Sunday, April 18, 2021

Testing the Un-testable Hypothesis

The "Un-testable Hypothesis" is that LGBT are more gifted at "reading" people than heterosexuals.

The hypothesis has its origins in the work by Ervine Gottman who speculated that stigmatized people(s) have to exercise care in announcing themselves to the world. Stigmatized people(s) must exercise discernment when announcing. For instance, pedophiles usually don't put bumper stickers on their vehicles that indiscriminately announce their sexual preferences to the world.

That speculation was then combined with the belief that "anything you do repeatedly you become better at" and the Un-testable Hypothesis was launched.

Since LGBT are over-represented in Human Resources departments, and since the Hire/Not-hire decision is critical to the success of EVERY organization, there is utility in choosing the "job interview" as the test-bed for evaluating the "Un-testable Hypothesis".

Proposed set-up

One group will be doing the interviews. They will be offered two scripts and will be told that the purpose of the interview is to evaluate the scripts. After each interview the members of this group will rate the candidates on a variety of metrics important to businesses like:

  • Will be punctual
  • Will get along with other workers
  • Will not blow-off work days
  • Will not steal
  • Will not take short-cuts on defined work processes

as well as the interviewer's "certainty" of their assessment.

The second group will provide the people being interviewed. Before the interview, each candidate will be alone in a waiting room.

The picture in my head is that there will be some small, easy-to-conceal item in the room that many people would be tempted to steal. Say a twenty dollar bill or a cell-phone. Something desirable enough that 35%-to-65% will take it.

It may be difficult to get enough people to steal the item given the pervasive nature of security cameras. However, if the interviewee was offered $20 for volunteering and the bait was a $20 bill, that gives them them the cover story that "I thought that was how I was being paid" and might increase the theft rate into the desired range.

The metric of interest will be "Did LGBT interviewers identify the theft risk candidates any better than the non-LGBT interviewer?" with theft-risk being identified as the candidates who actually slipped the $20 or cell-phone into their pocket. 

Candidate selection

Since LGBT are only 5% of the US base population, it is desirable to enrich the sample of interviewers with additional LGBT members. That might be arranged by looking on LGBT sites like Grindr.

A reasonable alternative hypothesis to the Un-testable Hypothesis is that LGBT use a set of cues that are not consciously accessed by them. In order to exercise the possibility of that potential mechanism, it is desirable to ensure that the pool of candidates being "interviewed" are a mix of young, old, men, women, straight, LGBT, black, white, Hispanic, rural and urban, affluent, less-affluent, tats and non-tats.

It might be possible to gain insight into other biases or cleavage planes that guide LGBT personnel decisions.


  1. Why are more than 5% of HR personnel LGBT? That is beyond equality in my mind

  2. I would suspect 5% is probably 4% too high

    1. I agree, the number is massively inflated because for a time it was fashionable to be a perv.

      However, there may be something to the study. I know that children who grow up in abusive homes, tend to be hyper vigilant and can see confrontation/violence coming in social situations from miles away.

  3. I would be speculating.

    There is certainly a huge amount of leverage within HR to influence corporate (and government) culture. Some degree of selection, both self-selection and Professorial, happens in the academic setting.

    Once inside HR, they are the gate-keeper and one accusing assessment can spike anybody's career.

  4. Homosexuals (both male and female) are no more than 3% of the US population. And the number of actual genuine transgenders is vanishingly small, a fraction of a percentage point, a rounding error at most. It amazes me that these quite small sub-groups of our population are celebrated rather than defined as deviant. It amazes me still further that they are allowed to exercise such an outsized influence in popular culture and politics.

    It is our unholy media allied with the Progressive (ie-Communist) fifth column movement and it's various front groups that has caused all things LGBT to be so fashionable these days. So pervasive is their reach that they have succeeded in convincing impressionable youth that gays are at least equal in number to straights. A while back one of our neighbor's daughters told me in no uncertain terms that at least two-thirds of the students in her middle school were gay. When I acquainted her with the real numbers, she regarded me as if I were off my rocker.

    It is now a well established fact that gender euphoria among young people occurs in clusters. That is, clusters of young people who all know each other somehow 'discover' they are transgender. Since it is not physically contagious, this can only happen as a result of encouragement of this ideation by each other, much like the 'recovery' of externally implanted false memories, aided and abetted of course by the media. This in a nutshell is the reason behind the explosion in the numbers of so-called transgender people. Genuine transgenders, people who are born with both male and female chromosomes, are exceedingly rare - maybe one person out of 100,000.

    I think it was Andrew Breitbart who said that politics is downstream of culture. It is the Soros aligned and funded groups that are promoting this entire transgender fantasy, and their wholly owned media conglomerates are promoting it to the hilt. Then corporations fund it as protection from being targeted. Finally, politicians jump on the bandwagon so as not to be seen as 'un-woke'. The whole thing is a self-licking ice cream cone, created as just another way to debauch our society, and demoralize we Normals by rubbing our noses in it.

    1. Suicides also occur in clusters.

      According to the American Community Survey subdivision of the US Census, 1.5% of two-adult households are "Same Sex".

      The percentage of two-adult households in Washington D.C. that are Same-Sex is 7%. Just one of those things that make you go "Hmmmm."

  5. Meh.

    My observation is that empathy is tied to early life experiences, earlier than adolescence.

  6. I think that second paragraph could be a little off.

    'How do you know a person is gay, bi, or identifies as a stork?'
    -they'll tell you in the first five minutes of conversation.-


Readers who are willing to comment make this a better blog. Civil dialog is a valuable thing.