You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →


[–] Germ22 1 points 61 points (+62|-1) ago 

That would make the applicant the lucky one as they would not have to work for a unlucky employer.


[–] ThisIsntMe123 0 points 27 points (+27|-0) ago 

Couldn't the employer just hire the random applicant? They're the luckiest applicant.


[–] BeHereNow 0 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I would hire you based on your optimistic attitude alone. Unless you are a tranny, I would not hire those whackadoos no matter how lucky they are.


[–] Hmmm 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

This here is why the concept of luck is pretty useless.


[–] idontcareucunt 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)


The concept is useful if it is a quality people can have that isn't simply a result of chaos blindly favoring them. If such an asset exists it is certainly a quality one would desire in an employee, and in everyone we liked or was an asset to us

Praise Kek

Praise the one true Prophet, Pepe the true

Praise God-Emperor Trump and all that he wills

Luck has the power to supersede all other abilities. It is the final boss that always had to be fought and defeated.

source: fate favors me

OP is an old HR "trick" to make ones job easier, using the excuse of weeding out the unlucky. If you own a small to medium business and have a pile to wade through, its not enough. Bin the earliest 25% and the latest 25% applications because stats.

Even if you have 10 applications try the concept, the applicant you hire will be in the middle 50% most of the time even if you randomize or are blind to the chronology of them