[dandare]

This argument reminds me of the "waterboarding is not torture" argument, both suffer from slothful induction fallacy.

If waterboarding is not torture then why would you apply it to detainees to confess information they otherwise wouldn't?

Equally, if diverting more energy in to finding minority candidates is not lowering the bar for them then why would you need to divert more energy to find them?

[fche]

"If waterboarding is not torture then why would you apply it ..."

This applies to any sort of interrogation tactic along the spectrum between The Comfy Chair and Execution. Each step would not be applied if the detainees confessed at the next-below step.

[hackinthebochs]

>Equally, if diverting more energy in to finding minority candidates is not lowering the bar for them then why would you need to divert more energy to find them? reply

The point is to find the ones that can pass at a higher rate than you normally would. No bar is lowered, and your representation increases.

[fche]

If you search harder for them, the bar is lowered by virtue of letting them be less outstanding / noticeable.

[hackinthebochs]

That doesn't follow if they're passing the same hiring process. It's not hard at all to get a contact for a phone screen with Google: I've been contacted by Google recruiters on linkedin with a barely filled out profile with one or two unremarkable positions listed. If you're counting the initial discovery phase as part of the hiring process, you're mistaken.

[fche]

I believe the memo + followups included claims that the hiring process is not the same either.

[hackinthebochs]

If that's the case, then yeah definitely a problem

[Dylan16807]

> If waterboarding is not torture then why would you apply it to detainees to confess information they otherwise wouldn't?

Actually effective techniques like building rapport aren't torture, and they get applied to get information out.

[dandare]

You are right, my argument is incorrect.