Which instances are we talking about? I've not seen this debate crop up on Kbin or Beehaw.

On one side men who may not be the most well informed about women issues; will get immediately defensive at being compared to a large animal known for tearing people apart and eating them alive.

Nah. Defensiveness in this context is a red flag because it is transparently obvious why a woman would choose the bear. It needn't be a strictly rational choice; it's a vote of no confidence in men earned through lived experience. The fact that it's even a question should be a seen by men as deeply sad: a reminder of the work that must still be done. The very act of trying to convince a woman of the error of her choice is a sign of a failure to understand the nature of the problem, the exercise, or both.

large animal known for tearing people apart and eating them alive

This is by no means what bears are known for. Black bears will frighten off easily. Brown bears are dangerous, yes, but much depends on the nature of the encounter.

It was never going to end in a productive, calm or rational discussion

It already has, but thanks for the self report?

Why would home gardeners optimize for yield and cost effectiveness? They can't deploy automation or economies of scale.

You garden at home because you enjoy the flavor, freshness, and variety. Those are the perks. Miss me with those mealy, flavorless grocery store tomatoes.

You mean the Ottoman Empire? Is that supposed to be the same entity? I have no fuckin' clue anymore.

I mean Trump in gen pop in a prison is a gang war waiting to happen.

The cool thing about it is that the core of it is really just one page.

There's a page in there with a list of types of tests and their respective r values, which is a number between zero and one that explains how well a given type of test predicts job performance based on this gigantic meta analysis the researchers ran. Zero means there's no relationship between the test and job performance and one means the test predicts job performance perfectly.

Generally you want something better than .3 for high stakes things like jobs. Education and experience sits at ... .11 or so. It's pretty bad. By contrast, skills tests do really well. Depending on the type they can go over .4. That's a pretty big benefit if you're hiring lots of people.

That said it can be very hard to convince people that "just having a conversation with someone" isn't all that predictive at scale. Industry calls that an "unstructured interview" and they're terrible vectors for unconscious or conscious bias. "Hey, you went to the same school as me..." and now that person is viewed favorably.

Seriously this stuff is WELL STUDIED but for some reason the MBA lizards never care. It's maddening.

How do you write this article and not once reference I/O Psychology or the literature that examines how well various tests predict job performance? (e.g. Schmidt and Hunter, 1998)

I swear this isn't witchcraft. You just analyze the job, determine the knowledge and skills that are important, required at entry, and can't be obtained in a 15 minute orientation, and then hire based on those things. It takes a few hours worth of meetings. I've done it dozens of times.

But really what all that boils down to is get someone knowledgeable about the role and have them write any questions and design the exercises. Don't let some dingleberry MBA ask people how to move Mt. Fuji or whatever dumb trendy thing they're teaching in business school these days.

Someone in that org needs to be an adult and say no to pointless rebrands and brain dead consolidation. Literally nobody, even Google, is benefiting from this spastic behavior.

So there's definitely a Zionist wing of the party. What's gonna happen when they come into contact with the Nazi wing of the party?