3 ms·
>they have not been shown to be near universally discriminatory. They actually have... I am not going to get fully into it at the moment (but there's a ton of
by __z 11y ago
>they have not been shown to be near universally discriminatory.
They actually have...
I am not going to get fully into it at the moment (but there's a ton of research on the topic) but we know that resumes that say Lakisha are significantly less likely to get a callback than a resume that says Karen.
Another example is blinding in orchestras. When the practice became the applicant played behind a curtain (so they judge didn't know what the applicant looked like) the number of women in orchestras increased.
- learc83 11y agoI'm with you on this, but there are differences. Subjective interview based hiring across all companies has been show to be discriminatory towards protected classes. But that's different than showing a specific company's hiring process is discriminative. If company A uses IQ test X, and IQ test X has been shown to be discriminatory, then you can say definitively that the hiring process of company A is discriminatory. If company B uses hiring process Y, and you can show that hiring process Y is discriminatory in 50% of the companies that use it, you can't make a definitive conclusion about company B in the same way you can company A.
- __z 11y agoYea, I agree, thanks for clarifying. There is a huge difference is explicit bias (give applicants an IQ test even though we'll weed out the blacks or even to weed out the blacks) and subconscious bias - which is an incredibly complex problem. Most companies are trying to eliminate (unintended) bias in the hiring process.