Arthur Besse@lemmy.ml to Technology@lemmy.worldEnglish · 8 hours agoThe Economist on using phrenology for hiring and lending decisions: "Some might argue that face-based analysis is more meritocratic" […] "For people without access to credit, that could be a blessing"lemmy.mlimagemessage-square65fedilinkarrow-up1249arrow-down110file-text
arrow-up1239arrow-down1imageThe Economist on using phrenology for hiring and lending decisions: "Some might argue that face-based analysis is more meritocratic" […] "For people without access to credit, that could be a blessing"lemmy.mlArthur Besse@lemmy.ml to Technology@lemmy.worldEnglish · 8 hours agomessage-square65fedilinkfile-text
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/38830374 […] tweet economist article archive.is paywall bypass https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology
minus-squaretechnocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up8arrow-down1·edit-27 hours ago The Economist is generally a pretty good news source, Wew. Gotta be drinking the reactionary/lib pseudo-science sauce to believe this. Literally promoting phrenology. That’s far from the lowest point for this rag.
minus-squareAlphane Moon@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up3·6 hours ago Literally promoting phrenology. That’s why I said this article was subpar. And I even commented on this in pretty harsh terms: the regime members are really busy doing their best to make a new metaphorical rope I don’t agree with a lot of what they say, but I don’t believe they are malicious, at least to the extent that many American news sources are.
minus-squareMaeve@kbin.earthlinkfedilinkarrow-up1·6 hours agoPlus the post filled with buzzwords that superficially sound smart strung together in a way that say nothing of value.
![The Economist on using phrenology for hiring and lending decisions: "Some might argue that face-based analysis is more meritocratic" […] "For people without access to credit, that could be a blessing"](https://lemmy.ml/pictrs/image/14f5a0b4-82b6-498d-a689-36c2824dd296.png){kind=link}
Wew. Gotta be drinking the reactionary/lib pseudo-science sauce to believe this. Literally promoting phrenology. That’s far from the lowest point for this rag.
That’s why I said this article was subpar. And I even commented on this in pretty harsh terms:
I don’t agree with a lot of what they say, but I don’t believe they are malicious, at least to the extent that many American news sources are.
Plus the post filled with buzzwords that superficially sound smart strung together in a way that say nothing of value.