4 ms·

I'm pretty sure that, in the U.S., this is unambiguously legal. Perhaps mandating 30 years of experience with Java would qualify as age discrimination, but you

I'm pretty sure that, in the U.S., this is unambiguously legal. Perhaps mandating 30 years of experience with Java would qualify as age discrimination, but you almost never see that (at any rate, Java's only 18 years old). In fact, in the U.S., it's legal (but never done) to specify ranges on educational matriculation. A company could "back-door age discriminate" by setting a policy of "must be no more than 5 years out of school". When one attended school is a legal question, although age is not. The major effect of it is to discourage people who take HR requirements seriously, who haven't figured out that "5 years experience" means "intermediate competence" and can be achieved in 1 really good year, or not achieved in an endless number of mediocre years. I've been analyzing the MacLeod hierarchy (Losers, Clueless, Sociopaths) over the past month: http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2013/02/19/gervais-principle-questioned-macleods-hierarchy-the-technocrat-and-vc-startups/ http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2013/02/19/gervais-princ... MacLeod Sociopaths aren't actually bad people. I'm a MacLeod Sociopath and don't think I'm a real sociopath. They're a mix of chaotic-good rebellious rulebreakers, chaotic-neutral people who enjoy problem solving for its own thrill (and will be very helpful and altruistic if given appropriate challenges challenges, and destructive if let to rot), lawful- and neutral-evil liars, cheats, and psychopaths. (Chaotic evil is severely socially dysfunctional and not much of a presence.) MacLeod Sociopaths break rules and often live on the margins, and will either rise fast or get fired. There are "good Sociopaths", but even for the good kind, most companies would prefer to hire only a few. These HR walls favor the MacLeod Sociopaths who have no qualms about applying to a job requiring 5 years of experience when they have 6 very good months. It's not that "rules were meant to be broken" (that's false and insane). It's that rigid rules keep so many people out that the only people breaking through are the ones who disregard rules or find back doors. Of course, there are good rule-breakers out there, but you have to be careful with even them. The same problem exists around reference checks. For executive hires, larger and risk-averse companies require 10-20 references. At ten references, you're selecting for sociopaths. Only a colossal fuckup can't get 2-3 good references, but most people don't have 10 glowing ones. Ten glowing references is a sure sign that someone not only coached, but quite possibly extorted, a few people. It's not a guarantee that you'll get a bad person, but you will get a rule-breaker if your HR wall is that impenetrable.

EvilLook 14y ago
>I'm a MacLeod Sociopath and don't think I'm a real sociopath. One of the defining characteristic of a sociopath is that they don't think they're a sociopath. <It's that rigid rules keep so many people out that the only people breaking through are the ones who disregard rules or find back doors. This is the argument that is used when people cheat on their taxes. "Oh, everyone cheats on their taxes, so it's okay when I cheat on my taxes." Except not everyone cheats on their taxes.
- cglace 14y ago
  Everyone probably unwittingly cheats on their taxes. Do you report all Internet purchases that you did not pay sales tax on?
- michaelochurch 14y ago
  One of the defining characteristic of a sociopath is that they don't think they're a sociopath. Psychopaths have no conscience and serve their own selfish motives, with varying degrees of pathology-- sadistic psychopaths are less well-adapted than indifferent ones, for example-- and long versus short term orientation. I have a conscience and I try to do what is right. I've studied psychopathy, and don't think I'm it. I'm also a realist. I'm an honest person overall (too honest for my own good, if one follows my online presence) but I'm realistic about how people operate and think other people should be, too. There are times to lie and even to steal. They are uncommon, but they exist. If we don't have the conversation so that good people know when to lie, then only bad people will. Psychopaths, for example, take an exploitative approach to social dynamics. They play with people just to see what happens. By age 25, they have an enormous wealth of social know-how and fluency that makes them extremely powerful in human social contexts, and they end up ruling the work world. If we're to compete with them, we need to understand (through analysis and sharing of information) what they've already learned from 2+ decades of exploitative social behavior. It's like the "Game" culture, which started as a way for sex addicts (who developed, because of their affliction, hypertrophy in one area of social skill) to share knowledge with socially underdeveloped men. I'm not a fan of what's being done or how in that scene-- most of these guys just want decent girlfriends and are being led astray into a market of casual sex that's even more alienating than being alone-- but at least the conversation is being started: "this is what those alpha thugs know and you don't." The work AFCs (Average Frustrated Chumps) who get passed over for promotions and watch better projects go to office politicians who don't deserve them need to figure out Work Game. And fast. Most career advice (never lie on your resume, do good work and hope to be noticed) is AFC advice that will take you into middle management, but not power. (Actually, you should never lie on your resume. If you're going to be strategically dishonest, don't be an idiot and put it in writing.) This is the argument that is used when people cheat on their taxes. "Oh, everyone cheats on their taxes, so it's okay when I cheat on my taxes." Except not everyone cheats on their taxes. Not a good analogy. People who cheat on their taxes are doing something antisocial and corrosive (if more people did it, we wouldn't have schools or roads or social stability or a means of defending ourselves and we'd all be severely fucked) for personal gain. It is almost never morally acceptable, even if common. One morally acceptable case of tax noncompliance: Thoreau refused to pay for reasons of conscience (Mexican War) and went to jail for it; that wasn't cheating but civil disobedience.

EvilLook 14y ago

>I'm a MacLeod Sociopath and don't think I'm a real sociopath. One of the defining characteristic of a sociopath is that they don't think they're a sociopath. <It's that rigid rules keep so many people out that the only people breaking through are the ones who disregard rules or find back doors. This is the argument that is used when people cheat on their taxes. "Oh, everyone cheats on their taxes, so it's okay when I cheat on my taxes." Except not everyone cheats on their taxes.

cglace 14y ago
Everyone probably unwittingly cheats on their taxes. Do you report all Internet purchases that you did not pay sales tax on?
michaelochurch 14y ago
One of the defining characteristic of a sociopath is that they don't think they're a sociopath. Psychopaths have no conscience and serve their own selfish motives, with varying degrees of pathology-- sadistic psychopaths are less well-adapted than indifferent ones, for example-- and long versus short term orientation. I have a conscience and I try to do what is right. I've studied psychopathy, and don't think I'm it. I'm also a realist. I'm an honest person overall (too honest for my own good, if one follows my online presence) but I'm realistic about how people operate and think other people should be, too. There are times to lie and even to steal. They are uncommon, but they exist. If we don't have the conversation so that good people know when to lie, then only bad people will. Psychopaths, for example, take an exploitative approach to social dynamics. They play with people just to see what happens. By age 25, they have an enormous wealth of social know-how and fluency that makes them extremely powerful in human social contexts, and they end up ruling the work world. If we're to compete with them, we need to understand (through analysis and sharing of information) what they've already learned from 2+ decades of exploitative social behavior. It's like the "Game" culture, which started as a way for sex addicts (who developed, because of their affliction, hypertrophy in one area of social skill) to share knowledge with socially underdeveloped men. I'm not a fan of what's being done or how in that scene-- most of these guys just want decent girlfriends and are being led astray into a market of casual sex that's even more alienating than being alone-- but at least the conversation is being started: "this is what those alpha thugs know and you don't." The work AFCs (Average Frustrated Chumps) who get passed over for promotions and watch better projects go to office politicians who don't deserve them need to figure out Work Game. And fast. Most career advice (never lie on your resume, do good work and hope to be noticed) is AFC advice that will take you into middle management, but not power. (Actually, you should never lie on your resume. If you're going to be strategically dishonest, don't be an idiot and put it in writing.) This is the argument that is used when people cheat on their taxes. "Oh, everyone cheats on their taxes, so it's okay when I cheat on my taxes." Except not everyone cheats on their taxes. Not a good analogy. People who cheat on their taxes are doing something antisocial and corrosive (if more people did it, we wouldn't have schools or roads or social stability or a means of defending ourselves and we'd all be severely fucked) for personal gain. It is almost never morally acceptable, even if common. One morally acceptable case of tax noncompliance: Thoreau refused to pay for reasons of conscience (Mexican War) and went to jail for it; that wasn't cheating but civil disobedience.