>Being a "good negotiator" is not relevant to being a qualified engineer.
Unless a variable of the hiring process filtered out applicants who were good negotiators, which is also not gender-biased.
I think a massive distinction needs to be made between what I call the "selected/affected" order of evidence, to prove that the selecting process lead to the result of those it is purportedly affecting, rather than only being able to conclude that since this is affecting certain people, therefore the selecting must be flawed.
If the selection process can be proven directly, then you have far more "beyond a shadow of a doubt."
If all you have is a supposition that the results mean the proposed cause is to blame, then you have all kinds of shadows of doubts that can be simply argued against by suppositions of other hypothetical ideas that sustain it, which also don't require proving directly if the accusation doesn't need to.
Slashdot Mirror
>Being a "good negotiator" is not relevant to being a qualified engineer.
Unless a variable of the hiring process filtered out applicants who were good negotiators, which is also not gender-biased.
I think a massive distinction needs to be made between what I call the "selected/affected" order of evidence, to prove that the selecting process lead to the result of those it is purportedly affecting, rather than only being able to conclude that since this is affecting certain people, therefore the selecting must be flawed.
If the selection process can be proven directly, then you have far more "beyond a shadow of a doubt."
If all you have is a supposition that the results mean the proposed cause is to blame, then you have all kinds of shadows of doubts that can be simply argued against by suppositions of other hypothetical ideas that sustain it, which also don't require proving directly if the accusation doesn't need to.