Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I'm an interviewer at my company and burnt out

dear.mariechatfield.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 102 posts

Re: I'm an interviewer at my company and burnt out

#91

Post by cbozeman »

PKop wrote: post #85

Why is there an assumption of injustice that has to be rectified only when certain jobs have skewed demographics, but not all? Why is there no societal wide calls for racial re-balancing in the NBA or NFL, or olympic sprinting competitions? Or gender re-balancing for military combat roles or logging in the timber industry, or elementary school teacher or veterinarians?

Because it's a thinly veiled desire for power and prestige?

If it weren't, you'd see women lining up to become loggers, because that field is 93% male - possibly more.

Re: I'm an interviewer at my company and burnt out

#92

Post by ajkjk »

oh_sigh wrote: post #89
ajkjk wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you really find it absurd that someone is saying they feel like they have a well-known, widely-documented privilege?

So what do you consider all the tall white males who are in prison or making minimum wage at 30 years old? Are they just mega failures?

No? Literally no one is saying that a privilege means that everybody of that demographic has an easy life, you're arguing with a strawman. Anyway, why are you coming onto a HN comment thread to find out what privilege means? So much has been written about this.

Re: I'm an interviewer at my company and burnt out

#93

Post by ta_i_was_there »

ip26 wrote: post #47
tolbish wrote: post #12

I would hate to be a minority or woman in Silicon Valley--even if you're qualified, many of your colleagues would presume you "don't deserve" to be there (see the James Damore saga).

I wonder if Lisa Su is more broadly changing hearts & minds, or just written off as an anomaly.

(Posting from Throw Away to not dox my regular account.)

I used to work for AMD some years ago[1]. At that time, there was no "woke" culture there. There was no discrimination that I could see. No one made a fuss about someone being from a minority and there were multiple people, not of the same gender, in my reporting hierarchy. No one ever spoke about that and we were busy with very interesting technical problems. So, if she were the CEO at the time when I was working for them, I'd probably have always regarded her with immense respect and it wouldn't even occur to me to bring gender into it.

1: Based on an opinion and experience from a few years ago, I'd have happily recommended them as a good employer. I do not know how it is now (because I haven't stayed in touch with the folks from there).

Re: I'm an interviewer at my company and burnt out

#94

Post by oh_sigh »

ajkjk wrote: post #92
oh_sigh wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what do you consider all the tall white males who are in prison or making minimum wage at 30 years old? Are they just mega failures?

No? Literally no one is saying that a privilege means that everybody of that demographic has an easy life, you're arguing with a strawman. Anyway, why are you coming onto a HN comment thread to find out what privilege means? So much has been written about this.

OP literally described their life as easy mode because of their tallness+whiteness+maleness. Maybe you should be arguing with their word choice.

If easy mode can be incredibly difficult...then maybe it shouldn't be called easy mode? Is juggling 40 balls at a time "easy mode" compared to juggling 60 balls at a time? Maybe, but it would be more appropriate to not call juggling 40 balls easy mode

Re: I'm an interviewer at my company and burnt out

#95

Post by tolbish »

cbozeman wrote: post #90
tolbish wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have indeed read the memo.

Well you definitely didn't understand it then. The researchers who study the fields he's referencing agree with most everything he said. Hell, a few of them even gave interviews saying he was about, "90% correct". He was trying to help, and if Google had taken it to heart instead of getting butthurt, they could have used the useful bits and discarded the inaccuracies.

If the best endorsement you can come up with is "Some researchers said he was about 90% correct", you have no ground to use words like 'definitely'.

Re: I'm an interviewer at my company and burnt out

#96

Post by lifeplusplus »

schwartzworld wrote: post #81
starky wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>because it is really, really hard to to build an org that is more diverse than the average (let alone anything near society), and you still have to meet other objectives. I've thought about this a many times with the hiring I'm involved with. There are some potential problems you can tackle internally, such as whether you have bias against certain types of candidate. However, the major blocker is one I really don't…

I honestly think that a true commitment to diversity has to require rethinking the recruitment process to actively seek out these candidates. You can tweak the language in job listings, but you can't tweak away the fact that underrepresented groups are going to have way fewer "qualified" applicants when the qualifications include time spent in that industry. I'd love to see tech make a push towards mentorship and a r…

Yea i think it's unfair to other candidates to try to fix diversity problem so late in the game, i.e. interview, merit for the job should be the only thing that should be looked at. If the problem is few xyz people going into the field then that's what should be fixed. Otherwise it's like treating fever and ignoring infection, the cause.

Re: I'm an interviewer at my company and burnt out

#97

Post by ajkjk »

oh_sigh wrote: post #94
ajkjk wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No? Literally no one is saying that a privilege means that everybody of that demographic has an easy life, you're arguing with a strawman. Anyway, why are you coming onto a HN comment thread to find out what privilege means? So much has been written about this.

OP literally described their life as easy mode because of their tallness+whiteness+maleness. Maybe you should be arguing with their word choice. If easy mode can be incredibly difficult...then maybe it shouldn't be called easy mode? Is juggling 40 balls at a time "easy mode" compared to juggling 60 balls at a time? Maybe, but it would be more appropriate to not call juggling 40 balls easy mode

I suspect you do not really need this explained, but: easy mode doesn't mean you win, it means it's easier to win.

Re: I'm an interviewer at my company and burnt out

#98

Post by jariel »

ajkjk wrote: post #92
oh_sigh wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what do you consider all the tall white males who are in prison or making minimum wage at 30 years old? Are they just mega failures?

No? Literally no one is saying that a privilege means that everybody of that demographic has an easy life, you're arguing with a strawman. Anyway, why are you coming onto a HN comment thread to find out what privilege means? So much has been written about this.

"Anyway, why are you coming onto a HN comment thread to find out what privilege means? So much has been written about this."

Surely they know what you think you mean to say about White Privilege, but there's a special kind of authoritarian arrogance in assuming that the notion is settled.

Do White people in Poland, a country with essentially no Black people have White privilege? Or do they only gain privilege when there are sufficient people around them who may not have the same opportunities manifest themselves?

In which case, there clearly is no such thing as 'White Privilege', rather, there are some groups who simply have it harder than others and it's much more rationally described in terms of those who face discrimination, than those who do not.

It's like saying people in the suburbs are 'privileged' to not live in high crime areas, or that kids are 'privileged' to not be bullied in school, or 'privileged' to have access grocery stores nearby.

None of those things are privileges and we'd never describe them as such.

We would always describe those situations wherein a special, negative context applies i.e. 'lives in high crime area' or 'child is bullied' or 'lives 20 miles from the supermarket'.

'White Privilege' is a racist term used by intersectionalists wanting to weaponize issues of race, and project guilt or other groups who frankly have no advantage or privilege, other than in the most narrow of contextualization.

Re: I'm an interviewer at my company and burnt out

#99

Post by oh_sigh »

ajkjk wrote: post #97
oh_sigh wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OP literally described their life as easy mode because of their tallness+whiteness+maleness. Maybe you should be arguing with their word choice. If easy mode can be incredibly difficult...then maybe it shouldn't be called easy mode? Is juggling 40 balls at a time "easy mode" compared to juggling 60 balls at a time? Maybe, but it would be more appropriate to not call juggling 40 balls easy mode

I suspect you do not really need this explained, but: easy mode doesn't mean you win, it means it's easier to win.

Would you say easy mode means it is easy to win?

Re: I'm an interviewer at my company and burnt out

#100

Post by starky »

schwartzworld wrote: post #81
starky wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>because it is really, really hard to to build an org that is more diverse than the average (let alone anything near society), and you still have to meet other objectives. I've thought about this a many times with the hiring I'm involved with. There are some potential problems you can tackle internally, such as whether you have bias against certain types of candidate. However, the major blocker is one I really don't…

I honestly think that a true commitment to diversity has to require rethinking the recruitment process to actively seek out these candidates. You can tweak the language in job listings, but you can't tweak away the fact that underrepresented groups are going to have way fewer "qualified" applicants when the qualifications include time spent in that industry. I'd love to see tech make a push towards mentorship and a r…

This doesn't help fix the root socioeconomic factors that guides the careers that people have the opportunities in or choose to pursue. How much of the choice of job a person makes is due to not being aware of a career path or even just the desire to fit in with their community? The problem seems much deeper to me than just recruiting and training.
Post reply on HN