5 ms·

I wonder how they determine if someone is an asshole. Sounds like a perfect opportunity to fire anyone. Because this line: > We have no tolerance for dishonest

I wonder how they determine if someone is an asshole. Sounds like a perfect opportunity to fire anyone. Because this line: > We have no tolerance for dishonest, manipulative, belittling, or egocentric individuals , made me think that this blog post was written by an asshole.

noxryan 12y ago
This is what they claim: "There are two almost sure-fire ways to understand someone’s perspective. The first is to eat with them. How do they treat the wait staff? Are they demanding, or easily agitated? What happens when things aren’t perfect? The other test is to meet their significant other. What qualities did they choose in the person with whom has the most influence over them? We call these the asshole acid test."
- Ygg2 12y ago
  What happens if you have no significant other? Does that fail that test? If yes, this test was written by an egocentric asshole.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- jameshart 12y ago
  And if your meal with them also reveals that the person asks the waiter whether the meat is Halal, or that their significant other is the same sex as them, then you had better have a better argument than 'I just didn't like the way they treated the waitstaff' or 'I don't like their SO' to justify not hiring them...
  - Torgo 12y ago
    This is a an unworkable viewpoint because it has no limiting principle. What if a person comes in for a job interview and is wearing a turban because they're a sikh? Should you put up a screen between you and the interviewer? Give them a voice changer so that you can't tell if they're a woman or a man. Use an interpreter so that regional dialects or accents cannot be detected. Ban pork products from your cafeteria in case a candidate comes in. This is not a winnable strategy. At some point you have to acknowledge that assholes can take advantage of anything. Incidentally, I do think that taking people out for drinks to evaluate their character is a lousy practice but simply because many people don't drink for many reasons. Not because someone might secretly find out you're a religious minority.
    - jameshart 12y ago
      It means you need to use defensible candidate screening practices that clearly relate to assessing the candidate's fitness for the role. Asking to meet their current squeeze or taking them out to lunch to evaluate how they treat the waitstaff are not easily defensible. Asking them questions in an interview room about how they have previously performed in similar roles is.
_pmf_ 12y ago
> made me think that this blog post was written by an asshole No, no; marketing people are excluded from this rule, obviously. The rule is only applicable to these disgusting engineers who have opinions and technical insight.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
  - DanBC 12y ago
    Why did you introduce a weird and flame-bait diversion?
    - Gurkenmaster 12y ago
      You're right. I shouldn't have done that.
antimagic 12y ago
Because... you're defending the right to be dishonest, manipulative, belittling or egocentric? That's an unusual point of view.
- pc86 12y ago
  Truthfully I was on the fence about "manipulative" (not the other three, though). I get that it has a negative association, but at the end of the day aren't you just trying to show someone why doing _______ is in their best interest? Understanding that the connotation of "manipulative" is that it's not actually in their best interest.
  - kybernetikos 12y ago
    From my point of view manipulative doesn't speak to whose interest the manipulation is in, but rather to the fact that the manipulator is trying to bypass the autonomy of the target - getting them to do what the manipulator wants without consciously being brought to assent to the reasons behind it. It can therefore be used with good intentions, and may often result in good outcomes if done by an effective manipulator for those good reasons but according to my moral system it is never an ethical way to act, and is likely to ultimately corrode relationships.
- philh 12y ago
  I feel like there's a pattern of people who say "I have no tolerance for <bad group, vaguely defined>", and use that as an excuse to be as mean as they like to whomever they like. I don't get that impression from this post. But plausibly, uniformlyrandom isn't defending the right to be an asshole; but merely mistrusts that someone who claims not to tolerate assholes, is in fact a good judge of that.

noxryan 12y ago

This is what they claim: "There are two almost sure-fire ways to understand someone’s perspective. The first is to eat with them. How do they treat the wait staff? Are they demanding, or easily agitated? What happens when things aren’t perfect? The other test is to meet their significant other. What qualities did they choose in the person with whom has the most influence over them? We call these the asshole acid test."

Ygg2 12y ago
What happens if you have no significant other? Does that fail that test? If yes, this test was written by an egocentric asshole.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
jameshart 12y ago
And if your meal with them also reveals that the person asks the waiter whether the meat is Halal, or that their significant other is the same sex as them, then you had better have a better argument than 'I just didn't like the way they treated the waitstaff' or 'I don't like their SO' to justify not hiring them...
- Torgo 12y ago
  This is a an unworkable viewpoint because it has no limiting principle. What if a person comes in for a job interview and is wearing a turban because they're a sikh? Should you put up a screen between you and the interviewer? Give them a voice changer so that you can't tell if they're a woman or a man. Use an interpreter so that regional dialects or accents cannot be detected. Ban pork products from your cafeteria in case a candidate comes in. This is not a winnable strategy. At some point you have to acknowledge that assholes can take advantage of anything. Incidentally, I do think that taking people out for drinks to evaluate their character is a lousy practice but simply because many people don't drink for many reasons. Not because someone might secretly find out you're a religious minority.
  - jameshart 12y ago
    It means you need to use defensible candidate screening practices that clearly relate to assessing the candidate's fitness for the role. Asking to meet their current squeeze or taking them out to lunch to evaluate how they treat the waitstaff are not easily defensible. Asking them questions in an interview room about how they have previously performed in similar roles is.

_pmf_ 12y ago

> made me think that this blog post was written by an asshole No, no; marketing people are excluded from this rule, obviously. The rule is only applicable to these disgusting engineers who have opinions and technical insight.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- DanBC 12y ago
  Why did you introduce a weird and flame-bait diversion?
  - Gurkenmaster 12y ago
    You're right. I shouldn't have done that.

antimagic 12y ago

Because... you're defending the right to be dishonest, manipulative, belittling or egocentric? That's an unusual point of view.

pc86 12y ago
Truthfully I was on the fence about "manipulative" (not the other three, though). I get that it has a negative association, but at the end of the day aren't you just trying to show someone why doing _______ is in their best interest? Understanding that the connotation of "manipulative" is that it's not actually in their best interest.
- kybernetikos 12y ago
  From my point of view manipulative doesn't speak to whose interest the manipulation is in, but rather to the fact that the manipulator is trying to bypass the autonomy of the target - getting them to do what the manipulator wants without consciously being brought to assent to the reasons behind it. It can therefore be used with good intentions, and may often result in good outcomes if done by an effective manipulator for those good reasons but according to my moral system it is never an ethical way to act, and is likely to ultimately corrode relationships.
philh 12y ago
I feel like there's a pattern of people who say "I have no tolerance for <bad group, vaguely defined>", and use that as an excuse to be as mean as they like to whomever they like. I don't get that impression from this post. But plausibly, uniformlyrandom isn't defending the right to be an asshole; but merely mistrusts that someone who claims not to tolerate assholes, is in fact a good judge of that.