Well, you're right about how independent probabilities combine. But the situation you describe has so little relationship to hiring that I don't see how it's relevant to anything. In general, I don't expect to see someone at the 2nd percentile of ability holding down a job at all. Even very basic screening will keep them away with great reliability, because they're so far out of the norm. So I don't see this as a case of "sure, I made up figures that might be off by a factor of 10-100", I see this as you describing a situation utterly unrelated to any aspect of reality I'm familiar with. You can't just make some numeric tweaks to the model; the whole thing is fundamentally at odds with what you're trying to describe.
But if it were true, phishing would be largely a nonissue for workforces (other than the police, who often do set ultra-low thresholds for their screening).
>But if it were true, phishing would be largely a nonissue for workforces (other than the police, who often do set ultra-low thresholds for their screening).
I think you and I are on the same page.
I am curious on why you think I'm off the mark, even if people under the 2nd percentile are less likely to get hired, it doesn't really change the math, it's the same as saying: "but it's only people under the first percentile!"
Side note: I feel that 150 million people are employable in professions that don't require a competency with computers. At the very least I'm grateful that same property doesn't apply to carpentry or construction. As I'm easily in the first percentile for these trades, I'd NEVER get a job. I can't even hang a picture! Why does it always go wrong? T.T
Now, it's definitely not true that you have to be below the second percentile to get phished: http://www.locusmag.com/Perspectives/2010/05/cory-doctorow-p...
But if it were true, phishing would be largely a nonissue for workforces (other than the police, who often do set ultra-low thresholds for their screening).