's favour, didn't it? They had to stop swapping names around because women were less likely to get interviews if they had a man's name?
-
I'm not sure what you're referring to. I'm thinking of Goldin on this (linking to the popular rather than the actual article so you'll read it):http://gap.hks.harvard.edu/orchestrating-impartiality-impact-%E2%80%9Cblind%E2%80%9D-auditions-female-musicians …
-
Here's another one written very accessibly so you will.https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2015/04/22/396672571/could-it-be-researchers-find-a-hiring-bias-that-favors-women …
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
3. I would be surprised if there weren't actual differences in preference but I'd have to look at actual literature or think a bit - it's late on a Sunday night - before commenting on measuring that.
-
Vast amounts of evidence of this, the most damning being that women go into the areas of STEM where they are underrepresented less where they have the most choice.https://heterodoxacademy.org/the-most-authoritative-review-paper-on-gender-differences/ …
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
2. controlling for occupational choice introduces bias because it is after gender on the causal chain (and we have experimental evidence of discrimination anyway)
-
So who gets to be an agent under this paradigm, those actively discriminating? The zeitgeist? Certainly not the women in this condescending take.
-
The point is that the analysis described can't tease out what the cause is, you need an instrument or an experiment to do so, so the simple regression isn't informative. Hope that helps.
-
That’s the answer to a different question than the one I asked
-
Slightly. Agency is irrelevant if what you're looking at can't tell you anything about it.
-
The broader context here is that occupational choice -> wages. But if there's discrimination within occupations, either in the form of wage differentials or barriers to entry OR if, as the top-level comment suggests, there are psychological or physiological differences...
-
Or anything else *based on gender* in any of those cases rational agents would base their occupational choice on that. But this makes occupational choice a collider (whether there is discrimination or not!), so including it as a control is misleading. Either way, there's agency.
-
But whatever we're doing, simply looking at some kind of multivariate analysis of the wage gap isn't telling us anything about that.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I'm not sure the belief in socialization and discrimination as the only causes of gender disparities is falsifiable in some people's minds. I say this because of my interactions with people defending the firing of James Damore.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.