> Your analysis assumes that it's always the best candidate that's hired. Which is something Google has gone on record as saying it does, see for example here:

> Your analysis assumes that it's always the best candidate that's hired. Which is something Google has gone on record as saying it does, see for example here: http://www.businessinsider.com/how-google-hires-exceptional-employees-2016-2/#1-set-an-uncompromisable-high-standard-1 http://www.businessinsider.com/how-google-hires-exceptional-... But you are correct in that my analysis makes several assumptions that might not hold up in real life, it was meant merely to show that the statement from the original memo doesn't mean (as many people incorrectly thought) that Damore was saying Google was lowering its standards for diversity hires. > Personally I find it hard to believe that the companiesdoing affirmative action manage to do it without lowering the bar Ok but even assuming as you do above that a random sample is hired such that "it's still top 25% of women and men that are hired," then you have lowered the bar for everyone from 10% to 25%. Yes that still meets their own internal requirements, but is what the author meant when he said 'effectively' lower the bar by decreasing the false negative rate.