4 ms·
Because any modification to criteria other than optimizing for competency in the specific role for which you were hiring will be necessarily, mathematically, su
by ralusek 4y ago
Because any modification to criteria other than optimizing for competency in the specific role for which you were hiring will be necessarily, mathematically, suboptimal.
- wombatpm 4y agoWe are talking board seats - which has nothing to do with competence and everything to do with being connected.
- yladiz 4y agoYou’re assuming that humans can be perfectly, mathematically, optimal, and this is basically never the case. Humans will always have biases, such as preferring those similar to themselves.
- simion314 4y ago>mathematically The problem with reality is there is no mathematical metric function where you can plug as input a human and you get as output a number and then you can sort this humans out so you can hire the best. Even for small domains like programming with language X and framework Y is not possible to create a good such metric function, someone could be good at memorizing APIs, someone could be fast at creating good solution but others might be slow but their solutions are even better and others are good at debugging issues.
- colordrops 4y agoI think the term "mathematically" is used here broadly and metaphorically, and not literally meaning a symbolic formula. Perhaps "measurably" would have been a better term. No doubt you measure people on various skills during an engineering interview rather than the shape and color of their body, right? Board of Director positions also have measurable skills.
- boolemancer 4y agoAre you really going to claim that there is some objective way to choose the best candidate during an engineering interview?
- colordrops 4y agoNo, I'm going to claim that there is at least something better than judging on physical characteristics. In fact most companies agree. It's not a strange or unique opinion.
- simion314 4y agoMost company want to meet and see you, why is that? why are so incompetent and not just give you a test and have someone check the results without meeting you and having a bias ?
- simion314 4y agoThen don't fucking use math to prove a point if it involves only subjective shit like I think this dude has better social skills because I know it when I see it, or this dude has larger culture fit because he likes same movie I do. If you can meassure skils then you should be capable of hiring people with this simple 2 steps 1 Person A administers the tests 2 Person B checks the results but he has no idea who the candidates are No more problems with gender,race,culture,political affiliation Someone explain me how you always have to meet the candidate because you have a skill to read they competence and cultural fit from their face and body proportions and you are special and this proven physical biases never affect you the special one. I mean "you" in a general term not the comment author.
- 7952 4y agoYou are just optimising for different things. One side is optimising for gender equality and statistical diversity. You are trying to optimise for competency. But outside of a perfect mathematical universe competency is multi dimensional and difficult to measure. Bias does creep in. Treating it as a scientific process seems just as reductive as reducing a person to just their gender.