Oh will you stop with that horseshit. We're talking about what the data shows as observable impact. Whatever opinions you, I, or anyone else have on the test are utterly irrelevant. Your claim was that the numbers showed a causal link between the test and the number of hires. So naturally that means that what makes or breaks the case is entirely contained in those numbers and the factors that affected them.
Shall I try this a third time?
I said:
I don't think there is sufficient justification to treat the assessment as a sole cause of the drop, but rejecting thousands of qualified applicants while being increasingly understaffed seems to be negligent at best.
That I said that in my first post on the subject, and you think you've refuted my point by showing other potential causes shows you don't understand what I'm saying. Your attempt at identifying what my claim was above directly contradicts what I said from the beginning, and it's hardly surprising that you miss the point when you are deliberately avoiding the central point.
I suppose you are right on a technicality that it is avoidable: someone interpreting his comments could be extraordinarily stupid or deliberately refuse to think them through. In which case, which one are you angling for?
I think what you might mean is that Trump didn't say that controller error was definitely the cause of the crash. He also offered up other possibilities (such as the inevitability that accidents happen, or pilot error). But, you know, needlessly slandering people is probably one of the reasons that leaders conventionally wait for investigation results.
Here's what I might suggest in as specific a way I can: when he emphasizes a directive to hire the disabled for this role, you hear that as an insult to both air traffic controllers and the disabled. When a Trump supporter hears him say that, they hear it as a criticism of the priorities of the Biden Administration (assuming they don't know anything beyond what they've heard recently). The Trump voters are not going to buy into the idea that a critical safety role is the proper place for explicit diversity hires, and the vast majority of those voters are not going to see that as a fault of women, the disabled, or racial minorities. Rather, they see it as the fault of an American left that takes the normal workings of society (the price of eggs) for granted and focuses their efforts instead on social justice activism. The target of Trump's ire in those comments was almost certainly Democrats. Not unambiguously, I'll give you that, but i doubt he says Biden so many times by accident.
That sentence doesn't indicate that. It's a vague statement to the effect that the hiring process was modified (in some unspecified way) by that team's work. That's it.
It's line 1 of the document that added the assessment to the hiring process, labeled "reason for change". Cut the crap or you're not getting another response.
Nothing about proxy characteristics. Nothing about unfair exclusion.
Not "proxy characteristics", just "additional predictors".
Do you think it's a coincidence that the barrier analysis report recommended outreach efforts to the national community, and that " RNO and gender diversity should be explicitly considered", and then the assessment had a question about where you learned about the job opportunity, and gave maximum points only to those who found out through public notice or advertisement?
news.sky.com
