As a neuroscientist, I am often shocked how low a standard of evidence is often accepted in social sciences. I realize this comment is going to offend a lot of people, but it's true.
@Natasel are 'strict controls' remotely possible in the soft sciences? I can't think of a way to avoid some form of sampling bias. Even very loose, ad-hoc controls are only possible in psychology. In sociology or economics there's no real controls at all.
@@bornfree8073 no. It's not worth my time at this point. It's enough just to point out that it's a biased source and it's been funded by people who are known to lie in the past and you should consume it with caution or not consume it at all. What you're doing is like what kellyanne Conway does. Throw out of screen of Lies faster than they can be disproved. But that's not the point. The point is we know she's funded by liars. Once you know someone's a liar like Conway or president trump,, you know it's pointless to try and keep up with their lies. Because they can lie faster than you can disprove them. I'm fine if she has a right-wing bias or if she is funded by people who have a right-wing bias. Addressing individual lies just gets you lost in the weeds.
@@macmcleod1188 No, it's not "enough just to point out that it's a biased source and it's been funded by people who are known to lie in the past". You are the one making the accusation, so it is you who must back it up with an example if you want anyone to believe it. Commenters make all kinds of claims that aren't true. If you think your accusation is important enough to make it, then you have to give them a basis for thinking it might be true. People aren't going to research your accusation just on your say-so.
This was also done recently by the West Australian govt. for hiring public servants. When they discovered that there was a decrease in females being hired they just dropped it and never mentioned it again
haha, I wouldn't mind seeing more social scientists pulling meaningless adverbs out of their asses to replace "statistically." "The impact was not statistically significant, but it was DELICIOUSLY significant!"
I think screens are a good idea if only because it's a known fact that attractive people get preferential treatment. This way the ugly talented musicians actually get a real shot!
I don't recall perfectly, but didn't the "doubled" comment refer to a specific orchestra's experience after implementing blind auditions? Too lazy to rewatch...
you are a gem, christina. despite racking up subscriptions to all sites that include your content, this is the first time in a long time i have encountered a current one. such a treat, because you model use of empirical evidence & logic with a graceful treatment of those purveying non- to partial- truths you reveal. lovely. i remember thinking when i heard about blind audition study that just for starters, these people presumably have the most exquisitely attuned sense of hearing & would be able to inevitably pick up every tell such as the sound of shoes walking in, breathing patterns, & other things i wouldn't think of.
@@hellogoodbye4061 From a Wall Street Journal article by Christina Hoff Sommers: In 2017 a team of behavioural economists in the Australian government published the results of a large, randomised controlled study entitled "Going Blind to See More Clearly." It was directly inspired by the blind-audition study. Iris Bohnet, a Harvard Kennedy School dean and Goldin-Rouse enthusiast, served as an adviser. For the study, more than 2,000 managers in the Australian Public Service were asked to select recruits from randomly assigned resumes-some disguising the applicant's sex, others not. The research team fully expected to find far more female candidates shortlisted when sex was disguised. But, as the stunned team leader told the local media: "We found the opposite, that de-identifying candidates reduced the likelihood of women being selected for the shortlist." It turned out that many senior managers, aware that sexist assumptions had once kept women out of upper-level positions, already practised a mild form of affirmative action. Anonymized hiring was not only time-consuming and costly, it proved to be an obstacle to women's equality. The team plans to look elsewhere for solutions.
@@sinaloa367 owww so this is what happened from the other comment that I read, about Australian government blind audition results more failed women. And they don't want to mention it.
@Entrenched Mgtow There's a real sense of deja vu here. There was a policy of 'numerus clausus' in the 20th century throughout Europe and North America which restricted the participation of Jews in higher education. In many U.S. Universities the number of Jewish students ranged from 30% to 50%, so between the 1920's up until as recently as the 1970's they had strict quota systems for Jewish admission. For example Cornell University reduced the Jewish student population from 40% in 1920 to 3.5% in 1940. Yale were even worse, they had a policy admitting only 5 Jewish students per year. The case of Yale is an interesting one, i believe they were the first to introduce a 'Legacy' policy, (which continues in Universities to this day), and also introduced discriminatory policies based on character and attitude. There have been allegations that the latter policy has been used against Asians in many Universities for nearly 40 years, and explicit proposals to use it against Whites. I think there is little doubt that there has been a great loss of intellectual capital, (and an inevitable hindrance on technological and economic advancement), in Europe and North America because of these policies. Richard Feynman, one of the greatest physicists of the 20th century very nearly slipped through the net after being rejected by Columbia because of quotas, fortunately he was persistent and eventually got a place at MIT. Now the same thing is increasingly happening with whites and Asians and i think it's hard to exaggerate the detrimental effect on society. It's not just an obstacle to progress, but it's very dangerous to discriminate against and marginalise a very resourceful majority demographic; they can fight back! We are beginning to see the emergence of not just a White Nationalist movement throughout the West, but a White Trans-nationalist movement. In Europe, many Germanic, Slavic, Celtic and Latin Europeans are beginning to feel an affinity for one another that is largely reactionary, and i think similar sentiment is growing in North America. Unless the brakes are put on this intersectional insanity things are going to get extremely violent. It's ludicrous to address issues of race, gender, poverty, education etc etc, and equitable access to resources by discriminating against specific groups. It's particular bigoted when most individuals in the main group being targeted, (white males), have neither power nor privilege.
I believe Australia briefly tried blind hiring for the government, beleving women would do better. Turned out women did worse and they abandoned the program
So glad to hear from you after such a long hiatus! I’m a musicologist who has for a long time been intrigued by this whole blind audition question, given the lack of sexism I’ve always observed in most musicians, and in the music world (both classical and jazz) in general. Since learning, in the past few years-from you, at first, then from my own research-about the excesses of Feminism, my confusion has only increased. The refreshing news you bring us in this clip is a welcome resolution to the tension, and I find myself once more in a state of ‘cognitive consonance’. Thank you. And I do hope you will continue to enlighten us on a regular basis.
I teach violin. For the first 15 years that I taught, I always had approximately half girl students and half boy students and for many years, it leaned towards more male students. I stopped teaching for a couple of years to live abroad with my husband. Three years ago I moved back to restart my studio. For every 4 or 5 girls I get in the studio, I only get 1 boy. Granted, my sample size is incredibly small and I'm also dependent upon Google algorithms in part for exposure to new students, but it has been consistent and feels off-kilter. There is even an attitude among the girls that girls "rock" and they are quite vocal about being "better" and superior to boys. My pet theory is that if the little girls have picked this up, then so, too, have the little boys and perhaps even their parents, who may no longer be willing to invest in their sons who may also be feeling inferior and not displaying what parents might look for in order to seek out lessons. I'm wondering if anyone else has had this gender attitude and/or imbalance in their practice.
Oh without a doubt this permeates in our current school system....where my daughter goes to high school, the girls were led into the science labs to listen to university STEM students tell them how smart and "empowering" they were...the boys were told to wait in the hallways while this took place. True story....and to make matters worse, later that day, the boys, and the boys only, had to attend a mandatory "sexual harassment/assault awareness class" in which they were, more or less, told they were nothing more than potential toxic rapists, molesters, harassers, sexual assaulting, woman beating pieces of crap. Thankfully,, enough parents protested that the administration agreed to allow the boys to enter the classroom when the university STEM students next return. Just horrid how boys are treated in our schools today....a small sample here, but it seems to speak volumes.
@@juliafox52 I believe the teacher, female of course, set up this visit for the STEM students and that her heart was in the right place, but twisted by feminism that girls are somehow oppressed as the reason they do not enter the sciences, so naturally only girls should have been present for this "go into STEM" pep talk......which is simply not true, if anything, girls are encouraged to no end to pursue every field imaginable.
"It's cool when girls do it." When you get right down to it, that's actually insulting and/or insidious. If women are equally capable as men, then it should be completely un-noteworthy when they do something. So it's either an inverse way of saying that women aren't as good as men, or else it's a means to reverse the "power structure" and have women dominate men in everything. I see neither case as noble.
Blind auditions or blind judging is still a good idea where there is some subjective evaluation going on. Good examples are cooking, art, music, creative writing, etc. In each of these the prospective judges could be influenced to like a person more because they resemble themselves in some way or because they have some type of notoriety. Blind judging is helpful to use in these situations where possible.
I’d like to see you tackle another blindly accepted “fact”...that giving aid directly to women in developing countries has a greater economic impact. I heard recently that this oft-cited tidbit was completely made up.
I work in IT. The groups at a previous employer handled recruitment themselves. The HR department of course assumed we all were raving mad sexists. They demanded that all CVs should be anonymous to remove any bias against women. The method was quickly abandoned shortly after it was introduced. It turned out that the amount of female applicants called to attend interviews dropped from 30% to almost zero with anonymous CVs. In reality we all had a very strong bias for recruiting women - not against. And apparently that was OK according to HR.
@Killian Miller Well, in Canada right now construction workers are pissed, at least the male ones. Because feminists realised that there are not many women on construction sites and instead of wondering _why_ the fuck that is, the canadian solution was to hire women as the ones holding shields and redirecting the traffic. And while the men are _still_ doing all the hard and dangerous and, not to forget, qualified work, women are just standing there with shields in their hands, get to call themselfes "construction worker" and... make more money than the men. Rumour has it that the productivity on construction sites dramatically decreases for some strange reason when such female "construction workers" are present.
Well they are employed by Harvard and Yale, so you have to cut them some slack. It is not like they work for a state college of some school actually educating students.
When I think of 'based' I think "based in reality", or "feet on the ground". So much nonsense is like a vague whiff in the wind, cobwebs of theories that kinda sound plausible and we might buy into them despite everything we see. The opposite term seems to be 'woke', which seems to me to be saying "awoken to identity politics", and I think is like saying "a waking dream", or nightmare.
Cat Woman I was genuinely asking what you meant. Now that I know it was a meme, I looked it up and see it means being yourself and not caring what others think.
I do not know why she calls herself a feminist. She sounds like a human being, telling the truth about something. A feminist implies she believes women should be given a position and power simply because they are a woman, not because they deserve it, the female equivalent of a male misogynist.
Thank you for this! I've been citing blind audition to remove gender bias and basically focus on performance (best man/woman for the job!) but I guess it wasn't that simple either. Good to know.
(3:07) _Still some may think it seems obvious that the screens contributed to equal hiring, but it's not. The screens may have been a reflection of changing attitudes - and it was those attitudes, not the screens, that helped women._ > Correlation v. Causation strikes again...
Me too. I usually say that I am anti-feminist (even though I am a woman); but if feminism were like this (like it was in the 60s-70s-80s), then I'd agree with it. However, our actual 3rd wave of feminism is awful... just awful!
The Australians tried 'blind auditions' (resumes and application without gender) and found, to their dismay, that men were even more likely to be hired.
Orchestral musicians tend to be a nervous bunch to begin with. I wouldn't be surprised if blind auditions help BOTH genders to perform better, because they can pretend no one is watching them. (This is an issue for people who aren't soloists, but are fine playing in front of others if they are part of a group. I'm not a pro, but I did try out for regional honor band and state honor band in high school, and I know that the screen in between us made the audition a *lot* easier for me. I talked to some of the other clarinetists, and they felt the same.) Long story short: you might get better quality musicians (regardless of gender) using the screens.
"...Once the curtain dropped, the case study shows that the number of women who were selected doubled - they went up 50 percent." It's hard to trust anyone who thinks a 50% increase doubles the number. A 50% increase in quantity 1 is 1.5; in quantity 10 is 15; and in quantity 100 is 150. On the other hand, a doubling of quantity 1 is 2; of quantity 10 is 20; and of quantity 100 is 200. There *IS* a percentage increase the equivalent of doubling and that is 100%. A 100% increase in quantity 1 is 2; in quantity 10 is 20; and in quantity 100 is 200. If the person who said that the quantity doubled - increase 50%, then they are deficient in middle school arithmetic and can hardly be trusted to comment on, let alone verify, a thesis that depends on statistics.
I studied trombone performance at university. There are few women that play this instrument, compared to men (perhaps due to its size), and I did notice that one girl managed to make it into the orchestra every year. My instructor was on the audition committee, and he told me that he knows what I sound like (so he could tell it was me even though there was a screen up), and that I should have made it in to the orchestra, and that he thought the girl did not perform as well as I did during the audition. Yet, she got the spot, and I didn't. I think it's because the university wanted to keep up with an image of gender diversity. It really wasn't fair for me, as I feel that this opportunity was taken away from me. I try not to let this define my life, as I have since moved on into a different vocation and am happy, but that doesn't take away from the injustice at hand.
How do you get from your instructor recognizing you in spite of the screen to an entire committee knowingly selecting one of the few female candidates through a blind audition?
You are the first feminist that I have seen, on the Internet that in my opinion brings the debate over how to achieve equality fowrward, thanks for beeing so objective and making such a good vodeo :)
What I find troubling, is that you have a study that people seem to find significant, but no one attempts to replicate it. I was hoping when you said that the situation had changed that someone had finally tried to replicate the experiment.
I have only recently discovered this lady's channel. It is a breath of fresh air. I wish her well in her quest to create equality of opportunity using objective truth rather than the sophistry which is afflicting our society.
@ 4:42 The genius behind the quote "...Once the curtain dropped, the case stud shows that the number of women who were selected doubled -- they went up 50 percent." Clearly she, Banaji, didn't even minor in a STEM field. If anyone happens to not see the issue, double something is increasing it 100%.
This question or argument is a bit trite but still true: if women earn less than men doing the same job then why were there few women in orchestras? This is really economically significant!
The trick is to see that the limitation in the article is as to the PRELIMINARY rounds. The goal is to get the very best of the best. Apparently these higher levels of competitive power are not even confronted by the study itself. It's like saying that we can help women compete in the Men's 100 yard dash by forcing the inclusion of women at the first cut. It's not the first cut which will really determine much, or even anything. It's the last cut, and the next to last cut, which really separates the best from the almost best. If the article won't confront this, it really has only confronted the middling nowhere.
I came for a friend's recommendation. Thank you for share it! I was pessimistic about to turn points on modern feminist agenda. We have a long way to walk for a real equality society. But support the debate in scientific data bring to me a renewed interest.
I know studies out there show overall, violins and violas are performed in orchestras by about 50:50 male:female. So when some orchestras boast of 90% women violinists to help make up 50% of the overall orchestra, I have very significant reason to believe some are committing gender discrimination against violinists who happen to be male.
I think a lot of the confusion stems from the use of the word "equality" by those who seek to increase their privilege, rather than attain literal equality.
Maybe they could have had to panels of judges for each audition 1 with and without screens? Then comparing the results would give you a really good idea of the effect
I suggest blind screens in most jobs in order to prevent positive bias towards women that could alienate more capable men. There was a study out of Australia that found in STEM women were significantly less likely to be hired for a position when the employer didn't know they were women, showing a significant positive bias towards women in STEM fields. Plus address _The Scully Effect_ that another bit of "rigorous feminist research" that get easily toppled when you realize Mulder and Scully are both FBI agents(law enforcement not a STEM field) and what the researchers found was an atypical trend of women liking Sci-Fi also pursuing STEM fields, not the "representation" they think Scully embodies. You can also use the fact that the portion of women in STEM was significantly higher before _The X-Files_ run than during or since.
I was in a high school orchestra in the mid 90’s and worked my way up to be the best bassist in the county, at least at the high school level. We did screen auditions back then. But everyone knew who belonged in the first chair. With the exception of the bassists, which wasn’t popular with the girls due to the instrument size, the first chair was always a girl, especially when it came to the violins. Quite frankly these girls were the only ones that I was ever excited to play with because they weren’t awful like the rest of the kids. I went on to play in multiple bands, and I always loved playing with girls. The only thing that really matters is your ability to perform. If you’re awesome on your instrument then everyone wants to play with you. That’s just how it is. It was even that way back in the 40’s and 50’s in country music and bluegrass, hardly what I’d call a group of people particularly inclined towards diversity. I know this because my father played in a bluegrass band and there was always a longing to play music with girls. The main reason why you see fewer girls excel in music has nothing to do with discrimination and everything to do with most girl musicians never dedicating themselves or having the ambition to be truly great. To give the non musicians some sense of what it takes to truly master an instrument, you’ve got to practice 4 hours a day 4-5 times a week for 4-5 years.
I don't like the "yes, it does" vs. "no, it does not" kind of academic debates; that's at the level of children's pantomimes. If the original study was based on small sample sizes, and subsequent studies showed different results, could we have citations please? How small was the sample size of the original study, what were their implied error intervals? What did (which) subsequent studies show? I don't find it hard to believe that people are too uncritically embracing a study that fits their narrative - however, that does not mean it is wrong either, and for a counterclaim I would want to see a better foundation than a mixture of hearsay and vague references to disclaimers in the study.
This points out how bad studies trickle down and inform entire careers and policies. There should be a way to pull back not just the primary research but all the research that references it. That would make researchers actually try to replicate results rather than just pull together articles that support their thesis. As Bret Weinstein has pointed out, statistical studies are exceedingly hard to do correctly in the social sciences because there are so many variables.
Okay, a VERY important piece of information would be helpful regarding when these scholars/scientists went back and read the whole study. For the semifinal rounds mentioned, were these also screened or not?
An interesting survey question in such a study would be whether the screens alleviated musicians' anxieties, allowing them to perform better in the initial auditions.
@@JNYC-gb1pp I think that most people who play in orchestras already have plenty of experience in front of audiences. I never even considered joining the city's orchestra, but I had six years of music in school, including five concurrent years with an all-city ensemble and a week at band-camp. That's a lot of Christmas concerts and other festivals... Playing within a big ensemble isn't bad (unless you've been roped into a solo), but one-on-one auditions with the conductor can be nerve-wracking.
@@Ostsol I'm just saying IF there is a possibility that nerves could be the cause, then eliminating it by looking at that data would reduce your possible cause to also examine and eliminate. The more cause you eliminate, the closer you get to the actual reason why women actually suddenly started joining orchestras and not this speculative and politically motivated cherry picking.
What I love about leftist studies is how they intentionally use the word "doubled" and "increased by X%" to make it sound grander than it is... For example, if the screens meant that the number of women doubled, and there were only (for the sake of example) 2 women who went through otherwise, that means there were now 4...that's a very circumstantial increase to link it to the blind audition... Also, if the number increased by 50%, and there was only 1 before, that means now there's only 1.5 on average... But when feminists speak about these findings they want to make you think that it actually means that men and women were now distributed equally at 50% each, but that's not the case at all... When making an argument, they rely on the "This has to sound logical if not looked into, so people don't bother to fact-check" sentences to make their point...
I would like see processes that eliminate discrimination on criteria irrelevant to the job at hand, rather than setting quotas That is why I liked the blind auditions. They are an effort to focus on the relevant and leave out the irrelevant.
At 4:38 she critiques someone whose math is so bad that they think a 50% increase is the same a being Doubled (So, basically, they think that a 50% increase is the same as a 100% increase, OK then!).
Anonymised recruitment was tried by the civil service in the UK and Australia where the results ended up with even more men being recruited than through the “Biased panels” with the result of anonymised recruitment being dropped almost immediately as it did not meet expectations of certain parties.
I know absolutely nothing about the BIGGER issue of gender bias. Yet, common sense, for me, is that men and women can transmit emotion (music) to the amount that a musical piece flows through the music in question. How people want to make that a gender issue have never truly loved...or the opposite.
Christina, thank you so much for your effort to find the truth about gender issues. You really contribute to create a better world both for men and women.
There was a recent study blinding resumes in STEM - female sounding names got a 6% benefit. after the results showed women benefit asymmetrically the authors said blinding should NOT be used to achieve fairness. (from memory - exact numbers and wording probably differed)
Honestly, I do support blind auditions for orchestras, but not for gender reasons, strictly for the purpose of each orchestra finding the best musicians. Whether or not the amount of women goes up, I’d like to know that the musicians were chosen strictly because they can play their instruments well. I’m not sure this kind of screening process can be as easily implemented in other industries though.
I heard that the sound of the auditioner’s footsteps across the stage could give away whether a man or woman was auditioning. So they had to audition in stocking feet. 🙄
There's another factor that may not have been taken in. Violinists and other string players tend to be female in lesser orchestras so there might be a difference between permanent hires and freelancers. Someone is always needed to fill pregnancy openings. The rise of the Pill in the 1970's-1990's may have actually helped younger women who were no longer assumed to leave shortly after being hired and getting pregnant.
One interesting question is what was the trend in the number of qualified female candidates. If it turns out that in the 80s there were simply more qualified female musicians applying, then the 50% increase in female hiring can be attributed to that, rather than the blind auditions (which I fully support).
5 ปีที่แล้ว +11
Gladwell cannot be trusted, the only thing he's good at is selling books.
They probably saw a spike in female musicians, because more women were actually trying to get into the band. Women saw that there was a blind screening, so they applied. I would bet, that not only did 50% more women get into the orchestra, but also 50% more women applied too.
As a neuroscientist, I am often shocked how low a standard of evidence is often accepted in social sciences. I realize this comment is going to offend a lot of people, but it's true.
A neuroscientist asserting their comment about their emotional state is true?
Fucking academia is so garbage.
Researchers in the 'soft sciences' would never be able to publish anything if they were held to the standards of molecular biology.
@@antonioanon6672 What he's asserting is true is the low standard of evidence. What are they teaching in schools these days?
"In order to be able to think, you have to risk being offensive." J. Peterson.
@Natasel are 'strict controls' remotely possible in the soft sciences? I can't think of a way to avoid some form of sampling bias. Even very loose, ad-hoc controls are only possible in psychology. In sociology or economics there's no real controls at all.
"Truth matters." Not for those with an ideological axe to grind it doesn't.
And you are referring to the American Enterprise Institute, correct?
@@macmcleod1188 please point out where this video was wrong.
@@bornfree8073 no. It's not worth my time at this point. It's enough just to point out that it's a biased source and it's been funded by people who are known to lie in the past and you should consume it with caution or not consume it at all.
What you're doing is like what kellyanne Conway does. Throw out of screen of Lies faster than they can be disproved.
But that's not the point. The point is we know she's funded by liars. Once you know someone's a liar like Conway or president trump,, you know it's pointless to try and keep up with their lies. Because they can lie faster than you can disprove them.
I'm fine if she has a right-wing bias or if she is funded by people who have a right-wing bias.
Addressing individual lies just gets you lost in the weeds.
They believe "no truth but power."
Of course truth doesn't matter to them. They don't believe that truth is even real.
@@macmcleod1188 No, it's not "enough just to point out that it's a biased source and it's been funded by people who are known to lie in the past". You are the one making the accusation, so it is you who must back it up with an example if you want anyone to believe it. Commenters make all kinds of claims that aren't true. If you think your accusation is important enough to make it, then you have to give them a basis for thinking it might be true. People aren't going to research your accusation just on your say-so.
This was also done recently by the West Australian govt. for hiring public servants. When they discovered that there was a decrease in females being hired they just dropped it and never mentioned it again
thulgrum1
Nothing to see here people, move along
So, what you're saying is....
So if we just judge people on their skills... oh!
John Gray do I hear sexism at play?
Out of curiosity, any links?
"Not statistically significant but economically significant". Oh Lordy.
Econ- Sumerian, meaning Male Bovine. .Omically- Latin, meaning Excrement (Like my knowledge of ancient languages)
Meaning - Our research amounts to a nothingburger, but if we claim it proves sexism, it's going to make us a lot of cash.
haha, I wouldn't mind seeing more social scientists pulling meaningless adverbs out of their asses to replace "statistically." "The impact was not statistically significant, but it was DELICIOUSLY significant!"
I think screens are a good idea if only because it's a known fact that attractive people get preferential treatment. This way the ugly talented musicians actually get a real shot!
@ Ville Metsola yes, where are the ugly violinists in todays orchestras?
What do viola players use for birth control? Their personalities ...
I wish I could upvote this 80 times
Nobody wants to talk about beauty discrimination.
Personally I trust ugly musicians more than beautiful ones. I'm biased that way.
Going up by 50% is not doubling 😂
Its lady math you woman hater!
Jay L still typing like Stephen Hawking with two lazy eyes, eh?
I don't recall perfectly, but didn't the "doubled" comment refer to a specific orchestra's experience after implementing blind auditions? Too lazy to rewatch...
It didn't actually increase it by 50% either. In some cases, it reduced it. In some cases it increased it. The data contradicts the conclusions.
@@JohnDoe-xf2ke I'm very disappointed in my ex tribe, their integrity is a bad as that of religious presuppositionalist "scientists" -_-
“Doubled! Went put 50%” :) Yeah, that sounds like a Harvard level scientist
@ and was head of APS if her bio is true...
Must be the woke or feminist maths
How did they pass 2nd grade 🤦🏾♂️
Glad to see Christina is back.
Meh where’d she go.
@@zissler1 She's been doing stuff but just not factual feminist episodes.
Crying on Twitter is definitely signs of strength and independence.
Anytime you see the word “I think” in a “scientific” paper, you know things are sketchy.
At least it wasn't "My truth..."
This woman is brilliant, open-minded and honest. Understandable that the Left don't like her
Don't like her, they hate her. Facts hurt those who think victim hood is primacy. Ignore MLK.
Don’t forget she also brought a 🐶 into her video so she’s perfect
Do they like anyone? They can't even stand each other.
Sommers is invaluable. Thanks so much for clarifying this issue!
Blind Feminism
P.s. 'doubled, went up 50%' tells you everything you need to know about modern feminisms use of data
😏
you are a gem, christina. despite racking up subscriptions to all sites that include your content, this is the first time in a long time i have encountered a current one. such a treat, because you model use of empirical evidence & logic with a graceful treatment of those purveying non- to partial- truths you reveal. lovely. i remember thinking when i heard about blind audition study that just for starters, these people presumably have the most exquisitely attuned sense of hearing & would be able to inevitably pick up every tell such as the sound of shoes walking in, breathing patterns, & other things i wouldn't think of.
Blind Auditions *can* reduce the amount of women whinging about not getting hired
If blind auditions failed to work in women's favor they would insist on quotas to increase "diversity." Win/Win for them.
@@hellogoodbye4061 From a Wall Street Journal article by Christina Hoff Sommers:
In 2017 a team of behavioural economists in the Australian government published the results of a large, randomised controlled study entitled "Going Blind to See More Clearly." It was directly inspired by the blind-audition study. Iris Bohnet, a Harvard Kennedy School dean and Goldin-Rouse enthusiast, served as an adviser.
For the study, more than 2,000 managers in the Australian Public Service were asked to select recruits from randomly assigned resumes-some disguising the applicant's sex, others not. The research team fully expected to find far more female candidates shortlisted when sex was disguised. But, as the stunned team leader told the local media: "We found the opposite, that de-identifying candidates reduced the likelihood of women being selected for the shortlist." It turned out that many senior managers, aware that sexist assumptions had once kept women out of upper-level positions, already practised a mild form of affirmative action. Anonymized hiring was not only time-consuming and costly, it proved to be an obstacle to women's equality. The team plans to look elsewhere for solutions.
@@sinaloa367 owww so this is what happened from the other comment that I read, about Australian government blind audition results more failed women. And they don't want to mention it.
@Entrenched Mgtow There's a real sense of deja vu here. There was a policy of 'numerus clausus' in the 20th century throughout Europe and North America which restricted the participation of Jews in higher education. In many U.S. Universities the number of Jewish students ranged from 30% to 50%, so between the 1920's up until as recently as the 1970's they had strict quota systems for Jewish admission. For example Cornell University reduced the Jewish student population from 40% in 1920 to 3.5% in 1940. Yale were even worse, they had a policy admitting only 5 Jewish students per year. The case of Yale is an interesting one, i believe they were the first to introduce a 'Legacy' policy, (which continues in Universities to this day), and also introduced discriminatory policies based on character and attitude. There have been allegations that the latter policy has been used against Asians in many Universities for nearly 40 years, and explicit proposals to use it against Whites.
I think there is little doubt that there has been a great loss of intellectual capital, (and an inevitable hindrance on technological and economic advancement), in Europe and North America because of these policies. Richard Feynman, one of the greatest physicists of the 20th century very nearly slipped through the net after being rejected by Columbia because of quotas, fortunately he was persistent and eventually got a place at MIT. Now the same thing is increasingly happening with whites and Asians and i think it's hard to exaggerate the detrimental effect on society. It's not just an obstacle to progress, but it's very dangerous to discriminate against and marginalise a very resourceful majority demographic; they can fight back!
We are beginning to see the emergence of not just a White Nationalist movement throughout the West, but a White Trans-nationalist movement. In Europe, many Germanic, Slavic, Celtic and Latin Europeans are beginning to feel an affinity for one another that is largely reactionary, and i think similar sentiment is growing in North America. Unless the brakes are put on this intersectional insanity things are going to get extremely violent. It's ludicrous to address issues of race, gender, poverty, education etc etc, and equitable access to resources by discriminating against specific groups. It's particular bigoted when most individuals in the main group being targeted, (white males), have neither power nor privilege.
I believe Australia briefly tried blind hiring for the government, beleving women would do better. Turned out women did worse and they abandoned the program
So glad to hear from you after such a long hiatus! I’m a musicologist who has for a long time been intrigued by this whole blind audition question, given the lack of sexism I’ve always observed in most musicians, and in the music world (both classical and jazz) in general. Since learning, in the past few years-from you, at first, then from my own research-about the excesses of Feminism, my confusion has only increased. The refreshing news you bring us in this clip is a welcome resolution to the tension, and I find myself once more in a state of ‘cognitive consonance’. Thank you. And I do hope you will continue to enlighten us on a regular basis.
I teach violin. For the first 15 years that I taught, I always had approximately half girl students and half boy students and for many years, it leaned towards more male students. I stopped teaching for a couple of years to live abroad with my husband. Three years ago I moved back to restart my studio. For every 4 or 5 girls I get in the studio, I only get 1 boy. Granted, my sample size is incredibly small and I'm also dependent upon Google algorithms in part for exposure to new students, but it has been consistent and feels off-kilter. There is even an attitude among the girls that girls "rock" and they are quite vocal about being "better" and superior to boys. My pet theory is that if the little girls have picked this up, then so, too, have the little boys and perhaps even their parents, who may no longer be willing to invest in their sons who may also be feeling inferior and not displaying what parents might look for in order to seek out lessons. I'm wondering if anyone else has had this gender attitude and/or imbalance in their practice.
Oh without a doubt this permeates in our current school system....where my daughter goes to high school, the girls were led into the science labs to listen to university STEM students tell them how smart and "empowering" they were...the boys were told to wait in the hallways while this took place. True story....and to make matters worse, later that day, the boys, and the boys only, had to attend a mandatory "sexual harassment/assault awareness class" in which they were, more or less, told they were nothing more than potential toxic rapists, molesters, harassers, sexual assaulting, woman beating pieces of crap. Thankfully,, enough parents protested that the administration agreed to allow the boys to enter the classroom when the university STEM students next return. Just horrid how boys are treated in our schools today....a small sample here, but it seems to speak volumes.
@@hellogoodbye4061 Thank you for sharing! That's heartbreaking, I hope more people wake up and take a stand.
@@hellogoodbye4061 Out of curiosity, what school district are your kids in?
@@juliafox52 I believe the teacher, female of course, set up this visit for the STEM students and that her heart was in the right place, but twisted by feminism that girls are somehow oppressed as the reason they do not enter the sciences, so naturally only girls should have been present for this "go into STEM" pep talk......which is simply not true, if anything, girls are encouraged to no end to pursue every field imaginable.
"It's cool when girls do it."
When you get right down to it, that's actually insulting and/or insidious.
If women are equally capable as men, then it should be completely un-noteworthy when they do something. So it's either an inverse way of saying that women aren't as good as men, or else it's a means to reverse the "power structure" and have women dominate men in everything. I see neither case as noble.
Audition screens have done more to prevent nepotism than help anybody for whatever reasons.
Blind auditions or blind judging is still a good idea where there is some subjective evaluation going on. Good examples are cooking, art, music, creative writing, etc. In each of these the prospective judges could be influenced to like a person more because they resemble themselves in some way or because they have some type of notoriety. Blind judging is helpful to use in these situations where possible.
I’d like to see you tackle another blindly accepted “fact”...that giving aid directly to women in developing countries has a greater economic impact. I heard recently that this oft-cited tidbit was completely made up.
Number of women doubled, did they? Aha. An entire 50%? Makes sense.
I work in IT.
The groups at a previous employer handled recruitment themselves.
The HR department of course assumed we all were raving mad sexists. They demanded that all CVs should be anonymous to remove any bias against women.
The method was quickly abandoned shortly after it was introduced. It turned out that the amount of female applicants called to attend interviews dropped from 30% to almost zero with anonymous CVs.
In reality we all had a very strong bias for recruiting women - not against.
And apparently that was OK according to HR.
I agree with everything Professor Sommers said, but the dog at the end was the best part of the video
If women worked the same hours as men over life span: they would have the same pay.
I dare say with all the preferential treatment that women get, they may actually make more.
@Killian Miller
Well, in Canada right now construction workers are pissed, at least the male ones. Because feminists realised that there are not many women on construction sites and instead of wondering _why_ the fuck that is, the canadian solution was to hire women as the ones holding shields and redirecting the traffic.
And while the men are _still_ doing all the hard and dangerous and, not to forget, qualified work, women are just standing there with shields in their hands, get to call themselfes "construction worker" and... make more money than the men. Rumour has it that the productivity on construction sites dramatically decreases for some strange reason when such female "construction workers" are present.
Women are also less willing to travel for work and also less willing to ask for a pay raise (men ask for it 8 times more than women)
So it seems these two women who wrote this article outlining how they studied the stats and did the math aren't very good at stats or math.
Well they are employed by Harvard and Yale, so you have to cut them some slack. It is not like they work for a state college of some school actually educating students.
Long time no see. Welcome back!
Christina: "Truth matters"
TH-cam: Video demonetized.
This isn't the only myth that Gladwell popularized. He's also responsible for selling the idea of unconscious bias.
He has become unreadable.
@@HiVizCamo and yet he is a darling of the Liberals, esp the academics.
Based mom still at it.
Cat Woman based on what?
@@gregcarlson8438 Its a meme dude.Calling someone "based" is a meme....We call her "mom." "Based mom." Its a complement.
When I think of 'based' I think "based in reality", or "feet on the ground". So much nonsense is like a vague whiff in the wind, cobwebs of theories that kinda sound plausible and we might buy into them despite everything we see.
The opposite term seems to be 'woke', which seems to me to be saying "awoken to identity politics", and I think is like saying "a waking dream", or nightmare.
Maybe she doubles on bass?
Cat Woman I was genuinely asking what you meant. Now that I know it was a meme, I looked it up and see it means being yourself and not caring what others think.
I do not know why she calls herself a feminist. She sounds like a human being, telling the truth about something. A feminist implies she believes women should be given a position and power simply because they are a woman, not because they deserve it, the female equivalent of a male misogynist.
Thank you for this! I've been citing blind audition to remove gender bias and basically focus on performance (best man/woman for the job!) but I guess it wasn't that simple either. Good to know.
(3:07) _Still some may think it seems obvious that the screens contributed to equal hiring, but it's not. The screens may have been a reflection of changing attitudes - and it was those attitudes, not the screens, that helped women._
> Correlation v. Causation strikes again...
If more feminists were like this woman, then i would totally support them.
Me too. I usually say that I am anti-feminist (even though I am a woman); but if feminism were like this (like it was in the 60s-70s-80s), then I'd agree with it. However, our actual 3rd wave of feminism is awful... just awful!
I knew a fish that wanted to be a musician. But it just couldn't hit the right tuna.
Do you live in the bush?
It wanted to be a musician because the pay scale is pretty good.
You can tune a piano, but you can't tuna fish.--Plato, I think
It must have been a drummer ...
They hired him anyway, but they only paid him sick squid.
The Australians tried 'blind auditions' (resumes and application without gender) and found, to their dismay, that men were even more likely to be hired.
Orchestral musicians tend to be a nervous bunch to begin with. I wouldn't be surprised if blind auditions help BOTH genders to perform better, because they can pretend no one is watching them. (This is an issue for people who aren't soloists, but are fine playing in front of others if they are part of a group. I'm not a pro, but I did try out for regional honor band and state honor band in high school, and I know that the screen in between us made the audition a *lot* easier for me. I talked to some of the other clarinetists, and they felt the same.) Long story short: you might get better quality musicians (regardless of gender) using the screens.
"...Once the curtain dropped, the case study shows that the number of women who were selected doubled - they went up 50 percent."
It's hard to trust anyone who thinks a 50% increase doubles the number. A 50% increase in quantity 1 is 1.5; in quantity 10 is 15; and in quantity 100 is 150. On the other hand, a doubling of quantity 1 is 2; of quantity 10 is 20; and of quantity 100 is 200.
There *IS* a percentage increase the equivalent of doubling and that is 100%. A 100% increase in quantity 1 is 2; in quantity 10 is 20; and in quantity 100 is 200.
If the person who said that the quantity doubled - increase 50%, then they are deficient in middle school arithmetic and can hardly be trusted to comment on, let alone verify, a thesis that depends on statistics.
Worth watching, as usual. I would subscribe, but that gets me all AEI's videos, which I don't want. Please consider giving TFF its own channel.
I studied trombone performance at university. There are few women that play this instrument, compared to men (perhaps due to its size), and I did notice that one girl managed to make it into the orchestra every year. My instructor was on the audition committee, and he told me that he knows what I sound like (so he could tell it was me even though there was a screen up), and that I should have made it in to the orchestra, and that he thought the girl did not perform as well as I did during the audition. Yet, she got the spot, and I didn't. I think it's because the university wanted to keep up with an image of gender diversity. It really wasn't fair for me, as I feel that this opportunity was taken away from me. I try not to let this define my life, as I have since moved on into a different vocation and am happy, but that doesn't take away from the injustice at hand.
How do you get from your instructor recognizing you in spite of the screen to an entire committee knowingly selecting one of the few female candidates through a blind audition?
I read about this study in Malcolm Gladwell's Blink some years ago, and now here I am learning that it's more complicated that that
You are the first feminist that I have seen, on the Internet that in my opinion brings the debate over how to achieve equality fowrward, thanks for beeing so objective and making such a good vodeo :)
What I find troubling, is that you have a study that people seem to find significant, but no one attempts to replicate it. I was hoping when you said that the situation had changed that someone had finally tried to replicate the experiment.
I have only recently discovered this lady's channel. It is a breath of fresh air. I wish her well in her quest to create equality of opportunity using objective truth rather than the sophistry which is afflicting our society.
@ 4:42
The genius behind the quote "...Once the curtain dropped, the case stud shows that the number of women who were selected doubled -- they went up 50 percent."
Clearly she, Banaji, didn't even minor in a STEM field.
If anyone happens to not see the issue, double something is increasing it 100%.
This question or argument is a bit trite but still true: if women earn less than men doing the same job then why were there few women in orchestras? This is really economically significant!
The trick is to see that the limitation in the article is as to the PRELIMINARY rounds. The goal is to get the very best of the best. Apparently these higher levels of competitive power are not even confronted by the study itself. It's like saying that we can help women compete in the Men's 100 yard dash by forcing the inclusion of women at the first cut. It's not the first cut which will really determine much, or even anything. It's the last cut, and the next to last cut, which really separates the best from the almost best. If the article won't confront this, it really has only confronted the middling nowhere.
Very interesting! I'd heard of this study before but never read it. I'll have to do that now so I can come to my own conclusion!
I came for a friend's recommendation. Thank you for share it! I was pessimistic about to turn points on modern feminist agenda. We have a long way to walk for a real equality society. But support the debate in scientific data bring to me a renewed interest.
I know studies out there show overall, violins and violas are performed in orchestras by about 50:50 male:female. So when some orchestras boast of 90% women violinists to help make up 50% of the overall orchestra, I have very significant reason to believe some are committing gender discrimination against violinists who happen to be male.
This is really good. I hope there are more videos in the future.
4:44 which is it? Did they double or did they go up by 50%? Those two things aren’t the same. Doubling is going up by 100%.
At time 4:42. How exactly is going up by 50 percent "doubling"? Am I missing something?
"the number of women selected doubled ... they went up 50 percent" One probably shouldn't reference statistics if they can't do basic math.
THE DOG AT THE END! Love it
I think a lot of the confusion stems from the use of the word "equality" by those who seek to increase their privilege, rather than attain literal equality.
Maybe they could have had to panels of judges for each audition 1 with and without screens? Then comparing the results would give you a really good idea of the effect
I suggest blind screens in most jobs in order to prevent positive bias towards women that could alienate more capable men. There was a study out of Australia that found in STEM women were significantly less likely to be hired for a position when the employer didn't know they were women, showing a significant positive bias towards women in STEM fields.
Plus address _The Scully Effect_ that another bit of "rigorous feminist research" that get easily toppled when you realize Mulder and Scully are both FBI agents(law enforcement not a STEM field) and what the researchers found was an atypical trend of women liking Sci-Fi also pursuing STEM fields, not the "representation" they think Scully embodies. You can also use the fact that the portion of women in STEM was significantly higher before _The X-Files_ run than during or since.
I always enjoyed your times on Dennis Prager's show. His Male/Female hour was always interesting and you were a large part of that.
Omg. Thank you. I had always been stumped by that argument. No more :)
I was in a high school orchestra in the mid 90’s and worked my way up to be the best bassist in the county, at least at the high school level. We did screen auditions back then. But everyone knew who belonged in the first chair. With the exception of the bassists, which wasn’t popular with the girls due to the instrument size, the first chair was always a girl, especially when it came to the violins. Quite frankly these girls were the only ones that I was ever excited to play with because they weren’t awful like the rest of the kids. I went on to play in multiple bands, and I always loved playing with girls. The only thing that really matters is your ability to perform. If you’re awesome on your instrument then everyone wants to play with you. That’s just how it is. It was even that way back in the 40’s and 50’s in country music and bluegrass, hardly what I’d call a group of people particularly inclined towards diversity. I know this because my father played in a bluegrass band and there was always a longing to play music with girls. The main reason why you see fewer girls excel in music has nothing to do with discrimination and everything to do with most girl musicians never dedicating themselves or having the ambition to be truly great. To give the non musicians some sense of what it takes to truly master an instrument, you’ve got to practice 4 hours a day 4-5 times a week for 4-5 years.
like her or hate her she's spitting straight facts
I don't like the "yes, it does" vs. "no, it does not" kind of academic debates; that's at the level of children's pantomimes. If the original study was based on small sample sizes, and subsequent studies showed different results, could we have citations please? How small was the sample size of the original study, what were their implied error intervals? What did (which) subsequent studies show? I don't find it hard to believe that people are too uncritically embracing a study that fits their narrative - however, that does not mean it is wrong either, and for a counterclaim I would want to see a better foundation than a mixture of hearsay and vague references to disclaimers in the study.
Proof positive that neither bestselling authors nor Ivy League social scientists are immune from confirmation bias.
Take a look at the ABC (Australia) and their reply to the failure of their experiment. The reply is the thing people should have questioned more.
This points out how bad studies trickle down and inform entire careers and policies. There should be a way to pull back not just the primary research but all the research that references it. That would make researchers actually try to replicate results rather than just pull together articles that support their thesis. As Bret Weinstein has pointed out, statistical studies are exceedingly hard to do correctly in the social sciences because there are so many variables.
I am so sick of hearing "womans quest for equality"
Its actually time for MENS quest to catch up....its men that now need equality.
Just sayin 😈
They have more legal rights than men. I'm done listening to women complain about being women. It's called bitching for a reason.
"Truth matters" probably one of the most profound statements EVER! Especially in these times.
hey do you guys think you can have Christina Hoff Sommers do a video about this article please.
Okay, a VERY important piece of information would be helpful regarding when these scholars/scientists went back and read the whole study. For the semifinal rounds mentioned, were these also screened or not?
Great episode!! Can you do an episode about toxic masculinity research?
Where can we read the scholarly criticism of the original study?
I always found the popular conclusions of this study to be interesting, and it sounded plausible enough that I never really checked.
Lies are always rooted in a grain of truth - but sprout off into utter lies.
An interesting survey question in such a study would be whether the screens alleviated musicians' anxieties, allowing them to perform better in the initial auditions.
Wonder if there are stats on how many of those screened musicians were later fired after less-than-stellar performances in front of an audience?
@@JNYC-gb1pp I think that most people who play in orchestras already have plenty of experience in front of audiences. I never even considered joining the city's orchestra, but I had six years of music in school, including five concurrent years with an all-city ensemble and a week at band-camp. That's a lot of Christmas concerts and other festivals... Playing within a big ensemble isn't bad (unless you've been roped into a solo), but one-on-one auditions with the conductor can be nerve-wracking.
@@Ostsol I'm just saying IF there is a possibility that nerves could be the cause, then eliminating it by looking at that data would reduce your possible cause to also examine and eliminate. The more cause you eliminate, the closer you get to the actual reason why women actually suddenly started joining orchestras and not this speculative and politically motivated cherry picking.
What I love about leftist studies is how they intentionally use the word "doubled" and "increased by X%" to make it sound grander than it is...
For example, if the screens meant that the number of women doubled, and there were only (for the sake of example) 2 women who went through otherwise, that means there were now 4...that's a very circumstantial increase to link it to the blind audition...
Also, if the number increased by 50%, and there was only 1 before, that means now there's only 1.5 on average...
But when feminists speak about these findings they want to make you think that it actually means that men and women were now distributed equally at 50% each, but that's not the case at all...
When making an argument, they rely on the "This has to sound logical if not looked into, so people don't bother to fact-check" sentences to make their point...
I love your scientific approach, being a scientist myself. Maybe social "scientists" need to take a few courses in statistics and data analysis.
Cute! The dog is adorable as well.
You're a gem, FF.
❤️, a conservative.
Based mom is baaaaaaaaaaaack!
In my recommendations.
I would like see processes that eliminate discrimination on criteria irrelevant to the job at hand, rather than setting quotas
That is why I liked the blind auditions. They are an effort to focus on the relevant and leave out the irrelevant.
At 4:38 she critiques someone whose math is so bad that they think a 50% increase is the same a being Doubled (So, basically, they think that a 50% increase is the same as a 100% increase, OK then!).
You should put Izzie in the thumbnail for more views. He (she?) is very cute!
I thought any improvement was attributed to alleviating performamce anxiety?
Anonymised recruitment was tried by the civil service in the UK and Australia where the results ended up with even more men being recruited than through the “Biased panels” with the result of anonymised recruitment being dropped almost immediately as it did not meet expectations of certain parties.
I know absolutely nothing about the BIGGER issue of gender bias. Yet, common sense, for me, is that men and women can transmit emotion (music) to the amount that a musical piece flows through the music in question. How people want to make that a gender issue have never truly loved...or the opposite.
GILF Based Mom is at it again.
Ew.
Thank you for your leadership so needed.....
Christina, thank you so much for your effort to find the truth about gender issues. You really contribute to create a better world both for men and women.
I had seen this myth on Pinterest, and I have to admit to being fooled by this one. Thanks for clearing it up for me!
As a Data Analyst, this is called data overfitting, where the scale of the data is too small, or the data is biased itself.
There was a recent study blinding resumes in STEM - female sounding names got a 6% benefit.
after the results showed women benefit asymmetrically the authors said blinding should NOT be used to achieve fairness. (from memory - exact numbers and wording probably differed)
Honestly, I do support blind auditions for orchestras, but not for gender reasons, strictly for the purpose of each orchestra finding the best musicians. Whether or not the amount of women goes up, I’d like to know that the musicians were chosen strictly because they can play their instruments well. I’m not sure this kind of screening process can be as easily implemented in other industries though.
You know you are wrong when the data scientist and your own media write your errors out loud
I heard that the sound of the auditioner’s footsteps across the stage could give away whether a man or woman was auditioning. So they had to audition in stocking feet. 🙄
Isn't it possible that the bias wasn't based on individual musical ability but on the ability to function in a hierarchy?
There's another factor that may not have been taken in. Violinists and other string players tend to be female in lesser orchestras so there might be a difference between permanent hires and freelancers. Someone is always needed to fill pregnancy openings. The rise of the Pill in the 1970's-1990's may have actually helped younger women who were no longer assumed to leave shortly after being hired and getting pregnant.
I don't have to watch the entire video to know the truth. Women, especially in that time were more self conscious and performed better anonymously.
One interesting question is what was the trend in the number of qualified female candidates. If it turns out that in the 80s there were simply more qualified female musicians applying, then the 50% increase in female hiring can be attributed to that, rather than the blind auditions (which I fully support).
Gladwell cannot be trusted, the only thing he's good at is selling books.
In order for the screens to help against discrimination, there has to be discrimination in the first place.
They probably saw a spike in female musicians, because more women were actually trying to get into the band. Women saw that there was a blind screening, so they applied. I would bet, that not only did 50% more women get into the orchestra, but also 50% more women applied too.