3 ms·
> 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 tru
by 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 agoIt 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 agoThis 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 agoIf 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.
- dolni 4y agoI'm going to assume the equitable treatment you're talking about is eye contact, because I previously already addressed ignoring someone as disrespectful. Policing eye contact, absent any other context, sounds like a massively negative impact on the workplace to me. And if someone does have some legitimate circumstances that make that a subconscious (or even consciously difficult) behavior then it sounds like your otherwise "equitable" workplace stops being equitable the moment someone is different than you in a way you don't agree with. It's "equitable for me, but not for thee." We already know that interviews are nervewracking for some people. Add some other crap on top of that and I could see how someone well-meaning makes a minor blunder like failing to make eye contact with a woman. Where is the empathy that the equity types are clamoring for?
- hellofelicia 4y agoThere is no need to discuss this “absent any other context”, since the context is provided. I do not think you’re engaging with this material in good faith.