That seems to be the way of it now. Even though there isn't anyone available with the skills we need, we only hire people with experience. I can guess at some reasons why this came to pass. Much of it has to do with the way anti-discrimination law makes it dangerous to try and forecast how good of a learner a new hire will be. It's not that you can't do it, it is just expensive, so we shy away from trying for working-class jobs.

This reminds me of a story I heard on NPR last week:

"when I asked Ralph's boss, Tony Scalzitti, if he would hire me and train me on the job, his answer surprised me.
"No," he said. "The risk of having you being able to come up to speed with training would be a risk I wouldn't be willing to take.""

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/01/13/145039131/the-transformation-of-american-factory-jobs-in-one-company

Just throwing out a somewhat related link in case you are interested.

-Tom

=)

-Most of those states have populations that are heavily German/Irish in origin

-Most of them also record the coldest temperatures in the country and/or greatest snowfall.

COINCIDENCE?!

Like I said in the original comment, the marshmallow study in and of itself does show that inhibition deficits and decision fatigue are real and measurable things. That much has been reproduced and studied over and over again, verifying the claim. The issue was with the notion that a single instance of them doing some shoddy post-hoc analysis on a study that was never made to be longitudinal in nature could extrapolate some larger truth about the influence of these factors on future success. Having more control is a good thing, and learning to improve yourself in that regard is also good. Assuming that because a kid ate a marshmallow once the tester's back is turned means he is more likely to be a washout is not so good, and could potentially lead to some very negative effects down the line. Parents do some crazy things. If it changes anything, it should change our research focus to see if it can be verified and clarified so that if we are going to use it to better ourselves, we can do it with the utmost efficacy.

Thats the core of my issue. Not that correlation does not equal causation and therefor you should not change your life. We arent certain about a damned thing if you come right down to it. No, the issue I take is that both the article and Ben took this to be good science and presented it as a well researched and solid scientific theory. You can use pelvic thrusts as your primary means of locomotion if you think it improves your life for all I care, but if you claim that a single study you performed shows with a large degree of certainty it predicts how good your life will be, I will probably call shenanigans.

Certainty is overrated, we just have to do the best we can.

P.S. I hope I didn't tell you that correlation is not causation!

For example, I read one study correlating high fructose corn syrup to heart disease. I saw another study correlating soda to heart disease. So in 2006 I stopped drinking soda with the intent of helping to avoid heart disease. And everybody and their dog tells me "correlation does not imply causation".

Of course they are right, but they are also assholes. My premise isn't that avoiding soda with HFCS will for sure prevent myself from getting heart disease. Instead, we live life by making choices every day, and I don't need to know with certainty what the outcome of my choice will be before I make a decision. If instead I choose to use potentially flawed data with the best intent to achieve a goal then I am doing things right.

One might say that I'm exercising my conscientiousness.

If I want to train myself to not drink soda, to hold my hand in ice water for a long time, and to get good grades, then I don't need some outsider telling me that correlation doesn't imply causation, that my choices and beliefs won't make me successful. Far better to make the best choices with the best data available.

Sorry for the rant, I'm not 100% on topic but this is what your post made me think.