[bayesianhorse]

This "dishonest nonsense" has been proven in studies and it vibrates with my own experience in companies where behind the curtains this stuff is rationalized a lot.

Sarrazin didn't "raise important issues". He made superficially rational arguments which have in many cases been disproven completely. However these rationalisations were then echoed by racist beliefs buried in society and the discussion became one of racism versus civil rights, ending totally unproductively.

The main "issue" was that "turks are genetically inferior in intelligence so we need not try and give them better chances in education or employment". He didn't even propose to deport two million fellow citizens, but others did that for him in response...

[bobbinsIII]

no. 'disqualifies you from job interviews' only applies in very few cases. obviously there will be some discrimination overall, but it's not a serious reason to avoid Germany.

I think the persistent poor performance of certain large immigrant groups certainly is an important issue. It is also true that part of this underperformance may have a genetic cause.

[aestra]

Only a very few cases? Oh really? If you think that you live in a pipe dream. I am not sure if Germany has been studied specifically, but other European countries have, and the USA. Minorities with ethnic sounding names in a white majority face discrimination and challenges.

http://m.nber.org//digest/sep03/w9873.html

"It indicates that a white name yields as many more callbacks as an additional eight years of experience. Race, the authors add, also affects the reward to having a better resume. Whites with higher quality resumes received 30 percent more callbacks than whites with lower quality resumes. But the positive impact of a better resume for those with Africa-American names was much smaller."

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2010/11/2...

"Adida found that in at least two sectors, a Muslim candidate is around 2.5 times less likely to get a job interview than a Christian one, with all else being equal. These results were backed up by a large survey, which showed that among second-generation Senegalese immigrants, Muslim households earn far less than Christian equivalents."

http://writers.unconsciousbias.org/2009/09/best-man-for-the-...

"They found that resumes with Arab/Muslim names were 10% less likely to be called in for an interview and that IAT scores indicating bias against Arabs directly correlated with the likelihood of a callback.

Rooth then followed up with many of the employers who had unwittingly taken part in the first half of the study. The employers filled out three different explicit measures of bias against Arabs and Muslims and then took an IAT that paired Swedish and Arab names with work- associated words such as “lazy”, “slow”, “efficient” and “hard-working”.  Not surprisingly, “the IAT scores of the 193 recruiters participating in this study show that a very clear majority associate words signaling negative productivity… with belonging to the Arab/Muslim minority”."

[pyre]

> no. 'disqualifies you from job interviews' only applies in very few cases. obviously there will be some discrimination overall, but it's not a serious reason to avoid Germany.

Unless you are Arab/Muslim, you are very embedded into the Arab/Muslim community/culture, or you are well-versed in the stats on the subject, it really seems like you're speaking from a place of ignorance.

> It is also true that part of this underperformance may have a genetic cause.

It's highly unlikely that such a general descriptor as "job performance" across all industries would have anything to do with genetic factors. The fact that you even bother to mention it makes me think that you're putting more stock in the idea than it is worth.

[bayesianhorse]

One of the study proving my "dishonest nonsense" is explained here: http://www.zeit.de/gesellschaft/2010-02/studie-bewerber-ausl...

If you say a "part of this underperformance has a genetic cause" that can't be falsified. How could it?

But: Can you show that genetics has a practical relevance in HR and social policy decisions? Can it have any? Should it have any?

We can see and show factors of discrimination that are definitely not genetic and definitely not a general genetic disadvantage between Germans and other "races" (I shudder at these words...), and that makes it really hard to believe we shouldn't try and ameliorate those because "Hey, it's all genetics anyway!"

So far no one has been able to show me any practical consequence from the theoretical allegations of intellectual performance being genetic.