your argument begs the question of whether or not we can successfully test for this trait to begin with.
i don't think we can. the outsized productivity impact a good person can have far outweighs the statistical probability of getting one if you simply accept all competent interviewers, i.e. the expected value is so high that you can blindly hire until you find one, given sufficient financial resources. without the financial resources, you only hire people you already know are good, which is the general pattern i've seen over 20 years working in this industry.
just a note: as with all wolf-looking dogs, the biggest risk
is unscrupulous breeders who will sell you something much more ... shall we say "authentic" than just a big friendly dog with some wolf phenotypes. buyer beware.
it's amazing how much the finance industry can get away with. like honest-to-goodness amazing.
it's really impressive how these people can have such a death-grip on society. honestly, i'm more curious than mad. how is such a thing even possible? i mean, wow.
read my post again carefully. my point is actually that _no_ non-white american people would be shocked.
i'm not really talking about white people at all, because obviously there are some who would be and wouldn't be shocked at widespread racism by white people.
this is a subtle point that you are missing, which is ironic because you are 25% asian, i imagine you have seen quite a bit of anti-asian racism (it's just a joke bro! don't you love being the butt of jokes? who doesn't love that!) from white people because they have no idea you have asian family.
and i'll just pre-empt your next point: i'm not saying only white poeple can be racist, that's obviously not the case if you've ever been overseas, and anti-white racism also happens a lot in america.
i'll generalize my point for you, so that you may understand:
no person of a minority race would be shocked that the majority race harbors a not-insignificant subpopulation with vehement racist views against other races. if every single majority race were to spend a week as a minority, that would likely dispel any notions they had of the contrary.
i didn't make any of those points, but you just did, and then ascribed them to me, which is pretty typical of online discussions. it's called a straw-man argument.
the reason it's so widespread is it's so easy to do. all you have to do is come up with a bunch of stuff you dislike, and then accuse me of being/doing that stuff.
and there's nothing i can really do about it, because these ideas exist only in your head, not mine.
since i own a small business i just tell people i work in finance now. less questions and comments and more quiet, inaccurate assumptions of wealth and power which i am happy to let be.
i drive it less than 5000 miles a year. insurance rates aren't determined by how much you drive a car, that's just meta-information the ins. co's collect. theft, crashes, and zip code (for full coverage) are far more important.
for you to say something like "bumpers aren't a safety issue" pretty much discredits you immediately, but i'll answer anyway, for posterity.
"actual bumpers" are quite likely the single most extensively regulated pedestrian- and collision-related safety part. there's extensive legislation about their design and characteristics.
car companies exist to make money, yes, but they operate within a global framework of strict regulation.
i'll go out on a limb and agree with you. it's not "obvious" that obesity is linked to cancer unless you view the world through hindsight-glasses. skinny athletic people get cancer too.
it wasn't even "obvious" for most of the 20th century cigarettes gave you cancer. people have short memories.
a contemporary example: is it "obvious" right now that sugar gives you cancer? because to a lot of people it is blindingly, astoundingly obvious, and to some that sounds like conspiracy theory nonsense.
i don't understand this aversion to doing "obvious" science -- we have to do science to make things obvious, not the other way around.
i don't think we can. the outsized productivity impact a good person can have far outweighs the statistical probability of getting one if you simply accept all competent interviewers, i.e. the expected value is so high that you can blindly hire until you find one, given sufficient financial resources. without the financial resources, you only hire people you already know are good, which is the general pattern i've seen over 20 years working in this industry.