As an analyst, to me it's a question of data cleanliness. Yes, people should be able to look at the facts (i.e., crime rate) and route around a higher risk area if they so choose. Trouble is, there's a partial racial component driving those crime statistics (i.e., minorities more likely to be arrested) which probably inflates the "true" crime rates for those neighborhoods. If people are going to get all bent out of shape, they should do so up-stream. Tackle the issues that inject a racial element to crime statistics and leave the people looking for an objective measure of risk assessment alone - they're only using the best available data to make a decision.
Easier said than done of course...
Hi there, I'm an I/O psychologist at Evolv. To dispel a few myths and FUD:
- - I absolutely agree there are a lot of HR folks & hiring managers out there who don't do a good job of using scientifically-based, job-relevant screening criteria. And no, simple correlations are not science.
- - We don't actually score or weight every statistical relationship our marketing team mentions to the press
- - Something like this wouldn't be used in isolation as a cut-off. Good selection systems use experience, work samples, appropriate personality & cognitive testing, relevant skills tests, behaviorally structured interviews, etc to come to a holistic hire/no-hire decision, and even then there are always allowances for people who don't fit the mold but who may still do a great job.
- - The forums seemed to take this in an anti-M$ direction, but the finding is independent of OS. Installing a non-default browser on a Windows or an Apple machine is linked to positive post-hire outcomes. Having said that, there are many other predictors that are more job relevant.
Hope that helps!
I generally exercise some degree of distrust towards computer manufacturer recommendations when my product is no longer under warranty and their legal team likely has them relatively well protected against your situation, but I'd definitely name names. Send a note to the Consumerist, find a few execs and contact them directly. It may be legal, but it's a dishonest approach for those companies to take. It doesn't cost you much time and energy to bring unwanted attention to the companies and that attention is sometimes enough to suddenly get your components replaced. It won't cause systematic change, but at least you're better off.
Not one to miss an opportunity for a car analogy: if a critical recall fix bricked your ride, I think most everyone would agree it is the manufacturer's responsibility to make things right even if the vehicle is out of warranty. Of course, there's obviously more regulation involved and a more direct correlation to physical safety in the case of cars (i.e., you are putting yourself at risk of bodily harm if you choose to disregard the recall fix).
What are they talking about? Drones aren't murderous, they're just full of angst!
I signed up for some term life insurance a few years back and the contract explicitly permitted suicide. That surprised me but I confirmed it with the agent. I image this doesn't apply to everyone (maybe it's not allowed in whole life plans), but I have a standard plan from a major carrier.
Unfortunately my wife also read the fine print so now I have to watch my back...
This may be overly cynical, but I think it's the lesser of two evils. Historically, we've done an awful job of matching people to jobs. It's depressing to learn what really gets people hired and fired. As an I/O psychologist, I cringe whenever an under qualified applicant gets a job just because they know somebody. So as a field, in general, our goal is to make the process more scientific. As a field I/O is generally pretty positive, but it can definitely be used for evil. The strongest force stopping those folks are probably the equal opportunity laws and regulations.
If you want creepy though, the screening piece is just the beginning. Someday careers could be like your Netflix queue. Based on your past jobs, your performance at those jobs, your ratings of those jobs, your knowledge, skills, aptitudes, and interests, and other factors, your career queue could literally suggest new jobs for you and even line up start dates. That's terrifying for many of us, but for others that peace of mind would be a godsend. If it was mandated it's definitely Brave New World. But if it's voluntary? Then it's not so bad. You don't have to watch the movies Netflix suggests... But how would you ever break out and try something new? I think a poor implementation would be linear, single-career (which we know isn't realistic). A smart implementation which could actually enrich a lot of lives, would encourage career jumps every so many years to help keep people engaged and motivated.
Sure, at the end of the day the employer pays our bills. That said, the highly inquisitive employee may not do so well in a customer service roll, but they can often make a great technical support agent. When an employer is trying to fill three positions and we can tell them which one an applicant is most likely to succeed in, we're helping the employer but also indirectly helping the employee. Many applicants for these types of jobs are taking the shotgun approach and apply to everything they find. They just want any job, so if we can match them with one where're they'll tend to do better, it's a least a small improvement over the old way of doing things.
What worries me more is somebody who scores poorly across our entire assessment. Somebody who you might say "does not play well with others". Personality isn't quite as static as pop psychology would have us believe, but that doesn't mean it's easy to change. How do we as a society engage with somebody who wants to work (they're applying for a job) but doesn't have a good attitude for it? Are there really that many entry level jobs to go around for the poor scoring applicants?