« Biased towards bosses | Main | Mechanisms vs models »

January 09, 2012

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451cbef69e20162ff48a2af970d

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Stereotypes matter:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

pduggie

Lesbians don't have babies?

Maybe smaller employer discount of lesbians reflects rational calculation of their chance of having babies men

Simon Cook

Why is it irrational to choose from group K under those circumstances? Faced with a choice where the rewards and odds were exactly even, I'd go with Group K on the offchance that the tester was lying, mistaken or I'd misunderstood the terms of the game. There's simply no incentive for me to go with Group L.

Would it not have been more interesting/useful if they'd rigged it so you had a slightly higher chance of winning if you picked Group K, in spite of the underlying make up of the group?

Philip Walker

Chris: reading the paper, you should add that if an underperformer from K were picked, then an underperformer from L was also picked. (This detail changes the nature of the decision substantially, since without it, the probability of selecting an outperformer is higher with L.)

Churm Rincewind

Just checking whether I'm allowed to post on this blog, as my last three comments appear to have been deleted/rejected.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Why S&M?

Blog powered by Typepad