http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-l...751307?SThisFB
At this point it feels like the BBC is just wasting taxpayers' money on something we already know and that will never change.
BBC: "Sky continues to be mostly bluish"
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-l...751307?SThisFB
At this point it feels like the BBC is just wasting taxpayers' money on something we already know and that will never change.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Aside from this not so surprising result I am curious what the difference is after people are actually invited for an interview, otherwise all those suggestions of anonymous applications are still useless.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
The discrepancy is not as great but hard to draw any conclusions obviously in part because of the high likelihood of selection bias (ie. those more likely to interview Mohammeds are perhaps less likely to be biased against them).
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
The US does the same thing with black-sounding names.
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
I cite two other studies in one of my classes, one from the US and one from France. The results are consistent with this one.
Hope is the denial of reality
Not surprised at all. It's not just a case of white versus minority names either but amongst white kids serious versus stupid names.
My wife and I spent a long time going back and forth on our kids names but one thing we both agreed early on about was that we wanted "classic" names that you could imagine being the name of a doctor, lawyer or any other profession she might want to grow up to do. Too often you see people given stupid names nowadays for instance to me Chardonnay is the name of a wine not a name for a person. If your child wants to grow up to be a stripper she can pick a stage name.
*Looks out window* It's February in England, I see no blue sky just grey, grey and more grey. You lied!
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
Yeah, Muslims should stop giving their kids stupid names like Muhammad.
Hope is the denial of reality
Did I say that? Though that is what many minorities have done after emigrating to a foreign land as part of integrating into the culture I don't believe I suggested that, I was referring to white kids given dumb names.
The study I use about America actually has both applicants with identical names, but one lists membership in various Muslim organizations.
Hope is the denial of reality
Doesn't surprise me either. I suspect listing membership of LGBTQ or similar organisations would have the same impact.
They need to add "Bootstraps" to their CVs. The results in Sweden have been nearly identical for people with Arab names, especially men, for a couple of decades. Just academic confirmation of the lived experiences of people in a post-racism world. I believe we can say, without being too controversial, that this may constitute a social problem.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
That was actually the interesting part of the article. It showed that membership in gay organization made a difference in Republican counties, but not Democratic ones (the anti-Muslim bias was present in both).
Hope is the denial of reality
But then how would we recognize the threat and proceed to annihilate it?Yeah, Muslims should stop giving their kids stupid names like Muhammad.
In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
Hold your interview in a pub and see what they drink?
That was a joke but seriously I heard a story recently about a friend of a friend who went for a job interview with Diageo's accounts department, which was held in a nearby bar with a panel of three people doing the interview. He was asked what he wanted to drink and asked for a lager - then the person leading the interview proceeded to order the lager and three Guinness. He didn't get the job.
WHat you consider a dumb name is of course very culture specific (in fact, that changes even between different socio economic backgrounds). I mean, the name Felix is perfectly acceptable here, but naming someone 'Lucky' is very unusual. But when my parents lived in Africa that name was not uncommon.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
Indeed. The point is that culturally normal names locally are traditionally more successful than culturally abnormal names which is part of the reason why for centuries it has been common practice for integrating migrants to adopt local-sounding names. I had people in my class in Australia who had Anglicised their name after they'd emigrated there from East Asia.
Even though a lot of migrants to America came from Germany [cf last night's Budweiser advert] you don't get many babies named Klaus etc in America.
I actually think it's a good thing that this is no longer the case. I know some people still do it, but generally my experience has been that those who do so are trying to avoid butchering of their difficult to pronounce names (especially some Asians in Western contexts) rather than some feeling that a name will make them fit in better.
I myself have a name that might be construed as 'ethnic' (and can definitely be butchered on pronunciation) and I'm a 4th to 7th generation American. I don't think that's a bad thing.
Obviously it leads to occasional awkwardness, but fortunately in my professional circles a large proportion of people have unusual names, so I don't stand out all that much. I think moving to a country doesn't mean you need to subsume your cultural background into the overarching gestalt; in fact, I think it's better if one doesn't. I think it's far more important that people adopt a common set of values about how a society should work rather than something silly like names - say, accepting the rule of law and the value of our freedoms.
"When I meet God, I am going to ask him two questions: Why relativity? And why turbulence? I really believe he will have an answer for the first." - Werner Heisenberg (maybe)
Its not just the "sound". People are getting fed up with parents trying to be unique and misspelling both simple and complex names on purpose. Legal directions on how to get a name change are starting to appear in the arsenal of low income support groups more and more often.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Absolutely, we named one of our daughters Chloe and its funny how many people seem relieved that it is spelt properly and not something stupid like Khloe like a Kardashian. The only question when we had her name legally registered was whether we wanted to spell it Chloé but we decided against that.
My name has two very common variants to it and I get very annoyed when it is spelt wrong, especially as I always insist that it is single L if giving my name for a formal document. My surname has three common variants and again I always spell it out. But its one thing when it is a common variant, it is another thing to deliberately make a mistake.
It became the norm to omit age and date of birth from CVs quite some time ago to circumvent age bias. Agencies routinely strip these from CVs before submitting candidates to available jobs.
Wonder if the same could ever be done with names. Raises a bit of administrative difficulty perhaps, but nothing that couldn't be overcome.
Issue is it only prevents discrimination at the first filtering out CVs stage. If you have 5-10 interviews for each vacancy its still possible to find reasons to discriminate at the interview stage.
I always found the age removal to be ridiculous. Considering people put years or length of service on their CVs then its not exactly difficult to spot an age from a CV when it's not written. If one CV details 30 years or work history and the other has no work history and got their GCSE's in 2016 I wonder which is a teenager and which isn't?
Indeed, but since the entire article in the OP was about selection bias, where Adam was selected for three times the number of jobs than Mohamed based on nothing more than his name, omitting names on CVs gets around that very issue.
Once the candidate is through the door and face to face for an interview, then it becomes an entirely different matter, and at that point the candidate at least has the opportunity to present himself and make a case. That won't make a shred of difference to an explicit racist who won't employ an asian regardless, sure.
The key issue is whether you get a job or not.
If Mohammed gets 4 interviews and gets a job in 1, or Mohammed gets 12 interviews and doesn't get a job in any - is the second scenario better?
Fair point.Once the candidate is through the door and face to face for an interview, then it becomes an entirely different matter, and at that point the candidate at least has the opportunity to present himself and make a case. That won't make a shred of difference to an explicit racist who won't employ an asian regardless, sure.
It's down to probabilities. Being interviewed for 12 jobs is three times more likely to yield a successful application than being interviewed for 4 jobs. Which is the very point of the article; Adam has three times the probability of a successful application than Mohamed, all other critieria being equal.
Much of this bias is unconscious and omitting names would ameliorate some of these problems for brown men as well as for most women.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Except all other criteria aren't equal when it comes to simply removing the name as a solution. There is a selection bias in that the 4 that offered the interview were not bothered by the name and the 8 that didn't possibly either consciously or unconsciously were. The odds that 8 that didn't offer the interview were twice as likely to offer a job than the 4 that weren't and gave the interview seems to me to be slim to nil.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote