3 ms·

> Berkson's Paradox in statistics that people without formal qualifications who get a job anyway tend to be good at what they are doing. Amongst people actively

> Berkson's Paradox in statistics that people without formal qualifications who get a job anyway tend to be good at what they are doing. Amongst people actively working in a field, qualifications are a negative signal of quality. Source. Because on the surface this looks like a pretty ridiculous take. And you seem to have missed the whole point of the lawsuit which is that she wanted the company to simply follow their normal processes.

Kamq 3y ago
> ...on the surface this looks like a pretty ridiculous take. Is it really? If you put up a significant barrier to a group of people, and only the exceptional can cross those barriers, it's shouldn't be that surprising when the pool that make it past those barriers is filled with a higher percentage of exceptional people. Sort of like how a surprising percentage of women in the sciences before 1960 were of Ada Lovelace quality. The women who were merely competent weren't allowed to work in the sciences.
- cmeacham98 3y ago
  This assumes that the same barriers are being put up in front of all candidates, no? Which the lawsuit we are talking about explicitly alleges is not the case.
  - Kamq 3y ago
    > This assumes that the same barriers are being put up in front of all candidates, no? No, my example very much does not. It's about the exact the opposite, where extra barriers are put in front of one group, but not the other.
roenxi 3y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkson's_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkson's_paradox & that isn't the point of the lawsuit, I think the point was more that Google misrepresented to her that she'd get paid more than she did after some period of employment and she also believes that there is a gender aspect to that. It isn't reasonable to tell a company that your interpretation of their policies is more correct than theirs. IMO someone is born yesterday if they buy the "we're not going to agree to that wage now but we will in a while" line from a corporation, but whatever.

Kamq 3y ago

> ...on the surface this looks like a pretty ridiculous take. Is it really? If you put up a significant barrier to a group of people, and only the exceptional can cross those barriers, it's shouldn't be that surprising when the pool that make it past those barriers is filled with a higher percentage of exceptional people. Sort of like how a surprising percentage of women in the sciences before 1960 were of Ada Lovelace quality. The women who were merely competent weren't allowed to work in the sciences.

cmeacham98 3y ago
This assumes that the same barriers are being put up in front of all candidates, no? Which the lawsuit we are talking about explicitly alleges is not the case.
- Kamq 3y ago
  > This assumes that the same barriers are being put up in front of all candidates, no? No, my example very much does not. It's about the exact the opposite, where extra barriers are put in front of one group, but not the other.

roenxi 3y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkson's_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkson's_paradox & that isn't the point of the lawsuit, I think the point was more that Google misrepresented to her that she'd get paid more than she did after some period of employment and she also believes that there is a gender aspect to that. It isn't reasonable to tell a company that your interpretation of their policies is more correct than theirs. IMO someone is born yesterday if they buy the "we're not going to agree to that wage now but we will in a while" line from a corporation, but whatever.