Our No Asshole Rule • Hacker News Board

Re: Our No Asshole Rule

#71

Post by Torgo » Wed, Jan 07, 2015, 5:52 PM UTC

jameshart wrote: post #54

noxryan wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

And if your meal with them also reveals that the person asks the waiter whether the meat is Halal, or that their significant other is the same sex as them, then you had better have a better argument than 'I just didn't like the way they treated the waitstaff' or 'I don't like their SO' to justify not hiring them...

This is a an unworkable viewpoint because it has no limiting principle. What if a person comes in for a job interview and is wearing a turban because they're a sikh? Should you put up a screen between you and the interviewer? Give them a voice changer so that you can't tell if they're a woman or a man. Use an interpreter so that regional dialects or accents cannot be detected. Ban pork products from your cafeteria in case a candidate comes in. This is not a winnable strategy. At some point you have to acknowledge that assholes can take advantage of anything.

Incidentally, I do think that taking people out for drinks to evaluate their character is a lousy practice but simply because many people don't drink for many reasons. Not because someone might secretly find out you're a religious minority.

Re: Our No Asshole Rule

#72

Post by jameshart » Wed, Jan 07, 2015, 5:58 PM UTC

Torgo wrote: post #71

jameshart wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And if your meal with them also reveals that the person asks the waiter whether the meat is Halal, or that their significant other is the same sex as them, then you had better have a better argument than 'I just didn't like the way they treated the waitstaff' or 'I don't like their SO' to justify not hiring them...

This is a an unworkable viewpoint because it has no limiting principle. What if a person comes in for a job interview and is wearing a turban because they're a sikh? Should you put up a screen between you and the interviewer? Give them a voice changer so that you can't tell if they're a woman or a man. Use an interpreter so that regional dialects or accents cannot be detected. Ban pork products from your cafeteria in…

It means you need to use defensible candidate screening practices that clearly relate to assessing the candidate's fitness for the role. Asking to meet their current squeeze or taking them out to lunch to evaluate how they treat the waitstaff are not easily defensible. Asking them questions in an interview room about how they have previously performed in similar roles is.

Re: Our No Asshole Rule

#73

Post by kybernetikos » Wed, Jan 07, 2015, 8:05 PM UTC

pc86 wrote: post #36

antimagic wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Truthfully I was on the fence about "manipulative" (not the other three, though). I get that it has a negative association, but at the end of the day aren't you just trying to show someone why doing _______ is in their best interest? Understanding that the connotation of "manipulative" is that it's not actually in their best interest.

From my point of view manipulative doesn't speak to whose interest the manipulation is in, but rather to the fact that the manipulator is trying to bypass the autonomy of the target - getting them to do what the manipulator wants without consciously being brought to assent to the reasons behind it.

It can therefore be used with good intentions, and may often result in good outcomes if done by an effective manipulator for those good reasons but according to my moral system it is never an ethical way to act, and is likely to ultimately corrode relationships.

Re: Our No Asshole Rule

#74

Post by PhantomGremlin » Wed, Jan 07, 2015, 8:16 PM UTC

wolfgke wrote: post #2

But what about employees that aren't assholes per se (in the sense that they are evil or egocentric), but just socially awkward? To give one example: A intellectually brillant employee wants to explain some complicated programming or math concepts so that the other people at the company can become better - a very noble plan. But because of their social inaptness this is considered to be rude and arrogant by the other…

When dealing with engineers it's very important to remember a few things:

   Engineers are all basically high-functioning
   autistics who have no idea how normal people
   do stuff.
   Cory Doctorow

A milder form of this is frequently called Asperger's syndrome.[1] Sorry for the extended quote, but its from the Harvard Medical School family health guide, so hopefully there is at least some scientific consensus behind it:

   Despite normal and sometimes superior intelligence,
   people with Asperger’s have difficulty understanding
   social conventions and reading social cues. As a
   result, they often seem tactless or rude, and making
   friends can be hard for them. They may be unable to
   take hints, keep secrets, or understand metaphor,
   irony, and humor. The meaning of gestures, tone of
   voice, and facial expressions are a mystery to them,
   and their own body language and expressions may be
   inappropriate or hard to interpret. They stand too
   close, talk too loudly, and don’t make eye contact.

Having said all that, in my experience engineers are often very coachable and can be taught social skills. The quintessential stereotype for this character is the scientist Sheldon Cooper on The Big Bang Theory.

[1] http://www.health.harvard.edu/fhg/updates/update0305a.shtml

Re: Our No Asshole Rule

#75

Post by cooper12 » Thu, Jan 08, 2015, 7:16 PM UTC

PhantomGremlin wrote: post #74

wolfgke wrote: post #2

But what about employees that aren't assholes per se (in the sense that they are evil or egocentric), but just socially awkward? To give one example: A intellectually brillant employee wants to explain some complicated programming or math concepts so that the other people at the company can become better - a very noble plan. But because of their social inaptness this is considered to be rude and arrogant by the other…

When dealing with engineers it's very important to remember a few things: Engineers are all basically high-functioning autistics who have no idea how normal people do stuff. Cory Doctorow A milder form of this is frequently called Asperger's syndrome.[1] Sorry for the extended quote, but its from the Harvard Medical School family health guide, so hopefully there is at least some scientific consensus behind it: Despit…

Please don't stereotype groups of people, regardless of how consistent your observations of them have been.

It's pretty damning to a group to automatically assign them to autism or asperger's syndrome, both of which are medical disorders only properly diagnosed by doctors. It's like automatically treating the elderly like they have Alzheimer's. It also ignores that there can be (and are) great variations within groups, and applying a label on them can have reverberating consequences in policy.

I'm sure you and Cory Doctorow have good intentions, so please don't take this as an affront against you. I'm just tired of people (especially the media) generating ridiculous stereotyped images of people. Good examples of these are the socially inept "nerd" Sheldon Cooper that you mentioned, the misunderstood genius that helps the heroes save the world in movies, and reclusive haunted writers. While I'm sure people of each type actually do exist, we should't treat people any differently unless we have a valid reason, and even then we should try to understand them as an individual.

I understand that I might have taken your comment a bit out of context, so I apologize for that.