[mcphage]

> you have to realize that reality will dictate the distribution of the best candidates for these jobs

That seems backwards—a company would be better off hiring from demographics that are underperforming versus expected, and then finding a way to get them to perform as well as their innate talent would allow.

[IanDrake]

Why would a company be better off? You never explained that.

A company hires individuals.

If you want someone who is underperforming, why does that underperforming person need to identify as an underperforming intersectional group?

If a black, transgender (was a man, now a post-op woman), lesbian (she likes women), who is a cross dresser (she likes to dress like a man) applies for a job, do you just hire her on the spot because she ticks so many boxes of supposedly marginalized people?

That seems like a bad way to run a business and I would suggest you hire based on qualifications.

[mcphage]

> If you want someone who is underperforming, why does that underperforming person need to identify as an underperforming intersectional group?

Because you found a way to identify groups of people who are probably a lot more skilled than your ability to measure qualifications indicates. So you can trust in your measurements, or you can accept that our ability to measure nebulous concepts is weak. Think of it like arbitrage.