It could be employers still nailing down their budget?
I know that there are (in Salt Lake City) fewer companies hiring at the beginning and end of the year than during other times.
This sounds like a cool idea, but I've seen where hiring for personality often leads towards hiring discrimination. I think it's more likely to reinforce the lack of diversity in tech than to combat it as people unlike the interviewer tend to be viewed less favorably and would be less likely to be viewed as a person who could pick up the specific knowledge he/she doesn't already know.
> I think it's more likely to reinforce the lack of diversity in tech than to combat it...
I have mixed feelings about this. I have a hard time valuing diversity for its own sake, especially since there are so many qualities to have diversity in, and especially since the ones that actually affect the organization (like diversity of perspective) are so hard to measure and quantify.
That being said, it's hard for me to sit in an interview and think, "Hmmmm... this is a diversity candidate, so I should ___________." I'm not even sure what to put in that blank. And I feel like I'm already discriminating since I'm already treating this person like a demographic.
So what's the answer? Don't get to know any personalities? Treat everyone like a demographic? I'm not sure that's an improvement.
The problem the parent post is pointing at is that personalities differ among different groups of people. So that guy who may seem a bit taciturn and therefore, "not a good cultural fit" may actually be a great employee, it's just that in his cultural group it's not normal to be super bubbly and talkative when you first meet someone.
It's not about quotas or diversity for diversity's sake. It's about recognizing that we all bring our own cultural lens to a situation and not being aware of how that influences your perception can lead to judging great people more negatively because they're not like you.
The challenge is that one has to be self-aware enough to recognize their own biases and still make some value judgments on personality.
Not discriminating against people not like you has absolutely nothing to do with "diversity for its own sake."
Honestly, if when I go in to interview with you, you're already having a mental narrative and discussion with yourself about "diversity candidates", I'd prefer you didn't get to know me. Just ask me technical questions, please; I'm begging for a whiteboard to get out of that. Or a different face to wear when I go to job interviews.
I'd prefer not think about it and just get to know people as well. That's what I was trying to get at.
It's disappointing that my attempt to express the catch-22 from my end turns you off to the point of ending the conversation. This is part of the problem with 'diversity' qua 'diversity' IMO.
Culture blew past tolerance and on to something else a long time ago. I'm not sure we want real diversity so much.
Having read through it, I think he's trying to hire for fit with himself and his team. An inbuilt assumption is that the candidates are capable of doing the role - he mentions going through their CV, or perhaps he's already covered off skills. I don't think he's saying that skills to do the role aren't required: so he's not hiring graduates and then giving them the skills for the job, for example.
It's a tough one, if you don't look at whether a candidate could fit within the team (in this case they care about 'passion') then you're storing up problems on the team dynamic front. On the other hand, as you point out, it's difficult to hire on personality without subconsciously hiring people you like which is often people like you: which means less diversity.
If you mean the article, then I disagree, for I read him as using this person, candidate, and even the gender neutral "them" in the singular.
As for "guy," the word is like nation and nationalist: it must be read in context: nation can mean Kurds and Quebec, or Iraq and Canada. Yes, if you want Quebec to separate then you are a nationalist, and if you want Canada to stay whole then you are a nationalist.
In talking to two women I can mention a gorgeous guy in my classroom and then ask, "Are you guys going to the concert?"
Maybe, but my mantra is a mix. I use standard technical questions ect. to weed out candidates that cannot do the job - I try to stay general such that I see problem solving, rather than certification. Then I'm left with a pool of people that are real potential hires. After that I'm looking for a learner with the right mindset, and THEN I'm looking for a fit - preferably someone who will complement the team, rather than reinforce what is already working.
Hiring is not an exact science, and what works for me, is probably not working for others.
> This sounds like a cool idea, but I've seen where hiring for personality often leads towards hiring discrimination.
You also discriminate against applicants who don't seem to be very capable in programming or seem to have really toxic personality traits (which is a good idea). How do you come to the idea that discrimination that "hiring for personality" is biased to leads to worse outcome?
Discrimination in employment law only refers to specific classes of people based on race, religion, gender, military service, etc. Passing up on someone who isn't qualified for a job isn't discrimination.
"Hiring for personally" can result in "hiring potential drinking buddies" which means your hiring may skew towards people who share your race, gender, creed, and religion because humans usually pick people like ourselves for friends. This can become a positive feedback loop.
If your hiring practices are discriminatory that is illegal.
> Discrimination in employment law only refers to specific classes of people based on race, religion, gender, military service, etc. Passing up on someone who isn't qualified for a job isn't discrimination.
A central idea of empirical science is Occam's razor. (Nearly) all religions violate this principle since they introduce assumptions that are not necessary. With this argumentation one can easily argue why a religious person could not be qualified for a job in empirical science.
In places where marijuana is illegal, it's tough to cook your own oil because your neighbors will smell it. There's no access to vaporizer liquid, and the vaporizers that do not need it and actually work are pretty expensive.
What's the side of Gamergate where women didn't get harassed just for sharing their ideas?
This article isn't calling out any games for forcing the player to play a white male. The article is pointing out the outrage over one game that forces players to (sometimes) play non-white and/or female characters.
There wasn't a side in gamergate that didn't get harassed. Men and women, arguing for, against, or for neither side, got harassed and received death threat and had family members being targeted. The best anyone could argue in the end was that their side had received more harassment and did less harassment themselves.
The other side of gamergate are documented to have pulled similar if not worse stunts, but this goes unmentioned. There are no winners in GG, and few of those involved can claim to wear a halo. When a journalist fails to mention important facts like this the article loses any value it may have had.
>This article isn't calling out any games for forcing the player to play a white male.
I think the 2nd para I quoted does exactly that. Additionally, a journalist without an obvious agenda would provide a balanced discussion and bring up, Idk, things like the fact that Rust players are talking over mic a lot, so when you are playing as a woman but your voice is of a gruff man, you sound a little silly and look like you are trying to fake your identity. I can see why players are uncomfortable about it, it reminds me of the trope "every young girl on the Internet is a middle aged man". You friend a woman in-game, only to find out later that that the woman is a 40 year old male divorcee. It doesn't sit right in so many ways.
As the article states too, this was implemented as a patch to the game, so people who paid money, their own money for the game, are now forced to put up with it or abandon their purchase, which seems to me at least to be unethical and not a little bit sneeky.
The second paragraph you quoted doesn't judge the games for their characters. It's just showing a quick example of characters that have a pre-set race/gender and pointing out the lack of outrage from women and racial minorities over having to play that.
I think that the top two in the unfair practice list are pretty obviously re-enforcing systemic discrimination. It's much less likely that minorities make it into those top schools. Top schools link into top jobs...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/minorities-a...
Rewarding referrals with bonuses/stock, and referrals in general, could hinder diversity of the current employees know a non-diverse group of people.
The last two items seem tricky because you do need to know the candidate can do the job. The problems here could arise if the tests are biased (it is common for this to happen unintentionally), if the person giving the test is biased, or if the testee is experiencing stereotype threat.
