Not a gamer, but it seems "highly rated" is a matter of attention and status, and the number would increase with the population not with the overall number of games.
Schmidt et al., 2016 The Validity and Utility of Selection Methods in Personnel Psychology: Practical and Theoretical Implications of 100 Years of Research Findings
No, this is a message board canard. IQ tests are used at a variety of large companies with deep pockets for discrimination settlements. If there were real legal risks, that wouldn't be the case.
There are real risks for companies without deep pockets (for settlements or public relations). People I know, responsible for hiring, have told me they won't use IQ tests because of how it would come across, so the concern at least exists but how widespread is the question.
Your citation addresses it. Less than 1% of employment lawsuits are about selection criteria and employers win over 90% of them. They suggest GMA tests are _more_ defensible than other approaches.
The most interesting thing in that paper is that years of experience performed so poorly. It’s in the lowest cohort. Worse than “interests” or more general “biographical data”.
There is still the reputational risk of using selection methods with widely known disparate outcomes. Other methods also have disparate outcomes, but most of the criticism is directed at IQ tests. I've heard "IQ tests are culturally biased" but never "work sample tests are culturally biased", and I'll guess that's the experience of most hiring managers too.
Have you ever heard or read a newspaper article, or can you cite an actual example of any company actually suffering reputation harm for administering iq tests? Your citation suggests candidates view GMA tests _favorably_.
Most hiring managers believe experience matters in hiring as well, perhaps that’s the belief that keeps them from using iq tests.
For what it’s worth, IQ tests are biased (see duyme’ adoptive studies for a drastic economic impact). That largely is orthogonal to if they are predictive in the ways your citation outlines.
Somehow these reputational risks accrue to the median hiring company, but not to the global brands like PepsiCo and Proctor & Gamble that do GMA testing already. I maintain: this is a message board trope.
if you just extend the metaphor in the diagram, and imagine a negative length to just refer to direction, sure it does :)
personally, I love visual proofs because they can communicate an idea efficiently, sure they have their pitfalls, but its less about the actual mechanism of the proof and more about the core idea that lets me appreciate how its working- and visual proofs add a pseudo-physical intuition that helps me appreciate it.
Trying the proof with a < b, with the b square from the bottom-right as in the diagram, I get a region to the top and left, and moving a piece (differently to the diagram) I get (a + b)(b - a) as a positive area for that region, and then flip the sign because it's negative.
I've seen the same suggested of Sergey Karjakin, and he made it to the top (and I've seen it suggested that it helped him get to the top, that being a GM sooner got him more access to top trainers sooner).
> The tragedy of American slavery is that it erased any links of slaves to Africa, so modern black Americans have barely any relationship to Africa, still carrying the pain but losing any cultural or ancestral connections.
Ancestral connection in the quoted sentence means knowing your ancestors, not genetic lineage. It must have been clear from this thread that I don’t deny genetics.
> They explicitly state, "Anyone is free to copy, modify, publish, use, compile, sell, or distribute the original SQLite code, either in source code form or as a compiled binary, for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial, and by any means."
It's not clear this is a license grant rather than legal advice (which would be correct legal advice if the code were public domain, but it is not).
Is it though? The website does say "All of the code and documentation in SQLite has been dedicated to the public domain by the authors" but copyright law has no exception for "dedications" to the public domain. At best the authors are estopped from bringing suit but even that is unclear.
Companies can buy licences if they're uncomfortable with the Public Domain dedication:
[quote]
Licenses are available to satisfy the following needs:
* You want indemnity against claims of copyright infringement.
* You are using SQLite in a jurisdiction that does not recognize the public domain.
* You are using SQLite in a jurisdiction that does not recognize the right of authors to dedicate their work to the public domain.
* You want to hold a tangible legal document as evidence that you have the legal right to use and distribute SQLite.
* Your legal department tells you that you have to purchase a license.
They could have CC0 licensed the code or they could have said they would not enforce their copyright. They did neither. SQLite is closed source. The "dedication" (which has no legal effect, what does it even mean?) encourages widespread adoption and big players are spooked into paying for a license (or "warranty of title"). That's quite a strategy.
Races do not exist in the same sense that the periodic table does not exist. Both are constructs over reality, and they are both informative (i.e. science).
Periodic table uses objective criteria for categorization. American race classification is rooted in debunked theories and mostly meaningless today. One can say at least that there exists black subculture, black dialect of English etc among descendants of slaves. How much of that is related to 1st and 2nd generation immigrants from Africa, which have much stronger cultural links to their motherland, speak different languages and may even have different faith? Asian bucket is absolutely non-sensical — there’s either cultural proximity to America or to native Asian cultures, which are very different, so the people are very different. It is very hard to understand why Indians and Chinese should classify themselves the same way. This classification is imposed on them. How is this nonsense informative? It’s just some racist legacy.
In Europe we do not have that system and we don’t miss it.
You cannot be serious. It is very well established by science that biological races do not exist. They remain in the mostly American conversation as sociocultural constructs.
Maybe you at least read Wikipedia to educate yourself?
This is just obfuscation. The population clusters will still exist even if we don't use the word "race" to describe them, and they can be described in biological terms that will overwhelmingly overlap with the sociocultural construct.
You continue repeating this without any scientific evidence, yet any modern source points that racial theories are not supported by genetic research. There‘s no such overlap.
It turns out that if you cluster people together by their genetic information, the clusters that form are pretty similar to the racial groupings that ordinary Americans would understand. See this chart: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genetic_clustering#/medi...
The 4 clusters in the K=4 column are pretty much just Black vs White vs (east) Asian vs Amerindian
First of all, you quote an old study with a very small dataset. We already know by now, that before going out of Africa at least two major genetic branches developed in addition to early Eurasians. At K=4 and clustering by genetic distance, they would likely represent two clusters while the rest of Africa would fall into one of remaining two. Not even close to what average American would understand.
Second, even if in the study you use, it’s „east Asian“. Where you would put Indians? How about southeast Asian people with black skin?
Why this clustering is even necessary when the rest of the world is doing fine without it?
> We already know by now, that before going out of Africa at least two major genetic branches developed in addition to early Eurasians.
Nice of you to acknowledge genetics.
> At K=4 and clustering by genetic distance, they would likely represent two clusters while the rest of Africa would fall into one of remaining two.
I suppose they would.
> Not even close to what average American would understand.
The average American would understand if those two branches lived among us today. The value of science is to inform us of what is occurring now and to predict what will occur next, including the impact of immigration on test scores.
> The average American would understand if those two branches lived among us today
Shall I break the news or you find out yourself?.. ok, I will do it.
Those two branches do live among Americans. Afro-American people have the biggest genetic diversity in America and their genetic subgroups are so distinctive that they require separate testing in clinical studies. I bet you won’t be able to tell the difference between them from their appearance though. Now good luck redefining the concept of race with this knowledge.
If you were not referring to extinct branches I don't know why you thought "they would likely represent two clusters" if they did not already in the clustering given.
> Afro-American people have the biggest genetic diversity in America and their genetic subgroups are so distinctive that they require separate testing in clinical studies.
Yes, and?
> I bet you won’t be able to tell the difference between them from their appearance though.
Maybe, and?
> Now good luck redefining the concept of race with this knowledge.
Good luck trying to deny biological race when you've just listed more evidence for it.
>I don't know why you thought "they would likely represent two clusters" if they did not already in the clustering given.
Read the study with the clustering. I did it, so you should too.
This is my last reply to you. If you need more answers, there’s already more than enough facts for you here to verify and learn something new in the process.
