> 'Culture fit' is actually one of those criteria I hate: it usually means hiring similar people. Yeah, I agree that it seems to imply something like that; I m

> 'Culture fit' is actually one of those criteria I hate: it usually means hiring similar people. Yeah, I agree that it seems to imply something like that; I meant it in the sense of "hiring people who will move the culture in the direction you'd like it to move", which I think is what we're discussing, but I'm happy to use any such term. > Most countries here in Europe have not made positive discrimination illegal. "positive discrimination" is one of the terms I hate. It seems to imply that it is correcting for something when part of the debate is whether or not there is anything to correct for. > I'm arguing for understanding that most hirers simply hire people with similar backgrounds as their own I'm happy to accept this understanding, but not blindly. I'd like to know that it's based on robust evidence and at least the obvious counterpoints have been addressed. If the understanding is correct, it should survive rigorous debate and analysis; however, many proponents of this conclusion/theory seem to fervently oppose any such debate, analysis, etc. Hopefully we can at least agree that it would be reasonable to be skeptical of this theory/conclusion if indeed its proponents are trying to stifle debate/analysis even if we don't agree that the stifling is real. And if you don't agree that the stifling is real, do you feel like there is rigorous debate and analysis on the topic? Do you see skeptics of the theory raising interesting or legitimate questions/issues? If so, do you believe those issues are being adequately addressed (and how so / give examples?)? If not, what issues do you perceive them as raising and why are those issues not legitimate? Can you provide a steelman argument?