#hiring methodologies

[saipushpalearner]

Psychometric Tests in India

Psychometric tests in India have revolutionized recruitment processes, offering employers a scientific, objective method to evaluate candidates. These tests assess personalities, intelligence levels, aptitudes, and behavioral traits, providing a robust framework for identifying the best-fit candidates for specific roles. With the advent of digital platforms, the adoption of psychometric evaluations has grown exponentially, empowering businesses to make data-driven hiring decisions.

The Role of Psychometric Tests in Recruitment

Standardized and Objective Evaluations

Psychometric tests serve as a cornerstone for fair and unbiased recruitment practices. Unlike traditional interview processes, which can be influenced by subjective biases, psychometric evaluations offer standardized assessments. These tests provide clear insights into a candidate’s ability to manage stress, work collaboratively, and adapt to new environments.

For example, a psychometric test can identify whether a potential hire thrives in high-pressure situations or prefers structured tasks. Such insights are invaluable for roles requiring specific personality traits or cognitive abilities.

Enhancing Efficiency in Hiring

Incorporating psychometric testing early in the hiring process allows companies to streamline their recruitment. By filtering out candidates who may not meet the role's requirements, organizations save time and resources. Moreover, these tests help align hiring decisions with organizational goals, ensuring that each selected candidate contributes effectively to the team’s dynamics.

The Evolution of Psychometric Testing in India

From Paper-Based to Digital Platforms

Initially, psychometric tests were paper-based, requiring significant manual effort for administration and scoring. However, the digital transformation of recruitment has led to the widespread adoption of online psychometric platforms. These tools not only automate test delivery and scoring but also offer detailed analytical reports.

For instance, many companies now leverage artificial intelligence (AI)-driven platforms that analyze psychometric results to predict job performance and cultural fit. This evolution has made psychometric testing accessible to organizations of all sizes, marking a shift toward more sophisticated recruitment methodologies.

Adoption Across Industries

Industries in India, from IT and healthcare to manufacturing and retail, are increasingly relying on psychometric evaluations. IT companies use these tests to assess problem-solving abilities, while retail organizations focus on customer service and adaptability. This versatility underscores the broad applicability of psychometric tools.

Benefits of Psychometric Tests in Recruitment

Identifying the Right Fit

A key advantage of psychometric testing is its ability to match candidates to roles where they are likely to excel. This alignment reduces turnover rates and enhances employee satisfaction.

Supporting Diversity and Inclusion

By eliminating biases, psychometric tests promote diversity and inclusion. Objective assessments ensure that candidates are evaluated based on their skills and potential, rather than subjective impressions.

Boosting Organizational Performance

The data-driven insights from psychometric tests contribute to better team dynamics and leadership development. Organizations can use these evaluations to identify future leaders, foster collaboration, and build high-performing teams.

Best Practices for Implementing Psychometric Tests

Choose the Right Tool

Select psychometric tests that align with your organization’s goals. For instance, if teamwork is critical, focus on assessments that evaluate interpersonal skills and collaboration.

Integrate with Recruitment Processes

Ensure psychometric testing is seamlessly integrated into your hiring strategy. Use it alongside interviews and other evaluation methods to gain a holistic view of candidates.

Train Hiring Managers

Equip your HR and hiring teams with the knowledge to interpret psychometric results effectively. Proper training ensures that insights from these tests are used strategically.

The Future of Psychometric Testing in India

As technology continues to advance, psychometric testing in India is poised for further growth. Innovations such as gamification and AI integration are making these evaluations more engaging and predictive. Additionally, the rise of remote work has increased the demand for tools that assess candidates virtually, ensuring their compatibility with digital workplaces.

Conclusion

Psychometric tests in India have emerged as an essential tool for modern recruitment, offering employers the ability to make informed, objective decisions. By integrating these assessments into hiring processes, organizations can build stronger, more adaptable teams, ensuring long-term success.

[academiceurope]

Job - Alert 🌿

📊 Exciting Opportunity: Full Professor of Statistics at BOKU! 📊

The Universität für Bodenkultur Wien (BOKU) is inviting applications for a Full Professor of Statistics, starting April 1, 2025. Join us in our mission to enhance research and teaching in the field of sustainability and life sciences.

🗓️ Application Deadline: December 15, 2024

📩 Ready to make a difference? More details and apply, here:

https://www.academiceurope.com/job/?id=5658

[sprintrecruiting]

My response to "We don't need to overhaul our recruiting process"

“We don’t need to overhaul our recruiting process.” I hear this a lot when clients first reach out for a consultation. It makes me laugh to myself because I tend to wonder, if everything is good with your recruiting process, why are you calling me? I recently posted about the 4 Dysfunctions of Recruiting and the 5 Signs Your Recruiting Process is Broken, creating a lot of interest from…

[deorwineinfotech]

Flutter Your Way to Success: Essential Questions for Hiring a Top-Notch Developer.

[thefantastickatinator]

Dropout should hire more trans women.

That said, a couple things about the data set floating around showing disproportionality in casting:

1. 7 of the top 9 (those cast members who appear in over 100 episodes, everyone else has under 70 appearances) are members of the core dimension 20 cast, aka “the intrepid heroes”. This cast has been in 7 of the 22 seasons, with those seasons usually being 20-ish episodes long (the other seasons are between 4-10 episodes long typically). That’s approximately 140 episodes for each of the main intrepid heroes cast members just for these seasons (not including bonus content like live shows). Brian Murphy has appeared 154 times, which means almost all of his appearances were on D20 intrepid heroes campaigns.

2. The other 2 in the top 9 are Sam Reich and Mike Trapp, who are both hosts of long running shows (Game Changer and Um, Actually)

3. 198 of the 317 episodes that noncis “TME” people have appeared in can be attributed to ally Beardsley alone (there is some crossover where for example alex and ally have both appeared in the same episodes). Erika ishii has been in 67 of the 317 noncis “TME” episode appearances i don’t know how much crossover there is between them but i don’t think they’ve been on d20 together so i doubt it’s more than 20. It could be as many as 250 of the 317 episodes that have either erica or ally. Both Erika and ally are majorly skewing the results for the data

4. Over 3/4 of people have no listed gender identity in the spreadsheet - most of them have 1-2 appearances, but a few have 3-4 appearances. I’m pretty sure these people aren’t included in the data at all (some of them i’m p sure are not cis like jiavani and bob the drag queen)

5. The data collector has assigned “tme” and “tma” to various cast members.

TME: transmisogyny exempt

TMA: transmisogyny affected

Now, tranmisogyny can affect trans women, trans femmes, and nonbinary people, and occasionally masculine appearing cis women.

I personally do not believe that an outside person can assign you a label deciding whether or not you experience certain types of oppression- and yet that is what the data collector has done.

I think a more accurate label would be amab/afab, or more honestly- “people i think are amab or have said they are amab and then everyone else”

6. The data does not include many of their newer shows such as Very Important People, Gastronauts, Play it By Ear, and Monet’s Slumber Party, all of which feature trans people (MSP, Gastronauts, and VIP are all hosted by noncis people)

What I think the data more accurately shows:

- Dimension 20 has a “main cast” who have appeared in the majority of episodes

- Dropout has some “regulars” who appear on the majority of their content/shows (sam has referenced multiple times that brennan is one of the first people he calls whenever someone can’t show up for something since he’s nearly always down for anything) - none of these people are trans women

Final thoughts:

I think eliminating “hosts” and the “intrepid heroes” from THIS TYPE of data set would be more appropriate because they massively skew the data when crunching the numbers for dropout shows. Especially since I can tell from the excel sheet that there are shows missing. Examining d20 sidequests and the guests on the other shows will give a more accurate representation of casting. Hosts should be analyzed separately as that’s a different casting process.

Also imagine if we referred to men and women as “misogyny exempt” and “misogyny affected” when doing demographics. Or if someone did a data collection of the number of POC appearances in dropout episodes and sorted it by “racism affected” and “racism exempt” - so weiiiiird

TLDR: the data set has massive issues with its methodology and that should be considered. That doesn’t make what trans women are saying less valid.

In other words: spiders brennan is an outlier and should not have been counted

[eclecticwordblender]

love that whenever i have a part to play in hiring people and since i’m only an associate i usually do the shortlisting and 1st round interviews. AMAZING WAY TO ELIMINATE MALES EARLY ON IN THE PROCESS. also even better that women get to move forward.

i work for a women’s rights organisation. males will only hinder our work. i consciously choose to not let males move forward for the greater good of our organisation, workplace, cause, methodology and my own beliefs <33

[ghcstao3]

(part 1)

-

As more days pass, the job doesn’t get any less strange.

Johnny is still poring over Ghost’s hint, trying to figure out how it could be possible that all these varying pieces are from the same artist. Unless it was someone more contemporary, experimenting in art styles of different eras—

Which would make sense, if not for the paints and materials not available in the present day, their methodology in creation having been lost to time, or its dangers realized.

And the signature. Scribbled consistently on every one of the pieces in the exact same place, exact same handwriting, even when the initials of S and R shift from the Roman to Latin alphabet, and when the length of the name itself shrinks and grows.

About every theory that pops into Johnny’s head is easily dismissed for another that makes slightly more sense, until he reaches another road block in reasoning. It’s impossible, plain and simple.

But at the end of the day, Johnny has to shake his head of those sorts of thoughts anyway. Because he’s here for a job, not to speculate, even when it’s his current employer that’s planted this dilemma in his head.

Speaking of—Ghost hasn’t gotten any less weird himself, either. Or, perhaps enigmatic, Johnny should say.

He continues to pose questions to Johnny as he works, but at some point they begin to sound less like questions from the owner of the artwork—and more like questions from the artist, as if seeking feedback.

All Johnny can do is answer honestly. He’s gotten better at deciphering Ghost’s hums and huffs and grunts, but not to the extent of really understanding what he’s thinking. Which only serves to confuse Johnny further about the whole… arrangement.

It’s on the last day, while Johnny is finishing up the last piece, that Ghost asks him the strangest thing of all.

“Say you were… immortal,” Ghost begins slowly, sometime nearing the end of the day; the end of Johnny’s contract, “would you choose to make a mark on the world, or remain invisible?”

Johnny furrows his brow. “I’m not sure. I mean—really, unless you’re big and famous, you kind of remain invisible to most, anyway.”

Ghost shakes his head, seeming almost frustrated by his answer—which would be a first. “No, not like—like if you made art, would you choose to keep it hidden, or would you allow it to be shared?”

It’s the first time Johnny has ever heard Ghost seem unsure of himself. He’s never seen the man falter like this, wavering in this intimidating, indifferent persona he’s thus far created.

Johnny suspects that there’s more to this question than it simply being a hypothetical.

“Depends,” Johnny says. He blinks up at Ghost, staring undeterred into that intense gaze of his. Sometimes Johnny thinks Ghost expects him to be nervous in his employer’s presence. “If it’s something personal, then sure, I’d keep it to myself. But I think in creating art, there’s also times that you’d want to display it, so I would. Not necessarily to leave something behind, but… maybe to inspire someone else.”

Ghost considers this for a long while, eyes raking over Johnny’s face for who knows what. Maybe a discrepancy in his honesty.

Eventually, he breathes slow and deep as he squares back his shoulders. “Then I’ll ask this again:” He pauses. “What do you think happened to the artist?”

The corners of Johnny’s lips twitch upward, though a proper smile never appears.

“I think he’s giving himself away right about now,” Johnny decides. It hasn’t really clicked to him, of course, that Ghost might be immortal—but it’s a conclusion he can at least speak aloud.

Ghost squints his eyes, and Johnny is inclined to think that means there’s a smile hiding beneath his mask.

“Suppose I have,” Ghost admits. Almost sheepishly, he then asks, “Does that change your answer?”

Johnny shakes his head. “I still think these should be displayed, if you’re willing. They’re… they’re beautiful pieces, and… why should you hire me to restore them just to keep them in storage?”

Ghost shrugs, and there reappears that new uncertainty. “I wanted a second opinion.”

Johnny laughs, shaking his head again. “Next you’re going to tell me you destroyed these yourself just to get it.”

Ghost stares at him a long, silent moment after that. Johnny’s eyebrows shoot to his hairline with the very clear answer to that joke.

“…Ghost.”

“It’s Simon,” Ghost corrects. “And I may have… tampered… with them. Just a little.”

Johnny scoffs. “Ghost, Simon, whatever. Some of these materials have been lost to time! And you just… you just—“

A deep, rumbling laugh escapes Ghost—Simon—that has Johnny trailing off from the rant he’d just been ready to go on. Art history is so meaningful to him, and he has a living man who can attest to those times in front of him, and—

And Johnny was just insulting him.

He shrinks back as Simon’s laughing tapers off, and that cold look in his eyes is overtaken by something warm, something friendly.

“Those pieces never meant enough to me,” Simon finally says, something melancholy falling over his tone. “But… I do have one more that was actually ruined by time that I think… I think I’d trust you enough to fix.”

Johnny’s eyes widen, perking up at the suggestion. “Really?”

Simon nods. “I’ll pay you however much, I—“

“No need,” Johnny interrupts. “You’ve already paid me… far more than you needed to, for the rest. I’ll do it, on one condition.”

Simon cocks his head, silently willing Johnny on.

The smile threatening Johnny finally releases, spreading wide across his face.

“You let me ask questions,” Johnny says. “I have a few debates to settle.”

Simon hums. Something… approving.

Finally, he says with an air of humour, and something oddly akin to hope, “I’m sure that can be arranged.”

[isagrimorie]

Disney+ Putting 'Showrunner' as Jac Schaeffer's title is a win for the WGA.

I remember in 2021 everyone was miffed when Disney+ had Jac Schaeffer credited as a Headwriter.

Effectively, the studio is making its TV shows as if they were roughly six-hour movies, applying the same production methodology it’s used for the 23 unprecedentedly successful interconnected feature films that comprise the Marvel Cinematic Universe. That means empowering directors to lead a lot of creative decision-making, in collaboration with a small cadre of hands-on Marvel creative executives who are with the project from the beginning and report up to Feige.

---

For writers outside the company, however, Marvel’s decision to diminish the wide creative autonomy showrunners have traditionally wielded in TV — with directors and executives not just calling more shots within the production but also sitting in the writers’ room and requesting rewrites — touches a particularly raw nerve.

Fast forward to 2023 after the flop that was Secret Invasion and the mess of the first Disney+ Daredevil series, and after the WGA strike, Disney will now use Showrunners.

Daredevil is far from the first Marvel series to undergo drastic behind-the-scenes changes. Those who work with Marvel on the TV side have complained of a lack of central vision that has, according to sources, begun to afflict the studio’s shows with creative differences and tension. “TV is a writer-driven medium,” says one insider familiar with the Marvel process. “Marvel is a Marvel-driven medium.”  On the Oscar Isaac starrer Moon Knight, show creator and writer Jeremy Slater quit and director Mohamed Diab took the reins. Jessica Gao developed and wrote She-Hulk: Attorney at Law but was sidelined once director Kat Coiro came on board. Production was challenging, with COVID hitting cast and crew, and Gao was brought back to oversee post-production, a typical showrunner duty, but it’s the rare Marvel head writer who has such oversight.

---

Marvel is making concrete changes in how it makes TV. It now has plans to hire showrunners. Gao’s postproduction work on She-Hulk helped Marvel see that it would be helpful for its shows to have a creative throughline from start to finish. “It’s a term we’ve not only grown comfortable with but also learned to embrace,” says Winderbaum of showrunners and Marvel TV’s intention to hire them. The studio also plans on having full-time TV execs, rather than having executives straddle both television and film. “We need executives that are dedicated to this medium, that are going to focus on streaming, focus on television,” says Winderbaum, “because they are two different forms.”  It also is revamping its development process. Showrunners will write pilots and show bibles. The days of Marvel shooting an entire series, from She-Hulk to Secret Invasion, then looking at what’s working and what’s not, are done. And just as Loki, which returned Oct. 5, marked Marvel’s first season two of a series (out of nine TV shows to date), the studio plans on leaning into the idea of multi season serialized TV, stepping away from the limited-series format that has defined it. Marvel wants to create shows that run several seasons, where characters can take time to develop relationships with the audience rather than feeling as if they are there as a setup for a big crossover event. 

Marvel tried to reinvent the wheel but found out the hard way why TV is made the way it's made. But also, it's hilarious how Disney Marvel tried to sell this whole strategic move as solely their idea and not because WGA strike kicked them in the teeth.

So, Jac Schaeffer getting the Showrunner credit on a Disney-Marvel 'Making Of' episode is a really big win.

[ayeforscotland]

I'm not a super dedicated gamer these days, but I loved Kerbal Space Program (a game that was more a labour of love than a commercial project) and was super hyped for the much delayed KSP2. When I saw it was releasing as early access (years late) I worried for its hopes of ever seeing completion and held off buying, now after all the other shananigans the entire team have been let go in yet another mass lay-off in the gaming industry. I feel like, a few notable exceptions aside, the big-budget gaming sector has been failing to deliver real quality games for a long time now, with lower-budget indie games more often coming up with gold from much simpler foundations. It seems almost as though developers are being pushed to shoot for unachievably epic games and releasing buggy messes, or vast but hollow worlds when the publishers get impatient or the money runs out. Is there any grain of truth in my feeling that bankrollers' expectations for games is leading to more games failing to live up to the hype as projects spiral out of control and over budget? Would big studios benefit from learning from indie devs and aiming to really nail down a simpler scope but on a scale beyond what the indies can achieve?

Industry-wise there’s a couple of things at play. And apologies for the length of this.

During the pandemic, there was a shitload of investment into the gaming industry as everyone was at home and many started playing games for the first time, so venture capital firms piled money in.

They were looking for a return on their investment, not really aiming to cultivate long-term studio success.

This puts pressure on the studio to get the game out the door quickly. That month or two of QA before launch just becomes overhead while you have a product that could be selling right now.

Chance to earn even more money for shareholders and execs? Welcome to microtransaction hell.

So that’s one side of it, investors/shareholders/execs forcing decisions that make games worse.

Next bit is partly influenced by the shareholder side of things but also a huge cultural side too. Lots of studios complete a project and then layoff staff because the next game isn’t ready to start being developed yet OR layoff staff because they don’t want to pay them OR staff leave to go and do something else (often due to lack of pay, lack of promotion etc)

And what this leads to is a *massive* corporate knowledge gap. People take their skills and knowledge and create voids. Voids that need to be filled by senior staff, which is why big AAA studios are always hiring seniors, and rarely hiring juniors. So all the seniors job-hop from studio to studio and there’s no new skill set being cultivated by new industry talent.

In my experience, these huge studios are also incredibly siloed. It’s something that impacts most industries, siloed teams lead to sluggish development and decision-making.

I think the games industry walks an incredibly fine line between being a creative endeavour and being a tech business. Process management methodologies honestly seem quite alien to the games industry, most of the time to its detriment.

It honestly wouldn’t be that hard to implement but Production as a discipline within games seems to be relegated to ‘staring at JIRA’ particularly in larger studios.

Could write forever about this to be honest.

Worth saying that indie studios also have their own issues. Almost everything is a scramble, and the search for publisher funding is a nightmare.

[puckpocketed]

Hello. You might have seen this floating around on twt:

link 1 // link 2, archive link

If by any chance you or someone you know are thinking about joining in on the challenge… no one can stop you but I implore you as someone who makes art, as someone with friends in an often-exploited creative industry, as someone who lives in late stage capitalism alongside you and has seen this play out before: proceed with caution.

Read the fine print on that form. There is NO guarantee of an internship, much less a job at the end of it. I haven't gone further than this form, but if anyone reading this does, and if there's no written agreement that your work won't be used without credit to you + payment for services rendered - RUN.

This is a common corporate tactic to get free labor out of people. I'm not saying this is necessarily what’s happening; for all we know this was done as a completely innocent move to drum up some fan engagement and as a genuine search for talent for their analytics team. WHO KNOWS. But I can't ignore that I’ve seen this situation play out again and again, at every scale.

Job interviews, when they ask you how YOU think they should improve their systems, how YOU would solve their problems? When they require that you do some problem-solving for them, and it goes beyond a simple task? That’s a free consultation you’re giving them, that's free work you or someone else should be getting paid for.

When big streamers/influencers ask their fans to join in on a fan art contest to choose their new pfp/banner? That’s hundreds, possibly thousands of pieces of free art they never would’ve gotten otherwise. They could've gone to the trouble of paying someone in-house to do it, hiring someone for that position, commissioning a professional for a piece. It's free work from their dedicated fans.

In this case, Utah HC is asking fans to not only choose/provide their own dataset, but to do a complex analysis on it AND do the work of visual and verbal communication to senior management, who likely do not have a deeper grasp of the concepts and will need it simplified. The stipulation that you will present your work could be ANYTHING!! The "five page deliverable" is already bananas to me, having dipped my toe into what analytics is and how complex the fun ones are. Condensing it all is WORK. The presentation portion may include speaking time and answering questions; the groundwork for doing this effectively may include producing data visualisations, making spreadsheets, time consuming write-ups. Maths and science communication is hard. It is WORK. They are asking for free labor.

Many have already called it out, but it's still gaining traction via retweets from big accounts uncritically sharing it. I found out through the official Puckpedia account. Jack Han called it out pretty eloquently on twitter and on his substack:

Many people aspire to work as an analyst in the NHL. Earlier today the Utah Hockey Club gave those people a glimmer of hope. Utah’s Summer Analytics Challenge is unusual in that it doesn’t provide a dataset or detailed instructions. The open-ended contests contrasts with other public (ex: Big Data Cup) or private (ex: NHL team interview) events. In those scenarios, participants are given proprietary data to clean, model and analyze, which influence direction and methodology. Meanwhile, Utah is seemingly happy with anything as long as the writeup is under five pages long. Utah’s contest also stands out in its near-total absence of legal fine print. There are no mention of intellectual property implications, which is perhaps fitting when the team is asking participants to bring their own data and analysis. [...] Open casting calls such as Utah’s analytics challenge start out as a lose-lose-lose proposition: > The employer loses because it will have to invest massive human resources to trawl/filter/evaluate/reverse-engineer the hundreds of write-ups it is sure to receive, with no guarantee that any of them will be of use > Applicants lose because the vast, vast majority of them will have nothing to show for their efforts, while a tiny minority risks having its IP stolen > Good ideas lose because they’ll be born into an environment where their parents (the applicant & the employer) have no defined relationship and won’t be in a position to grow together

link, archive link

I do try to keep things light on this blog, but this is super personal for me <3 thank u for listening

[kenyatta]

Private equity firms are utilizing public trust in long-standing publications to sell every product under the sun

In a bid to replace falling ad revenue, publishing houses are selling their publications for parts to media groups that are quick to establish affiliate marketing deals.

Savvy SEOs at big media publishers (or third-party vendors hired by them) realized that they could create pages for ‘best of’ product recommendations without the need to invest any time or effort in actually testing and reviewing the products first. So, they peppered their pages with references to a ‘rigorous testing process,’ their ‘lab team,’ subject matter experts ‘they collaborated with,’ and complicated methodologies that seem impressive at a cursory look.  Sometimes, they even added photos of ‘tests’ with products covered in Post-it notes, someone holding a tape measure, and people with very ‘scientific’ clipboards.  There’s nothing wrong with wanting to show you’re doing the thing you’re supposed to be doing, but what happens when that’s as far as you go?

[lightofraye]

Deaf History

I mentioned in an earlier post that I am a part of the deaf community. Being labeled CODA (child of deaf adult(s)) is what a person like myself is called. I am hearing, I can hear, but both of my parents, two of my three brothers, and vast majority of my maternal relatives are deaf. I grew up in that community, I grew up feeling more at home in that community than I ever did in the hearing community.

There's a whole culture to being deaf. There's the language, reading body language to convey tone, there's a whole thing about being deaf that goes beyond just knowing Sign Language. This is why when learning Sign Language, being immersed in it is the best way to learn. (But then, this is true of any and all languages.)

In so many ways, ASL (American Sign Language) is my first language. I learned how to sign first before I learned how to speak with my voice. I frequently found myself wishing I could go to the deaf school instead of the public school because I was more comfortable around deaf people than I was hearing people. (And no, I would not have been allowed to attend deaf school; it's restricted for deaf students only.)

I grew up accustomed to watching television, movies, etc, with captioning or subtitles. In fact, it's weird for me to watch them without. My mother didn't believe me at first until she asked an interpreter who was also CODA. The interpreter said it was the same for her.

My parents met at Gallaudet, the country's first, and so far, only deaf university. In fact, it's the first in the world. The history of Gallaudet, of American Sign Language, was all because of one man.

Thomas Hopkins Gallaudet's life was forever changed because of a deaf little girl named Alice.

Alice wasn't playing with other children and that drew his attention. Concerned as to why, Thomas found out that Alice was deaf and could not communicate at all. Determined to teach her, Thomas taught Alice what different objects were called by writing their names and drawing pictures of them with a stick in the dirt. Alice's father was impressed and hired Gallaudet to continue teaching Alice through the summer.

Alice's father, along with several businessmen and clergy, asked Gallaudet to travel to Europe to study methods for teaching deaf students. There was a family in Scotland that they wanted to work with, but that family refused for whatever reason. Plus, Gallaudet found their preference for oral communication extremely limited and did not produce desirable results.

While in Great Britain, Gallaudet met Abbé Sicard, head of the Institution Nationale des Sourds-Muets à Paris, and two of its deaf faculty members, Laurent Clerc and Jean Massieu. Gallaudet was invited to Paris to study the school's method of teaching the deaf using manual communication. Gallaudet studied the teaching methodology under Sicard, learning sign language from Massieu and Clerc.

Gallaudet sailed back to America with Clerc. The two men toured the New England region and raised funds for a deaf school in Hartford, Connecticut. It later became known as the American School for the Deaf in 1817. Alice was one of the first seven students.

One of Gallaudet's children, his youngest, founded the first college for the deaf, in 1864.

It is due to Gallaudet that American Sign Language even exists. Despite many an indigenous tribe having their own form of sign language, none ever became the official form of sign language for the United States.

Almost each country have their own form of sign language. No, it is not the same, and language barriers exists for deaf people as well. There was even an invention of an International Sign Language that was used during the Deaf Olympics to help bridge communication issues.

I love sign language. It is the third most widely used language in the United States. First is English, second is Spanish, and third is Sign Language. No, deaf people are not dumb (I honestly hated that old saying and am happy to see it finally phasing out). They can read, write, live independently, work, drive, you name it--there are solutions to each of their problems. Accessible solutions.

Having visible celebrities such as Shoshannah Stern, Marlee Matlin, and so forth help bring attention to such existence. Switched At Birth, a television show, also spotlighted deaf characters. Recently, a movie called CODA, helped spotlight--and it won an award, too.

I continue to be proud of my heritage. I hope to continue to teach my son how to sign--and taught him the most important one.

The one that says "I love you".

[sussex-newswire]

Time Magazine has named Prince Harry one of the 100 most influential people working on climate issues:

"The Duke of Sussex supports conservation groups in Africa and says he really became an environmentalist during a trip in 2012 to the Caribbean when a 7-year-old boy told him that England’s environmental impact was damaging the coral reefs. After that interaction, he was inspired to start Travalyst ('travel' and 'catalyst'), a nonprofit that provides people booking travel with emissions and other sustainability data so they can consider the lowest impact options. The aim is to help make a dent in the industry’s carbon footprint; tourism makes up about 11% of global greenhouse gas emissions.

"Travalyst worked with Google to create the Travel Impact Model, a free, publicly available methodology launched in 2022 that predicts per-passenger CO2 emissions produced by upcoming flights. Travalyst’s coalition of partners, representing a combined market value of $3 trillion, includes top tech companies used by tourists like Booking.com, Expedia Group, Mastercard, Skyscanner, Tripadvisor and Visa. On Sept. 12, Travalyst announced that its flight emissions data has appeared in 65 billion searches worldwide.  

"Prince Harry has stressed that sustainable travel also means travel that boosts local economies and supports tourism businesses that hire local talent. He summed up Travalyst’s mission at its fifth anniversary celebration on Sept. 24 during Climate Week: 'As I sought solutions to some of the world's most pressing conservation challenges, I quickly realized just how profound an impact the travel and tourism industry has…together we are proving that travel can be a force for good. So let’s continue this journey together and make sure that travel benefits everyone everywhere.'"

[beardedmrbean]

Growing evidence makes this clearer by the day: Diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) does not help American institutions attain progress or profit.

It’s time for all institutions to get back to their basic duties and stop pushing extreme agendas on the American people. This is especially important for American corporations that have a fiduciary obligation to make decisions in the best financial interests of their shareholders.

A growing chorus of Americans recognizes the acute challenges of DEI. Even the co-founder and CEO of a prominent DEI consulting firm laments assuming the role of “moral authority” on the subject and regrets labeling people who disagree with DEI as “bad” people.

The controversy over DEI has also captured the attention of two well-known businessmen, Mark Cuban and Bill Ackman, both of whom have engaged in a tense exchange on X, formerly Twitter.

Cuban, the Dallas Mavericks owner and star of “Shark Tank,” wrote, “Diversity—means you expand the possible pool of candidates as widely as you can. Once you have identified the candidates, you hire the person you believe is the best.”

“That’s exactly what I thought until I did the work,” said Ackman, the founder of Pershing Square Capital Management and Democrat mega-donor. “I encourage you to do the same and revert. DEI is not about diversity, equity or inclusion. Trust me. I fell for the same trap you did.”

In the same post, Ackman explained that DEI is “a political advocacy movement on behalf of certain groups that are deemed oppressed under DEI’s own methodology.”

In simplest terms, what Ackman and others critical of DEI have identified is the inherently flawed nature of the ideology. By insisting that our institutions are irredeemable and cannot escape past wrongs or that people groups should be divided into two camps — oppressed and oppressor — the adherents of DEI are compelled to use the levers of those very same institutions to manipulate outcomes based on identity rather than merit. 

This conduct is dangerous when you consider its effects on our economy and our public corporations.

Good business is ultimately about producing a good product, not pushing an agenda. DEI unnecessarily complicates that winning American formula. Rather than focus on improving production and goods, companies are now choosing to divert resources and attention to internal race and identity-based policies that neither improve return on investment to shareholders nor result in better products for consumers. 

Corporations adopting policies that prioritize social engineering over corporate responsibility do not serve the interests of all Americans. Instead, they appease the extreme desires of a few, thereby eroding confidence in the ability and competency of our institutions. 

It is neither profitable for businesses nor sustainable for the American people.

Along the same lines, those in the financial services industry must understand that fiduciaries must have a single-minded purpose in the returns on their beneficiaries’ investments.

State and federal law have long recognized fiduciary duties for those who manage other people’s money. The Employee Retirement Income Security Act, for example, demands that a fiduciary “discharge that person’s duties with respect to the plan solely in the interests of the participants and beneficiaries, for the exclusive purpose of providing benefits to participants and their beneficiaries …”

As attorney general of Kentucky, I was one of 22 state attorneys general who signed a letter warning financial services companies that they may be violating their fiduciary responsibility to shareholders by agreeing to radical activism in their environmental proposals. I also issued a legal opinion outlining why government-sponsored racial discrimination and so-called “stakeholder capitalism” was unlawful.

We’ve collectively witnessed some of the consequences of extreme ideology taking priority over responsible corporate governance. After Bud Light’s infamous foray into the culture wars, its sales collapsed, forcing one of its executives to step down. We’ve also seen prominent fund managers like Vanguard drop ESG-driven investments — another ideological blunder at the corporate level — because they have not been profitable and have exposed their investors to greater losses.

DEI objectives have moved some of our business so far from their purpose that even those on the left like Ackman are compelled to speak out, underscoring that the adverse reaction to DEI is not a partisan issue. 

Most Americans want our corporate institutions to move away from extreme ideologies. It’s time to return to the American formula of producing great products and services, not pushing agendas.

Daniel Cameron is the former attorney general of Kentucky and the current CEO of the 1792 Exchange.

[thefantastickatinator]

Idk what you did to keep getting asks about the whole "dropout discourse" thing happening but I keep seeing you on my dash and I wanted to say I respect the heck outta how level headed and respectful you've been (from what I've seen) about the whole thing. I'm in the "dropout needs to hire more trans women" camp, and it's incredibly disheartening when I see people using strawman arguments to try and make divisive points that do little more than "other" groups of people. So thank you for your good-faith arguments and respect towards everyone 🙏

Thank you! I’m definitely not perfect but I’m trying not to make things worse.

I made this post pointing out some data methodology errors in the data that a trans woman posted for underrepresentation in dropout media. I think a lot of people thought that me posting that meant that I didn’t agree with her or other trans women or that I thought their points were invalid. When in actuality I completely agree, I just think the way she did it was dishonest and designed to be inflammatory (and ironically completely hides the lack of trans men represented in dropout casting by lumping them in with all non cis afabs, who she calls non-cis “TME” like that’s a demographic indicator) . I also think the original post that started this discourse was purposely inflammatory and designed to piss off people and start a huge fight where people are throwing around “transmisogynist” and “hysterical” around, though I never saw this post because I blocked her for being a huge asshole in the replies of another post before I realized she was the one who started this discourse.

Here’s the evidence/list of facts I made

I ask everyone who agrees with me and thinks I’m level headed to please reblog the post linked above. Don’t let people who are trying to start fights erase the message. Block them and remember:

Dropout should hire more trans women.