5 ms·

I worry that this might unintentionally discriminate against culturally diverse candidates. Standards of politeness can vary between cultures (and even subcultu

I worry that this might unintentionally discriminate against culturally diverse candidates. Standards of politeness can vary between cultures (and even subcultures), and a person might behave in a way which is perceived as polite in their (sub)culture but as impolite in the culture of the service worker; an "asshole" could turn out to just be a cultural misunderstanding. Particularly if the candidate is from a minority or immigrant background (especially recent immigrant). Similarly, I'd worry that this might unintentionally discriminate against neurodiverse candidates, who sometimes might act in ways which are perceived as impolite by others without realising they are doing so. Often, if you simply analyse the interaction and give them a calm rational explanation of how it went wrong, many of them are happy to adjust their behaviour in response, and will improve over time. But, instead, some just want to label other people as "assholes" over misunderstandings. And a significant percentage of service workers may have weaker skills at "analyse the situation and try to infer the psychological processes involved" than others with greater education do, which may make them more likely to jump to the "just an asshole" explanation and less likely to perceive other possible explanations.

SOLAR_FIELDS 5y ago
I think this is a fair and nuanced comment. However, you seem to be stating (correct me if I'm wrong) that there are really two categories of situations here - situation A, where someone is an Asshole with a capital A, and situation B where you have a neurodiverse or immigrant candidate that is misinterpreting the situation and should not be dismissed based on their behavior. I can easily agree that both situations are possible and probably happen in the real world enough to be worth talking about. However, based on my (admittedly anecdotal, but extensive) experience situation A is probably something like 95% of the time and situation B is probably something like 5% of the time. How do we tell when B is happening and can you really fault people for assuming A is happening when that is the vast, vast, majority of occurrences? Is there an easy and objective way to tell the difference? In a world where wrong hires are expensive, can you fault people for assuming A? Is there a better way to ensure that B candidates are adequately evaluated?
- skissane 5y ago
  > However, you seem to be stating (correct me if I'm wrong) that there are really two categories of situations here - situation A, where someone is an Asshole with a capital A, and situation B where you have a neurodiverse or immigrant candidate that is misinterpreting the situation and should not be dismissed based on their behavior. Well, to be honest I think a lot of "capital A assholes" actually are neurodiverse – if not in the more common sense of ASD/ADHD/etc, then in the sense of narcissistic personality disorder, antisocial personality disorder, etc. But, there are limits to the extent of neurodiversity anyone can handle: schizophrenia is a form of neurodiversity too, but a candidate who exhibits florid symptoms of psychosis in a job interview is obviously not a suitable candidate at this time (but they might make an excellent candidate in the future if their psychosis remits). If someone's behaviour is somewhat outside the norm, but they show some insight, willingness to take on feedback and attempt to change, etc, they can still make a positive contribution to a team. If they appear to have no insight, no ability or willingness to consider the feedback of others, no ability or willingness to change or compromise or meet others half-way – it probably isn't going to work out. > However, based on my (admittedly anecdotal, but extensive) experience situation A is probably something like 95% of the time and situation B is probably something like 5% of the time. Do you actually know the split is really 95% vs 5%? Is it possible that, some of that 95% really belongs to the 5% but you didn't realise it? A couple of strategies which might help: (1) force yourself to stop and think about other possible explanations, and whether you have any reason to think any of those other explanations could apply in that particular case; (2) try to gently broach the subject with the candidate, and try to see if you can get any information on the interaction from their perspective. Possibly, their behaviour may seem less unreasonable when you understand it from their point of view. Also, you can judge how open they are to receive feedback and responding to it – there is a big difference between "yeah, I could have handed that situation better" and a rigid insistence that they did nothing wrong. I'm sceptical of intentionally putting any kind of "hidden test" in a hiring process. When the process is totally transparent – directly ask relevant questions about technical skills/knowledge/experience, soft skills, etc – I think that is fairest on the candidate, and minimises the risk of unintentional indirect discrimination–and I think lawyers who specialise in employment discrimination law would probably agree with that. I don't think that means one has to completely ignore any incidental feedback outside of the transparent formal process, but there is a big difference between incidental feedback and intentionally engineering a "hidden test". Also, I don't think one should rule out an otherwise good candidate on the basis of such incidental feedback without some serious thought and investigation.
noduerme 5y ago
I think this is an important point. If this is part of an interview strategy, it would be important to delineate what's "asshole" behavior and what's merely brusque or blunt (which would be an interesting document to read). I come from a culture where directness and argumentation are valued over deference to seniority or authority. In some contexts, or by some people, this can be mistaken for rudeness, when really it's just a mode of solving problems. It's important to know what culture you're dealing with and act appropriately. I might bite my tongue or code-switch if I know I'm dealing with a very conservative/authoritarian culture where it's less important for me to be myself or solve a problem than it is to have people like me. But having other candidates like you rather than solve problems is not usually the main point of a job interview, so creating unwritten tests like this with parameters involves some deceit. It also goes to the WASP distaste or disdain for the Jewish style of discourse. Historically, someone at IBM saying a candidate was brusque could quite easy be code for saying they were Jewish.
throwawaylinux 5y ago
The one real strength of diversity isn't that you have to like them all equally, it is that you can discriminate against the behavior you dislike and prefer people you do like. It's wonderful if you can weed out a person who treats others badly, I really can't see why it would matter if it's because some real or imagined condition causes them to be an asshole, or because being an asshole is allegedly okay in their culture.
lupire 5y ago
> neurodiverse candidates Indivual persons can't be "diverse". Only a population can be "diverse".
- skissane 5y ago
  I don't completely disagree with your objection to the term, I think it is a term worthy of being critiqued. But, sometimes, when one is trying to communicate, the best option is to choose language which the majority of one's listeners will understand, even if one views that language as being in some ways flawed; choosing less flawed, yet less familiar, language may make it harder for the average listener to appreciate the point, and discussing the pros and cons of different terminological options can be a distracting detour which may also stand in the way of getting the primary point across. I think you are objecting, not to my point, but rather how I put it, because I think I could have made the same point without using that term. (And the same applies to my use of "culturally diverse", albeit for somewhat different reasons.)
  - oorza 5y ago
    The word you were looking for is neurodivergent. He was pointing out that you made a common linguistic error, and you barfed out a novel rather than investigate that you might've been wrong or misspoke.

SOLAR_FIELDS 5y ago

I think this is a fair and nuanced comment. However, you seem to be stating (correct me if I'm wrong) that there are really two categories of situations here - situation A, where someone is an Asshole with a capital A, and situation B where you have a neurodiverse or immigrant candidate that is misinterpreting the situation and should not be dismissed based on their behavior. I can easily agree that both situations are possible and probably happen in the real world enough to be worth talking about. However, based on my (admittedly anecdotal, but extensive) experience situation A is probably something like 95% of the time and situation B is probably something like 5% of the time. How do we tell when B is happening and can you really fault people for assuming A is happening when that is the vast, vast, majority of occurrences? Is there an easy and objective way to tell the difference? In a world where wrong hires are expensive, can you fault people for assuming A? Is there a better way to ensure that B candidates are adequately evaluated?

skissane 5y ago
> However, you seem to be stating (correct me if I'm wrong) that there are really two categories of situations here - situation A, where someone is an Asshole with a capital A, and situation B where you have a neurodiverse or immigrant candidate that is misinterpreting the situation and should not be dismissed based on their behavior. Well, to be honest I think a lot of "capital A assholes" actually are neurodiverse – if not in the more common sense of ASD/ADHD/etc, then in the sense of narcissistic personality disorder, antisocial personality disorder, etc. But, there are limits to the extent of neurodiversity anyone can handle: schizophrenia is a form of neurodiversity too, but a candidate who exhibits florid symptoms of psychosis in a job interview is obviously not a suitable candidate at this time (but they might make an excellent candidate in the future if their psychosis remits). If someone's behaviour is somewhat outside the norm, but they show some insight, willingness to take on feedback and attempt to change, etc, they can still make a positive contribution to a team. If they appear to have no insight, no ability or willingness to consider the feedback of others, no ability or willingness to change or compromise or meet others half-way – it probably isn't going to work out. > However, based on my (admittedly anecdotal, but extensive) experience situation A is probably something like 95% of the time and situation B is probably something like 5% of the time. Do you actually know the split is really 95% vs 5%? Is it possible that, some of that 95% really belongs to the 5% but you didn't realise it? A couple of strategies which might help: (1) force yourself to stop and think about other possible explanations, and whether you have any reason to think any of those other explanations could apply in that particular case; (2) try to gently broach the subject with the candidate, and try to see if you can get any information on the interaction from their perspective. Possibly, their behaviour may seem less unreasonable when you understand it from their point of view. Also, you can judge how open they are to receive feedback and responding to it – there is a big difference between "yeah, I could have handed that situation better" and a rigid insistence that they did nothing wrong. I'm sceptical of intentionally putting any kind of "hidden test" in a hiring process. When the process is totally transparent – directly ask relevant questions about technical skills/knowledge/experience, soft skills, etc – I think that is fairest on the candidate, and minimises the risk of unintentional indirect discrimination–and I think lawyers who specialise in employment discrimination law would probably agree with that. I don't think that means one has to completely ignore any incidental feedback outside of the transparent formal process, but there is a big difference between incidental feedback and intentionally engineering a "hidden test". Also, I don't think one should rule out an otherwise good candidate on the basis of such incidental feedback without some serious thought and investigation.

noduerme 5y ago

I think this is an important point. If this is part of an interview strategy, it would be important to delineate what's "asshole" behavior and what's merely brusque or blunt (which would be an interesting document to read). I come from a culture where directness and argumentation are valued over deference to seniority or authority. In some contexts, or by some people, this can be mistaken for rudeness, when really it's just a mode of solving problems. It's important to know what culture you're dealing with and act appropriately. I might bite my tongue or code-switch if I know I'm dealing with a very conservative/authoritarian culture where it's less important for me to be myself or solve a problem than it is to have people like me. But having other candidates like you rather than solve problems is not usually the main point of a job interview, so creating unwritten tests like this with parameters involves some deceit. It also goes to the WASP distaste or disdain for the Jewish style of discourse. Historically, someone at IBM saying a candidate was brusque could quite easy be code for saying they were Jewish.

throwawaylinux 5y ago

The one real strength of diversity isn't that you have to like them all equally, it is that you can discriminate against the behavior you dislike and prefer people you do like. It's wonderful if you can weed out a person who treats others badly, I really can't see why it would matter if it's because some real or imagined condition causes them to be an asshole, or because being an asshole is allegedly okay in their culture.

lupire 5y ago

> neurodiverse candidates Indivual persons can't be "diverse". Only a population can be "diverse".

skissane 5y ago
I don't completely disagree with your objection to the term, I think it is a term worthy of being critiqued. But, sometimes, when one is trying to communicate, the best option is to choose language which the majority of one's listeners will understand, even if one views that language as being in some ways flawed; choosing less flawed, yet less familiar, language may make it harder for the average listener to appreciate the point, and discussing the pros and cons of different terminological options can be a distracting detour which may also stand in the way of getting the primary point across. I think you are objecting, not to my point, but rather how I put it, because I think I could have made the same point without using that term. (And the same applies to my use of "culturally diverse", albeit for somewhat different reasons.)
- oorza 5y ago
  The word you were looking for is neurodivergent. He was pointing out that you made a common linguistic error, and you barfed out a novel rather than investigate that you might've been wrong or misspoke.