3 ms·

Let's imagine that tomorrow I come up with a magical super-reliable method of interviewing, which works better for most jobs than existing specific methods. The

Let's imagine that tomorrow I come up with a magical super-reliable method of interviewing, which works better for most jobs than existing specific methods. Then I'm fucked! My method will certainly have disparate impact (because it has nonzero correlation with IQ), be not very tailored to any particular job (because it's magical), and there will be numerous available studies (making it easier to sue me as you explain). So tell me, what incentive do I have to invent such a method?

dragonwriter 11y ago
> Let's imagine that tomorrow I come up with a magical super-reliable method of interviewing, which works better for most jobs than existing specific methods. If you can demonstrate this is the case for the specific jobs where you want to apply it, you will then have no problem, even if it has a disproportionate negative impact on a protected class.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- cousin_it 11y ago
  > You will have no problem Only in the same sense that an unjustly accused person will "have no problem" as long as they're actually innocent. In practice, they do have a problem. Firms are afraid of using IQ tests and being the first against the wall.