Hacking attractiveness biases in hiring? The role of beautifying photo-filters(emerald.com)
emerald.com
Hacking attractiveness biases in hiring? The role of beautifying photo-filters
https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/MD-06-2021-0747/full/html
278 comments
Zoom interviews can potentially be a great enabler by altering your appearance and voice to the ones of the sexiest woman or man alive.
This may be the most user unfriendly site I've seen in a long while. On mobile, on first open, I could see literally 0 words that were the body of this text. The banners took up almost the entire viewport. Plus they appear to have a paywall.
Does being attractive really help you in getting hired in engineering positions? I would understand client-facing/sales jobs, but unsure it would help in engineering roles
I think you have a baked in assumption that hiring is fair. Because you might think that when interacting with clients it makes sense to hire based on looks or at least implicitly it sounds like that's what you're thinking. But we have lots of biases that don't actually make sense. Thinking good looking people are somehow better seems totally likely to be one. And, in fact, this study says is a bias
The study is kind of weird, because that's simply not how things are conducted during hiring: nobody puts their picture on their resume.
I think some other countries do, but the norms are decidedly against that in the USA, probably to avoid biases like this.
I think some other countries do, but the norms are decidedly against that in the USA, probably to avoid biases like this.
But it is very common to go search out someone's LinkedIn, which does have a profile picture.
> LinkedIn, which does have a profile picture
Maybe yours does, but plenty don't.
Maybe yours does, but plenty don't.
This research makes it seem like a good idea not to provide pictures in general.
I don't think it is a bad question to ask. In fact, there might even be negative biases against attractiveness for engineers. Will a dude with cheeto dust on his star wars t-shirt give a fair shake to a good looking woman who is wearing business attire and makeup, compared to another dude in a t-shirt?
Let's do a test. Who would you imagine is the better engineer of these two old timey people?
https://i.imgur.com/omRXYde.png
and
https://i.imgur.com/3QDIkme.png
Let's do a test. Who would you imagine is the better engineer of these two old timey people?
https://i.imgur.com/omRXYde.png
and
https://i.imgur.com/3QDIkme.png
There is definitely (well, anecdotally) negative bias against "well put together" attractive engineers. Picture a software engineer, male or female, chances are your stereotype isn't a glamorous person in a flashy suit with an expensive haircut and grooming. And if you saw someone like that, you'd be suspicious of their technical ability. It's a sterotype, but it's not all that weird.
I don't think it's necessarily about being attractive with all else being equal, it's more about the level of effort in one's appearance. Once that is accounted for, it's probably likely there is some of the usual bias towards better looking people.
I don't think it's necessarily about being attractive with all else being equal, it's more about the level of effort in one's appearance. Once that is accounted for, it's probably likely there is some of the usual bias towards better looking people.
Also anecdotal: When I was freelancing, I'd specifically make sure to be wearing my glasses and a hoodie during the first meeting with potential clients. I had better responses and they seemed to implicitly trust that I was competent vs wearing contacts. Whereas on a dating profile/first dates, I would always wear contacts because I think I look more handsome that way.
Biases are frustrating and annoying and I used to think they weren't worth worrying about. Then I went from obese to healthy weight and noticed the ways people treated me differently. Now I acknowledge that they have an effect and try to remove my own, but it's not perfect.
Biases are frustrating and annoying and I used to think they weren't worth worrying about. Then I went from obese to healthy weight and noticed the ways people treated me differently. Now I acknowledge that they have an effect and try to remove my own, but it's not perfect.
There's a sweet spot I think. Wearing a suit? Probably a business guy, not to be trusted. But raggedy T-Shirt? Ah, that's just unprofessional. The ideal male fashion icon: Mr. Rogers, classy but not trying too hard, everybody trusts a nice sweater with a collared shirt under.
> Will a dude with cheeto dust on his star wars t-shirt give a fair shake to a good looking woman who is wearing business attire and makeup
The Cheeto-dust legible-t-shirt look is unfashionable in tech and probably not a great idea. Been true since the late '00s at least. I think the put-together woman wins in that match up.
> compared to another dude in a t-shirt?
Depends. Is the t-shirt $150 retail, made of merino wool, and sporting a small brand logo that the interviewer will recognize from the gear lists on that minimalism/travel blog they really like?
The Cheeto-dust legible-t-shirt look is unfashionable in tech and probably not a great idea. Been true since the late '00s at least. I think the put-together woman wins in that match up.
> compared to another dude in a t-shirt?
Depends. Is the t-shirt $150 retail, made of merino wool, and sporting a small brand logo that the interviewer will recognize from the gear lists on that minimalism/travel blog they really like?
IME it depends on the hiring funnel.
It does not matter if you are interviewing for an opening which has been set aside for you. (Niche skills, nepotism, former colleagues, etc.)
It does matter if you are going for a fungible position with many applicants. Not a lot, but people are biased to hire others who they think they'd enjoy spending time around.
That bias helps attractive people, as well as people who look and act like part of an org's "in-group" (if one exists). It's ugly and gross, but it seems pretty fundamental to human nature.
It does not matter if you are interviewing for an opening which has been set aside for you. (Niche skills, nepotism, former colleagues, etc.)
It does matter if you are going for a fungible position with many applicants. Not a lot, but people are biased to hire others who they think they'd enjoy spending time around.
That bias helps attractive people, as well as people who look and act like part of an org's "in-group" (if one exists). It's ugly and gross, but it seems pretty fundamental to human nature.
Yes. People who are attractive are perceived as more talented, more trustworthy, and more intelligent. Those are qualities you want in an engineering hire.
Beyond that attractive people are more confident.
Beyond that attractive people are more confident.
It's not a strategic choice - it's a bias. Good looking candidates were perceived as more competent.
I guess a strategic choice would be hiring an actor to pose for your photo
Yeah, I'm going to need a model version of myself on retainer. I'm picturing something like the surrogate setup on Arrested Development ;)
I'd argue it can hinder sometimes.
I hate to say it but it probably depends on the gender.
What I will say is anecdotal and probably controversial but it is just my observation:
I've seen all kinds of talented male devs and there's huge variance in their looks. Some good looking and some not.
But when it comes to talented female devs: they all looked a certain type. I'll let you people decide what I mean.
Yes, profiling people sucks but .... sometimes it yields results.
I hate to say it but it probably depends on the gender.
What I will say is anecdotal and probably controversial but it is just my observation:
I've seen all kinds of talented male devs and there's huge variance in their looks. Some good looking and some not.
But when it comes to talented female devs: they all looked a certain type. I'll let you people decide what I mean.
Yes, profiling people sucks but .... sometimes it yields results.
> But when it comes to talented female devs: they all looked a certain type. I'll let you people decide what I mean.
It's a throw away account, can you just say what you mean? Honestly no type came to mind when I did a quick mental scrollback.
It's a throw away account, can you just say what you mean? Honestly no type came to mind when I did a quick mental scrollback.
Not the parent, but I assume they mean the nose stud, green or blue hair that looks like it's needed to be redone for a month (but was, in fact, dyed yesterday), and at least one full-sleeve tattoo, look.
[EDIT] For the record, I've seen women with that look who weren't very good, and I've seen plenty who looked different from that who were good. I don't agree with their broader assessment.
[EDIT] For the record, I've seen women with that look who weren't very good, and I've seen plenty who looked different from that who were good. I don't agree with their broader assessment.
Definitely seen that fashion, but never in a coding context. Must be an SF thing.
Ehhh frumpy?
It probably matters less, but unconscious bias likely still exists to an extent.
Hopefully remote work would help establish practices like interviewing over zoom with a camera off. There's potential concerns about someone else completing the coding challenges for the candidate, or otherwise more blatant cheating. But that could be accomplished by, say, capturing video and only reviewing it after a hiring decision has been made.
Hopefully remote work would help establish practices like interviewing over zoom with a camera off. There's potential concerns about someone else completing the coding challenges for the candidate, or otherwise more blatant cheating. But that could be accomplished by, say, capturing video and only reviewing it after a hiring decision has been made.
"Attractive" is a wee bit subjective here, but I can tell you my career took off after I spent a small fortune on my teeth and upgraded my mic and webcam setup to near-studio-grade. If it's a coincidence, it's the most incredible case of coincidental curve-fitting that I've ever personally witnessed. It by no means guarantees you'll get the job, demonstration of competence still matters, but it sure helps break ties.
Attractiveness is not subjective, as facial features deemed attractive are universally accepted across both time periods and cultures. Tallness for men is always seen as better than shortness.
Being attractive helps you in everything. Humans have a fundamental positive bias towards those they perceive as attractive.
At the risk of sounding arrogant, let me share my personal experience. Over a period of a year in my early thirties, I became more conventionally attractive by: purchasing clothes from StitchFix (a styling service), getting my hair cut regularly by a stylist, adopting a regular grooming routine, and exercising (especially weight lifting) frequently. Prior to this I dressed like a negatively stereotypical engineer with baggy/unstylish clothing, little to no grooming routine, and little to no exercise.
People of all sexes and sexual orientations unquestionably treat me better than they did before. They are more open, more willing to give me their time and attention, quicker to trust me. I’m given favors like extra services (a barista telling me I can cut the line and give her my order directly), or small free things (bartender comping a drink for no reason). And frankly, people just look at me more. I used to feel completely invisible walking down the street, never catching anyone’s eye - not the case anymore.
Because the change happened over a relatively short period of time, and because I spent my entire adult life prior not engaging in these intentional efforts to be “attractive”, the contrast was extremely obvious.
There is a dark side to all this that I’m not going to get into, but I will say that having experienced the contrast I do feel motivated to maintain some level of attractiveness for the preferential treatment.
At the risk of sounding arrogant, let me share my personal experience. Over a period of a year in my early thirties, I became more conventionally attractive by: purchasing clothes from StitchFix (a styling service), getting my hair cut regularly by a stylist, adopting a regular grooming routine, and exercising (especially weight lifting) frequently. Prior to this I dressed like a negatively stereotypical engineer with baggy/unstylish clothing, little to no grooming routine, and little to no exercise.
People of all sexes and sexual orientations unquestionably treat me better than they did before. They are more open, more willing to give me their time and attention, quicker to trust me. I’m given favors like extra services (a barista telling me I can cut the line and give her my order directly), or small free things (bartender comping a drink for no reason). And frankly, people just look at me more. I used to feel completely invisible walking down the street, never catching anyone’s eye - not the case anymore.
Because the change happened over a relatively short period of time, and because I spent my entire adult life prior not engaging in these intentional efforts to be “attractive”, the contrast was extremely obvious.
There is a dark side to all this that I’m not going to get into, but I will say that having experienced the contrast I do feel motivated to maintain some level of attractiveness for the preferential treatment.
Absolutely nothing wrong with taking advantage of improved grooming, hygiene, physical fitness, and clothing. These are easy things that anyone can do to gain advantages in most areas of life.
> These are easy things that anyone can do to gain advantages in most areas of life.
That seems unlikely.
Most of us could stand to gain some degree of advantage, but I'm pretty there some people whose appearance is unfortunate enough that no amount of grooming, hygiene, physical fitness, or clothing will ever compensate for what fate or genetics has burdened them with.
That seems unlikely.
Most of us could stand to gain some degree of advantage, but I'm pretty there some people whose appearance is unfortunate enough that no amount of grooming, hygiene, physical fitness, or clothing will ever compensate for what fate or genetics has burdened them with.
This is overly pessimistic. Virtually everyone could vastly benefit from a relatively small investment in improving how they present themselves to the world (and to themself).
The best part is, there isn't one single right way. Most people will notice and respect the effort, even if the particular style isn't their first choice.
There might be other things in the way -- emotional barriers, etc -- which may be difficult to overcome. But that is a different matter. And that work would also be very worthwhile to pursue.
The best part is, there isn't one single right way. Most people will notice and respect the effort, even if the particular style isn't their first choice.
There might be other things in the way -- emotional barriers, etc -- which may be difficult to overcome. But that is a different matter. And that work would also be very worthwhile to pursue.
> This is overly pessimistic. Virtually everyone could vastly benefit from a relatively small investment in improving how they present themselves to the world (and to themself).
I think most people absolutely could benefit, but not necessarily enough to level the playing field with the most gorgeous among us, while for others there really may be nothing they can do to level the playing field against even the most shoddily dressed average looking person. I've got nothing against trying to do the best you can with the hand you've been dealt, and wouldn't discourage anyone from doing that, but when we're talking about the innate bias humans have when hiring I think it's worth admitting that some will always have a considerable disadvantage regardless of their best efforts.
I think most people absolutely could benefit, but not necessarily enough to level the playing field with the most gorgeous among us, while for others there really may be nothing they can do to level the playing field against even the most shoddily dressed average looking person. I've got nothing against trying to do the best you can with the hand you've been dealt, and wouldn't discourage anyone from doing that, but when we're talking about the innate bias humans have when hiring I think it's worth admitting that some will always have a considerable disadvantage regardless of their best efforts.
Unless you want to become a super model, it's very unlikely that you have to compete with many ridiculous good looking people. If you're fit, clean, and well dressed you're already at the top in most industries.
I would leave to hear the dark side, if you don't mind :)
Ha, I'll bite. This gets pretty personal so I'm going to mostly keep it at a high level.
The dark side is that attractiveness is a form of power. Having power changes people, especially if one has lived a large portion of their life without this particular expression of power.
Through this lens, excessive enjoyment of one's attractiveness and the impact that has on others can be seen as a form of megalomania; excessive confidence becomes arrogance, self-love becomes narcissism.
In short, it's easy to become an asshole, or mentally unwell.
The dark side is that attractiveness is a form of power. Having power changes people, especially if one has lived a large portion of their life without this particular expression of power.
Through this lens, excessive enjoyment of one's attractiveness and the impact that has on others can be seen as a form of megalomania; excessive confidence becomes arrogance, self-love becomes narcissism.
In short, it's easy to become an asshole, or mentally unwell.
also am curious as to the dark side!
I am not attractive and it's not something clothes or styling can fix BUT I can confirm how perceptions make a massive difference. About 20 years ago I started wearing ties and dress up, not just for work. If you never done this, try it out, get some normal (or as they call them now, "classic" fit) trousers, jacket, shirt, tie and marvel at how everyone treats you better. It's the kind of thing you only notice if it happens to you suddenly.
> In study 2, beautifying filters increased the hireability only slightly for White female applicants, followed by White and Black male applicants but substantially for Black female applicants
It's a gross thing to consider but I wonder if the filter lightened the skin of black female applicants. These results are disappointing but unfortunately not surprising.
It's a gross thing to consider but I wonder if the filter lightened the skin of black female applicants. These results are disappointing but unfortunately not surprising.
I wonder if in predominantly black countries, darkening the skin tones of white applicants would be considered beautifying.
Generally, European colonizers imported their anti-dark skin biases (colourism) to their African colonies and they persist to this day among the black populations.
https://www.e-ir.info/2020/04/11/critical-reflections-on-eth...
https://www.e-ir.info/2020/04/11/critical-reflections-on-eth...
> and they persist to this day among the black populations.
Well, light skin preference for females persists to this day in African populations and every other population.
It was also present -- and documented even in Africa -- before any European presence existed, so it's strange to say that Europeans imported it. And darker skin is usually preferred for men.
Well, light skin preference for females persists to this day in African populations and every other population.
It was also present -- and documented even in Africa -- before any European presence existed, so it's strange to say that Europeans imported it. And darker skin is usually preferred for men.
I'm not sure how to account for darker skin _may_ be less attractive to humans on a genetic level. It's a question science can't answer, so I don't know how we could control for it. i.e, it could be the truth that the lighter your skin is the more attractive you are. How do we rule that out?
>> darker skin is usually preferred for men.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Zooming out, you should understand than African's have darker skin generally because they literally selected for that preference and those men had more wives and more descendants for those choices, the reverse is true for Europe.
These choices of course being influenced by other factors but the point is an example that it is always important to articulate the forest as well as the trees.
> It was also present -- and documented even in Africa
Do you have a source for that? I'm not disagreeing, only curious.
Do you have a source for that? I'm not disagreeing, only curious.
Peter Frost writes a lot about this. Here are two (heavily overlapping) articles:
https://evoandproud.blogspot.com/2006/12/skin-color-preferen...
https://evoandproud.blogspot.com/2013/08/perception-of-skin-...
Another observation he's made is that black children are born light and darken, with a noticeable sex difference:
- Black males darken until eventually they reach adult darkness.
- Black females darken until puberty, at which point they are darker than they will be as adults. One of the changes they experience during puberty is a lightening of their skin.
https://evoandproud.blogspot.com/2006/12/skin-color-preferen...
https://evoandproud.blogspot.com/2013/08/perception-of-skin-...
Another observation he's made is that black children are born light and darken, with a noticeable sex difference:
- Black males darken until eventually they reach adult darkness.
- Black females darken until puberty, at which point they are darker than they will be as adults. One of the changes they experience during puberty is a lightening of their skin.
I remember stumbling across a "beauty rating" site that had an ML model trained to rate photos on beauty.
At the risk of sounding conceited, when it gave me (black male) a bad score, I knew something had to be wrong. I went and searched for photos of famous black males generally accepted as attractive and noticed it also gave them poor scores.
That gave me a hunch about what was going on, and lo and behold: taking the same exact photos, but processed to black and white and brightened, resulted in extremely high scores.
The model was essentially measuring how light your skin is.
At the risk of sounding conceited, when it gave me (black male) a bad score, I knew something had to be wrong. I went and searched for photos of famous black males generally accepted as attractive and noticed it also gave them poor scores.
That gave me a hunch about what was going on, and lo and behold: taking the same exact photos, but processed to black and white and brightened, resulted in extremely high scores.
The model was essentially measuring how light your skin is.
ML models are... very local. They fail at sensemaking. If it's any comfort, the same model would probably identify President Mobutu as a leopard.
There are some studies I believe that show even attractive african american women can have trouble with low click through / match / rating on dating sites.
So if the model was trained on who folks wanted to date (as a measure of attractiveness) the model could still be somewhat accurate, even though not accurately measuring attractiveness.
How would models work on rating who would be a good NBA player / runner etc. I wonder if just being white would get me downrated.
So if the model was trained on who folks wanted to date (as a measure of attractiveness) the model could still be somewhat accurate, even though not accurately measuring attractiveness.
How would models work on rating who would be a good NBA player / runner etc. I wonder if just being white would get me downrated.
Are you missing the part where the model gave two scores for the same picture based on extreme desaturation?
Terrible pictures don't make you more attractive on dating sites...
It's just a bad model. There's bound to be bias in the model but ML 101 would be randomize saturation and hue on your training set
Terrible pictures don't make you more attractive on dating sites...
It's just a bad model. There's bound to be bias in the model but ML 101 would be randomize saturation and hue on your training set
Fair enough.
That said, I wouldn't jump to conclusions on how things like saturation or desaturation play into ratings, a lot of instagram filters for example have an a desaturation effect which makes me wonder if folks like that as a look. I don't personally.
Very well could be a bad model, but sometimes there are underlying factors that result in these bad models from the training set. And no, it's no ML 101 to randomize elements of your input in the training set, though if you want a broadly applicable model you'd look to have inputs that include a variety of hue and saturation (perhaps that's what you meant - I have seen folks though manually start doing things like randomize hue in the set, where the ratings were on the original image).
That said, I wouldn't jump to conclusions on how things like saturation or desaturation play into ratings, a lot of instagram filters for example have an a desaturation effect which makes me wonder if folks like that as a look. I don't personally.
Very well could be a bad model, but sometimes there are underlying factors that result in these bad models from the training set. And no, it's no ML 101 to randomize elements of your input in the training set, though if you want a broadly applicable model you'd look to have inputs that include a variety of hue and saturation (perhaps that's what you meant - I have seen folks though manually start doing things like randomize hue in the set, where the ratings were on the original image).
That shit is just some dude who put an ImageNet based model on the Internet. I remember going through one of these and getting “First time offender”. I was wearing an orange shirt. That’s a horrendous choice of colour, honestly, but I’ve never been actually caught for any of my crimes and it’s been a while since I committed them first.
The filter in question, FaceApp "Hollywood" absolutely lightens darker skin tones. It moves everything a little more toward "Warm" colors. It also seems to make noses more slender but leaves lips large or enlarges them. That's my unscientific extrapolation from a few samples I saw.
Cameras used to be notoriously bad at picking up dark skin colours correctly. Apps might fix it.
>used to be
Apparently still an issue. When two friends of mine, a black woman and a white man, got married, they had to find a specific photographer who specialized in simultaneously photographing black and white people.
Apparently still an issue. When two friends of mine, a black woman and a white man, got married, they had to find a specific photographer who specialized in simultaneously photographing black and white people.
>Both male and female applicants whose photos were filtered were perceived as more competent
A tale as old as time. Politicians who are attractive have a huge perception advantage. And political campaigns that use actors (who are almost by definition attractive) appeal to these same competence biases.
A tale as old as time. Politicians who are attractive have a huge perception advantage. And political campaigns that use actors (who are almost by definition attractive) appeal to these same competence biases.
Height as well. We instinctively think tall people make better leaders.
Tall people tend to be more relaxed in leadership roles, because they feel less of a need to prove themselves.
White people tend to be more relaxed in leadership roles, because they feel less of a need to prove themselves.
Do you see how insane this sounds?
Do you see how insane this sounds?
You might be interested in the biography of General Benjamin Davis, a great American hero.
The social dominance affected by greater height is not an illusion - this has been observed and studied widely. Being part of a majority group (which whites are in the US) is also noted for similar effects. Just because we don't like these things doesn't mean we should deny their existence - that's how you get systemic discrimination in the first place.
Also, men, because they're physically larger, on average.
The important thing is that this all gets sussed out via whiteboard coding questions, where the candidate is put in a usually windowless box with some alpha coder, and told to solve math puzzles under time pressure, and are then judged based on "culture fit".
That reminds me. Does anyone know how to buy bike desks like the ones in The Zero Theorem?
I'd like to add them to our bull pen and interview setup, now that we're back in the office:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7my1G0TrwT8
(I've found that examples of what not to do are often the most useful.)
The important thing is that this all gets sussed out via whiteboard coding questions, where the candidate is put in a usually windowless box with some alpha coder, and told to solve math puzzles under time pressure, and are then judged based on "culture fit".
That reminds me. Does anyone know how to buy bike desks like the ones in The Zero Theorem?
I'd like to add them to our bull pen and interview setup, now that we're back in the office:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7my1G0TrwT8
(I've found that examples of what not to do are often the most useful.)
Maybe they actually have more need to prove themselves since short peoples leadership gets challenged much more often? Why else would they feel greater need to prove themselves? It isn't like short peoples brains are wired differently.
Tall and/or attractive people have lifelong advantages. There's nothing fair or just about it. We're each dealt a different set of cards, and it's up to us to take advantage of the good cards and make lemonade from the bad ones as best we can.
I.e. don't confuse having an advantage or disadvantage with destiny. We make our own destinies by the choices we make.
I.e. don't confuse having an advantage or disadvantage with destiny. We make our own destinies by the choices we make.
> I.e. don't confuse having an advantage or disadvantage with destiny. We make our own destinies by the choices we make.
That's cute but very disconnected from reality.
That's cute but very disconnected from reality.
> That's cute but very disconnected from reality.
Reality is full of examples of people who have overcome disadvantages. Edison suffered severe hearing loss as a child, for example.
Reality is full of examples of people who have overcome disadvantages. Edison suffered severe hearing loss as a child, for example.
Good example, now imagine the same Edison (w.r.t. potential) at the same time with the same hearing loss born to a black family.
Imagine the great things a genius like Srinivasa Ramanujan could have achieved if he had the privilege of a proper formal education and wouldn't have lived at the poverty line for most his life, which ultimately caused him to die young.
For every Edison there's literally millions of (mostly) poor people, who for one reason or another (be that born with the wrong genitalia, wrong skin colour, or at the wrong place) simply never even get the chance to develop their full potential no matter how hard they try.
Denying the impact of pure happenstance on people's destiny is denying a large part of reality. Unfortunately not everyone is lucky enough to be born into a supporting family or a country that offers actual opportunities in life.
edit: basically what I'm trying to say is that it's incredibly hard to roll a 7 when using a single D6 versus someone rolling two D20s :)
Imagine the great things a genius like Srinivasa Ramanujan could have achieved if he had the privilege of a proper formal education and wouldn't have lived at the poverty line for most his life, which ultimately caused him to die young.
For every Edison there's literally millions of (mostly) poor people, who for one reason or another (be that born with the wrong genitalia, wrong skin colour, or at the wrong place) simply never even get the chance to develop their full potential no matter how hard they try.
Denying the impact of pure happenstance on people's destiny is denying a large part of reality. Unfortunately not everyone is lucky enough to be born into a supporting family or a country that offers actual opportunities in life.
edit: basically what I'm trying to say is that it's incredibly hard to roll a 7 when using a single D6 versus someone rolling two D20s :)
I don't buy the defeatism in your theory. Too many counterexamples.
I recommend you read a biography on Edison's early life.
Or just look at America itself. It was not settled by rich people, or even middle class people. It was settled by destitute people, criminals running from the law, indentured servants, and slaves.
It became the richest country in the world, with the largest and wealthiest middle class.
Why do you think millions of people desperately try to get into the US every year? What do they know that you're overlooking?
I recommend you read a biography on Edison's early life.
Or just look at America itself. It was not settled by rich people, or even middle class people. It was settled by destitute people, criminals running from the law, indentured servants, and slaves.
It became the richest country in the world, with the largest and wealthiest middle class.
Why do you think millions of people desperately try to get into the US every year? What do they know that you're overlooking?
> I don't buy the defeatism in your theory.
There's no defeatism, just a healthy dose of reality. It's not a theory either, it's a fact that can be demonstrated by statistics and even put in numbers (though I'm not a fan of GINI and the like).
> Too many counterexamples.
I recommend you look at the dire state of many people around the globe and throughout history. History only tells the story of those who made it - nobody writes about the millions who failed and why. It's an inherent bias that distorts our perception.
> Or just look at America itself.
I explicitly mentioned countries that provide opportunities, of which the US is one. Though it wasn't everyone who immediately benefitted; the slaves and the indigenous people weren't so lucky in their time, for example. The gain for some was a loss for the others.
> Why do you think millions of people desperately try to get into the US every year?
For the exact reason I mentioned: because they grew up in places that simply don't allow them to achieve their goals, no matter how hard they try. How many fail to cross the border or get rejected and how many are deported later?
Thousands of refugees die every year while trying to cross the Mediterranean Sea to reach Europe. Were the survivors truly masters of their own destiny or did they just get lucky? Is it talent, determination and the right attitude that gets them out of the refugee camp on Lampedusa; or are they at the mercy of a cold and uncaring bureaucracy that just wants to get rid of them?
I'm not saying only certain people can achieve their life goals. What I'm saying is that determination and talent alone are not always sufficient. Circumstances play a major role in life.
Call me cynical, but for every success story there's a hundred young people who didn't live to their 21st birthday in the favelas of Rio or in the slums of Lagos.
Your perception might be different and I'm not trying to convince you, I like your optimism, even though I don't share it.
There's no defeatism, just a healthy dose of reality. It's not a theory either, it's a fact that can be demonstrated by statistics and even put in numbers (though I'm not a fan of GINI and the like).
> Too many counterexamples.
I recommend you look at the dire state of many people around the globe and throughout history. History only tells the story of those who made it - nobody writes about the millions who failed and why. It's an inherent bias that distorts our perception.
> Or just look at America itself.
I explicitly mentioned countries that provide opportunities, of which the US is one. Though it wasn't everyone who immediately benefitted; the slaves and the indigenous people weren't so lucky in their time, for example. The gain for some was a loss for the others.
> Why do you think millions of people desperately try to get into the US every year?
For the exact reason I mentioned: because they grew up in places that simply don't allow them to achieve their goals, no matter how hard they try. How many fail to cross the border or get rejected and how many are deported later?
Thousands of refugees die every year while trying to cross the Mediterranean Sea to reach Europe. Were the survivors truly masters of their own destiny or did they just get lucky? Is it talent, determination and the right attitude that gets them out of the refugee camp on Lampedusa; or are they at the mercy of a cold and uncaring bureaucracy that just wants to get rid of them?
I'm not saying only certain people can achieve their life goals. What I'm saying is that determination and talent alone are not always sufficient. Circumstances play a major role in life.
Call me cynical, but for every success story there's a hundred young people who didn't live to their 21st birthday in the favelas of Rio or in the slums of Lagos.
Your perception might be different and I'm not trying to convince you, I like your optimism, even though I don't share it.
Nope. I remember there was a study where non-descriptive figures on paper were shown to little children and they all attributed positive traits to the taller figure and negative traits to the smaller figure. It's not about behavior, there seems to be an innate bias amongst humans towards taller people.
> there seems to be an innate bias amongst humans towards taller people.
Either that or our tall people worshiping culture had time enough to shape those children's world view. I also wonder though if children aren't a bit biased because their own parents, the people who feed and love and protect them, happen to be giants from their point of view.
Either that or our tall people worshiping culture had time enough to shape those children's world view. I also wonder though if children aren't a bit biased because their own parents, the people who feed and love and protect them, happen to be giants from their point of view.
Haha. Yet somehow we get old wrinkly people running the country.
Being incumbent might be more advantageous than being attractive. You would have to test non incumbent more attractive vs non incumbent less attractive.
Many of those "old wrinkly people" were in fact quite attractive in their early political careers.
Not just politicians!
https://twitter.com/robkhenderson/status/1346512327353491461...
https://twitter.com/robkhenderson/status/1346512327353491461...
When I was in England for a short time I was tasked with screening candidates for employment (software engineers). As an American, I was taken aback by most of the resumes including photos. That's just not done here in the US. Some American HR departments might even send back your resume and ask you to resubmit it without a photo. It seems to be standard practice in Europe, perhaps to convince you that the person interviewing is the person associated with the resume.
Of course, attractiveness factors in highly once you get your foot in the door, even if people try to act like it doesn't. Even straight male engineers seem to think more highly of attractive male engineers, just because of the "coolness" factor they may bring. There's really just not a lot of information gleaned from an interview beyond whether the person has the basic minimum knowledge for the field they are in, and these soft things take an outsize portion of the score.
Things may be changing or may be different in big orgs, I don't know. I was only familiar with SME hiring.
Of course, attractiveness factors in highly once you get your foot in the door, even if people try to act like it doesn't. Even straight male engineers seem to think more highly of attractive male engineers, just because of the "coolness" factor they may bring. There's really just not a lot of information gleaned from an interview beyond whether the person has the basic minimum knowledge for the field they are in, and these soft things take an outsize portion of the score.
Things may be changing or may be different in big orgs, I don't know. I was only familiar with SME hiring.
Not sure how long ago this was - photos on resumes is definitely not a thing in the UK anymore. Very common in some European countries (e.g. Germany), though.
Some jobs in the UK get a lot of international applicants; from time to time they'll include photos.
Agree it's pretty uncommon though.
Agree it's pretty uncommon though.
[deleted]
That is extremely unusual for the UK. I know some European countries make a photo mandatory - but I've never seen it in the UK.
I've reviewed a huge number of CVs - at SME and large companies. I think the only time I've ever seen a photo in that context was an auto-generated thing from LinkedIn.
I've reviewed a huge number of CVs - at SME and large companies. I think the only time I've ever seen a photo in that context was an auto-generated thing from LinkedIn.
As far as I know, it's very unusual in Netherland. I've certainly never included a photo on a CV (though I do have one on LinkedIn, where a lot of my work comes from). When I was part of the hiring process, I did notice that all Indian/TCS CVs I got to see had photos, though.
I've had a few Dutch interns join me in Australia. One applicant who wasn't successful was a young woman whose CV included a few personal photos, one of which was a bit of a sultry pose straddling a chair. Not indecent, but certainly not work oriented.
I once got a cv from a developer who put an url to his homepage where he had photos of him and his girlfriend modeling underwear.
Not a real problem (for me), but it's the first time I've seen someone nearly naked before I met them in person for an interview. It was certainly a little odd.
Not a real problem (for me), but it's the first time I've seen someone nearly naked before I met them in person for an interview. It was certainly a little odd.
When trying to find a graphic designer once, got a portfolio from one designer mostly comprised of work for a soft porn site. It may have been professional graphic design experience but not exactly something I wanted to look at as part of my job.
Eh, I see a few photos on CVs here in the UK - typically on Euro candidates though (from memory).
On the other hand I've seen all sorts of weird shit on CVs, it is part of the fun. From the guy giving himself 5/5 stars for inter-personal skills, to the obscure hobbies expanded on in great detail, to the hilarious email addresses.
There is just a wide range of views on what a cv should contain. My views doubtless differ to others! I did give a yes to the guy with the .txt file cv though. On principle.
On the other hand I've seen all sorts of weird shit on CVs, it is part of the fun. From the guy giving himself 5/5 stars for inter-personal skills, to the obscure hobbies expanded on in great detail, to the hilarious email addresses.
There is just a wide range of views on what a cv should contain. My views doubtless differ to others! I did give a yes to the guy with the .txt file cv though. On principle.
Were you the hiring manager that had a problem with my @cocaine.ninja or @cock.li email address?
I once saw "Never drank alcohol after birth" under "personal details"
Power to you for living a healthy lifestyle but... you were big on chugging kegs before you were born?!
Power to you for living a healthy lifestyle but... you were big on chugging kegs before you were born?!
Morther drinks = goes to baby in utherus
I worked in business consulting and we always put resumes/bios with out pictures (professional headshots) in proposals.
Many startups have founder / leadership pics and bios on their website
Most "professionals" like lawyers have a headshot on their website. Every political campaign features the face of the candidates.
Almost everyone who uses linkedin has a pic
Really, western institutional job applications are pretty much the only place where people are trying to "sell themselves" but don't have a pic. It's basically fairness theatre, to pretend that the personal physical characteristics of people don't matter. If that was true, you wouldn't have all the examples I listed.
I'm not trying to say it's right or wrong here, just that it's obvious from all human behavior that seeing what a person looks like is an important part of working with them.
Many startups have founder / leadership pics and bios on their website
Most "professionals" like lawyers have a headshot on their website. Every political campaign features the face of the candidates.
Almost everyone who uses linkedin has a pic
Really, western institutional job applications are pretty much the only place where people are trying to "sell themselves" but don't have a pic. It's basically fairness theatre, to pretend that the personal physical characteristics of people don't matter. If that was true, you wouldn't have all the examples I listed.
I'm not trying to say it's right or wrong here, just that it's obvious from all human behavior that seeing what a person looks like is an important part of working with them.
> I'm not trying to say it's right or wrong here, just that it's obvious from all human behavior that seeing what a person looks like is an important part of working with them.
You will see it during the actual interview stage (whether it is done through a videocall or in-person), why would you need it during the resume stage? So you can use a single photo of theirs as a factor when deciding whether to filter out a resume or to proceed further?
You will see it during the actual interview stage (whether it is done through a videocall or in-person), why would you need it during the resume stage? So you can use a single photo of theirs as a factor when deciding whether to filter out a resume or to proceed further?
I agree it factors in highly in the US. Probably incorrectly so. But here the perceived threat of lawsuits and equal employment opportunity scrutiny drive the practice of leaving out the headshot. Let people discriminate when they have more plausible deniability, I suppose. Even though unattractive is not a protected class, receiving headshots of the applicants to be rejected before interview would open you to scrutiny of differentials in hiring of protected classes as well.
> seeing what a person looks like is an important part of working with them
Why?
Why?
Because we're social animals that have evolved to weight appearance very highly in decision we make. I'm not trying to justify it, but it's a fact. We're not vulcans, and even if we we're we'd recognize that what we find attractive has evolutionary significance and weigh that signal accordingly.
Unsurprisingly, there are no unattractive Vulcans, at least none I've met.
Heard from friends who lived and worked in South Korea that it was pretty much mandatory for any resume application there. The specific one that comes to mind is nursing. Definitely left me baffled the first time I heard it.
Yep, pretty much mandatory in Korea. Everyone goes to professional photographers who apply copious amounts of photoshop, of course.
You even get to pick your own image for your driver's license, again with a healthy serving of digital retouching.
You even get to pick your own image for your driver's license, again with a healthy serving of digital retouching.
[deleted]
As others have pointed out, even without photos on resumes, often times the first thing I do when looking at a candidate is go to their LinkedIn profile, which of course do feature headshots.
Will you not hire them if they don’t have a LinkedIn profile (or any other social media accounts)?
I suspect that employers who are more secretive themselves may find the lack of social media or other nonymous online presence as a good indication that the person in question is unlikely to be someone who could publicly share internal information accidentally.
Depending on the job market, in situations where there are many good candidates for each position companies generally are satisficing not optimizing, and in that case simply discarding some percentage of candidates (i.e. anyone unusual) is not a drawback (since the difference between the best candidate and the next few runners-up is less than what you can measure) and so arbitrary filtering gets done.
Of course, that would usually not be an obstacle in job markets where acceptable candidates are scarce; SWE vacancies are not the same as journalist vacancies.
Of course, that would usually not be an obstacle in job markets where acceptable candidates are scarce; SWE vacancies are not the same as journalist vacancies.
This is why I removed my headshot from linkedin.
With or without, tons of companies will do "due diligence" and will look for your FB and Insta feeds, just in case you are drunk or drugged or whatever might seem inappropriate. Kinda creepy to go such lengths, but also some companies don't want people not smart enough to not post their shenanigans publicly.
Will they not hire you if you don’t have social media accounts? I could see them thinking that you are lying and trying to hide something.
How do they ensure they are not looking at someone else with the same name ? Not hiring you because you are drunk on Facebook is one thing but not hiring you because someone with the same name is drunk on Facebook is completely ridiculous.
Happens towards the last interviews, after which they already saw you irl/zoom.
Interesting problem btw when picking up names for kids - unique or john smith to blend in. Something Google’s CEO Eric Schmidt pondered a decade ago.
Interesting problem btw when picking up names for kids - unique or john smith to blend in. Something Google’s CEO Eric Schmidt pondered a decade ago.
They don't even have to troll your social media accounts, your application has all the info they need to buy details from a data broker/"consumer reputation service"
I’ve been a hiring manager in England for around 10 years and I can’t recall a single CV with a photo. I don’t know where these CVs were coming from that you received but it’s definitely not standard practice to send a CV with a photo here.
I wonder if they were working with recruiters who were scraping LinkedIn photos.
Very unusual practice for the UK, and slightly dubious, IMO.
Very unusual practice for the UK, and slightly dubious, IMO.
There's a lot of data out there showing that attractiveness, fitness (as in, not obese), and tallness are all massive biases in the workplace -- much bigger in many studies than biases around gender and ethnicity even.
I don't know why these forms of identity are almost entirely ignored, while we obsess over others.
Imagine if tech companies published the height, weight, and facial symmetry of their workforces, like they do now with race and gender.
I don't know why these forms of identity are almost entirely ignored, while we obsess over others.
Imagine if tech companies published the height, weight, and facial symmetry of their workforces, like they do now with race and gender.
Being unattractive is not a protected group: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group
Just because something isn't a legally protect group, doesn't mean discriminating against that group is acceptable.
This is why I dislike the idea of protected groups. Some people do seem to think that the existence of protected groups means it's ok to discriminate against anyone who isn't protected.
But law is only about power. It has little relation to morality.
But law is only about power. It has little relation to morality.
> This is why I dislike the idea of protected groups. Some people do seem to think that the existence of protected groups means it's ok to discriminate against anyone who isn't protected.
In law, for private parties, that is expressly the case. Absent protected classes people could, and with them they still can outside of them, differentiate treatment on any basis they choose.
For government action under US Constitutional law, it's expressly not the case, but discrimination on other bases has a lower threshold for Constitutional acceptability (rational basis vs. strict/intermediate scrutiny.)
(Essentially every non-random decision affecting treatment of people discriminates on some basis.)
In law, for private parties, that is expressly the case. Absent protected classes people could, and with them they still can outside of them, differentiate treatment on any basis they choose.
For government action under US Constitutional law, it's expressly not the case, but discrimination on other bases has a lower threshold for Constitutional acceptability (rational basis vs. strict/intermediate scrutiny.)
(Essentially every non-random decision affecting treatment of people discriminates on some basis.)
And every group that is now protected was once not protected. Were, say, the actions taken against Alan Turing acceptable simply because they were legal at the time?
I must say, I'm surprised to see you defending prejudice. From what I've read of your posts here over the years, I thought you were against such things.
I must say, I'm surprised to see you defending prejudice. From what I've read of your posts here over the years, I thought you were against such things.
> Were, say, the actions taken against Alan Turing acceptable simply because they were legal at the time
Kind of an odd example to use to defend that “protected classes make people think other discrimination is acceptable” argument, since protected classes didn't exist then and people thought that discrimination was perfectly acceptable.
> I must say, I'm surprised to see you defending prejudice.
I must say, I’m surprised you think I am defending prejudice.
Kind of an odd example to use to defend that “protected classes make people think other discrimination is acceptable” argument, since protected classes didn't exist then and people thought that discrimination was perfectly acceptable.
> I must say, I'm surprised to see you defending prejudice.
I must say, I’m surprised you think I am defending prejudice.
> I must say, I’m surprised you think I am defending prejudice.
You are literally arguing in favor of the idea that "it's ok to discriminate against anyone who isn't protected".
Prejudice is still prejudice even if the particular characteristic on which that prejudice is based isn't protected (yet...).
> Kind of an odd example to use to defend ...
I'm not using that example to defend my statement, I'm using it to discredit the idea that the law can be used as a basis or guide for morality.
Edit to add: Feel free to have the last word. I can't respond at the moment because I'm "posting too fast", even though I'm posting less often than some others here...
I will say simply that the point is to oppose discrimination against a marginalized group. I don't understand your confusion about that.
You are literally arguing in favor of the idea that "it's ok to discriminate against anyone who isn't protected".
Prejudice is still prejudice even if the particular characteristic on which that prejudice is based isn't protected (yet...).
> Kind of an odd example to use to defend ...
I'm not using that example to defend my statement, I'm using it to discredit the idea that the law can be used as a basis or guide for morality.
Edit to add: Feel free to have the last word. I can't respond at the moment because I'm "posting too fast", even though I'm posting less often than some others here...
I will say simply that the point is to oppose discrimination against a marginalized group. I don't understand your confusion about that.
Laws are delayed reflections of our collective morality (or more cynically, the morality of the elites). Here, the concept of protected groups are to keep companies in check.
I'm curious about your proposal for curbing discrimination.
I'm curious about your proposal for curbing discrimination.
> You are literally arguing in favor of the idea that “it’s ok to discriminate against anyone who isn’t protected”.
No, I’m literally not.
In fact, I’m pointing out that even in law (in the US Constitutional system) it is expressly not unconditionally the case for government, as all government discrimination must pass the rational basis test.
For private parties, discrimination is presumptively legal (aside from protected classes applicable to certain private activities), because (at least, this is one way of looking at it) there is no limited set of “proper purposes” private individuals may pursue, therefore the private equivalent of the rational basis test would be a nullity. It can’t all be improper, because pretty much all substantive decision-making involves some form of discrimination. Choosing to buy Coke vs. Pepsi is private discrimination on some basis. As to when particular legal private discrimination is proper, people will have all sorts of opinions. When there is sufficient consensus that a particular kind of discrimination is sufficiently bad in a particular domain to warrant public intervention (ideally, in democratic principal, though of course real government doesn’t necessarily quite follow the ideal), it will become a protected class.
Is “lookism”, but for when attractiveness is a bona fide job qualification, something that should be treated as a basis protected against discrimination in hiring? Maybe, maybe not.
Should we go farther, and establish that in private industry, as is the case in much government employment, we go beyond the concept of protected classes (without also protecting those) and create a legal requirement that hiring and promotion, etc., is done strictly on bases grounded in documented job requirements and duties, with a legal right to challenge and overturn any such decision for failing that even if no protected class discrimination is involved?
Or, perhaps, falling short of a legal mandate, should we expect private employers to adopt that as their own rule, with a private (but suitably independent of management) appeal forum?
Or is the point just to grouse about “discrimination”?
No, I’m literally not.
In fact, I’m pointing out that even in law (in the US Constitutional system) it is expressly not unconditionally the case for government, as all government discrimination must pass the rational basis test.
For private parties, discrimination is presumptively legal (aside from protected classes applicable to certain private activities), because (at least, this is one way of looking at it) there is no limited set of “proper purposes” private individuals may pursue, therefore the private equivalent of the rational basis test would be a nullity. It can’t all be improper, because pretty much all substantive decision-making involves some form of discrimination. Choosing to buy Coke vs. Pepsi is private discrimination on some basis. As to when particular legal private discrimination is proper, people will have all sorts of opinions. When there is sufficient consensus that a particular kind of discrimination is sufficiently bad in a particular domain to warrant public intervention (ideally, in democratic principal, though of course real government doesn’t necessarily quite follow the ideal), it will become a protected class.
Is “lookism”, but for when attractiveness is a bona fide job qualification, something that should be treated as a basis protected against discrimination in hiring? Maybe, maybe not.
Should we go farther, and establish that in private industry, as is the case in much government employment, we go beyond the concept of protected classes (without also protecting those) and create a legal requirement that hiring and promotion, etc., is done strictly on bases grounded in documented job requirements and duties, with a legal right to challenge and overturn any such decision for failing that even if no protected class discrimination is involved?
Or, perhaps, falling short of a legal mandate, should we expect private employers to adopt that as their own rule, with a private (but suitably independent of management) appeal forum?
Or is the point just to grouse about “discrimination”?
I worked with a manager who refused to hire a man who had, as his Facebook profile pic, a photo of himself holding a shotgun and deer. He was a hunter.
Kind of a reach to claim the poster is defending prejudice.
Alan Turing was chemically castrated for being gay. Society finding you conventionally unattractive and thus passing you over for a promotion at work isn't exactly the same thing. People are discriminated against for lots of reasons, many subconscious, but protected categories didn't emerge from a vacuum. The reason being queer is protected whereas being short or ugly isn't has nothing to do with queer people having more power in government (lol) but because there was a history of actual violence, much of which was state-sanctioned, against queer people.
Then again being in a protected category has never really helped me avoid discrimination; having enough money to afford competent legal representation did. I wonder how many Americans can afford that when the majority can't make a $500 emergency expense. I'd argue the poor are the most clearly discriminated against group in our society and clearly there's a history of direct and indirect violence against them on that basis alone, but capitalism requires their existence and so they're invisible to our judicial system.
Alan Turing was chemically castrated for being gay. Society finding you conventionally unattractive and thus passing you over for a promotion at work isn't exactly the same thing. People are discriminated against for lots of reasons, many subconscious, but protected categories didn't emerge from a vacuum. The reason being queer is protected whereas being short or ugly isn't has nothing to do with queer people having more power in government (lol) but because there was a history of actual violence, much of which was state-sanctioned, against queer people.
Then again being in a protected category has never really helped me avoid discrimination; having enough money to afford competent legal representation did. I wonder how many Americans can afford that when the majority can't make a $500 emergency expense. I'd argue the poor are the most clearly discriminated against group in our society and clearly there's a history of direct and indirect violence against them on that basis alone, but capitalism requires their existence and so they're invisible to our judicial system.
Well, competent legal representation wouldn't have been much help if you hadn't had some favorable law to call upon, so I suspect you may be wrong that "being in a protected category has never really helped me avoid discrimination".
As for the first part of your comment, I'd just like to ask: what is up with disadvantaged groups fighting one another about who's more disadvantaged?
I do agree about poverty; that's a big disadvantage and is often itself the foundation of another prejudice. That's another group that the law fails to protect.
As for the first part of your comment, I'd just like to ask: what is up with disadvantaged groups fighting one another about who's more disadvantaged?
I do agree about poverty; that's a big disadvantage and is often itself the foundation of another prejudice. That's another group that the law fails to protect.
I don’t read anything in GP’s text as defending prejudice, but rather as expressing the reality that judgment (not pre-judgment) is both legal and widely practiced (and frequently helpful or essential in interactions).
If I’m hiring for a programming opening, the entire (and proper) purpose of interviewing is to discriminate against people who can’t or won’t be effective programmers.
Being “not an effective programmer” is not a protected class and discriminating against them is fine when hiring programmers.
“But, but, but that’s not discrimination!” Yes, it most certainly is in the “recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another” sense, and is very likely what GP meant when they wrote:
> Essentially every non-random decision affecting treatment of people discriminates on some basis.
If I’m hiring for a programming opening, the entire (and proper) purpose of interviewing is to discriminate against people who can’t or won’t be effective programmers.
Being “not an effective programmer” is not a protected class and discriminating against them is fine when hiring programmers.
“But, but, but that’s not discrimination!” Yes, it most certainly is in the “recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another” sense, and is very likely what GP meant when they wrote:
> Essentially every non-random decision affecting treatment of people discriminates on some basis.
Did you really think that I was suggesting it wasn't ok "to discriminate against people who can’t or won’t be effective programmers"?
I think that's a strawman, but a useful one. It helps to establish the bounds of reasonable judgement in hiring. I think most people will agree that "can't or won't do the job" is reasonable.
I think that's a strawman, but a useful one. It helps to establish the bounds of reasonable judgement in hiring. I think most people will agree that "can't or won't do the job" is reasonable.
I’m struggling to find where else in dragonwriter’s words you could be finding support for prejudice. It’s less of a strawman than it was a simple example of where discriminating among multiple candidates is okay.
> It’s less of a strawman than it was a simple example of where discriminating among multiple candidates is okay.
Why add such an example here? No one has claimed that discriminating among multiple candidates is never okay.
I'm simply challenging the idea that the law is a useful guide as to whether discrimination is ok.
I like a phrase you used. Decisions should be based on "judgment (not pre-judgment)".
Why add such an example here? No one has claimed that discriminating among multiple candidates is never okay.
I'm simply challenging the idea that the law is a useful guide as to whether discrimination is ok.
I like a phrase you used. Decisions should be based on "judgment (not pre-judgment)".
It definitely seems like we agree here; I was thrown off course by [perhaps my interpretation of?] your words: “I'm surprised to see you defending prejudice.”
> In law, for private parties, that is expressly the case. Absent protected classes people could, and with them they still can outside of them, differentiate treatment on any basis they choose.
Good luck suing a potential employer because you were discriminated against outside of some protected class.
Good luck suing a potential employer because you were discriminated against outside of some protected class.
The whole point of job interviews is to perform discrimination according to some non-protected categories - for example, preferring more competent people over less competent people, more hardworking people over slackers, more reliable people over less reliable people, more experienced people over less experienced people, cheaper people over more expensive people, etc, etc.
It definitely is okay to discriminate over personal attributes, character and previous experiences, and employ the person who you want to work for you - which is not necessarily the same as the person 'most deserving of a job'. Freedom of association is an important right, people should be free to choose whom to deal with, and imposing restrictions on it (like the protected groups) is morally justified as an exception only if required by important reasons, for example, preventing the social harm done by racial discrimination in employment; in the default condition people should be free to refuse to associate with anyone simply because they don't want to.
It definitely is okay to discriminate over personal attributes, character and previous experiences, and employ the person who you want to work for you - which is not necessarily the same as the person 'most deserving of a job'. Freedom of association is an important right, people should be free to choose whom to deal with, and imposing restrictions on it (like the protected groups) is morally justified as an exception only if required by important reasons, for example, preventing the social harm done by racial discrimination in employment; in the default condition people should be free to refuse to associate with anyone simply because they don't want to.
> people should be free to choose whom to deal with, and imposing restrictions on it (like the protected groups) is morally justified as an exception only if required by important reasons
That reason is the same for any marginalized group: "preventing the social harm done by X discrimination".
Why not simplify the statement and say "preventing the social harm done by discrimination"?
Accepting discrimination against some people is inherently a hateful position.
That reason is the same for any marginalized group: "preventing the social harm done by X discrimination".
Why not simplify the statement and say "preventing the social harm done by discrimination"?
Accepting discrimination against some people is inherently a hateful position.
Forcing people to work with someone against their will or preference also causes harm, and if society wants to do that it has to justify that the harm prevented is significantly greater than that - which is true for some types of discrimination and not true for others.
If nobody in the village wants to work with Bob because he's an asshole, they should be able to discriminate against Bob (and other assholes) as the social harm of Bob being unemployed and unemployable does not justify the social harm caused by the state coercing people to work with Bob, violating their freedom to choose. It would be harmful (and IMHO immoral) to prohibit discrimination against assholes. Freedom of association - and the freedom of not-associating it implies - is not inherently hateful, it is one of fundamental human rights that should be curtailed only if other alternatives aren't feasible - merely having some reason or some harm prevented is not necessarily enough.
If nobody in the village wants to work with Bob because he's an asshole, they should be able to discriminate against Bob (and other assholes) as the social harm of Bob being unemployed and unemployable does not justify the social harm caused by the state coercing people to work with Bob, violating their freedom to choose. It would be harmful (and IMHO immoral) to prohibit discrimination against assholes. Freedom of association - and the freedom of not-associating it implies - is not inherently hateful, it is one of fundamental human rights that should be curtailed only if other alternatives aren't feasible - merely having some reason or some harm prevented is not necessarily enough.
Well, "I don't know if I believe anyone is 100% a dick-". Bob may be an asshole precisely because he's being discriminated against and that makes him angry. Our society seems to think that even the worst people, even murderers and thieves and rapists, can be rehabilitated and included.
But I see your point.
And I'm not arguing that no one should ever be allowed to discriminate for any reason. I'm simply flipping the script: instead of the default position being that discrimination is acceptable, discrimination should require justification.
Someone might be willing to publicly say "we don't hire assholes" and defend it. Go for it. It would be much harder to say "we don't hire short people" or "we don't hire dalits" and defend that.
But I see your point.
And I'm not arguing that no one should ever be allowed to discriminate for any reason. I'm simply flipping the script: instead of the default position being that discrimination is acceptable, discrimination should require justification.
Someone might be willing to publicly say "we don't hire assholes" and defend it. Go for it. It would be much harder to say "we don't hire short people" or "we don't hire dalits" and defend that.
> Just because something isn't a legally protect group, doesn't mean discriminating against that group is acceptable.
For private action, it literally does mean that it is legally acceptable.
What people find acceptable other than legally is subjective and will have infinite differences of opinion.
For private action, it literally does mean that it is legally acceptable.
What people find acceptable other than legally is subjective and will have infinite differences of opinion.
> For private action, it literally does mean that it is legally acceptable.
I don't believe the parent poster was implying it wasn't legally acceptable. They were making a value statement.
I don't believe the parent poster was implying it wasn't legally acceptable. They were making a value statement.
What is legally acceptable is a laggy mirror of what society finds morally acceptable. Morals evolve over time and are gradually accepted by the majority before becoming law.
Should it be?
I've always been amazed at the hypocrisy of all of this. A portion of attractiveness is culture-invariant, and quantifiable based on measurable factors such as facial symmetry. Study after study have demonstrated that humans innately treat attractive individuals better than others.
Yet we obsess over skin colour and genitalia, without a single peep about the physical appearance discrimination that most humans take part in.
Yet we obsess over skin colour and genitalia, without a single peep about the physical appearance discrimination that most humans take part in.
Because that starts to verge on telling you who to find fuckable instead of who to treat as a peer. Plus the level of baggage is completely different. I'm surprised at your surprise.
I think you've mistakenly scoped my point to solely "the dating game". Physical discrimination in that scope if of course, completely understandable, and IMO completely okay.
However, it's been shown repeatedly that "fuckability" results in better treatment in most other aspects of one's life, including things like job opportunities, career progression, and general treatment in non-romantic social interactions. All of these are scopes that modern society hyperfocuses on when race or gender are involved. That's the hypocritical aspect of it.
However, it's been shown repeatedly that "fuckability" results in better treatment in most other aspects of one's life, including things like job opportunities, career progression, and general treatment in non-romantic social interactions. All of these are scopes that modern society hyperfocuses on when race or gender are involved. That's the hypocritical aspect of it.
Whats hypocritical about it?
What are you possibly going to do about it that isn't already covered under a more general and better fitting "lets find ways to treat each other fairly that minimizes the opportunity for our monkey brains to fuck up and associate traits and characteristics with superficial features. there has got to be a way to do this, jesus christ"?
By focusing on just that aspect, fuckability, you imply that there is something different about this trait that needs special attention outside of finding ways to deal with each other fairly despite the tendency to judge based on appearances. There isn't a way that doesn't start getting weird immediately.
What are you possibly going to do about it that isn't already covered under a more general and better fitting "lets find ways to treat each other fairly that minimizes the opportunity for our monkey brains to fuck up and associate traits and characteristics with superficial features. there has got to be a way to do this, jesus christ"?
By focusing on just that aspect, fuckability, you imply that there is something different about this trait that needs special attention outside of finding ways to deal with each other fairly despite the tendency to judge based on appearances. There isn't a way that doesn't start getting weird immediately.
Please go up and actually read the post you are responding to. It sounds like you agree with OP but are just being obstinate.
OP is using "fuckability" as an example of something that doesn't get attention to highlight we shouldn't have any special categories and indeed just "treat each other fairly".
OP is using "fuckability" as an example of something that doesn't get attention to highlight we shouldn't have any special categories and indeed just "treat each other fairly".
For hundreds of years, among other injustices, it was a valid and socially acceptable business model in the Americas to buy a 13 year old girl, keep her locked up and rape her repeatedly, and sell her children ( your children! ) to recoup costs. Much of our policy is just reflections of that catastrophic trauma in the descendants of all involved.
Two reasons:
Short people have not faced anywhere near the scale of injustices as Black people in America historically have, so there is not much of a cultural desire to right the wrongs done to short people or people with slightly lower facial symmetry.
Secondly, all those characteristics are subjective, and are continuous measurements, not discrete properties. How do you define short or unattractive?
Secondly, all those characteristics are subjective, and are continuous measurements, not discrete properties. How do you define short or unattractive?
https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/715141
> Notably, the magnitude of the earnings disparities along the perceived attractiveness continuum, net of controls, rivals and/or exceeds in magnitude the black-white race gap and, among African-Americans, the black-white race gap and the gender gap in earnings
> Notably, the magnitude of the earnings disparities along the perceived attractiveness continuum, net of controls, rivals and/or exceeds in magnitude the black-white race gap and, among African-Americans, the black-white race gap and the gender gap in earnings
That's equal to the black-white and gender gap after affirmative action programs and laws making penalising minorities and women in hiring processes illegal though....
Does it matter? The discussion above is about people obsessing right now about a subset of characteristics, while ignoring others. What happened happened, we should worry about what we can do right now to improve fairness.
How is race a discrete, and not a continuous, property? It seems quite obviously continuous too.
>How is race a discrete, and not a continuous, property?
The "one drop of blood" school of thought.[1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-drop_rule
The "one drop of blood" school of thought.[1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-drop_rule
'Race' is a thought-stopping way to categorize humans, but if we replace it with 'ancestry' rather than 'Census designation category' we can at least state with confidence that ancestry is a discrete property, one is simply descended from another person or one isn't.
It doubles with each generation (this stops being true remarkably quickly but let's use single-static-assignment to ignore cousin marriage), so while someone with perfect information could say "so-and-so has precisely 14 ancestors from West Africa in a generation where the remaining 242 ancestors are all European", it's easier to say they're 5% African-descended.
Or Black, by the old American rules around race. I did say it's a thought-stopping category.
It doubles with each generation (this stops being true remarkably quickly but let's use single-static-assignment to ignore cousin marriage), so while someone with perfect information could say "so-and-so has precisely 14 ancestors from West Africa in a generation where the remaining 242 ancestors are all European", it's easier to say they're 5% African-descended.
Or Black, by the old American rules around race. I did say it's a thought-stopping category.
Race isn't a discrete category. Ethnicity is closer to what you're describing.
This has been the same for all culturally accepted biases. Theyre all completely ok until theyre suddenly not and then a maelstrom of controversy accompanies its transition from ok to unacceptable.
[deleted]
I've wondered if much of the gender discrimination in the workplace can be attributed to height discrimination, as women tend to he shorter. Is there data on how men and women fare adjusted for height?
(This is obviously separate from any sexual harassment etc in the workplace -- I'm referring to compensation and promotions)
(This is obviously separate from any sexual harassment etc in the workplace -- I'm referring to compensation and promotions)
There's some great studies, (and, as I recall a few HN famous anecdotes) on just the effects of using feminine names in emails or resumes vs masculine ones.
>There's a lot of data out there showing that attractiveness, fitness (as in, not obese), and tallness are all massive biases in the workplace -- much bigger in many studies than biases around gender and ethnicity even.
Not only are they biases, there is some data that shows attractiveness, height, etc actually correlate with competency. It might be a true stereotype (self-fulfilling or not).
Not only are they biases, there is some data that shows attractiveness, height, etc actually correlate with competency. It might be a true stereotype (self-fulfilling or not).
Quite naturally I would imagine it makes you more competent in every role where you can be discriminated on those basis (customer-facing, or any job that's heavy on communication). Could make sense for the social worker role, less so for the IT specialist, but I'd be interested to know your source.
I'm hoping he comes up with a source too, but I imagine that the people we're all naturally biased toward generally get evaluated in the most favorable light so it'd be weird if there wasn't some data that showed they were more competent.
The reason they are "obsessed over", or taken into account as someone else may put it, although I'll give you that any kind of social/cultural identity tends to lead to some form of obsession in some people's minds, is because they are deemed significant for locally dependent social/historical/political reasons which I am sure I don't need to give you examples of but will anyway : colonialism, slavery, genocides... You name it
Whereas discrimination exist based of height, weight, and facial symmetry, because they are a little less based on cultural factors, they tend to cross group boundaries and not allow for culture wars because of its more evenly distributed nature. The interesting thing is that the fact that you took the time to write a comment about them and that they are becoming a social issue is because the culture spheres tend to be bigger and more intertwined with globalization. People who share the same issues can find eachother and aggregate across cultural identities. The incel "movement" is a product of the world wide web, I don't think it would have been possible in another era.
On another hand, I don't think we need to establish hierarchies between discriminations. Although discriminations share a lot of their logic, they also often respond to their own logic. I am all in favor to put in place more mechanisms to avoid it, like any kind of anonymization, but I don't they are an argument against what's already put in place against more socially recognized ones.
Whereas discrimination exist based of height, weight, and facial symmetry, because they are a little less based on cultural factors, they tend to cross group boundaries and not allow for culture wars because of its more evenly distributed nature. The interesting thing is that the fact that you took the time to write a comment about them and that they are becoming a social issue is because the culture spheres tend to be bigger and more intertwined with globalization. People who share the same issues can find eachother and aggregate across cultural identities. The incel "movement" is a product of the world wide web, I don't think it would have been possible in another era.
On another hand, I don't think we need to establish hierarchies between discriminations. Although discriminations share a lot of their logic, they also often respond to their own logic. I am all in favor to put in place more mechanisms to avoid it, like any kind of anonymization, but I don't they are an argument against what's already put in place against more socially recognized ones.
Attractiveness is not at all evenly distributed among races. Neither is height or weight. And "attractiveness" is still massively influenced by cultural perceptions.
1. My point was inside any group, there is a certain distribution of attractiveness relative to the attractiveness "standard" of that group. And that somehow, a certain level of (culturally defined) attractiveness is somehow not enough to constitute a group (or used to be not enough at least)
Or maybe is that because attractiveness is relative enough at the individual level so that it is hard for an individual to be systematically identified by others ? Or is it because to self-identify as unattractive/attractive tends to have a negative social costs in social relationships ? I must admit I don't know. I am just throwing hypotheses now.
Of course, now there is a form of more or less globalized standard of attractiveness that is more influenced by group that have the more power but that also has to open itself, the more globalized it becomes. But that globalized standard also challenges locally defined attractiveness. I take this is what you mean when you say that "attractiveness is not evenly distributes among races".
(Instagram seems to be the symbol of that struggle for cultural dominance in the realm of attractiveness standards as it is massively used as a tool to capitalize on one's own attractiveness.)
2.Which is why I wrote "a little less" because I did not want to digress too much.
Of course, now there is a form of more or less globalized standard of attractiveness that is more influenced by group that have the more power but that also has to open itself, the more globalized it becomes. But that globalized standard also challenges locally defined attractiveness. I take this is what you mean when you say that "attractiveness is not evenly distributes among races".
(Instagram seems to be the symbol of that struggle for cultural dominance in the realm of attractiveness standards as it is massively used as a tool to capitalize on one's own attractiveness.)
2.Which is why I wrote "a little less" because I did not want to digress too much.
Putting physical fitness in the same bucket as height, gender, and race is a category error. Whether someone is fit or obese tells you a lot about their lifestyle and daily choices. You cannot change your facial structure or tallness (yet), but fitness is definitely a signal for discipline and mental strength.
...but fitness is definitely a signal for discipline and mental strength
No, it doesn't. Not being fit merely tells you that they might have lifestyle choices different from your own.
Or they might be female with PCOS. Or they might have a disease that causes fatigue or pain when they exercise. Heck, that might be the very reason for their desk job. Or a history of food insecurity and really need the insurance the job provides to be able to afford therapy, if they are even to that point. Heck, they might just not be knowledgeable enough to separate bad health advice from good health advice and despite trying things out, feel stuck. It isn't like I learned how to care for my body in school, after all. Health class focused on STDs and parts of the body while physical education classes were more focused on sports, rules, and being a good teammate.
The reality is that being overweight only tells you that they are overweight.
No, it doesn't. Not being fit merely tells you that they might have lifestyle choices different from your own.
Or they might be female with PCOS. Or they might have a disease that causes fatigue or pain when they exercise. Heck, that might be the very reason for their desk job. Or a history of food insecurity and really need the insurance the job provides to be able to afford therapy, if they are even to that point. Heck, they might just not be knowledgeable enough to separate bad health advice from good health advice and despite trying things out, feel stuck. It isn't like I learned how to care for my body in school, after all. Health class focused on STDs and parts of the body while physical education classes were more focused on sports, rules, and being a good teammate.
The reality is that being overweight only tells you that they are overweight.
Thanks, it is not absolute certainty, it is, as I said, a "signal": It's about statistical inference. That is what you do when you meet somebody or conduct a job interview. We are not all-knowing beings. The overwhelming majority are overweight because their diet is poor and because they move very little. It's not rocket science.
You know you have this bias, though. People use the same sort of language for racism, homophobia, and such things. You can train yourself to think of exceptions to overcome some of the bias and honestly, if you are interviewing people, you should be doing so actively. It took me longer to type up the reply than to think of valid reasons this could happen to someone, after all. As you said, it isn't rocket science.
> The overwhelming majority are overweight because their diet is poor and because they move very little. It's not rocket science.
Quite an assumption you have there. Industrial food is cheap and crowds out normal food. Some areas are basically food deserts. A significant portion of the population also has health issues that complicate maintaining a healthy weight.
Quite an assumption you have there. Industrial food is cheap and crowds out normal food. Some areas are basically food deserts. A significant portion of the population also has health issues that complicate maintaining a healthy weight.
I've always been quite skeptical of the fast-food for the simple reason that when I am strapped for cash I buy rice and beans. No processed or fast foods even come close to rice and beans on a dollar-per-calorie basis.
So called "food deserts" are a bit of a chicken and egg problem. Are the restaurants in your area a reflection of the eating habits of the people in that area, or a grand conspiracy to keep us unhealthy? I tend towards the former.
I am also skeptical that even in "food deserts" an enterprising individual can't acquire rice and beans.
So called "food deserts" are a bit of a chicken and egg problem. Are the restaurants in your area a reflection of the eating habits of the people in that area, or a grand conspiracy to keep us unhealthy? I tend towards the former.
I am also skeptical that even in "food deserts" an enterprising individual can't acquire rice and beans.
For people struggling to pay rent, sometimes working multiple jobs and or with kids, there isn't a lot of energy or executive function left. And even rice and beans aren't terribly nutritious. If that's a staple for decades it can also cause obesity, especially for certain genetic demographics.
Not to mention that when you are struggling to pay rent, you are often struggling to pay utilities too. Time without water, electricity, or gas to wash, cook, and keep things cold seriously impact your ability to cook, even if you do have the time.
true. but, it could also mean they are demonstrating traits that make them a more desirable candidate!
for example, if they have recently made the decision to stop smoking cigarettes, thereby making a positive change in their lifestyle and health, this shows strength of character. it also demonstrates their ability to question past poor decisions rather than give in to the sunk cost fallacy, and then take steps to correct them. and of course, it also tends to make you put on weight [0] ... although not much more that 10 lb or 5 kg it seems, so interviewer beware, i guess ;)
0. <https://medlineplus.gov/ency/patientinstructions/000811.htm>
for example, if they have recently made the decision to stop smoking cigarettes, thereby making a positive change in their lifestyle and health, this shows strength of character. it also demonstrates their ability to question past poor decisions rather than give in to the sunk cost fallacy, and then take steps to correct them. and of course, it also tends to make you put on weight [0] ... although not much more that 10 lb or 5 kg it seems, so interviewer beware, i guess ;)
0. <https://medlineplus.gov/ency/patientinstructions/000811.htm>
Agreed.
I'd recommend keeping fitness a top priority especially as one gets older. Not only does everything get easier when not overweight, but the energy boost and appearance improvements certainly helps your confidence and presentation in every possible way.
I'm not someone you'd consider a "pretty" man even by a long shot, but being fit with a healthy BMI makes a world of difference nonetheless.
(I took serious stock some time not too long ago and realised weight lifting and being strong wasn't enough when actually overweight. Have dropped 15% of my body weight through dieting and the difference is amazing. I'm closer to fifty).
I'd recommend keeping fitness a top priority especially as one gets older. Not only does everything get easier when not overweight, but the energy boost and appearance improvements certainly helps your confidence and presentation in every possible way.
I'm not someone you'd consider a "pretty" man even by a long shot, but being fit with a healthy BMI makes a world of difference nonetheless.
(I took serious stock some time not too long ago and realised weight lifting and being strong wasn't enough when actually overweight. Have dropped 15% of my body weight through dieting and the difference is amazing. I'm closer to fifty).
I don't believe attractiveness defines a persons value, I just know it changes how people behave around you, so you will probably see results if you can put some effort into being fit and put together. As you said, not everyone gets to be 'handsome' or 'pretty', but you can get a head way above the pack with fitness alone.
I've always had a hard time articulating my advice on this matter, because it's easy to be shallow, and it's insensitive because not everyone can act on it. But for those who can, it's more about being pragmatic.
I've always had a hard time articulating my advice on this matter, because it's easy to be shallow, and it's insensitive because not everyone can act on it. But for those who can, it's more about being pragmatic.
Absolutely. You can work with what you got, and stop blaming the world for what you weren't given (e.g. a face with no deformities, for me; I'm happy the picture with resume is not a done thing in Australia). Telling people to HTFU has never been popular, but that doesn't mean it can't apply to most anyone.
It might be small things like quitting alcohol, not using smart phones until the early hours every single night - so getting enough, better quality sleep. And getting a water carbonator with the money saved from the drink, thus improving your skin through better hydration. And squeezing some walks in here and there eg by parking further away, or taking the stairs, when before you wouldn't.
Taking hard personal responsibility for your own health, I'm sure most everyone could find something to improve on.
I have a long list still to go through for myself - but I've accepted that minor transgressions one day can be balanced out by being better the next few days. Thus one can achieve balance without going crazy.
For me Intermittent Fasting has been an incredible eye opener, and weight shredder. This included learning about nutrition. On this, DIY food box deliveries (eg Everyplate, the simpler/cheaper version of Hello Fresh) are extremely high value compared to eg Uber Eats deliveries - both nutritionally, and financially. It takes effort, of course - but that's part of HTFU.
Finally, going through a process of decluttering and cleaning my home after my separation - changing these habits have been very healthy for my mental state. Perhaps this goes twice for someone with ADHD, like myself. When I'm home now, I truly feel at peace; it's changed my attitude into a more positive one, which has improved my energy and clarity of thinking.
It's all about habits, and mental and physical health interconnect; maintaining both certainly takes discipline and effort. The effects are observable, though, and everyone judges everything all the time on an unconscious level. Fair or not - as biological beings that's just how it is.
It might be small things like quitting alcohol, not using smart phones until the early hours every single night - so getting enough, better quality sleep. And getting a water carbonator with the money saved from the drink, thus improving your skin through better hydration. And squeezing some walks in here and there eg by parking further away, or taking the stairs, when before you wouldn't.
Taking hard personal responsibility for your own health, I'm sure most everyone could find something to improve on.
I have a long list still to go through for myself - but I've accepted that minor transgressions one day can be balanced out by being better the next few days. Thus one can achieve balance without going crazy.
For me Intermittent Fasting has been an incredible eye opener, and weight shredder. This included learning about nutrition. On this, DIY food box deliveries (eg Everyplate, the simpler/cheaper version of Hello Fresh) are extremely high value compared to eg Uber Eats deliveries - both nutritionally, and financially. It takes effort, of course - but that's part of HTFU.
Finally, going through a process of decluttering and cleaning my home after my separation - changing these habits have been very healthy for my mental state. Perhaps this goes twice for someone with ADHD, like myself. When I'm home now, I truly feel at peace; it's changed my attitude into a more positive one, which has improved my energy and clarity of thinking.
It's all about habits, and mental and physical health interconnect; maintaining both certainly takes discipline and effort. The effects are observable, though, and everyone judges everything all the time on an unconscious level. Fair or not - as biological beings that's just how it is.
I suppose it could also be a evolutionary signal. People have gotten taller over the centuries as nutrition has improved. So a tall, healthy looking person could be attractive evolutionary speaking.
No it doesn't, there are plenty of disorders both physical and mental that can lead you to get overweight. There are plenty of people that are naturally fit without any effort. It says nothing about your ability to successfully accomplish a job. It's just another discriminating bias.
It's statistical inference. That is what you do when you meet somebody or conduct a job interview. We are not all-knowing beings. The overwhelming majority are overweight because their diet is poor and because they move very little. It's not rocket science.
At my company we joke about how many of us hired during covid are really short. Remote hiring seems to have been a great leveller, at least on that one front.
That’s an interesting practice… I’m glad this is not the case in the states, aside from maybe applying for acting roles. I don’t know if it’s common practice nowadays but I remember there was a period of time when employers would request your social media profiles.. did they encourage something similar in England? Im asking because if they already encouraged photo submissions, this seems like a related piece of information they might have also liked to receive. To be honest I don’t know why they would want an SWE candidates photo in the first place, it’s not a PR heavy role… maybe they want to use A.I to measure a level of greasiness or the size of a candidates head (kidding!)
I'm not sure what the parent is talking about but this is not something we do in England for SWE roles.
I've worked in tech in the UK for 25 years now, in companies ranging from tiny startups to SMEs to large corporations, and I've reviewed probably a few thousand CVs in that time. I can't remember ever seeing one with a photo on it. I suspect your experience was influenced by something other than location.
In NZ/AU we don’t include photos or personal information. When I moved to Singapore I was stocked. People put photos. Birthday. Family. Current Salary. Address. Long cover letters.
It's one thing that attractive people fare better in workplaces. But they also fare better in the courtroom:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/so-sue-me/201408/do-...
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/so-sue-me/201408/do-...
What about face-to-face or Zoom interviews? At some point you're going have to show your face. LinkedIn has also changed things a lot. It seems like a losing battle, in spite of the good intentions.
[deleted]
> When I was in England .. I was taken aback by most of the resumes including photos. That's just not done here in the US...
This does not match my experience in London working for SMEs, it's very rare that a CV includes a photo, especially tech role applicants.
This does not match my experience in London working for SMEs, it's very rare that a CV includes a photo, especially tech role applicants.
Not here in Sweden. Don't equate London/UK to Europe. Typical American.
To be fair, they at least said “seems to be,” which is a bit better than many Europeans who say similar things about Europe on this site, which I find even less excusable and seem to see daily.
On topic, it is quite common in a few other European countries, such as Switzerland and I believe Germany, so I imagine it’s at least much more common in Europe overall given that it’s relatively unheard of in the US.
On topic, it is quite common in a few other European countries, such as Switzerland and I believe Germany, so I imagine it’s at least much more common in Europe overall given that it’s relatively unheard of in the US.
It’s not a UK cultural thing - never in my life or any friends who I asked have attached a photo - but it’s often done by applicants who might be UK residents when it’s considered the norm in their country of origin.
Personally I hate it, as I know subconsciously having seen their photo, I _will_ use it as part of my evaluation which is unfair to other candidates.
Personally I hate it, as I know subconsciously having seen their photo, I _will_ use it as part of my evaluation which is unfair to other candidates.
What you describe is what I would consider a cultural thing.
Here in Germany everybody attaches a photo (often a business-like studio photo), for instance.
I've been working as a programmer in the UK for ~20 years. I've interviewed a huge number of job candidates in that time and reviewed more CVs than I'd care to count. I have never seen a single CV with a photo on it.
Entirely possible they're filtered out by recruiters and/or HR, of course.
Entirely possible they're filtered out by recruiters and/or HR, of course.
I am living in a country where photos on a resume are the norm and for me it is the other way round. I am interviewing a lot of people at the moment and having a picture with the resume really helps thinking of the applicant as a human being, rather than just a character sheet with skills and abilities. It also helps to remember and associate resumes, it's easier to relate a portrait to a set of skills and a CV than tens of names. You don't have to be a super model, just any professional picture will do that.
It's also an illusion that not having pictures on the resume will reduce Bias in favor of attractive people. It will only push it to a later stage of the interview process.
It's also an illusion that not having pictures on the resume will reduce Bias in favor of attractive people. It will only push it to a later stage of the interview process.
I think most less attractive people would rather get to the later stages of the interview process where they'll get a chance to advocate for themselves. It's better than being screened out early and not knowing whether it's because you're ugly or because the qualifications listed in your resume aren't impressive.
In a merit based process shouldn't applicants be thought of as just character sheets?
It should be, but humans are humans.
Depends. Someone will have to work with those people. They don't just interact with a computer or a machine.
Right but is their name or physical appearance really that important in working together?
I've worked with people I never met, never saw their photo or real name or heard their voice. As long as they communicate somehow and produce work needed, isn't that enough?
I've worked with people I never met, never saw their photo or real name or heard their voice. As long as they communicate somehow and produce work needed, isn't that enough?
Honestly I'm surprised it's acceptable for resumes presented to me as a hiring manager to even have names on them, let alone photos. Humans are hardwired to make snap judgements about people based on a first visual impression, and a photo at the top of a resume will massively color the rest of your assessment.
No names and photos on resumes is the way to go. I dont need to see who you know kn LinkedIn either.
Emphatic agreement.
Ages ago, I witnessed the execs toss resumes with "funny sounding names". One of those anecdotal experiences that made a huge impression on me. Having grown up surrounded by immigrants and misc POC -- people are just people -- chucking resumes based on non-whiteness really pissed me off.
This issue always reminds me of symphony auditions. To remove bias, candidates perform behind a screen.
The caveat that gives me pause is the burden of filtering out "spam" resumes. It was such a chore the last time I helped with hiring. I can only imagine it's gotten worse.
Perhaps resumes should be deanonymized by HR. Two step process. First, potential applicants are authenticated. Next, PII is stripped before the hiring team gets the bulk of the resumes.
But what do I know? Hiring and interviewing is snafu everywhere these days. Adding more hoops and friction will probably fly like a lead zeppelin.
Ages ago, I witnessed the execs toss resumes with "funny sounding names". One of those anecdotal experiences that made a huge impression on me. Having grown up surrounded by immigrants and misc POC -- people are just people -- chucking resumes based on non-whiteness really pissed me off.
This issue always reminds me of symphony auditions. To remove bias, candidates perform behind a screen.
The caveat that gives me pause is the burden of filtering out "spam" resumes. It was such a chore the last time I helped with hiring. I can only imagine it's gotten worse.
Perhaps resumes should be deanonymized by HR. Two step process. First, potential applicants are authenticated. Next, PII is stripped before the hiring team gets the bulk of the resumes.
But what do I know? Hiring and interviewing is snafu everywhere these days. Adding more hoops and friction will probably fly like a lead zeppelin.
> It will only push it to a later stage of the interview process.
Isn't this preferable though, when there's hopefully other, more meaningful, evidence that can potentially mitigate these easy but weaker biases?
Isn't this preferable though, when there's hopefully other, more meaningful, evidence that can potentially mitigate these easy but weaker biases?
I'm surprised by this comment.
It's definitely not standard practice to include a photo with a CV in the UK to my knowledge.
Anecdotally I've never done that at any point in my career nor have I ever been asked to.
I've also never seen a photo included with a CV when hiring.
It's definitely not standard practice to include a photo with a CV in the UK to my knowledge.
Anecdotally I've never done that at any point in my career nor have I ever been asked to.
I've also never seen a photo included with a CV when hiring.
"It seems to be standard practice in Europe"
I'm in my 50s in the UK and I've never had anyone ask for a photo during recruitment and I've also done a lot of hiring for multiple companies and they certainly didn't ask for photos.
I'm in my 50s in the UK and I've never had anyone ask for a photo during recruitment and I've also done a lot of hiring for multiple companies and they certainly didn't ask for photos.
with linkedin being so common these days, does it really matter if the photo is on the actual resume?
In the US, you're asked your ethnicity, gender, and sexuality on every job application. Just saying.
And they almost always say that that information is optional and will not afffect the hiring process.
of course if that were true they wouldn't be asking, just like how they don't ask about what brand of dish soap I use or how I feel about aardvarks or anything else that actually doesn't matter to them. I wish they'd just be honest about it.
I couldn't prettify my mug with 1 million filters.
Hiyo!!!
Hiyo!!!
I'm going to buck the trend and say that candidates with attractive photos are quite possibly actually more competent. When hiring, I consider the content of a resume and not its aesthetics. But the people who go the extra mile to add polish: An attractive, well-formatted resume; being well-dressed for an interview; and even adding polish to a photo - are likely candidates who express the added attention to detail I'm looking for in many roles. (Especially in design-focused roles.) Does it beat years of experience or technical competency? Absolutely not. But much like technical interviews not being a strong signal for a person's competency at a particular role they are still treated as a signal. You can have a polished photo without being an attractive person. So perhaps this study is actually measuring to some extent the perception of a person's professionalism and attention to detail rather than their inherent attractiveness. And that's not necessarily a bad thing. Which isn't to say some people may be hired based on actual attractiveness rather than their perceived capabilities, which shouldn't be a factor generally. But if you're going to get indignant about people being hired based on looks then you'd better stop using sites more attractive than craigslist or products more attractive than crocs.
You can also get a feel for how well somebody can a see computer screen or at all based on the filter result they choose
superimposed eye lashes that are a little misplaced
extremely blurred skin far beyond removing blemishes
lol
superimposed eye lashes that are a little misplaced
extremely blurred skin far beyond removing blemishes
lol
You used the qualifier "especially for design centered roles". I would maybe amend that to "only for design centered roles and a few others".
If I want to hire a hard core algorithm coder or a top level security specialist, I might not consider a neat and polished resume a negative signal, but I certainly wouldn't consider a less polished resume a negative signal. Because my experience with the type of people that are very good at those skills is that many couldn't care less about their profile photo or the font they use on their resume.
If I want to hire a hard core algorithm coder or a top level security specialist, I might not consider a neat and polished resume a negative signal, but I certainly wouldn't consider a less polished resume a negative signal. Because my experience with the type of people that are very good at those skills is that many couldn't care less about their profile photo or the font they use on their resume.
"But if you're going to get indignant about people being hired based on looks then you'd better stop using sites more attractive than craigslist or products more attractive than crocs."
Your first point raised about someone caring about their looks and the way their presented is a good one. But this last quote is strange.. If you're being hired for a non customer facing role do you really think this craigslist comparison is a fair one? I can get as gussied up as I can for a photo, but is it fair that the guy that looks more like Jake Gyllenhaal got hired even though I have a better skill set?
Your first point raised about someone caring about their looks and the way their presented is a good one. But this last quote is strange.. If you're being hired for a non customer facing role do you really think this craigslist comparison is a fair one? I can get as gussied up as I can for a photo, but is it fair that the guy that looks more like Jake Gyllenhaal got hired even though I have a better skill set?
If that had happened, then no. But it didn't.
> In study 1, beautifying filters increased perceived hireability irrespective of job type
But it does.
But it does.
And as I said: That isn't fair. But it also doesn't detract from my point that the people who put more effort into their applications are likely to also put more effort into their work. Once again: It's not a strong signal, but it's a signal.
I found the opposite. People with simple utilitarian resumes tended to have more actual accomplishments, while people who focused on what their résumé looked like tended to have glaring issues they where trying to hide.
Though I suspect this varies quite a bit by role.
Though I suspect this varies quite a bit by role.
Have worked at big SV companies where HR is forwarding the text paste of the resume with no corrected format. I would never tell someone not to make their resume look polished, but I have definitely seen people get lucrative jobs with a jumbled mess.
Perhaps the "polish" of the resume is a signal for "professionalism and attention to detail." But I worry that the professionalism of the resume is a signal mostly for wealth and social status, factors which should be ignored in the hiring process. So I think that unless the resume is atrociously formatted, its "polish" should be ignored.
I read an article on LinkedIn [1] touching on a similar issue. The ideal resume quality standard is "not a lesson that every school or household teaches equally" and giving undue consideration to it may be "creating unnecessary barriers to entry for certain groups."
However, I think your experience in the hiring process is valid and would be open to changing my mind.
[1] https://www.linkedin.com/business/talent/blog/talent-acquisi...
I read an article on LinkedIn [1] touching on a similar issue. The ideal resume quality standard is "not a lesson that every school or household teaches equally" and giving undue consideration to it may be "creating unnecessary barriers to entry for certain groups."
However, I think your experience in the hiring process is valid and would be open to changing my mind.
[1] https://www.linkedin.com/business/talent/blog/talent-acquisi...
> But I worry that the professionalism of the resume is a signal mostly for wealth and social status
What?
What?
It's just generally easier to do more things well/professionally when you're well off and have the time to work on it or hire someone to do it.
It's similar to the issues with standardized testing in schools. If your parents are wealthy and able to get you better test prep or tutoring, you'll do better on the test, and likely be actually more academically successful aside from it. It doesn't mean that one should totally ignore that signal, but it does confound it if you're trying to be fair about things in a more holistic sense.
I think of it in tech as being acutely similar to folks who complain about recruiters who care a lot about your side projects or OSS contributions. If you're rich and successful, you have more time for those sorts of things than someone who's less well off and taking care of their family or such outside of work. That doesn't mean that someone who maintains a major OSS project isn't likely a good engineer, but that you should understand that not everyone who is a good engineer can casually do a second job on the side.
It's similar to the issues with standardized testing in schools. If your parents are wealthy and able to get you better test prep or tutoring, you'll do better on the test, and likely be actually more academically successful aside from it. It doesn't mean that one should totally ignore that signal, but it does confound it if you're trying to be fair about things in a more holistic sense.
I think of it in tech as being acutely similar to folks who complain about recruiters who care a lot about your side projects or OSS contributions. If you're rich and successful, you have more time for those sorts of things than someone who's less well off and taking care of their family or such outside of work. That doesn't mean that someone who maintains a major OSS project isn't likely a good engineer, but that you should understand that not everyone who is a good engineer can casually do a second job on the side.
If not mentioned or on the resume, explicitly asking whether a candidate has contributed to OSS or has done side projects outside of work is extremely inappropriate. The answer may be, "No, I attend temple nightly after going to occupational therapy for my disability and taking care of my children." Then you will have to document this for HR because you done gone messed up.
That answer is not proportionate to the question, and the question is totally fine.
You can ask a candidate "have you worked with React before". You can ask a candidate "It's not on your resume, but do you have security certifications". You can ask them "do you have any OSS projects you contribute to or like".
Those are all reasonable questions.
The imagined answer you mention "may" happen for any question. You didn't mess up if you ask "do you know React?" and the candidate answers "my last job used Vue, and I didn't have time to learn it on my own due to having 2 religions, 6 disabilities, and 12 kids, so no".
Asking a candidate for work-related experience is not "extremely inappropriate", and your imagined answer is not realistic.
You can ask a candidate "have you worked with React before". You can ask a candidate "It's not on your resume, but do you have security certifications". You can ask them "do you have any OSS projects you contribute to or like".
Those are all reasonable questions.
The imagined answer you mention "may" happen for any question. You didn't mess up if you ask "do you know React?" and the candidate answers "my last job used Vue, and I didn't have time to learn it on my own due to having 2 religions, 6 disabilities, and 12 kids, so no".
Asking a candidate for work-related experience is not "extremely inappropriate", and your imagined answer is not realistic.
Exactly. I've always been told in hiring/legal meetings that it's ok if the candidate voluntarily discloses information about their religion/race/family status, you just can't go looking for it, and you probably shouldn't follow up about it.
Essentially, as long as your question has a reasonable answer that doesn't involve bringing up any of the protected attributes, it's fine.
Essentially, as long as your question has a reasonable answer that doesn't involve bringing up any of the protected attributes, it's fine.
I'm somewhat curious if many indications of competence can be considered indications of wealth / social status?
Does this disqualify them from consideration?
Resume quality IS actually pretty easy to pick up on. Some folks go totally overboard for non-design roles - I'd say there probably is a tasteful middle ground (ie, not super long with pages and pages - I've had folks do essentially powerpoints) and not just a mono font list in all caps (often some kind of auto resume spam mess). If you take the time to do a 1 or 2 page MAX clean resume, quasi responsive to posting, with a brief email note you are ahead of 60% of candidates already. With this hiring market it doesn't matter - employers will chase you anyways.
Does this disqualify them from consideration?
Resume quality IS actually pretty easy to pick up on. Some folks go totally overboard for non-design roles - I'd say there probably is a tasteful middle ground (ie, not super long with pages and pages - I've had folks do essentially powerpoints) and not just a mono font list in all caps (often some kind of auto resume spam mess). If you take the time to do a 1 or 2 page MAX clean resume, quasi responsive to posting, with a brief email note you are ahead of 60% of candidates already. With this hiring market it doesn't matter - employers will chase you anyways.
Hiring is, as a whole, biased for the wealthy etc. Being privileged gives you a leg up on everything, from quality of education, to coping skills, to general health, so you would totally expect all parts of hiring to be biased massively towards privileged people.
I don't think a resume's level of polish is more biased towards social status than any other part of the process, and as such I think it's just as reasonable as anything else to filter on.
Anyway, resume quality is arguably just as relevant to a software job as being able to whiteboard code, if not moreso. Structuring design documents in a way that wealthy people like them (i.e. the old white dudes who run the company) is one of the most relevant job skills you can have to be honest.
I don't think a resume's level of polish is more biased towards social status than any other part of the process, and as such I think it's just as reasonable as anything else to filter on.
Anyway, resume quality is arguably just as relevant to a software job as being able to whiteboard code, if not moreso. Structuring design documents in a way that wealthy people like them (i.e. the old white dudes who run the company) is one of the most relevant job skills you can have to be honest.
At least in some job roles (B2B sales, management, professional services like consulting or legal, PR, media, etc) the social status and personal network is a genuine advantage that makes them more effective in that job role and more useful for the employer, so it should not be ignored. In some jobs you're hiring them to do a task within your organization, but in many other jobs you're hiring them to influence others outside your organization - and there status, connections and reputation are pretty much a bona fide occupational qualification.
Some fools will spell JAVA and GIT as things on their resume. Massive negative signal. This one I honestly calibrated: biggest sign you’re a clown is if you call this shit JAVA. Not even Fortran calls itself that.
Prejudice wouldn’t be such an issue if there weren’t a grain of truth in it. Pretty much any superficial indicator that you’ve lived a harder life than average can be used as a way to guess that you might be a worse employee due to some lingering baggage and a less privileged upbringing.
The ugly just sadly don’t have affirmative action to compensate for this sort of thing.
The ugly just sadly don’t have affirmative action to compensate for this sort of thing.
I wasn't prepared for such harsh truth today.
The Secret of Success is Sincerity. Once you can fake that you've got it made - Jean Giraudoux/George Burns (some versions replace Sincerity with Honesty).
People who have been dealt a bad hand by Nature need to be aware of all sorts of cognitive biases (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases) and then find ways to bypass them to focus on their strengths.
People who have been dealt a bad hand by Nature need to be aware of all sorts of cognitive biases (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases) and then find ways to bypass them to focus on their strengths.
[deleted]
The polish you speak of is not the relevant factor in determining attractiveness. Height, facial features and non-obesity are the characteristics described, and with the exception of obesity, are largely immutable.
In other words, a professionally done photo of a goblin-like human will be viewed more negatively than a selfie of an attractive person.
In other words, a professionally done photo of a goblin-like human will be viewed more negatively than a selfie of an attractive person.
And yet the study only considered the application of filters, which are pure "polish".
at least someone did the study
According to their paper, they used the "Hollywood" filter in FaceApp 3.6.11 at the highest level setting.
And there it is, the one thing I can never have an honest conversation about. The rules are different for ugly people, based on my personal experience as one data point. We're the last lot that everyone can discriminate against, or abuse, and get away with it.
Old people are in the same group, though age is definitely related to unattractiveness.
With many sick people, it's also impossible not to discriminate (although that also correlates heavily to getting old).
With many sick people, it's also impossible not to discriminate (although that also correlates heavily to getting old).
Discriminating by age isn't always unreasonable. It's useful to have different generational perspectives in many areas. For example, I think it's a serious issue that the average age of public servants in Congress is so advanced.
The older generations are responsible for training and passing the torch onto the younger generations. The older generation can't keep clinging onto power until they die off.
The older generations are responsible for training and passing the torch onto the younger generations. The older generation can't keep clinging onto power until they die off.
Congress is full of corrupt people, it has nothing to do with age discrimination. You won't get an old person ever joining the party, all the people who you are talking about built their political power by being corrupt for all their lives.
,, The older generations are responsible for training and passing the torch onto the younger generations.''
That's not how the world works anymore. But of course experienced people are payed well to manage unexperienced.
,, The older generations are responsible for training and passing the torch onto the younger generations.''
That's not how the world works anymore. But of course experienced people are payed well to manage unexperienced.
Heartbreaking to be discriminated against as a result of largely immutable characteristics but there are other groups abused with impunity as well. For example, unintelligent people who are not obviously disabled. Or people with speech defects that are not readily considered disabilities. Even people with acne, rosacea, or eczema -- which is a medical issue and protected to some extent.
Don't worry, you're not the last group, from personal experience I can say people on the spectrum are fair game to descriminate against as we'll
Does the opposite happen? Do people assume that people that are too attractive did well because of human factors instead of engineering skill? I could see that happen if this data is widely known.
I think there's an assumption that the good looking, well put together person is from marketing/sales or a second level (or higher) manager rather than technical, which of course isn't always true.
"executive style hair"
"executive style hair"
Back in the 70's, your salary depended on your height by about a thousand dollars an inch.
As a 6'8 human, I demand a time machine.
I'll pay you back.
I'll pay you back.
If I had a time machine I'd go back to 1988 and mortgage everything to buy MSFT!
As a 5 foot 2 inch male.
Fuck me right?
Fuck me right?
LinkedIn is the new resume, would be funny if they applied filters for everyone to be equally beautiful or grotesque.
I'm sure there is a attractiveness bias, but these studies barely find an effect. Seriously, look at figure 2. It's invisible to the eye without statistical tools. I'm really suspicious of this result.
On reading the paper I thought:
"race" uhm no, you mean ethnicity or phenotype. "Rac"-ist language, though.
"race" uhm no, you mean ethnicity or phenotype. "Rac"-ist language, though.
It's from the US, where "Race" is the official census term for indicating the phenotype of a person. There is a lot of pre existing survey work using the census categories, so that's why many people keep using them whatever the flaws in the definition might be (and they're probably quite significant flaws).
I'd use as strong photo-filters as I could get away with if I didn't think it would be depressing to see people recoiling in horror at my actual gargoyle like appearance turning up to face to face interviews like the painting from Dorian Gray's attic...
From the article:
> Data were collected from 229 participants working in a management position in the United States through Amazon Mechanical Turk. Participants were compensated at a rate equivalent to $7 per hour.
I have a hard time imagining people in "management positions" working on Mechanical Turk for less than (US) minimum wage.
If I understand correctly, participants also didn't rate applications with photos, but just photos. Seems possible and perhaps likely that the pragmatics of this specific task would activate biases that may not be at play (or to a lesser degree) in an actual application process where the photo would be just one piece of information. The task really seems designed to maximize effects of beautification while sacrificing generalizability to real-world settings.
> Data were collected from 229 participants working in a management position in the United States through Amazon Mechanical Turk. Participants were compensated at a rate equivalent to $7 per hour.
I have a hard time imagining people in "management positions" working on Mechanical Turk for less than (US) minimum wage.
If I understand correctly, participants also didn't rate applications with photos, but just photos. Seems possible and perhaps likely that the pragmatics of this specific task would activate biases that may not be at play (or to a lesser degree) in an actual application process where the photo would be just one piece of information. The task really seems designed to maximize effects of beautification while sacrificing generalizability to real-world settings.
Attractiveness is definitely a factor which subconsciously influences Hiring. Fair or Unfair that is life and we have to deal with it.
I have heard that Google tries to control for this by having one panel of people as the Interviewers (i.e. actually meet/talk to the Interviewee) who then write-up their respective reports. This set of reports are then submitted to another panel (who have NOT met/talked to the Interviewee) who then have to make a hiring decision based solely on the reports.
I have heard that Google tries to control for this by having one panel of people as the Interviewers (i.e. actually meet/talk to the Interviewee) who then write-up their respective reports. This set of reports are then submitted to another panel (who have NOT met/talked to the Interviewee) who then have to make a hiring decision based solely on the reports.
Won't the bias still be present in the report? For example if a candidate left a good impression on me I'll definitely make sure that the report captures that. Not because I'm a bad actor but because I don't know any better, I don't realize my good impression is biased.
At that point the panel makes the call based on a biased report and it thinks the decision is unbiased which is not true.
At that point the panel makes the call based on a biased report and it thinks the decision is unbiased which is not true.
The bias can be made negligent by mandating a certain format to the report (some Google insider has to provide this detail) and due to the fact that multiple such reports go into the decision-making.
As an example no words which might create a impression but sticking to facts. The inference is left to the second panel. For example instead of saying the candidate thought hard about the given problem say something like the candidate tried out 3 different solutions to the problem over the interview time period. The first panel are merely conveyors of Data; so their reports have to be detailed and to the point.
As an example no words which might create a impression but sticking to facts. The inference is left to the second panel. For example instead of saying the candidate thought hard about the given problem say something like the candidate tried out 3 different solutions to the problem over the interview time period. The first panel are merely conveyors of Data; so their reports have to be detailed and to the point.
I'm sure you can reduce bias in this way but it still feels incomplete. I'm thinking another (more efficient?!) way would be to teach interviewers to detect and manage their own biases, both positive and negative.
For example if I'm interviewing someone for a technical position and they're very attractive or even dressed/groomed excessively I'm making an effort to not hold that against them. I'm aware that I have a bias on this so I'm actively trying to have a balanced perspective during the interview.
For example if I'm interviewing someone for a technical position and they're very attractive or even dressed/groomed excessively I'm making an effort to not hold that against them. I'm aware that I have a bias on this so I'm actively trying to have a balanced perspective during the interview.
You simply cannot avoid many of the individual cognitive biases (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases); they are hard-wired into our biological systems over centuries of evolution and operate unconsciously. Thus the need to mitigate their effects by conscious technique and process.