Yes they do. What the cannot do is increase their IQ by a significant amount. But there is a whole range of IQ over which they are free to choose. Approximately the range [default IQ + 5, minimum measurable IQ]. Beating your head against something should do the trick but excessive drug use is probably more fun.
Good point (acknowledging wedrifid’s caveat) but one could argue IQ is often directly relevant to job performance, whereas race is not (“discriminating” based on ability-to-do-the-job is probably ok, even if mostly genetic).
It seems that using factors that cause good/bad job performance is normal hiring procedure whereas using factors that only correlate with good/bad job performance is statistical discrimination (thx for the link Emile)
It seems that using factors that cause good/bad job performance is normal hiring procedure whereas using factors that only correlate with good/bad job performance is statistical discrimination (thx for the link Emile)
So using things like test scores, impressions from interviews, etc., is statistical discrimination?
It seems that using factors that cause good/bad job performance is normal hiring procedure whereas using factors that only correlate with good/bad job performance is statistical discrimination
So using things like test scores, impressions from interviews, etc., is statistical discrimination?
hmmm. Yes that statement is probably not correct. I guess your examples are observations that correlate with factors that cause good/bad job performance. Why is it more acceptable? Maybe because the link is much clearer/ correlation is much stronger?
People don’t have control over their IQ either.
Yes they do. What the cannot do is increase their IQ by a significant amount. But there is a whole range of IQ over which they are free to choose. Approximately the range [default IQ + 5, minimum measurable IQ]. Beating your head against something should do the trick but excessive drug use is probably more fun.
Good point (acknowledging wedrifid’s caveat) but one could argue IQ is often directly relevant to job performance, whereas race is not (“discriminating” based on ability-to-do-the-job is probably ok, even if mostly genetic).
It seems that using factors that cause good/bad job performance is normal hiring procedure whereas using factors that only correlate with good/bad job performance is statistical discrimination (thx for the link Emile)
So using things like test scores, impressions from interviews, etc., is statistical discrimination?
hmmm. Yes that statement is probably not correct. I guess your examples are observations that correlate with factors that cause good/bad job performance. Why is it more acceptable? Maybe because the link is much clearer/ correlation is much stronger?
Because you’ve drilled as far as you can before making a determination.