> You give them a technical test and whoever scores the most wins, if they score equally, you can pick at random.

The thing is that people don't have equal opportunity to prepare for the technical test. Thus the people who do best might not be the best for the job. Especially as a lot of value can be obtained from hiring someone with a different perspective on life, which the hiring manager might not appreciate (as the other perspective doesn't align with theirs).

And if it wasn't true, this wouldn't happen:

https://www.theguardian.com/women-in-leadership/2013/oct/14/...

You can't conclude too much from an isolated example.

> You can't conclude too much from an isolated example.

You can conclude that the effects of implicit bias are not well understood and maybe we should study it a little bit more before we treat it as absolute truth and factor it into decision making.

I don't see how I could conclude anything about how well understood implicit bias is from one or two examples of it materializing or failing to materialize.

People thought they understood it, they started applying policies around it and then their assumptions turned out to be false, hence me saying it's not well understood.

From the article:

>"We should hit pause and be very cautious about introducing this as a way of improving diversity, as it can have the opposite effect," Professor Hiscox said.

To me, this quote succinctly expresses the whole problem behind the push for "diversity" (a term which I have never seen rigorously defined by its exponents) in technology fields. By trying to fix the results with artificial means, they place the cart before the horse. They attempt to fix a painting they perceive to be damaged by doodling over top of it. There appears to be no self-reflection when unintended consequences occur.

They did a study where they attempt to remove all bias, but they got results they didn't like, and so we should "hit pause"? Why should we ever hit pause on removing bias and discrimination from our society?