91–100 of 279 posts
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.
"executive style hair"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Being unattractive is not a protected group: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
But law is only about power. It has little relation to morality.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> 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 Constitut…
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Usually information can be used against you, but the absence does not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.