coriny

I know! That's annoying me as well! ;)

Which is a terrible excuse for putting a fundamental flaw into the analysis. It's building a big assumption into the model that's known not to hold true in reality. Especially as the mis-represented cohort will, linguistically, be one of the most interesting - likely above average intelligence and a very different exposure to language. I suspect personally it's an oversight.

EDIT: Or, as is dawning on me, I might have missed a bit of sarcasm?

OK, I failed this test before I even got to it. Apparently you are only allowed to put one country in the "Where did you grow up in?" question. I don't know why they aren't interested in the verbal abilities of the large number of people whose parents weren't sedentary - e.g. military, mining industry, diplomats, aid, disaster, mega-construction etc etc.

/whine over.

EDIT: Also, no way to communicate this flaw to them (I'm not on Twitter).

I don't know what's going on with the 'reply' button, but I don't seem to be able to reply to your latest comments.

Firstly, "google it", well actually "google scholar" it. Go to the public research body rather than the general internet and spend some time finding some reviews (I mean proper peer-reviewed reviews), look for ones that are highly cited and ~5-10 years old. Then start following up, with standard procedures. This seems an important topic to you, and you're unwilling to follow the modern wisdom - which is completely fine, no criticism from me over that. So I would recommend spending at least a couple of weeks on this, go down to the primary experiments that the reviews draw on and see what the researcher's are really debating with each experiment. Look how the experiments being done have informed recent reviews and why viewpoints are changing. Make sure everything you're reading is peer reviewed, or you will waste a lot of time. Without two years+ in a subject, filtering the bull is hard.

I would also be very careful about whether the researchers are indirectly or directly being paid by the recruitment industry rather than centrally funded, since commercial funding makes the validity of the results more uncertain.

So I'm not saying "Google it". I'm saying do some bare minimum reading on the research corpus.

----- Just to go back to the above message. I'm not saying have no hiring process, obviously you need to evaluate the candidate. But for me, once I've checked for egregious personality flaws, they don't need to be my friends. Think of it this way: falling out with friends is terrible and likely to be very destructive to morale on your team - people will take sides and within the space of an hour your company has been ripped apart. Office politics will be much greater, while bad decisions based on emotion - "can't fire him, we had a real heart to heart last night", "let's do this because I like x more than y" are much more likely.

If you're pros, then melodrama becomes much less likely. Furthermore, you know you've been hired to be great at your job rather than because you behave in a certain way. Better motivation to focus on the job rather than the politics.

I don't seem to be able to reply to your reply to me further down the thread. So I'm just going to ask one question: "What is the point of asking for hard data when you're going to dismiss it since it doesn't agree with you?" If you don't believe the body of research, you are not going to agree with anyone's opinions here (unless of course they match your own).

The result has been repeated ad nauseum, it's not exactly hard science, though getting into the precise details is. Otherwise, the old mantra is, if you don't believe it, try it yourself.

Probably should have replied here rather than above. Anyway, as I mentioned there, there is a ton of hard data showing mono-cultures generally being outperformed by diverse groups. Lots available as public research, you just have to look for it. You may have to pay for some journal access though. Hiring-what-you-know has been pretty much nailed down as a major mistake with hard data, but is also one that most people make.

There's been quite a bit of research into group composition and dynamics and their effect on problem solving. In short, the main body of research seems to suggest that diverse groups show a higher group intelligence than homogeneous groups (have a search on google scholar). This is likely to do with a diverse group having a wider range of experiences, and more view points, to draw on in solving a problem. Ultimately, it's not about who you work better with, but how the group as a whole performs.

Secondly, if you can only work with people you would be close friends with, you are massively reducing the talent pool available to you. If multiple companies are behaving the same way then you will be paying more for less skilled staff.

Meanwhile it's hard to see what the benefit of hiring from such a limited pool is? They're your work colleagues, not your party buddies, so who cares if you don't want to go to the same clubs? Just hire good professional people, surely? If they're pros, then any intra-group conflicts are manageable.

There's a lot of poor science behind the paleodiet hypothesis - though it may well work as a healthy diet.

The one point I'm going to make is that our ancestors of a million years ago ate a very wide range of diets that were entirely ecosystem & lifestyle dependent (as we still observe in the modern world). So there is no such thing as "the diet" our ancestors ate, they ate many diets, some were better than others.

I also find the assertion that our digestion - even in terms of commensal gut bacteria - hasn't changed in that time a bit odd. We observe rapid adaptations to diet (e.g. in a handful of generations) in other species.

"...and Mongolians are incredibly fascinated with Elon Musk".

I would bet that is a false positive (note it's the fuzzier 'topic' not 'search term') from Mongolian musk ox.

So this may be a coincidence, but I just followed that link and got a warning from malwarebytes about a malicious website trying to connect to my computer.

I've tried a couple more times and not got it again. Anyone else see anything?

EDIT: The IP address reported by MalwareBytes is blocked, but I still don't know if it was just coincidence that the warning popped up a second or two after clicking that link. If anyone else experiences anything similar let me know.

Still it seems to me that this would be an awesome site to use as a watering hole for ensnaring naive web users, i.e. the kind who won't even notice when they are massively infected.