評論
打印
Even today, gender-blind evaluations still result in better outcomes for women.
甚至到今天，因忽略性別所做出的評價仍然會對女性產生更有利的結果。
Unfortunately, most jobs require face-to-face interviews.
遺憾的是，大多數工作都要求面對面地考察申請者。
All of us, myself included, are biased, whether we admit it or not.
所有人，包括我在內，不管我們承認與否，都是帶有成見的。
And thinking that we are objective can actually make this even worse, creating what social scientists call a "bias blind spot."
假設我們都能做到客觀，這實際上反而會讓事情變得更糟糕，產生社會學家所說的“偏見盲點”。
This blind spot causes people to be too confident about their own powers of objectivity so that they fail to correct for bias.
這種盲點將導致人們對自己的客觀立場過分自信，使得他們無法克服偏見帶來的影響。
When evaluating identically described male and female candidates for the job of police chief,
例如，當申請警察局局長職位的男性和女性資歷相當時，
respondents who claimed to be the most impartial actually exhibited more bias in favor of male candidates.
自認為最客觀的受訪者實際上也會表現得更傾向于支持男性。
This is not just counterproductive but deeply dangerous.
這不僅有違直覺，而且相當危險。
Evaluators in that same study actually shifted hiring criteria to give men an advantage.
同樣，調查中評估員的背景也會影響到雇用標準，使它變得具有傾向性。
When a male applicant possessed a strong educational record, that quality was considered critical to the success of a police chief.
當一個男性申請者擁有過硬的教育背景時，這會被認為是一個成功的警察局局長所具備的重要特質；
But when a male applicant possessed a weaker educational record, that quality was rated as less important.
但如果一個男性申請者其教育背景不夠理想，那么這項指標就變得不那么重要。
This favoritism was not shown to female applicants. If anything, the reverse happened.
女性申請者則沒有享受到這種偏袒，即使有的話，也是正好相反。
When a woman possessed a particular skill, ability, or background, that quality tended to carry less weight.
如果一位女性申請者擁有特定的技術、能力或背景，那么這些指標的重要性就有可能被削弱。
The infuriating takeaway from this study is that "merit" can be manipulated to justify discrimination.
研究顯示出的這種不公平的偏見恰好說明，所謂的“實力”可以被用來將歧視合理化。
