3 ms·
"It doesn't work and is junk science, but at least it doesn't work for everyone equally" is an interesting methodology. I'd rather take the intuition of some i
by Barrin92 4y ago
"It doesn't work and is junk science, but at least it doesn't work for everyone equally" is an interesting methodology.
I'd rather take the intuition of some interviewer because at least that's based on something real. I mean if objectivity is the only criterion you simply may want to roll a set of dice for the applicants because those are cheaper than Myers-Briggs consultants.
the attitude of replacing useful human judgements with useless metrics in the name of eliminating bias is one of the worst trends in modern hiring.
- throwaway0asd 4y ago> I'd rather take the intuition of some interviewer because at least that's based on something real. That something real is called discrimination.
- Barrin92 4y agoDiscrimination is the entire point of the hiring process. Why else are you sorting people into Myers-Briggs categories? Are you sending nobody home? What we're arguing about isn't whether you're discriminating but what tool you're using to discriminate. Is craniometry not discriminatory just because it's objective? the relevant question is whether astrology for nerds is better than human judgement just because the former is perceived as impersonal.
- throwaway0asd 4y agoHow do you prove human intuition is a better qualifier?