Comments on: NYT: “In Top Jobs, There Are Almost as Many Men Named John as Women” https://www.habitablezone.com/2018/04/24/nyt-in-top-jobs-there-are-almost-as-many-men-named-john-as-women/ Fri, 03 Apr 2026 22:41:18 -0700 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: ER https://www.habitablezone.com/2018/04/24/nyt-in-top-jobs-there-are-almost-as-many-men-named-john-as-women/#comment-41416 ER Tue, 24 Apr 2018 19:27:37 +0000 https://habitablezone.com/?p=70604#comment-41416 Is that the number of men named "John" in top positions is equal to the total number of women in comparable positions. It is a comment on the relative scarcity of women in top jobs. The claim is that if you walk into a big office, the number of women bosses will be equal to the number of (male) bosses named "John" For example, picking some numbers out of thin air, if in a field of executive positions there are 100 available jobs and 10 of those executive slots are filled by women, then the remaining 90 of the jobs are filled by guys, of which 10 are named "John". This means 80 of those executive dudes are NOT named "John". A more general way of saying the same thing is to assert that in this example the probability of an executive being a woman (10/100 = 0.1) is the same as the probability of an executive being named John (0.1). The probability of a male executive being named "John" is 10/90 = 0.111... It seems like a very awkward way to phrase a headline. Maybe NYT needs to hire more women editors. Is that the number of men named “John” in top positions is equal to the total number of women in comparable positions. It is a comment on the relative scarcity of women in top jobs. The claim is that if you walk into a big office, the number of women bosses will be equal to the number of (male) bosses named “John”

For example, picking some numbers out of thin air, if in a field of executive positions there are 100 available jobs and 10 of those executive slots are filled by women, then the remaining 90 of the jobs are filled by guys, of which 10 are named “John”. This means 80 of those executive dudes are NOT named “John”.

A more general way of saying the same thing is to assert that in this example the probability of an executive being a woman (10/100 = 0.1) is the same as the probability of an executive being named John (0.1). The probability of a male executive being named “John” is 10/90 = 0.111…

It seems like a very awkward way to phrase a headline. Maybe NYT needs to hire more women editors.

]]>