Lack of diversity of thought is easy to spot IMO. Bigger point is - you should ensure your processes are setup to at least try to achieve the kind of diversity you would like to achieve. Those processes may still fail, just like anything else.
If someone answered every question the way the interviewer thought it should be answered that is probably an indicator of lack of diversity of thought, but I think it would actually be hard to spot because they would really look like the perfect candidate - unless the interviewer thought of themselves as a bad candidate / unoriginal thinker - which is unlikely.
On the other hand someone answers in a way that you have decided before hand is just the misguided answers of a particular tribe can be lack of diversity of thought, because you happen to be right about the preconceived ideas of said tribe, but pretty hard not to see that as the result of bias.
If on the other hand someone says some things you don't understand, espouses ideas completely alien - insane!
You are taking diversity of thought comment, which I mentioned as an attribute of a team and trying to apply to an interview, which is not what I intended. Your interview processes need to ensure that you do not hire based on biases, so that you will have a diverse team.
Also interview processes are not just interviewer protecting against his/her bias, but also against bias of interviewee which seems to be somehow lost in these discussions.
Thank you for sharing the calculator. I see there are many external parameters to consider, and variety between people and health status adds to the compexity.
I think it renders the approach to calculate sun expose time unreliable and, probably, useless for most people. Are there other ways? Can I reliably measure my current and required levels of vitamin D, ideally without going to the doctor every week? Or could I just rely on common sense - make sure I spend time outside, but avoid exposing my skin for longer than 30 mins on sunny summer days?
I don’t know of any way that is more reliable or less risky. There are more accessible ways (e.g. maximize time outside without burning), but I wouldn’t think of them as reliable, safe or time-efficient.
Determining vitamin D levels will vary by country. You’d have to research how it works.
I’m not aware that healthy people can get too much vitamin D from the sun. In combination with the many beneficial effects of natural light (see melatonin, circadian rhythm, mood, etc.), maximizing time outside without burning seems like the best strategy to me. I just find it easier to avoid getting sunburn with the above calculator. Day-by-day variations are small enough that you might be able to make educated guesses most of the time and not check every time you go outside.
If this collides with one’s life (e.g. work-hours), supplements could be considered, but those come without the other effects of natural light.
While I appreciate the response and attempt to address my question, all three of those links are from cyclehelmets.org, and the site is helmet skeptic. That’s not my opinion, it says right on the site that most of their material is anti-helmets. I find it incredibly biased, it tends to use emotional arguments and tries to magnify every scrap of anti-helmet evidence. I dislike how cyclehelmets.org attempts to draw causal lines from correlations at practically every opportunity. Just read your link and see how often they use words like “seem” and “suggest”, then try to imagine some of the many other possible explanations.
BTW, did you notice what the 10-year Canada study concluded? “In general the rate of head injuries is declining, but this is not consistent across the country, nor is it attributable to legislation as some provinces with legislation experienced a decline while others did not.” So there is evidence that helmet laws did not cause the supposed changes in ridership.
Do you believe that having to use seat belts prevents people from driving cars? If not, why not? Do you think seat belts make drivers more aggressive? Do you believe that helmets prevent people from participating in other sports? I live near a lot of ski resorts, and nearly 100% of skiers here are voluntarily wearing helmets, and the number of skiers is rising every year. Same goes for bikes, there are no helmet laws where I live and yet most people wear them, and more people are riding than ever. I don’t buy for a second that helmets are so offputting it drives away half of all people, there are a million possible explanations for whatever data points they found in Alberta. For example, the injury rates presented are absolute numbers, not per-capita like they should be. More injuries is expected when there are more people, and between 2000 and 2006, Alberta got more people.
Also mentioned here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wool#History