Originally Posted by helltronX
Don't feel like doing research but I don't think its okay for women to get screwed out of money like what happened in that study. My point was that you're going to get a lot of women blaming their lesser salary on them being female instead of them having poor performance, similar to how people blame anything and everything on them being in Elo Hell except for their performance. Also men would do the exact same thing, which is why I think you would get a lot of incompetent people paid exactly the same as someone who probably deserved what they got in the first place. W/e for the record I don't think its OK for women to get less money just for being women.
Your point was that affirmative action will lead to women systematically getting more money/jobs than they deserve. Here's an analogy.
A professor is grading papers. He isn't perfect. He randomly grades somewhere between one letter grade too high and one letter grade too low for papers with a male name on them. Additionally, even though he's not doing it on purpose, he grades papers with female names on them on average one half-letter grade lower than we does an equivalent paper with a male name on it.
Affirmative action says that we should take that into account and add half a letter grade to the scores of every paper with a female name on it. Will that cause a lot of women to get As or B+s when they deserved Bs? Yes. And that just means that they're getting treated like men for once. (Meanwhile, Suzie was going to get a D+, but at least she has a C now, if not the B that she deserved. Joe is getting an A when he deserved a B, and Judy is getting an A when she deserved a B. You're only upset about Judy. Joe and Suzie were both absent from your first post.)
It simply won't work to hope that everyone will be objective and only go after the most egregiously intentional offenders and leave everything else alone. If there's a bias of -.5, a clumsy +.5 restores more overall balance than doing nothing and hoping for the best.
The study reported an average bias of .7 letter grades (.7 on a 1-5 scale, actually). The story you told was that affirmative action is unfair because basically a bunch of women with no skill are coasting along getting freebies.
But apparently you can't be bothered to read the one-page New York Times article, but you are qualified to judge women as largely incompetent affirmative action freeloaders, based on nothing but your assumption that gender bias isn't real except for maybe in the worst 5%. Nope, it's all over the place to the point where people who are professionally trained to be objective are biased by .7 on a 1-5 scale. That's freaking huge, uguyz.