[FoRK] Harley & Google's battle of the sexes
Gregory Alan Bolcer
greg at bolcer.org
Thu Aug 10 09:50:32 PDT 2017
Okay, blind hiring on talent, but how do you test and on what criteria?
Ability to deliver? Creative potential? People skills? Test taking or
interview skills? In referencing pseudo-science, they say people who
are mostly likely to be good at interviewing are also most likely good
at being sociopaths.
What about double blind? Wouldn't that be more scientific? I think
you've just invented the next hiring process.
Anyways, if FoRK will let attachments through, this is the picture that
he included in his screed. I think he has a point (not in the Unabomber
"we need to compassionately understand his lunacy" way so we can make TV
shows about it, but in a generalization vs average singularity way).
On 8/10/2017 9:35 AM, Stephen D. Williams wrote:
> There are plenty of situations where natural differences, inclinations,
> or preferences affect statistics in ways that can't or shouldn't be
> fixed. At least not in a forced way. It would be interesting to know
> the history around and any decisions to encourage male nurses.
> There are biases in various places and those biases are not always
> accurate and in the best interests of companies, managers, stockholders,
> and the public in general. It can be hard to be sure what they are and
> how to get closer to reality (biases that accurately map to future
> experience for legitimate reasons). In some cases, self-fulfilling
> biases should be interrupted and fixed for obvious reasons.
> If you don't think a company has biases, then implementing blind
> auditions and similar shouldn't make any difference to your hiring
> statistics and later success. Experience in this direction, so far,
> seems to show unfounded biases that need addressing. There are many
> confounding factors however.
> Where have I seen that before?
> On 8/10/17 8:31 AM, Bill Kearney wrote:
>> Twain would no doubt recollect:
>> "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."
>> "Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you
>> There's certainly going to be situations where the numbers alone don't
>> the whole story, as might apply regarding motorcycles. I'd imagine any
>> number of activities popular among any particular gender or culture
>> could be
>> twisted as such. Anything taken out of context (or whose context is very
>> deviously narrowed) could certainly be wielded as a club.
>> Whenever I'm confronted by the screeching SJW type I fall back on the
>> specifically would you do?" response. Because, honestly, if I'm
>> already the
>> white guy enjoying the spoils of privilege then clearly I don't have any
>> answers for them. Better to let them explain what specifically they want
>> and how they'd go about making that happen. This following the "give
>> enough rope and they'll hang themselves" line of reasoning. There's
>> certainly a lot of sympathetic resonance to a lot of their arguments.
>> they often fall apart in the face of the reality that life is hard and
>> everyone's efforts to keep their own heads above the water are
>> Does this mean the status quo should be maintained? I wouldn't say
>> so. But
>> then I'm on the "favored side" so what do I know?
>> -----Original Message-----
>> So do the statistics lie?
> FoRK mailing list
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 92193 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the FoRK