Timeline for How to tell pseudo-experts from real ones (in an unfamiliar field)?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
4 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 23, 2021 at 15:16 | comment | added | Nuclear Hoagie | It depends on the study, different designs will imply different things. In an observational study of HR in practice, they may green-light anyone who seems remotely qualified for a subsequent technical interview, rather than potentially missing qualified candidates. This leads to the conclusion that HR doesn't identify talent well, but it's only true because they accept a large false positive rate to minimize their false negative rate. A study that directly tests discriminative ability (if HR itself makes the hiring decision) rather than practical outcomes might find something different. | |
| Jun 18, 2021 at 20:41 | comment | added | Guy Inchbald | @NuclearHoagie The studies showed that under the conditions of the particular study, HR staff failed to identify expertise. I think we can take it that the studies were designed to test their discriminative ability and not simply to ignore it, don't you? | |
| Jun 18, 2021 at 20:36 | comment | added | Nuclear Hoagie | Interesting - do those studies show that HR staff cannot identify expertise, or that they merely do not? The fact that a busy HR person might send unqualified personnel to the next interview stage doesn't necessarily mean that identifying expertise is impossible. It may just mean that they're not going to spend the time to dig deeper into an area that's not their expertise, and will let the technical experts make a better judgement later on. | |
| Jun 18, 2021 at 16:07 | history | answered | Guy Inchbald | CC BY-SA 4.0 |