Yea , that works it ' s basically manual pathing as well . I guess we will need to wait for more for active pathing <| sep |> This wording really messed up your point the fairest chance at a job is straight up bias ? If you ' re working to ensure one group does well in interviews , that ' s bias . If you ensure one group makes it to the interview stage , that ' s bias . The best of intentions doesn ' t change that fact . which one of the many studies that I linked are not science ? Presumably all of them they ' re likely all written by people from the same political group . Most of the studies are quite flawed , but if you have one study you think can withstand critical scrutiny and publishes all their data , I would read it . The reason most of the studies are bad is quite obvious . Short version they aren ' t searching for the truth . The long version goes like this . Say you have a group of people known for the politics . New members apply to join because they agree with those politics , then spend at least 4 years hearing and reciting those politics , then apply to work professionally and are interviewed on their politics , applies for research grants given based on politics , publishes in journals that only carry stories based on politics , which are peer reviewed by other members of the group who agree with those politics . How could anyone expect the published results to be anything other than those same politics ? It ' s not a search for truth and understanding , it ' s a political thinktank with a widespread indoctrination system . The research papers are meant as political ammunition , same as any other political thinktank . Since they ' re not subject to any critical views before publishing , the papers tend to be flawed and unconvincing .