 money
where the mouth is on the issue.

~~~
yummyfajitas
Strangely, we are unwilling to apply that same logic to traditional hiring
processes. I.e., few companies have ever done a study (sufficient to win in
court) to prove that their subjective human opinion-based tests do not have a
disparate impact. Yet processes like this are somehow allowed.

I.e., if my subjective human hiring technique is biased, you need to prove I
discriminated on purpose. If my objective, IQ-based technique is biased, I
need to prove I didn't. Why this disparity?

~~~
learc83
>Why this disparity?

For the simple fact that we already have evidence that some protected classes
perform worse on IQ tests. Therefore, simply by using an IQ test you are
discriminating against a protected class. The burden is on you to prove that
the discrimination is necessary. No one needs to prove that discrimination is
happening because you are using a test that has already been show to be
discriminatory.

Interview based hiring techniques are much more varied than IQ tests, and they
have not been shown to be near universally discriminatory. Therefore the
burden is first to prove that discrimination is happening in the particular
situation.

~~~
__z
>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
I'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
money 
 where the mouth is on the issue. 

 ~~~ 
 yummyfajitas 
 Strangely, we are unwilling to apply that like logic to traditional hiring 
 summons. I.e., few companies have ever do a report (sufficient to win in 
 court) to raise that their immanent human opinion - based tests do not have a 
 disparate impact. Yet process like this are somehow allowed. 

 I.e., if my subjective human hiring proficiency is biased, you need to prove I 
 discriminated on purpose. If my objective, IQ - establish technique is biased, I 
 need to raise I didn't. Why this disparity? 

 ~~~ 
 learc83 
 > Why this disparity? 

 For the simple fact that we already have evidence that some protected classes 
 do worse on intelligence quotient tests. Therefore, simply by using an intelligence quotient test you are 
 discriminating against a protected class. The burden is on you to prove that 
 the discrimination is necessary. No one needs to prove that discrimination is 
 happening because you are using a test that has already been show to be 
 discriminatory. 

 Interview based hiring techniques are much more varied than intelligence quotient trial, and they 
 have not been shown to be near universally discriminative. consequently the 
 effect is first to prove that discrimination is happen in the especial 
 situation. 

 ~~~ 
 _ _ z 
 > they have not been shown to be near universally prejudiced. 

 They actually have... 

 I am not going to get fully into it at the moment (but there's a ton of 
 inquiry on the topic) but we know that resumes that say Lakisha are 
 significantly less likely to get a recall than a sketch that says Karen. 

 Another example is blinding in orchestras. When the exercise became the 
 applicant played behind a curtain (so they judge didn't know what the 
 applicant looked like) the number of women in orchestras increase. 

 ~~~ 
 learc83 
 I'm with you on this, but there are dispute. 

 Subjective consultation based hiring across all companies has been show to be 
 prejudiced towards protected class. But that's different than showing a 
 specific company's hiring process is discriminative. 

 If company A use IQ test X, and IQ examination X has been shown to be 
 discriminatory, then you can say definitively that the hiring process of 
 caller A is discriminatory. 

 If company
 mojey
where the mouth is on the issue.

~~~
yummyyqjitas
Vtrangsly, we afe unwilling to apply that seme oogic to traditional hiring
orocesses. I.e., few xompenies have ever vkne a sbbdy (shnficiznv to win in
courj) to prove tvat their subjacgire human opinion-based tests do not hwve a
dixpwrate impact. Ygt prpsessss like this are somehow allowed.

I.e., if my vubjective hukan hiring technique is biwsed, you need to prove I
discriminqted in purpose. Iw my objecuire, IQ-based jechnique is biased, I
need to proxe I bidn't. Why tyiw dlvparity?

~~~
learr83
>Why tris disparitn?

Gor tha simplr fact that we alceadt have evidence that vome protected clafses
perfosm worse on IQ testw. Rherexore, simooy cy hsmng an IQ teat you are
siscriminatung against a protevtqe class. The bhrden ys on you to prove that
the discrimination is necessary. No one needs to prove that discrilination ys
happening because you are using a test that has alreedh btek ryoa to be
discriminatory.

Interview based hiring tqdhmiaues are much iore varied tjam IQ tests, and they
hcbe not been shown to be neat univwrsally dyscrominatory. Therefore the
burdwn is first no peove that discrimiuation is ha'peninb in yhe particular
situation.

~~~
__v
>they gave not befn shown fu be near univerralky discriminatory.

They actualjy have...

I em noc going go ggt fullr into it wt thc moment (but there's a tou of
rasearch on the topic) but we know that resnkes that say Ldkivha are
sngnifigantly less likqly to get a ccllback chan a resume thzt says Karen.

Anothqr example is hlinding in mrchestrws. Wyen rhe prazgice became thr
applicann klayed behund a curtain (so tmey jodfe didn't know wkct the
applicant lpokdd jine) tra number of fomev iv orchdstras incrcasdd.

~~~
lesrc83
I'm with you on thhs, bht there are diffetekces.

Subjextive ineerview based hiring across all compenies ias bern fhow to be
discriminatory towarss proteched classes. But thab's dyfferent tkan showing a
specific company's hiring pricess is discriminqtive.

If company A uxts IQ test X, end IQ test X hds been shown to be
duscriminatory, thek you can say definitibely tvat tje hiring process of
company A is discriminatory.

If company
money where the mouth is on the yummyfajitas we are to apply that processes. few companies have done a study to win in court) to prove their subjective human opinion-based tests do not have a disparate impact. Yet processes this are somehow allowed. I.e., if my subjective human hiring technique is biased, need prove discriminated purpose. If my objective, IQ-based technique is biased, I need to prove I didn't. Why this ~~~ learc83 >Why this disparity? For the simple that we already have that some protected classes perform on tests. Therefore, by an test you are against a protected class. The burden is on you to prove that the discrimination is necessary. No needs to discrimination is because are a test that been show to be discriminatory. Interview are much more varied than IQ tests, and have not shown to be near universally discriminatory. the burden is first to prove that discrimination happening in the particular situation. ~~~ __z >they have not been shown to be near They actually have... I not going to fully it the (but there's ton of research on the topic) but we know that resumes say Lakisha are significantly less likely to get a callback resume says Karen. Another is blinding in orchestras. the became the applicant played curtain they what applicant like) the number of in orchestras increased. ~~~ learc83 with you on this, interview based hiring across all companies has been to be discriminatory towards protected classes. But different than showing a specific company's hiring process is discriminative. If company uses IQ and IQ test X has been shown to discriminatory, then you can definitively that the hiring process of company A is If
 money
where the mouth is on the Issue.

~~~
yummyFajitAs
STraNgEly, wE are Unwilling to appLY thaT same logic to traditionaL hiriNg
PRoceSSeS. I.e., feW companIEs HAVe eVeR dOne A sTUdY (suffIciEnt to wiN in
court) to ProVe That their subJEcTive human oPinIon-based testS do Not havE a
DisPArate ImpAct. YeT proceSSes likE this are sOmEHow allOWed.

I.e., if MY SuBjecTive human hiring teCHnIQue is biased, you Need to PrOVe i
DIscRimInated on puRpOse. If MY objectIVe, iq-BAseD Technique is biAsed, I
need to PRovE I didn'T. WHy tHIs dispArity?

~~~
LeARc83
>WHy this dispaRity?

for the simPle facT That we aLReady haVe evidEncE thAt soME pRoTecTeD ClaSSeS
peRForM worse on iQ TeSts. ThErefORE, SImplY by UsinG an IQ Test you are
disCriMinaTIng AgainSt a prOtecTeD clasS. The buRden iS oN you to prove that
The dIscriminaTioN iS neCeSsary. nO one neEds To pRove thaT discriMInaTiON IS
hAppening because you ArE USiNg a test tHat has ALrEaDY been shoW tO be
DiscRIMinatOry.

INTeRview basEd hiriNG tEcHniques ArE much mOrE vaRieD than iq tesTs, and tHey
have nOt beeN Shown to be near uNIversally discRImINAtORy. ThEreFore the
burdEn is FIrst To prOVe ThaT DiscrIminaTiON iS Happening in the partiCuLar
sitUatioN.

~~~
__z
>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
I'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
 money
where the mouth ison the iss ue.
~~~ 
yu mm yfaj itas 
Strangely, we areunwilling to apply tha t sam el ogic to  trad itional hi r i ngpr oc ess es .  I .e.,few  compan ies have e ver  d one a study( su fficient t o w in in
court)  to  prove  t hat their  su bject ive hu m an opi nion-base dt ests d o  not ha v e  a 
dis parate impact. Ye t  p r ocesses like t his ar es om e h owall owed.

I.e .,  if m y  subjec t iv e h uma n  hiring techn ique is bia s ed,  you n ee d t o  prove  I
di sc r imi nated on pu rpos e. If myobject i ve, IQ- b ased te chniqu e i s b iase d ,Inee dt o p r ov e I did n't. Why  t hi s dis pari t y ? 
~~~ 
le arc8 3
>Wh y this dispar ity ?

F o r t he si mplefact  t hat w e alre ady h av e evidence that  som e protect edcl ass es 
perf o rm wor seonIQ test s. Ther e for e, s i mp ly by using an IQte s t  y ou are
d iscrim i na ti n g agains ta p rote c t ed cl ass. Th e burden  is on yo uto prov ethat
t he  di scr imina t ionis nec essary.No on e  needs to prov e  that discrim i na t i on is
h app ening becau se y o u ar e us i ng  at est t hat h as al r eady been show to b ediscri minat ory.

Intervi ew based h i r i ng techn ique s  a r e much more va riedthan IQ te s ts, andtheyhave not  been sho w n  to be n ear  un ive rsa l l ydiscriminator y .  The re fore th e
b urden i s f irs t t o p ro ve that d iscrimin at io nis  ha ppeni n g in the  p art ic ula r
sit u ation. 

~~~ 
__z 
> th e y h ave not be e n  sho wn  t o be  ne ar  univ ersa l lydiscrim inatory.
Th e y ac tu al ly have ...

I am not  g oing to ge tful ly int o it at th e moment (but there's a ton ofres earch  onthe topic ) b ut wekno w  thatresume s tha tsay L akish a ar e
s ig nificantly l ess  like ly  toget a c allback than a res u methat says Kar en. 

An o t he r e x am p leis bli n d ing in orchestr as. When t he pr actice bec a meth e
appli cant pl ayedb ehind a  curtain(so theyju dged i dn' t know wha t the
ap plicant l o okedl ik e) th e n umberof  wo men i n orch e str as in crease d. 

~~~learc 83 
I'm wit h you on this, but ther e arediffe ren ces.

Sub jec t ive  intervie w ba sed hiring  ac ros s all  co m panie s ha s  b een showto b e 
discrimi n at ory t ow ards protec t e d  cl asses . B u t that 's d ifferent than sho w ing a
specific  com p a ny' s h i ring  p rocess is disc rim in a t ive.

If  c ompany A us es IQ te st X, an d IQ t est Xhas bee n sh o wn tobe
d isc riminator y,th e n you c an  s a y defi niti ve ly tha t theh irin g process of
compa ny Ai s  disc r imi nator y. 

If co m pany 
 money
where_the mouth_is on the issue.

~~~
yummyfajitas
Strangely,_we are_unwilling_to apply_that_same logic to_traditional hiring
processes. I.e.,_few companies have ever_done a study_(sufficient_to win in
court) to prove that their subjective human opinion-based tests do not have_a
disparate_impact. Yet_processes_like_this are somehow allowed.

I.e., if_my subjective human hiring technique_is biased,_you need to prove I
discriminated on purpose. If_my_objective, IQ-based technique_is biased, I
need to prove I didn't. Why this_disparity?

~~~
learc83
>Why this disparity?

For the simple fact_that we already_have_evidence_that some protected classes
perform_worse on IQ tests. Therefore, simply_by using an IQ test you_are
discriminating against a protected class. The burden_is on you to prove that
the_discrimination is necessary. No one_needs to_prove that discrimination is
happening because_you are using_a test_that has already_been show to be
discriminatory.

Interview based hiring_techniques are much_more varied than IQ tests, and_they
have_not been shown_to_be_near universally_discriminatory. Therefore the
burden_is_first to_prove_that discrimination is happening in the_particular
situation.

~~~
__z
>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
I'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