7 ms·

Right. Okay, Upstartuppers, let's play Reconstruction of the Bottom Line. > Men like him lived a paradox. The penal system was supposed to shape them up. But i

Right. Okay, Upstartuppers, let's play Reconstruction of the Bottom Line. > Men like him lived a paradox. The penal system was supposed to shape them up. But its tentacles had become so invasive that the opposite happened. Goffman argues that the system encourages young men to act shady—"I got to move like a shadow," one of Mike's friends told her—because a stable public routine could land them back behind bars. If an African American man walked into your startup, given some negligible* felony history and a "shady look", but showed you an SPA he built in prison, how would the "culture fit" measure factor in your decision procedure to hire him? *: And [if] you do hire him, do you poke and prod for social metadata until you discover this feature of his personality?

anonyHN 13y ago
I like how you try to tie this into startups (hackernewserizing the thread as it were) Kudos!
- thenerdfiles 13y ago
  "Did a murderer and a sex offender just save Oklahoma $20 million?" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6664588 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6664588) Let's connect the dots. (The obvious follow-up is: Are these men African American?) ((Obligatory response: Point still stands. Change all the variables. Make them androids with upgraded and legally "blessed" virtual mental cores for all I care.))
- rdtsc 13y ago
  Actually, I think it was an interesting observation. It is a relevant example to illustrate a point. Say, if he was talking in a car mechanics's forum, he would have have used body shop instead of start-up. The interesting thing is the personal dissonance between ideal principles and concrete experience. Pretty sure most here fancy themselves as not being racists. Going out at night and seeing a group of black young men start crossing the street and heading towards you, would you be scared? Would you be less scared if they were white and wearing argyle sweaters instead of black hoodies and baggy pants? Thinking about it, yeah I would be afraid. Rationally I know I am not a racist but in that case, I can see myself running as fast as I could. Back to a black person walking into the start-up. Well that is kind of interesting, because of the way it is presented. Walking in? Almost sounds like he "breaks" in? How often do you hire people that just "walk in" to your startup off the street. The hypothetical example is already biased and infused with stereotypes the way I see it. Did we already do a phone Skype interview and passed? Hey he might have a good chance. I also don't see "felonies" as being a clear cut yes or no differentiate. I can see looking more into what those felonies were and balancing it against other aspects.
  - thenerdfiles 13y ago
    And if he "breaks" in wearing an argyle sweater? (Or if you bump into him outside your office building, monitoring the logs of his app on his iPhone via http://www.loggly.com/? http://www.loggly.com/?) (I don't work for Loggly. I'm just adding to the droll.)
    - rdtsc 13y ago
      > And if he "breaks" in wearing an argyle sweater? I feel that enough won't quite cut it, must be also wearing tight jeans, an emo hearcut and a leather messenger bag. ;-)
  - unclebucknasty 13y ago
    How would you feel if it was a bunch of black guys in argyle sweaters? How would you feel if it was a bunch of white guys in hoodies and baggy pants, who suddenly cross the street and start heading your way?
    - thenerdfiles 13y ago
      This seems like one of those divisive topics where if the person refuses to answer the question, for any reason whatever, they've failed, significantly so. It's like non-trolls don't make it to the future... Like, there's no place for anyone who fails to follow up with something like: (rejects the question on its face): But what about an intermixed group of guys and one girl wearing argyle garments of various types? I mean, as a very real, practical problem: either the question absolutely fails or absolutely succeeds at its purpose, and its purpose is determing whether or not the asked absolutely fails or absolutely succeeds at something — but what? The question clearly has lost its value at its first iteration, and really only serves to entertain programmer-types. For instance, if I were to ask anyone two generations back, they would clearly lose all patience. And the further I take this line of questioning back in history, the fewer the number of folk becomes for whom it is relevant (all the way back to, say, Aristotle, who probably has exactly the classically wrong answer). But as we ask it, we clearly see it as a template question. It isn't informative in any practical sense, and it does not directly modulate our practical ethics. It's like we've already begun the post-future nostalgia: "Oh, remember way back when racism was a thing?" — But, paradoxically enough... It is still a thing! Like, tomorrow I'm going to have to politely grimace in response to at least one racist joke — of which 10 years ago it did not exist as a class of joke, but 40 years ago probably would've incited a minor riot (just given its phonetic appearance).
maxerickson 13y ago
What sort of felonies do you consider negligible?
- thenerdfiles 13y ago
  The only meaningful response is to tell you that your question is rhetorical. Every product is a snowflake, etc. Your product's brand will inform the structure of the content for that answer. That said, sprinkle on a little hegemony, you've got yourself State Source (code) — as opposed to Open Source (code). How should I know ?
  - mistermann 13y ago
    How about we stop speaking in riddles.
    - thenerdfiles 13y ago
      The point isn't about the content of one person's definition of felony. It's about the lengths we will go to break a stacked deck. It's about prima facie privacy. [EDIT: And who should be afforded that prima facie privacy. (We're obviously going to cherry-pick based on arbitrary characteristics like "shady".)]
    - thenerdfiles 13y ago
      Also: The riddle does not exist. If a question can be put at all, then it can also be answered. —Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus I'm not saying these things to entertain or prompt a hackers' game of philosophy. I'm showing you the problem. My definition of "felony" is irrelevant, and (again) not the point. — "What is a 'felony' to you?" is not a real question; I am not a legal system.
      - demallien 13y ago
        You weren't asked for a definition of "felony" you were asked a reasonable question about what you meant by "negligeable felony" - most likely because most of us would be willing to accept someone done for shoplifting a pack of cigarettes when they were 17 (as an example). Why are you dodging the question? At least to me, it makes you seem like a shifty politician trying to hide her agenda.
whiddershins 13y ago
I would hire him on the spot. Then again, fully 7 out of 10 people who work for my technology startup are women, so I guess I'm just missing something, or I live in a parallel universe.
- thenerdfiles 13y ago
  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joy-weese-moll/i-am-not-afraid-of-trayvon-martin_b_3616863.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joy-weese-moll/i-am-not-afraid...
yummyfajitas 13y ago
Depends on the felony. Selling drugs? Fine by me. Theft, fraud, or something involving dishonesty or harming people against their will? Not a chance. I probably will subject him to extra scrutiny given that different criminal behaviors tend to be correlated, i.e. P(dishonest|drug dealer) > P(dishonest). In contrast, if they have a postmodernist epistemiology [1] (or even worse, an inconsistent one), they've got no shot. A die hard frequentist would also have a hard time compared to an honest drug dealer. [1] http://arts.uwaterloo.ca/~kwesthue/regiftedxmas12.html http://arts.uwaterloo.ca/~kwesthue/regiftedxmas12.html
- freshhawk 13y ago
  Thanks for that link, I've found explaining that difference to people to be difficult sometimes. There is some helpful stuff in there.
- erichocean 13y ago
  Excellent link. Exactly why I read the comments here on HN.
scrabble 13y ago
Why does it matter if he's black? I'd probably treat him the same way I would if a white guy with a felony history and a shady look walked in. And ultimately culture fit is about more than someone's appearance.

anonyHN 13y ago

I like how you try to tie this into startups (hackernewserizing the thread as it were) Kudos!

thenerdfiles 13y ago
"Did a murderer and a sex offender just save Oklahoma $20 million?" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6664588 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6664588) Let's connect the dots. (The obvious follow-up is: Are these men African American?) ((Obligatory response: Point still stands. Change all the variables. Make them androids with upgraded and legally "blessed" virtual mental cores for all I care.))
rdtsc 13y ago
Actually, I think it was an interesting observation. It is a relevant example to illustrate a point. Say, if he was talking in a car mechanics's forum, he would have have used body shop instead of start-up. The interesting thing is the personal dissonance between ideal principles and concrete experience. Pretty sure most here fancy themselves as not being racists. Going out at night and seeing a group of black young men start crossing the street and heading towards you, would you be scared? Would you be less scared if they were white and wearing argyle sweaters instead of black hoodies and baggy pants? Thinking about it, yeah I would be afraid. Rationally I know I am not a racist but in that case, I can see myself running as fast as I could. Back to a black person walking into the start-up. Well that is kind of interesting, because of the way it is presented. Walking in? Almost sounds like he "breaks" in? How often do you hire people that just "walk in" to your startup off the street. The hypothetical example is already biased and infused with stereotypes the way I see it. Did we already do a phone Skype interview and passed? Hey he might have a good chance. I also don't see "felonies" as being a clear cut yes or no differentiate. I can see looking more into what those felonies were and balancing it against other aspects.
- thenerdfiles 13y ago
  And if he "breaks" in wearing an argyle sweater? (Or if you bump into him outside your office building, monitoring the logs of his app on his iPhone via http://www.loggly.com/? http://www.loggly.com/?) (I don't work for Loggly. I'm just adding to the droll.)
  - rdtsc 13y ago
    > And if he "breaks" in wearing an argyle sweater? I feel that enough won't quite cut it, must be also wearing tight jeans, an emo hearcut and a leather messenger bag. ;-)
- unclebucknasty 13y ago
  How would you feel if it was a bunch of black guys in argyle sweaters? How would you feel if it was a bunch of white guys in hoodies and baggy pants, who suddenly cross the street and start heading your way?
  - thenerdfiles 13y ago
    This seems like one of those divisive topics where if the person refuses to answer the question, for any reason whatever, they've failed, significantly so. It's like non-trolls don't make it to the future... Like, there's no place for anyone who fails to follow up with something like: (rejects the question on its face): But what about an intermixed group of guys and one girl wearing argyle garments of various types? I mean, as a very real, practical problem: either the question absolutely fails or absolutely succeeds at its purpose, and its purpose is determing whether or not the asked absolutely fails or absolutely succeeds at something — but what? The question clearly has lost its value at its first iteration, and really only serves to entertain programmer-types. For instance, if I were to ask anyone two generations back, they would clearly lose all patience. And the further I take this line of questioning back in history, the fewer the number of folk becomes for whom it is relevant (all the way back to, say, Aristotle, who probably has exactly the classically wrong answer). But as we ask it, we clearly see it as a template question. It isn't informative in any practical sense, and it does not directly modulate our practical ethics. It's like we've already begun the post-future nostalgia: "Oh, remember way back when racism was a thing?" — But, paradoxically enough... It is still a thing! Like, tomorrow I'm going to have to politely grimace in response to at least one racist joke — of which 10 years ago it did not exist as a class of joke, but 40 years ago probably would've incited a minor riot (just given its phonetic appearance).

maxerickson 13y ago

What sort of felonies do you consider negligible?

thenerdfiles 13y ago
The only meaningful response is to tell you that your question is rhetorical. Every product is a snowflake, etc. Your product's brand will inform the structure of the content for that answer. That said, sprinkle on a little hegemony, you've got yourself State Source (code) — as opposed to Open Source (code). How should I know ?
- mistermann 13y ago
  How about we stop speaking in riddles.
  - thenerdfiles 13y ago
    The point isn't about the content of one person's definition of felony. It's about the lengths we will go to break a stacked deck. It's about prima facie privacy. [EDIT: And who should be afforded that prima facie privacy. (We're obviously going to cherry-pick based on arbitrary characteristics like "shady".)]
  - thenerdfiles 13y ago
    Also: The riddle does not exist. If a question can be put at all, then it can also be answered. —Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus I'm not saying these things to entertain or prompt a hackers' game of philosophy. I'm showing you the problem. My definition of "felony" is irrelevant, and (again) not the point. — "What is a 'felony' to you?" is not a real question; I am not a legal system.
    - demallien 13y ago
      You weren't asked for a definition of "felony" you were asked a reasonable question about what you meant by "negligeable felony" - most likely because most of us would be willing to accept someone done for shoplifting a pack of cigarettes when they were 17 (as an example). Why are you dodging the question? At least to me, it makes you seem like a shifty politician trying to hide her agenda.

whiddershins 13y ago

I would hire him on the spot. Then again, fully 7 out of 10 people who work for my technology startup are women, so I guess I'm just missing something, or I live in a parallel universe.

thenerdfiles 13y ago
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joy-weese-moll/i-am-not-afraid-of-trayvon-martin_b_3616863.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joy-weese-moll/i-am-not-afraid...

yummyfajitas 13y ago

Depends on the felony. Selling drugs? Fine by me. Theft, fraud, or something involving dishonesty or harming people against their will? Not a chance. I probably will subject him to extra scrutiny given that different criminal behaviors tend to be correlated, i.e. P(dishonest|drug dealer) > P(dishonest). In contrast, if they have a postmodernist epistemiology [1] (or even worse, an inconsistent one), they've got no shot. A die hard frequentist would also have a hard time compared to an honest drug dealer. [1] http://arts.uwaterloo.ca/~kwesthue/regiftedxmas12.html http://arts.uwaterloo.ca/~kwesthue/regiftedxmas12.html

freshhawk 13y ago
Thanks for that link, I've found explaining that difference to people to be difficult sometimes. There is some helpful stuff in there.
erichocean 13y ago
Excellent link. Exactly why I read the comments here on HN.

scrabble 13y ago

Why does it matter if he's black? I'd probably treat him the same way I would if a white guy with a felony history and a shady look walked in. And ultimately culture fit is about more than someone's appearance.