4 ms·

Careful, a lot of those same graphs apply to currently specially-favored diversity demographics. But whatever the case, at least be consistent. If all you car

by tux1968 8y ago

Careful, a lot of those same graphs apply to currently specially-favored diversity demographics. But whatever the case, at least be consistent. If all you care about is diversity, not intelligence, bring in all those conservatives too, low IQ or not. The low IQ ones will be especially grateful for the leg up in life.

lern_too_spel 8y ago
The difference is that political leanings don't come up during interviews, so any prior on conservatives' IQs won't skew hiring. Sex and race are visible, so the interviewers' priors on their IQs will skew hiring, hurting the chances of people in disadvantaged sexes and genders who do have high IQs. That is what implicit bias training aims to counter. Separately, there is the issue of correcting the education of people with low IQs, but that is a problem whose solution lies outside the hiring funnel.
- tux1968 8y ago
  It can be dressed up in a number of ways, but the fact is that Google is biased against conservatives, as evidenced by the ratios not matching that of the general public. The same argument that is used to justify and measure diversity hires of other segments of the population. If the real reason is to avoid overlooking those of high-inteligence, a blind screening process could be employed rather than diversity quotas.
  - lern_too_spel 8y ago
    A couple of mistakes in your post: > It can be dressed up in a number of ways, but the fact is that Google is biased against conservatives, as evidenced by the ratios not matching that of the general public. That is not evidence of bias. If Google is looking for high IQ employees, and Google hires high IQ conservatives at a lower rate than high IQ non-conservatives, that would be evidence of bias. Unlike with race and gender, there is no mechanism for doing that, so it makes no sense. > a blind screening process could be employed rather than diversity quotas. No big company is advocating diversity quotas. It's difficult to make diversity quotas match ability by group with a quota, so using a diversity quota will lead to an arbitrage opportunity for competitors, who can hire better employees for less and lay off expensive employees who are worse. The big companies are using bias training to take advantage of the arbitrage opportunity afforded by other companies failing to hire disadvantaged groups according to ability. Separately, some big companies are attacking the education issue for disadvantaged groups by targeting education resources into underdeveloped communities, opening up a larger candidate pool in the future.
- sheepmullet 8y ago
  > so any prior on conservatives' IQs won't skew hiring. Sex and race are visible Except for accents, choice of clothing, different speech patterns, etc. I can easily pick if someone is from Austin (overwhelmingly liberal) vs another part of Texas just by the accent.

lern_too_spel 8y ago

The difference is that political leanings don't come up during interviews, so any prior on conservatives' IQs won't skew hiring. Sex and race are visible, so the interviewers' priors on their IQs will skew hiring, hurting the chances of people in disadvantaged sexes and genders who do have high IQs. That is what implicit bias training aims to counter. Separately, there is the issue of correcting the education of people with low IQs, but that is a problem whose solution lies outside the hiring funnel.

tux1968 8y ago
It can be dressed up in a number of ways, but the fact is that Google is biased against conservatives, as evidenced by the ratios not matching that of the general public. The same argument that is used to justify and measure diversity hires of other segments of the population. If the real reason is to avoid overlooking those of high-inteligence, a blind screening process could be employed rather than diversity quotas.
- lern_too_spel 8y ago
  A couple of mistakes in your post: > It can be dressed up in a number of ways, but the fact is that Google is biased against conservatives, as evidenced by the ratios not matching that of the general public. That is not evidence of bias. If Google is looking for high IQ employees, and Google hires high IQ conservatives at a lower rate than high IQ non-conservatives, that would be evidence of bias. Unlike with race and gender, there is no mechanism for doing that, so it makes no sense. > a blind screening process could be employed rather than diversity quotas. No big company is advocating diversity quotas. It's difficult to make diversity quotas match ability by group with a quota, so using a diversity quota will lead to an arbitrage opportunity for competitors, who can hire better employees for less and lay off expensive employees who are worse. The big companies are using bias training to take advantage of the arbitrage opportunity afforded by other companies failing to hire disadvantaged groups according to ability. Separately, some big companies are attacking the education issue for disadvantaged groups by targeting education resources into underdeveloped communities, opening up a larger candidate pool in the future.
sheepmullet 8y ago
> so any prior on conservatives' IQs won't skew hiring. Sex and race are visible Except for accents, choice of clothing, different speech patterns, etc. I can easily pick if someone is from Austin (overwhelmingly liberal) vs another part of Texas just by the accent.