[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.