4 ms·

What you're discussing is tangibly different than what's described in the thread though. Refusing to look the lone woman present in the eye while giving intervi

What you're discussing is tangibly different than what's described in the thread though. Refusing to look the lone woman present in the eye while giving interview answers -- even for a primary interviewer who is a woman -- while making good eye contact with others present isn't the same as looking down/away from a male judge or magistrate in a court setting.

karmakaze 4y ago
This could be bias against those who are uncomfortable making eye contact with women. Is eye contact a requirement for communication? Certainly it helps but now with remote work, video meetings, and lots of async written artifacts, I find it much less so.
- mrguyorama 4y ago
  "Occasionally make eye contact with women" should probably be a reasonable expectation for professional employees, who should be expected to work well with diverse (not the identity politics meaning of that word) teams.
  - dolni 4y ago
    Does being shy around women make you a bad person? Does being uncomfortable around people who are different than you make you a bad person? It's one thing if someone outright ignores an interviewer (that is hugely disrespectful). It's entirely another if someone is forcing their values on someone else over something as trivial as eye contact. This whole thing sounds hand-wavy and virtue-signally to me. And in a bad way.
    - fknorangesite 4y ago
      > Does being shy around women make you a bad person? Does being uncomfortable around people who are different than you make you a bad person? It may not make you a bad person, but it would probably make you a bad hire. > It's one thing if someone outright ignores an interviewer (that is hugely disrespectful). If you read the entire twitter thread, you will see that this is exactly what is being discussed. And if you haven't seen this behaviour in person before, you haven't been paying attention.
      - dolni 4y ago
        > It may not make you a bad person, but it would probably make you a bad hire. Ah yes, so the very people who champion "diversity" and "empathy" show their true colors by selecting against people with some kind of social anxiety or traumatic experience. So much for that! > If you read the entire twitter thread, you will see that this is exactly what is being discussed. Well it definitely wasn't described that way from the outset, which is an indicator of the Gergely Orosz's biases. Perhaps he should apologize and undergo some bias training. > And if you haven't seen this behaviour in person before, you haven't been paying attention. Or it could be that the field that I work in is largely a male presence and I haven't been on the interviewer side of the table with a woman. The social justice types are funny to me. They issue proclamations about *ism from their ivory tower, all the while assuming the worst intent from anybody who doesn't act like they do. It's actually laughable. The moral puritanism needs a rest.
        fknorangesite 4y ago
        It is not moral puritanism to say that when I am interviewing candidates, it is a hard requirement that they be willing and able to communicate with their coworkers - yes, even the women.
        dolni 4y ago
        This isn't a good faith interpretation of what I said. Intentionally ignoring was already covered off on. Yes, policing someone's eye contact during a potentially high-stress situation (like an interview) is moral puritanism.
        hellofelicia 4y ago
        If your social anxiety or trauma prevents you from interacting with men and women in an equitable way, then it's absolutely fair for your interviewer to reflect on how it impacts the workplace and proceed accordingly. "Treat men and women equally" is a perfectly valid professional expectation.
        4y ago

karmakaze 4y ago

This could be bias against those who are uncomfortable making eye contact with women. Is eye contact a requirement for communication? Certainly it helps but now with remote work, video meetings, and lots of async written artifacts, I find it much less so.

mrguyorama 4y ago
"Occasionally make eye contact with women" should probably be a reasonable expectation for professional employees, who should be expected to work well with diverse (not the identity politics meaning of that word) teams.
- dolni 4y ago
  Does being shy around women make you a bad person? Does being uncomfortable around people who are different than you make you a bad person? It's one thing if someone outright ignores an interviewer (that is hugely disrespectful). It's entirely another if someone is forcing their values on someone else over something as trivial as eye contact. This whole thing sounds hand-wavy and virtue-signally to me. And in a bad way.
  - fknorangesite 4y ago
    > Does being shy around women make you a bad person? Does being uncomfortable around people who are different than you make you a bad person? It may not make you a bad person, but it would probably make you a bad hire. > It's one thing if someone outright ignores an interviewer (that is hugely disrespectful). If you read the entire twitter thread, you will see that this is exactly what is being discussed. And if you haven't seen this behaviour in person before, you haven't been paying attention.
    - dolni 4y ago
      > It may not make you a bad person, but it would probably make you a bad hire. Ah yes, so the very people who champion "diversity" and "empathy" show their true colors by selecting against people with some kind of social anxiety or traumatic experience. So much for that! > If you read the entire twitter thread, you will see that this is exactly what is being discussed. Well it definitely wasn't described that way from the outset, which is an indicator of the Gergely Orosz's biases. Perhaps he should apologize and undergo some bias training. > And if you haven't seen this behaviour in person before, you haven't been paying attention. Or it could be that the field that I work in is largely a male presence and I haven't been on the interviewer side of the table with a woman. The social justice types are funny to me. They issue proclamations about *ism from their ivory tower, all the while assuming the worst intent from anybody who doesn't act like they do. It's actually laughable. The moral puritanism needs a rest.
      - fknorangesite 4y ago
        It is not moral puritanism to say that when I am interviewing candidates, it is a hard requirement that they be willing and able to communicate with their coworkers - yes, even the women.
        dolni 4y ago
        This isn't a good faith interpretation of what I said. Intentionally ignoring was already covered off on. Yes, policing someone's eye contact during a potentially high-stress situation (like an interview) is moral puritanism.
      - hellofelicia 4y ago
        If your social anxiety or trauma prevents you from interacting with men and women in an equitable way, then it's absolutely fair for your interviewer to reflect on how it impacts the workplace and proceed accordingly. "Treat men and women equally" is a perfectly valid professional expectation.
        4y ago