Frazmatazz
That makes sense. It's sort of like how I wouldn't expect someone from Kentucky to have the same internship opportunities as someone from the bay area, but if I cant see their location then all I have to go off of is the listed experience.
First, you're increasing the probability of discrimination by making it possible earlier on. The number of people that could exclude you goes up; e.g. the initial, possibly external, recruiter (who is screening hundreds of candidates) who would never otherwise have seen your face, can now discriminate on appearance.
Secondly, people are less discriminatory to people they've actually met and gotten to know somewhat. A picture of an anonymous person, with very little other information to go off of, may affect someone's judgement quite strongly; whereas, when you actually meet and talk with someone, have a lot of other information about them, and they are no longer anonymous, physical appearance will have less influence.
So about $400 of labor?
Neither the prospective employee or employer get a good 'feel' of each other because both are giving 'performances' in a completely different context than actual work.
No one has any real, statistically valid and logically sound, data on hiring practices. It's all dogma & "intuition".
Comparable to the intro biological psychology course I took in college. It's free if you don't care about certificate.
disengaging the autopilot or reducing speed at the wrong time is already occurring quite often with autopilot. If these are unacceptable level of risk introduced by using autopilot, then autopilot should not be used.
Let's say I have ten people with experience A. I add an 11th person with experience A. My team still just has experience A.
I have ten people with experience A, and I add an 11th person with experience B. Now my team has experiences A & B.
Breadth of knowledge and perspective is the heart of innovation. Adding a wider variety of experiences to an organization improves its ability to solve problems.
Now, this is so obvious, I'm left wondering why you're so desperate to maintain the illusion that women are inferior in some way?
I'm sometimes surprised by weird hiring practices at a place I didn't expect. Even different positions at the same FAANG can be completely different experiences.
In my experience, it's useful to have a couple 'jack-of-all-trades' types on the team, but you wouldn't want all your engineers to be broad but shallow. I did a stint in the military to pay for college, and something we'd point out was that it was better to have something 'good enough' right now than something perfect a thousand miles away. Breadth of experience is also handy when trying to innovate a novel solution.
But I don't have any better evidence than you. I've never worked anywhere large enough to have that sort of data where we could demonstrate quantitatively that one method works better than another, and of course the metrics are all fairly arbitrary themselves.
I once scraped a bunch of job postings and did a simple word frequency count. Just eyeballing the list, I picked out a few of the most commonly mentioned techs and skills. By just rewording a few of my resume entries, it seemed to increase my response rate by quite a bit.
For example, in the description of one project I added "using JSON". It wasn't particularly important to that project that the exchange format used was JSON, but apparently many of those doing hiring are seeing fit to include that in their searches.