4 ms·
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 gener
by 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 agoA 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.