3 ms·

From https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7201428 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7201428: I'm a trained nuclear physicist, and a biblical literalist. Yo

by chroma 13y ago

From https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7201428 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7201428: I'm a trained nuclear physicist, and a biblical literalist. You're probably a talented, hard-working, good person. I wish you no ill. In fact, all else equal, I'd prefer you to lead a happy, successful life. But I'm as likely to hire you as I am to hire a believer in alien abductions. Such beliefs are evidence of a person's thought patterns and general mental stability. Even if otherwise competent, hiring would be risky. If ever "social fit" were an excuse not to hire, this would qualify. I'm sorry if that sounds bigoted or close-minded, but beliefs affect behavior. This is true no matter how much one tries to keep quiet at work. Edit: I realize this is religious discrimination, which is illegal in the US. Obviously I would never tell the person the true reason for not hiring. To those who think this is abhorrent: Would you hire a Scientologist? How about a member of the Westboro Baptist Church? We all draw a line somewhere.

azakai 13y ago
I'm an atheist (like I assume you are), but what you just described is straightforward religious discrimination, which is illegal in the US and many other places, for good reason.
- chroma 13y ago
  I'm honestly curious: What's the good reason? We discriminate based on beliefs all the time. Why exempt religious ones? I'm fine with my own anti-religious views being cause for not hiring me. (In fact, it's perfectly legal for employers to do so today.)
  - azakai 13y ago
    > We discriminate based on beliefs all the time. We do? I certainly hope we don't. Discrimination is wrong regardless of whether its on beliefs or attributes. Maybe you meant another word than "discrimination" here, or I am misunderstanding you somehow?
    - chroma 13y ago
      I'll give an example of what I mean by discrimination: If someone is a 9/11 conspiracy theorist, you probably don't want to hang out with them. You might avoid talking to them. If said conspiracy theorist ran a donut shop, maybe you'd go so far as to walk another block to buy donuts. That's the sort of discrimination I'm talking about: simply avoiding interaction with someone.
      - bzbarsky 13y ago
        What if they're a 9/11 conspiracy theorist who doesn't ever mention their conspiracy theory unless you explicitly ask them what they think happened on 9/11? You seem to think that people who have deeply held beliefs spend all their time trying to foist those beliefs on others around them. That's true in some cases, not in others.
        chroma 13y ago
        If a person says they believe something but it never affects their actions, is it really a belief? It would probably be closer to a belief in belief (http://lesswrong.com/lw/i4/belief_in_belief/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/i4/belief_in_belief/). I'd probably buy donuts from your hypothetical closeted 9/11 conspiracy theorist. There's certainly a selection effect, but I think such people are extremely rare. I hardly ever ask people what their beliefs are, but they tell them to me anyway. Of course, I'm no different. People are typically much more passionate about their unusual beliefs. Every young-earth creationist I know of, I've found out about their belief within an hour of meeting them. I've never had a friend, acquaintance, or coworker who I discovered to be a biblical literalist only after several months of interactions. These beliefs are so important to these people that they simply can't avoid expressing them. Likewise, they have a hard time avoiding the secondary beliefs stemming from their conviction. It's eerie how similar their opinions are on gay marriage, women's rights, obscenity laws, circumcision, and teaching evolution in schools. I have no qualms avoiding interactions with these people. A side note: I'm glad this article was buried. The replies to my comments have been quite civil and well-reasoned, but most of the other discussion in this thread has been unproductive to say the least.
bzbarsky 13y ago
How is this argument different from the arguments of people who want to draw the line at hiring transgendered people or hiring women or hiring people who are over 6 feet tall? The only material legal difference, as far as I can tell (IANAL) is in whether you are discriminating against a protected class or not, and what constitutes a protected class seems to be largely a political decision. And religious affiliation is definitely explicitly protected. These are, of course hard issues. It's _hard_ for all of us to not discriminate against people based on our prejudices. For you it seems to be hard to not discriminate against Scientologists. The right moral response is to realize your prejudices and fight them. The laws actually make that a bit easier in some ways (e.g. it's illegal for you to ask prospective job candidates whether they're Scientologists). Whether it's a social fit problem depends on two things. The first is whether the person's private beliefs affect their workplace behavior. Obviously in some cases they do and in others they don't. People are pretty good at compartmentalizing. The second social fit problem is whether the person's co-workers are so outraged by the fact of the beliefs existing (or the person's gender being "wrong" or their hair being red, or whatever these people happen to have personal hangups about) that it affects _their_ behavior. This is pretty common, obviously, and the fault in such cases lies in the co-workers not the hire. There may still not be a good "social fit" as a result, but this situation is cause to look long and hard at the "society" that's not being fit into... I would like you to also consider a concrete example. You say you won't hire a believer in alien abductions. Would you hire a "tin-foil-hat" type who believes the NSA is spying on everyone? Would you have hired such a person two years ago, or would you have considered them paranoids whose "thought patterns and general mental stability" would preclude a good "social fit"? Clearly your priors have updated since 2 years ago, but it's always worth evaluating whether your priors might be wrong and whether a reasonable person might come up with different priors.

by chroma 13y ago

azakai 13y ago

I'm an atheist (like I assume you are), but what you just described is straightforward religious discrimination, which is illegal in the US and many other places, for good reason.

chroma 13y ago
I'm honestly curious: What's the good reason? We discriminate based on beliefs all the time. Why exempt religious ones? I'm fine with my own anti-religious views being cause for not hiring me. (In fact, it's perfectly legal for employers to do so today.)
- azakai 13y ago
  > We discriminate based on beliefs all the time. We do? I certainly hope we don't. Discrimination is wrong regardless of whether its on beliefs or attributes. Maybe you meant another word than "discrimination" here, or I am misunderstanding you somehow?
  - chroma 13y ago
    I'll give an example of what I mean by discrimination: If someone is a 9/11 conspiracy theorist, you probably don't want to hang out with them. You might avoid talking to them. If said conspiracy theorist ran a donut shop, maybe you'd go so far as to walk another block to buy donuts. That's the sort of discrimination I'm talking about: simply avoiding interaction with someone.
    - bzbarsky 13y ago
      What if they're a 9/11 conspiracy theorist who doesn't ever mention their conspiracy theory unless you explicitly ask them what they think happened on 9/11? You seem to think that people who have deeply held beliefs spend all their time trying to foist those beliefs on others around them. That's true in some cases, not in others.
      - chroma 13y ago
        If a person says they believe something but it never affects their actions, is it really a belief? It would probably be closer to a belief in belief (http://lesswrong.com/lw/i4/belief_in_belief/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/i4/belief_in_belief/). I'd probably buy donuts from your hypothetical closeted 9/11 conspiracy theorist. There's certainly a selection effect, but I think such people are extremely rare. I hardly ever ask people what their beliefs are, but they tell them to me anyway. Of course, I'm no different. People are typically much more passionate about their unusual beliefs. Every young-earth creationist I know of, I've found out about their belief within an hour of meeting them. I've never had a friend, acquaintance, or coworker who I discovered to be a biblical literalist only after several months of interactions. These beliefs are so important to these people that they simply can't avoid expressing them. Likewise, they have a hard time avoiding the secondary beliefs stemming from their conviction. It's eerie how similar their opinions are on gay marriage, women's rights, obscenity laws, circumcision, and teaching evolution in schools. I have no qualms avoiding interactions with these people. A side note: I'm glad this article was buried. The replies to my comments have been quite civil and well-reasoned, but most of the other discussion in this thread has been unproductive to say the least.

bzbarsky 13y ago

How is this argument different from the arguments of people who want to draw the line at hiring transgendered people or hiring women or hiring people who are over 6 feet tall? The only material legal difference, as far as I can tell (IANAL) is in whether you are discriminating against a protected class or not, and what constitutes a protected class seems to be largely a political decision. And religious affiliation is definitely explicitly protected. These are, of course hard issues. It's _hard_ for all of us to not discriminate against people based on our prejudices. For you it seems to be hard to not discriminate against Scientologists. The right moral response is to realize your prejudices and fight them. The laws actually make that a bit easier in some ways (e.g. it's illegal for you to ask prospective job candidates whether they're Scientologists). Whether it's a social fit problem depends on two things. The first is whether the person's private beliefs affect their workplace behavior. Obviously in some cases they do and in others they don't. People are pretty good at compartmentalizing. The second social fit problem is whether the person's co-workers are so outraged by the fact of the beliefs existing (or the person's gender being "wrong" or their hair being red, or whatever these people happen to have personal hangups about) that it affects _their_ behavior. This is pretty common, obviously, and the fault in such cases lies in the co-workers not the hire. There may still not be a good "social fit" as a result, but this situation is cause to look long and hard at the "society" that's not being fit into... I would like you to also consider a concrete example. You say you won't hire a believer in alien abductions. Would you hire a "tin-foil-hat" type who believes the NSA is spying on everyone? Would you have hired such a person two years ago, or would you have considered them paranoids whose "thought patterns and general mental stability" would preclude a good "social fit"? Clearly your priors have updated since 2 years ago, but it's always worth evaluating whether your priors might be wrong and whether a reasonable person might come up with different priors.