Apparently everyone is prejudiced, and their prejudices affect hiring such that 92% of nurses are female, and an even higher proportion of deep sea fishermen are male. this is clearly unacceptable.
Now, we already know that corporations view people simply as cogs in the machine, I've read some books and heard some music to that effect.
How trivially easy, therefore, to solve, or at least drastically reduce this problem:
1. Establish a sufficiently non-prejudicial acceptance criteria. Basically it's what you already put in the job listing (e.g. years of experience)
2. Receive batch of candidate CVs, and filter those that clearly do not match the criteria, or lie about it via a background check -- already done in most major corporations.
3. And here is the simple brilliance of this proposal: choose candidate at random from submitted pool.
That's it. True, you'll get occasional losers -- but you'll occasionally get them after a 5 step interview process as well -- and you surely lose out on the guy that happened to have a cold that day and was irritating you with his cough, or the girl that <insert suitably not offensive issue there> that day.
Done.-- theircompetitor, Aug 12 2017 Your trick questions cannot deter us in the fight for equality-- theircompetitor, Aug 12 2017 This idea is just stupid [+]-- Voice, Aug 12 2017 // their prejudices affect hiring such that 92% of nurses are female, and an even higher proportion of deep sea fishermen are male. //
Being a deep-sea fisherman requires physical strength, and the ability to function well in low ambient temperatures. Human females are not ideally configured for this activity; they can, however, steer a modern ship without difficulty, maintain the engines, or any number of other tasks.
Males and females are equally capable of being nurses, or any number of other tasks. There are female firefighters, combat pilots, and police officers.
The problem is that many humans self-select for roles. If you advertise for oil rig crew, chances are almost all the applicants will be male. If you advertise for a child-minder, the majority of applicants will probably be female.
There's nothing you can do about the fact that different genders, for perfectly good evolutionary - not social- reasons, are innately predisposed to choose "traditional" roles.
The answer is obvious. By cloning, produce a statistically significant sample (perhaps 1000, as a minimum) of monozygotic twins. Separate them into cohorts, and subject each cohort to a carefully designed environment; observe and record the results. Obviously, this process may well produce a certain percentage of axe-wielding psychotics, socially-withdrawn self-obsessed egomaniacs, and mentally-crippled exploitative sociopaths, and these will have to be culled before they get the chance to run for public office.
The remainder should allow the nature vs. nurture argument to be conclusively resolved.-- 8th of 7, Aug 12 2017 How many of that percentage become halfbakers?-- RayfordSteele, Aug 12 2017 The demographic probably maps alarmingly well onto the // axe-wielding psychotics, socially-withdrawn self-obsessed egomaniacs, and mentally-crippled exploitative sociopaths // segment.
Just a guess, though. It may kind of depend on which cohorts get to experience the environment that centres around random, unjustifiable, violent beatings, systematic denigration of individuals, and vastly unequal status and social reward based on capricious factors.
Of course, some won't become rap performers, but that's not our problem.-- 8th of 7, Aug 12 2017 random, halfbakery