I've definitely gotten jealous of other women. Though if my personality leaked into my software it would be more like envy, resentment, nostalgia, and FOMO. I wonder if that describes any existing tech projects?
Makes sense. Female professionals generally have to work harder to overcome gender biases that are still frustratingly prevalent in society.
And I assume that those biases are more pronounced in older populations which make up the bulk of healthcare patients, which could make the above need to work harder even more pronounced, maybe?
So many noisy data inputs here its hard to draw meaningful conclusions
I guess there might also be confounders, as the patients aren't randomized. For example, if more senior consultants are males due to a gender bias in earlier years, they may be involved in more complicated cases, and so on. Some specialities are quite gender biased, which may also impact the outcome
The difference is 0.2%. Honestly thought the difference would be much higher. I'll need to read the actual paper to get whether they found this statistically significant.
Now do versus race as identified in med school admissions. I'm curious if the variance in entry standards vs race poison the well for certain professionals.
How would you control for idiot racists who believed they were getting a lower standard of care from certain ethnicities and ensuing psychosomatic effects?
They don't, but as they're not looking to link it to "variance in entry standards vs race [that] poison the well", they don't need to control for it: bigotry being a possible explanation for their findings would be a reasonable conclusion.
That's a good question. Since, IIRC, men in professional positions tend to score higher on perceived competence, it'd be actually even more damning if they didn't control for that properly.
I suppose the same way they controlled for idiot bigots in this study.
Since the outcome measure is mortality, someone would have to be super racist to die in order to prove a point. All joking aside, you could look at patients who are unconscious who never see the race or gender of the physician, and stuff like that. These are solvable problems and people have been doing useful studies with racist participants for decades.
> someone would have to be super racist to die in order to prove a point
I don't think that's true. Seeking a second opinion based on the race of the first doctor, variable treatment compliance by race of prescriber, willingness to discuss and understand a condition, poorer quality concordance, declining to follow a referral to a specialist of a certain race, etc, are all examples of "small" decisions someone could take based on racism that would likely show up in aggregate in mortality outcomes.
Can you point out the last hn submission with scientific proof that men might be better than women at something? If not, is this because there's nothing men are better at, or that if there is we won't read about it?
And by "better at", I don't meant "better at being worse", I mean better in a way that is admirable.
Though in fairness this article will probably be memory holed so it can go both ways.
It is the same as female CEOs. They have a higher ROI and better stats for companies overall. I think it is so much harder for a woman to become a senior anything, the better people self-select.
In risk management is it easier to avoid wipe-outs and so the returns are better.
35 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 24.5 ms ] threadAnd I assume that those biases are more pronounced in older populations which make up the bulk of healthcare patients, which could make the above need to work harder even more pronounced, maybe?
So many noisy data inputs here its hard to draw meaningful conclusions
> Patients admitted on a Saturday and Sunday have a 10 per cent and 15 per cent higher risk of death than those admitted on a Wednesday.
"Patients 0.2% ‘less likely to die’ if treated by a female doctor, study reveals"
It's borderline dishonest not to.
/s
Since the outcome measure is mortality, someone would have to be super racist to die in order to prove a point. All joking aside, you could look at patients who are unconscious who never see the race or gender of the physician, and stuff like that. These are solvable problems and people have been doing useful studies with racist participants for decades.
I don't think that's true. Seeking a second opinion based on the race of the first doctor, variable treatment compliance by race of prescriber, willingness to discuss and understand a condition, poorer quality concordance, declining to follow a referral to a specialist of a certain race, etc, are all examples of "small" decisions someone could take based on racism that would likely show up in aggregate in mortality outcomes.
And by "better at", I don't meant "better at being worse", I mean better in a way that is admirable.
Though in fairness this article will probably be memory holed so it can go both ways.
In risk management is it easier to avoid wipe-outs and so the returns are better.
That is especially true for the ones with surprising/viral results!