5 ms·

I agree with you in theory, but in real life there is nothing that is that quantifiable. What you are proposing is similar to video game stats -- if a characte

I agree with you in theory, but in real life there is nothing that is that quantifiable. What you are proposing is similar to video game stats -- if a character has 10 points to allocate, putting some in charisma necessarily means taking some out of intelligence. In real life, I have no way of knowing which doctor is better at his job. The only metric I have to go off of is the degree and board certifications, and yet this article discounts those entirely in favor of the other guy. To use bedside manner as a metric instead of appearance, most of the brusque, rude doctors I know are just jerks, not real-life versions of Dr. House. Adjusting for the relaxed standards of computer programming, proportionally I know just as many mediocre unconventional ones as I do mediocre conventional ones. The comments in this very thread suggest that the one with the worse image will get closer attention by many (though obviously not all) hiring managers just because of his/her appearance. So why should I believe the unkempt programmer was hired because he was more talented, and not because some other person just assumed he was?

travisjungroth 10y ago
> What you are proposing is similar to video game stats -- if a character has 10 points to allocate, putting some in charisma necessarily means taking some out of intelligence. It seems similar, but it's really not the same. There's a comment in this thread suggesting if a surgeon spends more time fitting in, that means they have less time and energy to spend on being a surgeon. I totally disagree with this. I don't believe there's some finite amount of energy (that you could call willpower or character points) that's somewhat consistent across people and you only get to spend in certain ways. To keep overusing the surgeon analogy: let's pretend New York surgeons suck compared to Boston surgeons. For every measurable metric, Boston surgeons are better on average. Everyone knows this. Accent becomes a reasonable indicator of skill. You go to a top-tier hospital in a different state. Everyone there is great at their job. You meet two doctors. One has a Boston accent (indicator of skill) and one has a New York accent (indicator of lower skill). The suggestion of this article is to look at the New York doctor and think "What's so great about this guy that even while walking around with something that every single person is going to judge him for, he still made it all the way to a top-tier hospital? He must be damn good at his job to make it this far." An attribute can be an indicator of value. But, if it is overvalued, it becomes an indicator of overvaluation. When people are discriminated against but still successful, the discrimination criteria becomes an indicator of skill. Shit, call it the Jackie Robinson Effect. When no one wants you around, when you don't look the part, you have to be damn good at your job to keep it. I'm guessing here, but I'd bet money that in the first few years of desegregating baseball, the average black player in the MLB was way better than the average white player. They had to be amazing to get a spot. Being black in the MLB was an indicator of value. Now that those pressures aren't the same, I'd bet they're equivalent and being black in the MLB isn't an indicator of skill.
- logfromblammo 10y ago
  Clearly, I cannot choose the wine in front of me. But you would have counted on this, so I cannot choose the wine in front of you.
konschubert 10y ago
No, I think you're missing his point. If people succeed despite the fact that their looks/behavior make others biased against them, then it means that they must be really good.
ouid 10y ago
You're trying to make this argument without once considering that the situation is statistical. You're demonstrating that you can't KNOW these things, which is true, but certainty is not the only criteria on which it is possible to make a decision.

travisjungroth 10y ago

> What you are proposing is similar to video game stats -- if a character has 10 points to allocate, putting some in charisma necessarily means taking some out of intelligence. It seems similar, but it's really not the same. There's a comment in this thread suggesting if a surgeon spends more time fitting in, that means they have less time and energy to spend on being a surgeon. I totally disagree with this. I don't believe there's some finite amount of energy (that you could call willpower or character points) that's somewhat consistent across people and you only get to spend in certain ways. To keep overusing the surgeon analogy: let's pretend New York surgeons suck compared to Boston surgeons. For every measurable metric, Boston surgeons are better on average. Everyone knows this. Accent becomes a reasonable indicator of skill. You go to a top-tier hospital in a different state. Everyone there is great at their job. You meet two doctors. One has a Boston accent (indicator of skill) and one has a New York accent (indicator of lower skill). The suggestion of this article is to look at the New York doctor and think "What's so great about this guy that even while walking around with something that every single person is going to judge him for, he still made it all the way to a top-tier hospital? He must be damn good at his job to make it this far." An attribute can be an indicator of value. But, if it is overvalued, it becomes an indicator of overvaluation. When people are discriminated against but still successful, the discrimination criteria becomes an indicator of skill. Shit, call it the Jackie Robinson Effect. When no one wants you around, when you don't look the part, you have to be damn good at your job to keep it. I'm guessing here, but I'd bet money that in the first few years of desegregating baseball, the average black player in the MLB was way better than the average white player. They had to be amazing to get a spot. Being black in the MLB was an indicator of value. Now that those pressures aren't the same, I'd bet they're equivalent and being black in the MLB isn't an indicator of skill.

logfromblammo 10y ago
Clearly, I cannot choose the wine in front of me. But you would have counted on this, so I cannot choose the wine in front of you.

konschubert 10y ago

No, I think you're missing his point. If people succeed despite the fact that their looks/behavior make others biased against them, then it means that they must be really good.

ouid 10y ago

You're trying to make this argument without once considering that the situation is statistical. You're demonstrating that you can't KNOW these things, which is true, but certainty is not the only criteria on which it is possible to make a decision.