bendygardiner.bsky.social
@bendygardiner.bsky.social
In a world where this is commonplace you quickly get adversely selected towards the people who will lie all the time
bsky.app/profile/dunc...
bsky.app/profile/dunc...
People who have previously presented themselves as perfect at everything suddenly start saying things like “Someone with a really close attention to small details would be useful”.
December 22, 2025 at 8:58 AM
In a world where this is commonplace you quickly get adversely selected towards the people who will lie all the time
bsky.app/profile/dunc...
bsky.app/profile/dunc...
This seems reasonable and I agree conceptually - would you be able to put it in odds ratio terms? I am not entirely clear on why the thresholds are different for the UK and US
December 17, 2025 at 7:18 PM
This seems reasonable and I agree conceptually - would you be able to put it in odds ratio terms? I am not entirely clear on why the thresholds are different for the UK and US
bsky.app/profile/step... “You are claiming these hiring processes are fair” is - I hope! - a charitable characterisation of where you started and what you believe. I think substantially higher odds ratios (2x or higher) in hiring for particular cohorts isn’t indicative of “more fair” hiring
...did they? I recall *some* organisation said they were going to try and have more fair hiring processes, which is not the same as 'prioritising'.
December 17, 2025 at 6:54 PM
bsky.app/profile/step... “You are claiming these hiring processes are fair” is - I hope! - a charitable characterisation of where you started and what you believe. I think substantially higher odds ratios (2x or higher) in hiring for particular cohorts isn’t indicative of “more fair” hiring
I’ve provided an academic study which shows a 2x higher odds ratio across academia. I’ve given you numbers based on private cohorts I’ve seen in my industry which are higher. How high would the odds ratio have to be or you to accept it as “substantially higher”?
December 17, 2025 at 6:50 PM
I’ve provided an academic study which shows a 2x higher odds ratio across academia. I’ve given you numbers based on private cohorts I’ve seen in my industry which are higher. How high would the odds ratio have to be or you to accept it as “substantially higher”?
bsky.app/profile/step... The article does pretty clearly show that there are cohorts and top programs within the elite industries it profiles where there are very few white men, which was the claim you’ve presented as a lie here
It was that claims that there are "now very few white men" are simply a lie.
December 17, 2025 at 6:48 PM
bsky.app/profile/step... The article does pretty clearly show that there are cohorts and top programs within the elite industries it profiles where there are very few white men, which was the claim you’ve presented as a lie here
I clearly don’t think that - you don’t rise to the top of your industry without real talent, and in your case the great career strategy of being the only person interested in deeply understanding Labour in the 2010s. I just think you’re wrong on this topic and this topic is important
December 17, 2025 at 6:44 PM
I clearly don’t think that - you don’t rise to the top of your industry without real talent, and in your case the great career strategy of being the only person interested in deeply understanding Labour in the 2010s. I just think you’re wrong on this topic and this topic is important
I will definitely accept that claim - although I disagree - or a claim that it was unfair but it was morally good. “It didn’t happen and it’s bad to say it did” when people can observe substantially skewed outcomes doesn’t feel like a healthy schelling point for discourse
December 17, 2025 at 6:42 PM
I will definitely accept that claim - although I disagree - or a claim that it was unfair but it was morally good. “It didn’t happen and it’s bad to say it did” when people can observe substantially skewed outcomes doesn’t feel like a healthy schelling point for discourse
The argument I and LeftOutside and I think the original piece was making is that the observably much higher odds of being hired or selected across a number of industries does provide proof that hiring became unfair, unless the skew was a function of meritocracy
December 17, 2025 at 6:40 PM
The argument I and LeftOutside and I think the original piece was making is that the observably much higher odds of being hired or selected across a number of industries does provide proof that hiring became unfair, unless the skew was a function of meritocracy
Right but if no one was “passed over” and no one was “prioritised” then you are claiming the process is meritocratic? Separately “this group is represented in some age cohort of this industry” is not a structural defence against claims of discrimination I think you’d accept in other circumstances
December 17, 2025 at 6:37 PM
Right but if no one was “passed over” and no one was “prioritised” then you are claiming the process is meritocratic? Separately “this group is represented in some age cohort of this industry” is not a structural defence against claims of discrimination I think you’d accept in other circumstances
The clearest research I had seen was in academia - the study here for example shows a 2x higher likelihood of hiring for female candidates over male ones in science departments www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1...
Study suggests STEM faculty hiring favors women over men
New study suggests STEM hiring favors women over men, in contrast to lots of other research suggesting otherwise. But is there more to the story?
www.insidehighered.com
December 17, 2025 at 6:27 PM
The clearest research I had seen was in academia - the study here for example shows a 2x higher likelihood of hiring for female candidates over male ones in science departments www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1...
I agree - my understanding of your argument was essentially that “there is no disadvantage, we have just made hiring in these sectors meritocratic which is why there are now very few white men” rather than it being that white men were being disadvantaged and that was good
December 17, 2025 at 6:18 PM
I agree - my understanding of your argument was essentially that “there is no disadvantage, we have just made hiring in these sectors meritocratic which is why there are now very few white men” rather than it being that white men were being disadvantaged and that was good
The extent to which the response has been a combination of “it’s not happening” and “it is evil and discriminatory to talk about it happening” doesn’t give me a lot of faith that the piece could ever have been immaculately consciences in the way you’re requiring
December 17, 2025 at 6:00 PM
The extent to which the response has been a combination of “it’s not happening” and “it is evil and discriminatory to talk about it happening” doesn’t give me a lot of faith that the piece could ever have been immaculately consciences in the way you’re requiring
Fair enough - I don’t know your industry that well. In my industry over a number of graduate intakes there were roughly 3 times higher hiring rates for women, which is why it didn’t seem outlandish, and the recent academic research supports substantially higher hiring odds ratios elsewhere
December 17, 2025 at 5:45 PM
Fair enough - I don’t know your industry that well. In my industry over a number of graduate intakes there were roughly 3 times higher hiring rates for women, which is why it didn’t seem outlandish, and the recent academic research supports substantially higher hiring odds ratios elsewhere
You’ll have a much clearer view of the applicant pool in your industry than I do, so if you tell me it’s 2/3rds female then I will believe you. But if it *is* roughly even then the odds for a female applicant was roughly 2x that of a male applicant. Would that be meritocratic?
December 17, 2025 at 5:22 PM
You’ll have a much clearer view of the applicant pool in your industry than I do, so if you tell me it’s 2/3rds female then I will believe you. But if it *is* roughly even then the odds for a female applicant was roughly 2x that of a male applicant. Would that be meritocratic?
I was using the share of journalism graduates as a proxy for the applicant pool as a whole. Is your thesis that the hiring reflects the gender balance of the applicant pool, and thus the applicants without journalism degrees are substantially more likely to be female?
December 17, 2025 at 5:21 PM
I was using the share of journalism graduates as a proxy for the applicant pool as a whole. Is your thesis that the hiring reflects the gender balance of the applicant pool, and thus the applicants without journalism degrees are substantially more likely to be female?
I am well aware that it’s not 50-50 in the humanities - as you say it’s roughly 60-40 - but the end result is 80-20, so even if the entire 2024 cohort is new (which it won’t be) then in that period women were 3x more likely to be selected for a tenure track position. Is this meritocratic?
December 17, 2025 at 5:18 PM
I am well aware that it’s not 50-50 in the humanities - as you say it’s roughly 60-40 - but the end result is 80-20, so even if the entire 2024 cohort is new (which it won’t be) then in that period women were 3x more likely to be selected for a tenure track position. Is this meritocratic?
If you reversed the race or gender categories there and made the same claim about the 80s - “it is impossible the process was not meritocratic, there were women/diverse individuals at all levels” - you’d reject it out of hand
December 17, 2025 at 5:04 PM
If you reversed the race or gender categories there and made the same claim about the 80s - “it is impossible the process was not meritocratic, there were women/diverse individuals at all levels” - you’d reject it out of hand
It’s worth noting that on these numbers these organisations became *less diverse* - the Atlantic and the colleges both skewed their workforce towards one of the genders. I don’t know what the gender balance of the applicant pool is in journalism, but among those studying it it’s roughly 50-50
December 17, 2025 at 5:01 PM
It’s worth noting that on these numbers these organisations became *less diverse* - the Atlantic and the colleges both skewed their workforce towards one of the genders. I don’t know what the gender balance of the applicant pool is in journalism, but among those studying it it’s roughly 50-50
It was completely visible in any recruiting across the sector that you had odds ratios for being hired onto grad schemes that were often some multiples higher if you were from protected demographics
December 17, 2025 at 4:39 PM
It was completely visible in any recruiting across the sector that you had odds ratios for being hired onto grad schemes that were often some multiples higher if you were from protected demographics
Various finance firms firms publicly disclosed they had made a substantial portion of bonuses for senior business leaders contingent on extremely rapidly boosting female and diverse junior- and mid-level share in their businesses, requiring pretty harsh discrimination to deliver
December 17, 2025 at 4:38 PM
Various finance firms firms publicly disclosed they had made a substantial portion of bonuses for senior business leaders contingent on extremely rapidly boosting female and diverse junior- and mid-level share in their businesses, requiring pretty harsh discrimination to deliver
I don’t think this is a good characterisation of the process. We had senior finance c-suite presenting to select committees boasting about illegal discrimination they had used to rapidly boost their share of women in senior roles
December 17, 2025 at 4:36 PM
I don’t think this is a good characterisation of the process. We had senior finance c-suite presenting to select committees boasting about illegal discrimination they had used to rapidly boost their share of women in senior roles
A friend points out that the new Lib Dem candidate makes it hard to model, but even if you generously assume that every Lib Dem vote and every vote which moved to the Greens had gone Labour’s way … they’d have got exactly 37.7%
December 12, 2025 at 3:00 PM
A friend points out that the new Lib Dem candidate makes it hard to model, but even if you generously assume that every Lib Dem vote and every vote which moved to the Greens had gone Labour’s way … they’d have got exactly 37.7%
The whole story is pretty odd and would raise some important questions if it were presented to a financial intermediary, so it’d be good to know what questions were asked before it was raised in Parliament
December 1, 2025 at 9:57 AM
The whole story is pretty odd and would raise some important questions if it were presented to a financial intermediary, so it’d be good to know what questions were asked before it was raised in Parliament