[ahmeneeroe-v2]

Can you offer any other possible explanations than "unconscious bias" that would lead to different outcomes?

"Unconscious bias" is sociological dark matter. It is a kludge used to prop up otherwise ineffective social theories.

[ANewFormation]

Exactly. This [1] headline from the NYT pretty much sums up the issue: "To Make Orchestras More Diverse, End Blind Auditions."

Different groups of peoples have different strengths and different weaknesses. This isn't some sort of a problem that needs fixing.

And if one does want to 'fix' it you need to start way earlier than at the e.g. hiring point. Want to beat that kid who's been playing violin for hours a day since he was 6? Ok, then your target demographic is 6 year olds, not professional orchestras.

[1] - https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/16/arts/music/blind-audition...

[larkost]

I can't read the article, so I don't really know what they are arguing for there. The headline sounds a bit click-baity, so I don't want to guess what the content is.

But looking from a sex standpoint blind auditions are responsible for a sweeping change in the ratio of men and women in professional orchestras (though men still outnumber women %60 to %40, but that is from a near %100 a while ago). This is absolutely a case to look at to demonstrate what unconscious biases are, and a wonderfully effective way of fighting it in one specific place.

[ANewFormation]

The article is what you'd expect from the headline.

The change in gender differences is easily explained by more girls pursuing music from an earlier age. More people (as a ratio) from a group competently doing something means you end up with more highly successful outliers from that group.

Blind screening started in the 50s.

[larkost]

Unconscious biases are well studied, and a good presenter can show it live on stage.

Please explain to me how %85 of Fortune 500 CEOs are white men. I don't believe for a moment that white men (myself included) are generically better at being CEOs, or at performing any of the roles that lead up to those positions.

The unconscious biases that the people in those positions choosing their successors to look like them selves is a strong explanation of this, and studies have been show that in controlled situations this sort of things happens all the time. Even by those who want things to be color-blind.

[ANewFormation]

You can create toy experiments to 'prove' just about anything - this is why social psychology has a replication rate in the 20% range. Though it's really much worse since that's only independently repeating the same experiments, not adversarially challenging hypotheses, at which point the entire field looks about as reliable as astrology. Quite appropriately since astrology, which was also studied as a 'science' for centuries, was highly influential on the founding fathers of modern psychology - Jung in particular.

And group differences are not only genetic. Why do you think that, for instance, 70% of American football or NBA players are black, while only 8% of baseball players are?

Go look at an average MBA classroom and know what you'll overwhelmingly see? Pretty much what a sampling of CEOs looks like, especially once accounting for performance.