[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.

[cantSpellSober]

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

Agreed! I'm glad you now understand. I'm surprised it wasn't somewhat mitigated (first post).