techno-ag said:

---

WaPo article. Here's a free version:

https://sg.news.yahoo.com/why-women-linkedin-masquerading-men-141243627.html

Quote:

---

Megan Cornish had spent months puzzling about her waning reach on LinkedIn when she decided to run a test: She recast her profile to seem more like a guy.

Within a week, her impressions on the careers website quadrupled.

"I wish I was kidding about this," the mental health professional wrote late last month on LinkedIn, after describing how she used ChatGPT to give her profile a more masculine edge. When she asked it to make her content more "male coded," the artificial intelligence chatbot axed words like "communicator" and "clinician advocate" and replaced them with language about "driving ethical growth in behavioral health," Cornish detailed in a Substack post titled "LinkedIn Likes Me Better as a Man."

---

It seems to me these female writers are not really masquerading as men. They're just changing their content and writing style to be more masculine: forceful in tone, more assertive, less emotional.

And the algorithm likes that, probably because it's more professional rather inherently misogynistic.

---

A one point experiment is not a "result". It is an outlier.

I immediately thought with the headline this is about writing style. Agree with points above.

Now, to make this truly practical I find it much more difficult to determine the sex of posters on f16. Some are obvious but there is a wider than expected undetermined basket.

Could just be me but I have seen comments "I never knew flown-the-coop is a man, he's much too emotional" (kidding, you get the drift) more than once.

Tl;dr why would resumes be easier than anonymous postings to determine gender, or is AI just that much better at it?

Search likes it when you make changes to your LinkedIn, website and other online content. "It" thinks there must be something "new and fresh" and also weeds out dead pages that aren't monitored any longer.

All "it" really knows is something is different, not whether it is masculine, feminine or even accurate. This whole dustup is probably give her clicks, which is actually the point of it all.

Fake news. Show me the data. We recruit heavily on LinkedIn and pull candidates based on experience. Our sales team is 60/40 men, but our clinical team is 25:1 female. Guess why...experience favors men in sales while clinicals are more likely to be women.

Quote:

---

"I wish I was kidding about this," the mental health professional wrote late last month on LinkedIn, after describing how she used ChatGPT to give her profile a more masculine edge. When she asked it to make her content more "male coded," the artificial intelligence chatbot axed words like "communicator" and "clinician advocate" and replaced them with language about "driving ethical growth in behavioral health," Cornish detailed in a Substack post titled "LinkedIn Likes Me Better as a Man."

---

If read "communicator" or "clinician advocate" on a resume I'm going to be thinking this candidate is probably a self-important, non-team player, total pain in the ass. "Driving ethical growth..." sounds a little better but is also a bit of a red flag.

I bet there's heavy confirmation bias involved in their study.

Quote:

---

"Last week, I removed my pronouns. This week, I changed my LinkedIn gender marker to male. And suddenly, the platform can see me,"

---

She could have stopped by simply removing her pronoun declaration and the result would have been the same. Their deep-seeded desire to attribute crappy professional networking results to "the patriarchy" keeps these gals from acknowledging that their profiles were screaming warning signs that they are woke feminists with girl-boss attitude that will be an incredible pain in the ass.

If everyone that put pronouns in the profile removed them and did nothing else, they would see a statistically significant increase in the number of visits to their profile. People who focus on employees who get the job done will actively shun the pronouns crowd and their "oppressed victim" mindset.

Rocky Rider said:

---

I bet there's heavy confirmation bias involved in their study.

---

It wasnt a study. It was an anecdote.

Is there anything more pointless in the world than a linkedin influencer? I guess in the best case scenario, at some point you have enough followers that you can hoodwink people into believing you are a thought leader in the industry and then you're able to speak at conferences or something? Or sell a book on how to become a pointless influencer? I really don't understand why people work so hard on branding.

Maybe LinkedIn users do prefer this woman with a more masculine tone, but this strikes me as one of those tree falling in the forest situations. Even if everything she says is true who gives a ***** It's linkedin.

Feminist with ***** envy concludes something she already believed to be true, based upon completely anecdotal and non-scientific evidence, then shouts for attention about it.

I'm shocked.

Ulysses90 said:

---

If everyone that put pronouns in the profile removed them and did nothing else, they would see a statistically significant increase in the number of visits to their profile. People who focus on employees who get the job done will actively shun the pronouns crowd and their "oppressed victim" mindset.

---

This is a highly valid point. I don't reach out to anyone who has pronouns in their profile I also cross reference other platforms and screen out anyone with signs of virtue signaling

The first thing that needs to be asked is

Is it true?

Which none of the liberal NPCs do. And once her post went viral and every me too moron jumped on board the article claims they conducted a "wave of experiments"

Which they most certainly did not, in the true sense of the word.

The whole thing is a farce and unless I see otherwise I firmly believe it is victimhood content creation.

Getting engagement on LinkedIn is doubly embarrassing because it means you're not only actively using LinkedIn but you're also posting things that the other smoothbrained active users on LinkedIn are into

Spot on. I deleted my LinkedIn because everyone on there is the Michael Jordan of business. They just post things, beating their chests about how successful they are or how brilliant their work is. Spare me. If you're spending half the day there posting, you're probably not doing anything of note. There are people who talk the talk and there are people who are too busy walking to listen.

WTF does "do better" mean on LinkedIn? Place seems like a meat market. If you want someone to buy your meat, be more meatier, I guess. Is this rocket science?

I didn't even know that LinkedIn was still even a thing.

Seemed more like a business-related FB. Dropped it years and years ago.

I'm more worried about the prison dudes masquerading as women on all of the dating sites!

Driving ethical growth in behavioral health you say?

Well I infrequently navigate my motor vehicle for the conveyance of timber; specifically apportionments of lumber with non co-planar vertices.

Pizza said:

---

Driving ethical growth in behavioral health you say?

Well I infrequently navigate my motor vehicle for the conveyance of timber; specifically apportionments of lumber with non co-planar vertices.

---

You better not talk that way at work - it's so masculine; someone will turn you into HR for harassment

techno-ag said:

---

WaPo article. Here's a free version:

https://sg.news.yahoo.com/why-women-linkedin-masquerading-men-141243627.html

Quote:

---

Megan Cornish had spent months puzzling about her waning reach on LinkedIn when she decided to run a test: She recast her profile to seem more like a guy.

Within a week, her impressions on the careers website quadrupled.

"I wish I was kidding about this," the mental health professional wrote late last month on LinkedIn, after describing how she used ChatGPT to give her profile a more masculine edge. When she asked it to make her content more "male coded," the artificial intelligence chatbot axed words like "communicator" and "clinician advocate" and replaced them with language about "driving ethical growth in behavioral health," Cornish detailed in a Substack post titled "LinkedIn Likes Me Better as a Man."

---

It seems to me these female writers are not really masquerading as men. They're just changing their content and writing style to be more masculine: forceful in tone, more assertive, less emotional.

And the algorithm likes that, probably because it's more professional rather inherently misogynistic.

---

Or she could just take her top off.

TexasAGGIEinAR said:

---

Spot on. I deleted my LinkedIn because everyone on there is the Michael Jordan of business. They just post things, beating their chests about how successful they are or how brilliant their work is.

---

But that's what TexAgs is for.

doubledog said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

WaPo article. Here's a free version:

https://sg.news.yahoo.com/why-women-linkedin-masquerading-men-141243627.html

Quote:

---

Megan Cornish had spent months puzzling about her waning reach on LinkedIn when she decided to run a test: She recast her profile to seem more like a guy.

Within a week, her impressions on the careers website quadrupled.

"I wish I was kidding about this," the mental health professional wrote late last month on LinkedIn, after describing how she used ChatGPT to give her profile a more masculine edge. When she asked it to make her content more "male coded," the artificial intelligence chatbot axed words like "communicator" and "clinician advocate" and replaced them with language about "driving ethical growth in behavioral health," Cornish detailed in a Substack post titled "LinkedIn Likes Me Better as a Man."

---

It seems to me these female writers are not really masquerading as men. They're just changing their content and writing style to be more masculine: forceful in tone, more assertive, less emotional.

And the algorithm likes that, probably because it's more professional rather inherently misogynistic.

---

A one point experiment is not a "result". It is an outlier.

---

I mean… by definition, it is a result. It's just not a conclusive result.

An outlier would a result outside the normal range, and we don't have enough data points to say this is or isn't the case here.

Jeeper79 said:

---

doubledog said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

WaPo article. Here's a free version:

https://sg.news.yahoo.com/why-women-linkedin-masquerading-men-141243627.html

Quote:

---

Megan Cornish had spent months puzzling about her waning reach on LinkedIn when she decided to run a test: She recast her profile to seem more like a guy.

Within a week, her impressions on the careers website quadrupled.

"I wish I was kidding about this," the mental health professional wrote late last month on LinkedIn, after describing how she used ChatGPT to give her profile a more masculine edge. When she asked it to make her content more "male coded," the artificial intelligence chatbot axed words like "communicator" and "clinician advocate" and replaced them with language about "driving ethical growth in behavioral health," Cornish detailed in a Substack post titled "LinkedIn Likes Me Better as a Man."

---

It seems to me these female writers are not really masquerading as men. They're just changing their content and writing style to be more masculine: forceful in tone, more assertive, less emotional.

And the algorithm likes that, probably because it's more professional rather inherently misogynistic.

---

A one point experiment is not a "result". It is an outlier.

---

I mean… by definition, it is a result. It's just not a conclusive result.

An outlier would a result outside the normal range, and we don't have enough data points to say this is or isn't the case here.

---

A statement meant to shine absurdly, often with exaggerated or ridiculous claims for effect, is usually called a hyperbole

Replace 'statement' with 'social network' and 'is usually called a hyperbole' with 'is called LinkedIn, the platform that delusional boomers and sociopathic clout chasers love' and and your post is still true

LinkedIn sucks. Mine is still active, but it has "Loving Life" as my current job. I think I logged into it once this year. Maybe...

Years ago I put a burner email address on it in an attempt to keep the solicitors at bay and it only partially worked.

doubledog said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

WaPo article. Here's a free version:

https://sg.news.yahoo.com/why-women-linkedin-masquerading-men-141243627.html

Quote:

---

Megan Cornish had spent months puzzling about her waning reach on LinkedIn when she decided to run a test: She recast her profile to seem more like a guy.

Within a week, her impressions on the careers website quadrupled.

"I wish I was kidding about this," the mental health professional wrote late last month on LinkedIn, after describing how she used ChatGPT to give her profile a more masculine edge. When she asked it to make her content more "male coded," the artificial intelligence chatbot axed words like "communicator" and "clinician advocate" and replaced them with language about "driving ethical growth in behavioral health," Cornish detailed in a Substack post titled "LinkedIn Likes Me Better as a Man."

---

It seems to me these female writers are not really masquerading as men. They're just changing their content and writing style to be more masculine: forceful in tone, more assertive, less emotional.

And the algorithm likes that, probably because it's more professional rather inherently misogynistic.

---

A one point experiment is not a "result". It is an outlier anecdote.

---

FIFY

FrioAg 00 said:

---

Pizza said:

---

Driving ethical growth in behavioral health you say?

Well I infrequently navigate my motor vehicle for the conveyance of timber; specifically apportionments of lumber with non co-planar vertices.

---

You better not talk that way at work - it's so masculine; someone will turn you into HR for harassment

---

Translation: Sometimes I put sticks & firewood in the back of my truck.

People used to call speech or embellishment like that "snobbish" or something similar...now it's how people write their resume.

The attempt to use faculty lounge speak outside of the hard sciences & very specific disciplines (surgeon, certain mechanics, pilots, etc.) for other job positions like Admin or related "Managerial" functions is annoying.

Driving ethical growth in behavioral development just sounds like someone who is trying too hard to justify or qualify their candidacy and/or job title. Like Tom Smykowski/David Herman.

So, a female in a hyper-saturated domain can differentiate herself by being less like all the other women? Crazy!