4 ms·

This is reductionist to the point of being insulting. The problem is that when you interview people, the way you look has an impact on how the interviewer perce

This is reductionist to the point of being insulting. The problem is that when you interview people, the way you look has an impact on how the interviewer perceives and is able to communicate with you (implicit bias). The flip side is that when you have a little difficulty finding common ground with a person, it challenges you to find a way to relate. Which means listening to their experiences. Which generally makes for better products. But what it means is that the interviewer often judges the wrong criteria, and most interviews are about how well you are able to communicate to your interviewer (and not the other way around). When people talk about “intersectionality” this is what they mean. You can be privileged in one way but disadvantaged in another. Some intersectionalities are visible, and some are not. The more dissimilarity in your experiences, the more problems you will have communicating. Working through those problems and learning from one another is an invaluable part of the process — if you can make it through the interview in the first place.

ironmagma 6y ago
> The problem is that when you interview people, the way you look has an impact on how the interviewer perceives and is able to communicate with you (implicit bias). I have to disagree with your core point. If that were the real problem, blind orchestra auditions would be held up as the gold standard for hiring practices. As it is, people want it torn down. [1] Though I agree with the aspect of working harder to empathize being good for business. Again, that’s what the interview is for. If you want diversity, add a behavioral segment to your interview loop and use it as an opportunity to actually understand the person. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/16/arts/music/blind-auditions-orchestras-race.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/16/arts/music/blind-audition...
golemiprague 6y ago
Who says it makes for better products? what is this statement rely on? Is nintendo gameboy a bad product? Is hiphop a bad product? is google search a bad product? Because they were all developed by a pretty homogenous group of people. And if intersectionality means you are priviliged in one way and disadvantaged in another way then why do we need intersectionality? Isn't it just the inherent state of any individual on this planet? What is the need to put this individual into some arbitrary categories of race or gender or whatever else that in fashion among the D&I crowd? Just assume each person has their own circumstances which you probably know nothing about rather than assuming some priviliges based on skin colour or whatnot.

ironmagma 6y ago

> The problem is that when you interview people, the way you look has an impact on how the interviewer perceives and is able to communicate with you (implicit bias). I have to disagree with your core point. If that were the real problem, blind orchestra auditions would be held up as the gold standard for hiring practices. As it is, people want it torn down. [1] Though I agree with the aspect of working harder to empathize being good for business. Again, that’s what the interview is for. If you want diversity, add a behavioral segment to your interview loop and use it as an opportunity to actually understand the person. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/16/arts/music/blind-auditions-orchestras-race.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/16/arts/music/blind-audition...

golemiprague 6y ago

Who says it makes for better products? what is this statement rely on? Is nintendo gameboy a bad product? Is hiphop a bad product? is google search a bad product? Because they were all developed by a pretty homogenous group of people. And if intersectionality means you are priviliged in one way and disadvantaged in another way then why do we need intersectionality? Isn't it just the inherent state of any individual on this planet? What is the need to put this individual into some arbitrary categories of race or gender or whatever else that in fashion among the D&I crowd? Just assume each person has their own circumstances which you probably know nothing about rather than assuming some priviliges based on skin colour or whatnot.