5 ms·

Yeah, I worked at Android in google at that time and he probably thought “I wish we could use kotlin”. It was still pretty rude to laugh though, had to be aware

Yeah, I worked at Android in google at that time and he probably thought “I wish we could use kotlin”. It was still pretty rude to laugh though, had to be aware many candidates would already be nervous and would find it offensive.

danielmarkbruce 5y ago
I guess you are clearly correct that some will find it offensive... I think I'd be happy to laugh and offend said people as a mechanism to keep them away. It can be pretty toxic when people assume the worst of others (even if they are nervous)
- BoorishBears 5y ago
  Trying to weaponize laughter is the most comically toxic thing I've ever heard of. If you did it I'd say good on you for showing your true colors and saving them the hassle of finding out later.
  - danielmarkbruce 5y ago
    "weaponize laughter" is a clever sounding spin on what was said... however... a weapon is something designed to inflict damage. The comment above is about keeping people out who will inflict damage to an organization. Maybe you could call it.. using laughter as a shield
    - BoorishBears 5y ago
      Between this and your other comment: > The point of interviewing is to make judgements. There is no irony. This judgement is: people who assume the worst of others are toxic to work with. Whew. The saving grace here is you're so cavalier about this sort of borderline paranoia and megalomania. It tells me you won't hide it well, and the shrewd candidates will run for the hills.
      - danielmarkbruce 5y ago
        You seem to be assuming bad intent.... It really is helpful, socially, to assume good intent. It avoids unnecessary arguments (/wars). Additionally, if you spend a little time digging in when you have assumed bad intent, you'll almost always find that the person has good intent, there has just been a misunderstanding, or miscommunication, or they face very different incentives or have a different set of underlying assumptions. As for megalomania - it's likely we live in different locations/and or work in different industries. Where I am, interviewers don't hold the power. Candidates do. Especially candidates who are judged to be good. Good candidates make a judgement call as to where they want to work because they have many options. They exercise said power, negotiate higher salaries, and leave if they don't like the arrangement. And good for them, they have in demand skills and a good attitude. I understand it isn't like this in all locations/industries.
        BoorishBears 5y ago
        Why do you think I said they'd run from you? If I caught a whiff of half what you've said here I'd end the on-site early. My industry is too competitive to put up with this sort of childish antics.
        danielmarkbruce 5y ago
        And the gate would be working as intended. I'm quite certain you have good intent. Maybe you've had truly rude people interview you, they exist. Maybe you have worked with a lot of jerks who were rude. Maybe we just have different definitions of "judge". The most generous take of my intent is ~ "this person really wants to avoid a dysfunctional work culture". If you assume good intent, you'll face fewer problems in life. It's one of the few pieces of advice that actually work with few exceptions. If you catch a whiff of something, and it smells like bad intent, maybe forcing yourself to rethink it from another perspective will work.
        BoorishBears 5y ago
        I assume good intent: that's encountering why someone who'd make people uncomfortable with openly expressed ill-intent is so messed up... By the way, you should let HR know about your helpful intent to shield the company. They should have a wonderful commendation for you, and some COBRA paperwork to go with it.
- amitport 5y ago
  Ironicly, you describe a very judgmental, insensitive, and quite toxic behaviour. Edit since I can't reply to your comment: if you lack the emphaty to understand why people may be very reasonably insulted in such cases, you really shouldn't be conducting interviews, IMHO. The irony part is that you actually describe a behaviour that "assumes the worst of others", as you said.
  - danielmarkbruce 5y ago
    The point of interviewing is to make judgements. There is no irony. This judgement is: people who assume the worst of others are toxic to work with.
  - danielmarkbruce 5y ago
    What is a good reason to be insulted in the kotlin example, if you are the type of person who assumes good intent of others?
    - amitport 5y ago
      They are in an interview which is not a normal situation. The way they read the situation, the interviewer was laughing at them. It is normal and very very common to be oversensitive and misread things like that during an interview. The interviewee is not your friend, he/she do not know your brand of humor or internal jokes. Additionally, he/she may have cultural differences. You talked with someone an hour in an unbalanced stressful job related situation and you really think you know something about their personality? Behavioural researchers think that you can't know much. I wouldn't be so judgmental of people you've just met. You should be more aware of the limitations of the interview platform and stick to what you can deduce. (Which is not, that a person is toxic, because he/she felt laughed at)
      - danielmarkbruce 5y ago
        > The way they read the situation, the interviewer was laughing at them This is the problem. There are many situations in a career which aren't "normal" and will make people nervous. Giving presentations. Talking to the CEO. Or the boss's boss. Or the leading expert at X. Being in a meeting with all the execs. Or in a performance review. Meeting with clients/customers/potential customers. If every time a person is nervous they assume ill intent of others at the slightest hint, they are going to be problematic. They don't intend to be problematic, but they are. The point of a mechanism like that given is that you don't have to make a judgement. It's self selecting. In this specific scenario, the kotlin example interviewer a) laughed b) offended a person and c) probably wasn't even aware they had caused offense and d) kept the person out of the company. If b) had gone down the other path, the person isn't offended and (all else equal) is still enthused to work at the company.

danielmarkbruce 5y ago

I guess you are clearly correct that some will find it offensive... I think I'd be happy to laugh and offend said people as a mechanism to keep them away. It can be pretty toxic when people assume the worst of others (even if they are nervous)

BoorishBears 5y ago
Trying to weaponize laughter is the most comically toxic thing I've ever heard of. If you did it I'd say good on you for showing your true colors and saving them the hassle of finding out later.
- danielmarkbruce 5y ago
  "weaponize laughter" is a clever sounding spin on what was said... however... a weapon is something designed to inflict damage. The comment above is about keeping people out who will inflict damage to an organization. Maybe you could call it.. using laughter as a shield
  - BoorishBears 5y ago
    Between this and your other comment: > The point of interviewing is to make judgements. There is no irony. This judgement is: people who assume the worst of others are toxic to work with. Whew. The saving grace here is you're so cavalier about this sort of borderline paranoia and megalomania. It tells me you won't hide it well, and the shrewd candidates will run for the hills.
    - danielmarkbruce 5y ago
      You seem to be assuming bad intent.... It really is helpful, socially, to assume good intent. It avoids unnecessary arguments (/wars). Additionally, if you spend a little time digging in when you have assumed bad intent, you'll almost always find that the person has good intent, there has just been a misunderstanding, or miscommunication, or they face very different incentives or have a different set of underlying assumptions. As for megalomania - it's likely we live in different locations/and or work in different industries. Where I am, interviewers don't hold the power. Candidates do. Especially candidates who are judged to be good. Good candidates make a judgement call as to where they want to work because they have many options. They exercise said power, negotiate higher salaries, and leave if they don't like the arrangement. And good for them, they have in demand skills and a good attitude. I understand it isn't like this in all locations/industries.
      - BoorishBears 5y ago
        Why do you think I said they'd run from you? If I caught a whiff of half what you've said here I'd end the on-site early. My industry is too competitive to put up with this sort of childish antics.
        danielmarkbruce 5y ago
        And the gate would be working as intended. I'm quite certain you have good intent. Maybe you've had truly rude people interview you, they exist. Maybe you have worked with a lot of jerks who were rude. Maybe we just have different definitions of "judge". The most generous take of my intent is ~ "this person really wants to avoid a dysfunctional work culture". If you assume good intent, you'll face fewer problems in life. It's one of the few pieces of advice that actually work with few exceptions. If you catch a whiff of something, and it smells like bad intent, maybe forcing yourself to rethink it from another perspective will work.
        BoorishBears 5y ago
        I assume good intent: that's encountering why someone who'd make people uncomfortable with openly expressed ill-intent is so messed up... By the way, you should let HR know about your helpful intent to shield the company. They should have a wonderful commendation for you, and some COBRA paperwork to go with it.
amitport 5y ago
Ironicly, you describe a very judgmental, insensitive, and quite toxic behaviour. Edit since I can't reply to your comment: if you lack the emphaty to understand why people may be very reasonably insulted in such cases, you really shouldn't be conducting interviews, IMHO. The irony part is that you actually describe a behaviour that "assumes the worst of others", as you said.
- danielmarkbruce 5y ago
  The point of interviewing is to make judgements. There is no irony. This judgement is: people who assume the worst of others are toxic to work with.
- danielmarkbruce 5y ago
  What is a good reason to be insulted in the kotlin example, if you are the type of person who assumes good intent of others?
  - amitport 5y ago
    They are in an interview which is not a normal situation. The way they read the situation, the interviewer was laughing at them. It is normal and very very common to be oversensitive and misread things like that during an interview. The interviewee is not your friend, he/she do not know your brand of humor or internal jokes. Additionally, he/she may have cultural differences. You talked with someone an hour in an unbalanced stressful job related situation and you really think you know something about their personality? Behavioural researchers think that you can't know much. I wouldn't be so judgmental of people you've just met. You should be more aware of the limitations of the interview platform and stick to what you can deduce. (Which is not, that a person is toxic, because he/she felt laughed at)
    - danielmarkbruce 5y ago
      > The way they read the situation, the interviewer was laughing at them This is the problem. There are many situations in a career which aren't "normal" and will make people nervous. Giving presentations. Talking to the CEO. Or the boss's boss. Or the leading expert at X. Being in a meeting with all the execs. Or in a performance review. Meeting with clients/customers/potential customers. If every time a person is nervous they assume ill intent of others at the slightest hint, they are going to be problematic. They don't intend to be problematic, but they are. The point of a mechanism like that given is that you don't have to make a judgement. It's self selecting. In this specific scenario, the kotlin example interviewer a) laughed b) offended a person and c) probably wasn't even aware they had caused offense and d) kept the person out of the company. If b) had gone down the other path, the person isn't offended and (all else equal) is still enthused to work at the company.