Topic: Today I interviewed an autistic savant for one of my open positions
Marsden William "Bill" Miller started this discussion 11 years ago #42,046
Goddamn that was a terrible experience. I have extreme discomfort interacting with somebody so lacking in empathy and social skills.
I cut it short after 10 minutes.
I cut it short after 10 minutes.
Meta joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 59 minutes later[^] [v] #558,544
But he might have been able to fill both of your open positions and leave you satisfied.
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 26 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #558,552
It's a shame that the typical hiring process rests so much on the interview. Many talented people slip through the cracks because they don't have good social skills and aren't good at interviewing.
Meta replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #558,553
@previous (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
Hey this guy's a snappy dresser and good at chitchat. He'll totally be good at doing actual work!
Hey this guy's a snappy dresser and good at chitchat. He'll totally be good at doing actual work!
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 11 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #558,555
@previous (Meta)
Exactly. The whole hiring process is bullshit. Typically run by HR people who think it's all about networking and social skills. Instead of trying to fix the problem, they emphasize it. I have to attend seminars at work that are all about networking and finding mentors to get you an in and how to do "elevator interviews" which is basically trying to sell yourself in about 30 seconds. Instead of teaching people this bullshit, they should be teaching them real job skills and teaching people who do the hiring to base it on real talent and not how they "feel" about a person after an interview.
Exactly. The whole hiring process is bullshit. Typically run by HR people who think it's all about networking and social skills. Instead of trying to fix the problem, they emphasize it. I have to attend seminars at work that are all about networking and finding mentors to get you an in and how to do "elevator interviews" which is basically trying to sell yourself in about 30 seconds. Instead of teaching people this bullshit, they should be teaching them real job skills and teaching people who do the hiring to base it on real talent and not how they "feel" about a person after an interview.
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 8 hours later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #558,656
FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 1 hour later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #558,732
Autphag !MLHqI35Srs joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 8 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #558,736
It's a good thing that I hate most autists just as much as I hate HR reps.
squeegee joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 2 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #558,741
@558,555 (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
a lot of times though you'll get a lot of qualified applicants, if you're offering salaried positions then it's likely 99% of the resumes are "qualified", but a big secret of hiring is that the interview IS to check social skills becuase hiring is 50% qualification and 50% "can i work side by side with this person."
you'll be spending a lot of time with employees, so, hire people you can get along with. and yes, qualified people DO get passed over for people who fit in better.
a lot of times though you'll get a lot of qualified applicants, if you're offering salaried positions then it's likely 99% of the resumes are "qualified", but a big secret of hiring is that the interview IS to check social skills becuase hiring is 50% qualification and 50% "can i work side by side with this person."
you'll be spending a lot of time with employees, so, hire people you can get along with. and yes, qualified people DO get passed over for people who fit in better.
Marsden William "Bill" Miller (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 6 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #558,749
Anonymous D replied with this 11 years ago, 22 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #558,759
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 11 years ago, 8 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #558,760
@558,741 (squeegee)
"Well, he's a genius who could really propel this company forward, but he's awkward and weird looking. I'd be more comfortable working with an attractive person who's good at chit-chat and making everyone feel comfortable." This is bullshit. It may be reality but it's not right.
So it makes sense in jobs where social skills are required because you work closely with other people, but it still doesn't make sense when it comes to jobs where that doesn't matter, and it's still unreasonable if it's maybe 10% of the job yet everything hinges on the interview process. It turns our whole economy into a political process filled with cronyism and nepotism rather than it being based on real skills.
"Well, he's a genius who could really propel this company forward, but he's awkward and weird looking. I'd be more comfortable working with an attractive person who's good at chit-chat and making everyone feel comfortable." This is bullshit. It may be reality but it's not right.
So it makes sense in jobs where social skills are required because you work closely with other people, but it still doesn't make sense when it comes to jobs where that doesn't matter, and it's still unreasonable if it's maybe 10% of the job yet everything hinges on the interview process. It turns our whole economy into a political process filled with cronyism and nepotism rather than it being based on real skills.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Marsden William "Bill" Miller (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 5 hours later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #558,923
@previous (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
Autists have previously done very well at this company. Those without a baseline self awareness and minimal social skills are consistently bad at balancing attention and prioritization. Translation of specification documents and understanding how people use the software are important tasks that I have consistently seen as struggles for people with low empathic skills.
These are objective issues over fit and qualification, not complaints directly about things that are possibly federally protected status.
Autists have previously done very well at this company. Those without a baseline self awareness and minimal social skills are consistently bad at balancing attention and prioritization. Translation of specification documents and understanding how people use the software are important tasks that I have consistently seen as struggles for people with low empathic skills.
These are objective issues over fit and qualification, not complaints directly about things that are possibly federally protected status.
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 6 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #558,926
@previous (Marsden William "Bill" Miller)
You want things translated to Chinese dont you? This is about Matt again, isn't it?
You want things translated to Chinese dont you? This is about Matt again, isn't it?
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 11 years ago, 11 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #558,938
@558,923 (Marsden William "Bill" Miller)
Those are very good points. I didn't mean to attack your particular interview methods. I'm sure you had good reasons for ending the interview. It just seems like the hiring method in our culture in general is flawed.
There's a good chance this person you interviewed will never find a good job despite his talents, not because his flaws impair him at all jobs, but because most people won't stand him in an interview.
Those are very good points. I didn't mean to attack your particular interview methods. I'm sure you had good reasons for ending the interview. It just seems like the hiring method in our culture in general is flawed.
There's a good chance this person you interviewed will never find a good job despite his talents, not because his flaws impair him at all jobs, but because most people won't stand him in an interview.
(Edited 32 seconds later.)
Marsden William "Bill" Miller (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 4 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #558,939
@previous (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
Yes, I have been the interviewee on some deeply shitty interviews. There's plenty of hogwash for "cultural fit" and ridiculous gotcha trick questions.
Thanks for clarifying.
@558,926 (H)
Whom?
Yes, I have been the interviewee on some deeply shitty interviews. There's plenty of hogwash for "cultural fit" and ridiculous gotcha trick questions.
Thanks for clarifying.
@558,926 (H)
Whom?
Anonymous H replied with this 11 years ago, 6 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #558,940
@previous (Marsden William "Bill" Miller)
The fat drunk loser that you have dedicated yourself to following around the internet. You are like a stupider version of syntax
The fat drunk loser that you have dedicated yourself to following around the internet. You are like a stupider version of syntax
squeegee joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 11 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #558,941
@558,760 (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
dude, seriously, it doesn't matter how good someone is at their job if they don't "fit in" then there are going to be more problems. do you really want to work with someone who is insufferable just because they are good at their job? lots of people are good at their job, but not everyone has the social skills of a gnat. you really don't want to foster a bad working environment because some people look good on paper. not only that but you're never going to have a "clear cut choice", as in, " this guy is the genius that'll ensure the future of the company," it's more like, "we've got 300 applicants who all have the same experience, education, and come with wonderful references."
you've got to weed them out somehow, maybe you only go with ivy league grads or people with 5 years experience, but you'll still be left with probably making a personal call. in that instance, you always go with the person you think you'd rather like to spend all day with rather than the guy who "looks good on paper, but i can't stand talking to the twat."
does that make more sense? it's just that the situation you're proposing, where a "hero employee appears but loses the popularity contest" isn't actually something that happens. there are no "hero's that'll save the company with their spot on spreadsheet skills."
it's more like, "this guy is qualified, and i like him, he'll fit in well and perform his job well as a spreadsheet maker."
there's usually not a job description for, "genius that'll ensure the future of our company," that's CEO territory and upper upper management. not something to worry about at the grunt level. At the grunt level you mostly need to make sure people are qualified and get along.
not paying attention to interpersonal skills is a great way to fail at hiring a quality workforce.''
which also means that working on interpersonal skills is AS important as having the resume that gets you in the door.
luckily there are places that train job seekers in everything from how to write a resume to how to act during an interview. it can be learned, and it should be learned.
dude, seriously, it doesn't matter how good someone is at their job if they don't "fit in" then there are going to be more problems. do you really want to work with someone who is insufferable just because they are good at their job? lots of people are good at their job, but not everyone has the social skills of a gnat. you really don't want to foster a bad working environment because some people look good on paper. not only that but you're never going to have a "clear cut choice", as in, " this guy is the genius that'll ensure the future of the company," it's more like, "we've got 300 applicants who all have the same experience, education, and come with wonderful references."
you've got to weed them out somehow, maybe you only go with ivy league grads or people with 5 years experience, but you'll still be left with probably making a personal call. in that instance, you always go with the person you think you'd rather like to spend all day with rather than the guy who "looks good on paper, but i can't stand talking to the twat."
does that make more sense? it's just that the situation you're proposing, where a "hero employee appears but loses the popularity contest" isn't actually something that happens. there are no "hero's that'll save the company with their spot on spreadsheet skills."
it's more like, "this guy is qualified, and i like him, he'll fit in well and perform his job well as a spreadsheet maker."
there's usually not a job description for, "genius that'll ensure the future of our company," that's CEO territory and upper upper management. not something to worry about at the grunt level. At the grunt level you mostly need to make sure people are qualified and get along.
not paying attention to interpersonal skills is a great way to fail at hiring a quality workforce.''
which also means that working on interpersonal skills is AS important as having the resume that gets you in the door.
luckily there are places that train job seekers in everything from how to write a resume to how to act during an interview. it can be learned, and it should be learned.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 11 years ago, 43 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #558,953
@previous (squeegee)
Very good points. I still think a lot of companies miss out by making their interviews more like high school popularity contests controlled by their HR departments.
Very good points. I still think a lot of companies miss out by making their interviews more like high school popularity contests controlled by their HR departments.
squeegee replied with this 11 years ago, 55 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #558,981
@previous (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
i don't really see it as a popularity contest. it's more like seeing if the person has paid as much attention to their communication skills, etc., as they have their general education. both are pretty damn important, because, like you point out, it's pretty useless to have a skill if you can't apply it. it's as bad to neglect interpersonal communication as it is to neglect general education.
a popular dumbass is about as useful as an insufferable genius with regards to the workforce. and the health of the workforce is way more important than any one individual. you have to look at the whole workforce first, and then interview new hires to see who is the best fit across the board. there's more to consider than just experience/education, but, that's not to say that everything else is more important. it's just a part of the overall "profile" and doesn't have anything to do with popularity.
no one is hiring people because, "oh hey, this guy is brotastic, he's going to be so popular.
actually being overly "awesome-sauce" is as bad as being milquetoast. if you're too glib and "cool" you can come across as smarmy. so it's not good to go into an interview and be overly likeable, if that makes any sense. best thing to do is to just be yourself and hope that a good HR person won't hire you if you're going to be a bad fit and that's a great thing. you don't want to work somewhere you won't fit in, because you'll just be miserable and end up getting the boot.
edit: and to anyone who's in college and wondering how do i learn better interpersonal communication skills for job interviews just go out and party and get drunk a lot and talk to the opposite sex. that's it. don't be one of those college shut-in autists who scream at people for partying in the dorms and stomp off to go memorize taxonomy shit you'll never actually fucking use. ''come learn to be cool, motherfucker, it'll help you out more in life than fucking undergrad survey classes." ha.
i don't really see it as a popularity contest. it's more like seeing if the person has paid as much attention to their communication skills, etc., as they have their general education. both are pretty damn important, because, like you point out, it's pretty useless to have a skill if you can't apply it. it's as bad to neglect interpersonal communication as it is to neglect general education.
a popular dumbass is about as useful as an insufferable genius with regards to the workforce. and the health of the workforce is way more important than any one individual. you have to look at the whole workforce first, and then interview new hires to see who is the best fit across the board. there's more to consider than just experience/education, but, that's not to say that everything else is more important. it's just a part of the overall "profile" and doesn't have anything to do with popularity.
no one is hiring people because, "oh hey, this guy is brotastic, he's going to be so popular.
actually being overly "awesome-sauce" is as bad as being milquetoast. if you're too glib and "cool" you can come across as smarmy. so it's not good to go into an interview and be overly likeable, if that makes any sense. best thing to do is to just be yourself and hope that a good HR person won't hire you if you're going to be a bad fit and that's a great thing. you don't want to work somewhere you won't fit in, because you'll just be miserable and end up getting the boot.
edit: and to anyone who's in college and wondering how do i learn better interpersonal communication skills for job interviews just go out and party and get drunk a lot and talk to the opposite sex. that's it. don't be one of those college shut-in autists who scream at people for partying in the dorms and stomp off to go memorize taxonomy shit you'll never actually fucking use. ''come learn to be cool, motherfucker, it'll help you out more in life than fucking undergrad survey classes." ha.
(Edited 5 minutes later.)
Marsden William "Bill" Miller (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 27 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #558,985
@558,941 (squeegee)
We do have a large quantity of applicants and the historical winning criteria for successful hires has been directly applicable experience.
We do have a large quantity of applicants and the historical winning criteria for successful hires has been directly applicable experience.
squeegee replied with this 11 years ago, 16 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #558,996
@previous (Marsden William "Bill" Miller)
i can only think of "popularity" as being a deciding factor when all other things are equal, or unless they seem like a real cunt.
as you say, directly applicable experience is what you're looking for in a new hire beyond anything. but i can imagine if that's overshadowed by personality traits then they must be pretty severe. but, personality is as valid a reason to not hire someone as anything else.
i would also add that having lots of experience also sort of implies you're not going to have personality conflicts. i mean, if they've been doing it for a while and have been employed then they can't be all that bad. tolerable at least.
i can only think of "popularity" as being a deciding factor when all other things are equal, or unless they seem like a real cunt.
as you say, directly applicable experience is what you're looking for in a new hire beyond anything. but i can imagine if that's overshadowed by personality traits then they must be pretty severe. but, personality is as valid a reason to not hire someone as anything else.
i would also add that having lots of experience also sort of implies you're not going to have personality conflicts. i mean, if they've been doing it for a while and have been employed then they can't be all that bad. tolerable at least.
squeegee double-posted this 11 years ago, 7 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #558,998
but i don't actually fucking hire people so i'm just regurgitating shit i probably think i know.
my experience up to this point has been exclusively with contractors. totally different world that i deal with.
my experience up to this point has been exclusively with contractors. totally different world that i deal with.
kook !!mCVqftDha joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 30 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #559,009
@558,996 (squeegee)
My autistic brony friend is a nurse. She has a very hard time keeping jobs (even at ghetto facilities with very low expectations) because of her poor people skills.
My autistic brony friend is a nurse. She has a very hard time keeping jobs (even at ghetto facilities with very low expectations) because of her poor people skills.
FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI replied with this 11 years ago, 43 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #559,028
@558981 (squeegee)> and to anyone who's in college and wondering how do i learn better interpersonal communication skills for job interviews just go out and party and get drunk a lot and talk to the opposite sex. that's it. don't be one of those college shut-in autists who scream at people for partying in the dorms and stomp off to go memorize taxonomy shit you'll never actually fucking use. ''come learn to be cool, motherfucker, it'll help you out more in life than fucking undergrad survey classes." ha.
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand I'm fucked
(Edited 50 seconds later.)
Anonymous D replied with this 11 years ago, 2 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #559,030
squeegee replied with this 11 years ago, 12 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #559,037
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 11 years ago, 1 hour later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #559,049
@558,998 (squeegee)
I think you are quite correct about the way things should be. Gauging how well someone will fit in with a working team is important. I just think that far more weight is put on the interview than you realize, and the interview is more about mundane questions that gauge how well people interview than real job skills. It would be nice if people used the interview as a tie-breaker, but quite often they go with whoever they like and they justify it by saying that those who are better qualified are over-qualified. Out of 100 applicants, they don't narrow it down by looking at who is most qualified. They narrow it down by asking "Which of these people do I know and have spoken to, and out of those that I've spoken to, which ones do I like or dislike." The company I work for has openly admitted to doing this several times. Rather than change their hiring and promoting process to be more fair, they teach us to network and get to know everyone to give ourselves an in. I totally get encouraging initiative and getting to know the people you work for and those you'd like to work for, but there's are certain sleeziness to the way they put it and the emphasis they put on these popularity contests.
I think you are quite correct about the way things should be. Gauging how well someone will fit in with a working team is important. I just think that far more weight is put on the interview than you realize, and the interview is more about mundane questions that gauge how well people interview than real job skills. It would be nice if people used the interview as a tie-breaker, but quite often they go with whoever they like and they justify it by saying that those who are better qualified are over-qualified. Out of 100 applicants, they don't narrow it down by looking at who is most qualified. They narrow it down by asking "Which of these people do I know and have spoken to, and out of those that I've spoken to, which ones do I like or dislike." The company I work for has openly admitted to doing this several times. Rather than change their hiring and promoting process to be more fair, they teach us to network and get to know everyone to give ourselves an in. I totally get encouraging initiative and getting to know the people you work for and those you'd like to work for, but there's are certain sleeziness to the way they put it and the emphasis they put on these popularity contests.
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 19 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #559,051
you retards are still talking
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 11 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #559,064
@previous (K)
I like to keep a thread going as long as possible. Even if it's just bullshitting. Provoking responses is more fun than the place being dead and waiting for interesting topics to come up.
I like to keep a thread going as long as possible. Even if it's just bullshitting. Provoking responses is more fun than the place being dead and waiting for interesting topics to come up.