[dragonwriter]

> Are all hiring processes exactly the same?

No, but almost none of them are “good” if “good” is defined as “eliminates all influence of biases irrelevant to performance such that superficial things like appearance play a role not explicable by their ability to predict performance.”

[flappyeagle]

People who are not serious about hiring think this is the goal.

This is not the goal. The goal is to bring people on board who will successfully utilize your resources to bring success to your organization.

Eliminating bias is a red herring. You’re better off trying to increase your bias so that it statistically gets you a higher chance of hiring the people you want.

[cantSpellSober]

My most cynical reason for seeking to reduce bias is because I want to hire — as you said — people that will bring success to our organization, without my biases clouding my judgement.

> You’re better off trying to increase your bias

Care to elaborate? That sounds like a terrible idea to me, I'd prefer to hire people based on their skills, not my biases. From the study:

> we do not find a strong correlation between “looking the part” and job performance

...hiring based on biases didn't help.

[flappyeagle]

Bias for looks might not be useful. Bias toward people who were extremely serious magic the gathering players is more useful.

Find the right vector to bias on.

[cantSpellSober]

If you ask two separate candidates "what is 1 + 1?" and one responds "2" and the other responds "37" but played a card game when they were young, would you hire the latter? (hypotheticals are cheap, but you get my point)

[flappyeagle]

It’s like you’re trying to misunderstand.

But whatever the internet is for arguing. Were they ranked globally? Did they place top 8 at worlds?

If they were, and they answered 37, then I might question my understanding of math.

[cantSpellSober]

>> Are all hiring processes exactly the same?

> No

Agreed! Some are better than others.

> if “good” is defined as...

Oh, I never defined "good" that way. Keyword being "mitigate" (you replaced it with "eliminate"). Apologies for your confusion.

[dragonwriter]

You used the word “mitigate” but in the same post also expressed surprise that any bias effect was left at all, which indicated you expected elimination of the effect from a “good hiring process" rather than mere mitigation.

[cantSpellSober]

No, I used the word "mitigate" to indicate I expected mitigation...

> expressed surprise that any bias effect was left at all

Nope, if you scroll up you'll see that "somewhat" word there (you replaced it with "at all").

[dragonwriter]

You responded to a post saying that the effect exists (neither characterizing magnitude nor what the base rate would be without mitigation) and said you were surprised that was the case.

If you only expect mitigation, there would be no basis for surprise, of any degree, at the mere fact of the effect existing.

[cantSpellSober]

> there would be no basis for surprise, of any degree

That's what the "somewhat" is for. Apologies again for your confusion.

[dragonwriter]

If it was mitigated somewhat, the effect would still exist.

The issue is the expression of surprise with the mere statement that the effect exists. I’m not confused, you said two things that don't make sense together in one post, each of which is perfectly clear.