[HN Gopher] When Glasses Land the Gig: Employers Still Choose Wo...
___________________________________________________________________
When Glasses Land the Gig: Employers Still Choose Workers Who 'Look
the Part'
Author : sizzle
Score : 51 points
Date : 2023-11-08 18:21 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (hbswk.hbs.edu)
(TXT) w3m dump (hbswk.hbs.edu)
| sydbarrett74 wrote:
| People are shallow and superficial. News at 11.
| datadrivenangel wrote:
| "In fact, having particular characteristics is comparable to a 5
| percent boost in pay"
|
| Looking the part is worth some money! This of course contributes
| to gender imbalances in software.
| rpmisms wrote:
| Maybe? My personal observation is that female engineers who
| prefer dark clothing and wear glasses are often the best
| engineers. Is that sexist or is that using a different measure
| vs. beards for men?
|
| I'm fully aware that these metrics are easily broken. Best eng
| I ever met dressed and talked like a complete hillbilly. Best
| female eng I ever met looked homeless, and indeed, did a lot of
| crack at one point.
| itronitron wrote:
| Maybe you just perceive women that wear dark clothing to be
| better engineers because either you perceive them as less
| feminine, or because you are less distracted by their
| anatomical features (when they wear dark clothing).
| rpmisms wrote:
| Maybe? Dark clothing is generally something I find
| attractive, and unless exceptionally baggy, I can get a
| pretty decent idea of body type. I think it's the more
| utilitarian "vibe". If you're not thinking about matching
| colors, you probably have a more utilitarian mindset.
|
| This applies to male engineers too, except there's other
| more important signals there.
| loco5niner wrote:
| or the women are self-selecting for clothing that is more
| utilitarian?
| lowbloodsugar wrote:
| I don't know that it's sexist per se, but if you use it to
| predict the outcome of future interactions (which I am
| assuming you do since you actually posted it here), then that
| is an example of bias. IANAL but probably actionable in the
| US.
|
| So if your remark is, "In my limited experience I've worked
| with only 10 female engineers and the eight good ones all
| wore dark clothing and wear glasses. That's a funny and
| unlikely distribution!" then you're good.
|
| If your remark is "I can determine if a female engineer is
| any good based on whether or not she is wearing dark clothing
| and glasses" then you probably have no business working in
| the field at all.
| rpmisms wrote:
| My remark is closer to the former. The latter would be
| silly, but an excellent tweet. I'm in the Damore camp on
| this issue, though.
| a_techwriter_00 wrote:
| Man, I seriously hope people don't use what they post here
| to predict the outcome of future interactions.
| rpmisms wrote:
| I would never. I'm either genuinely interacting (with
| people) or genuinely shitposting in good faith (not sure
| what else to call it, I'm not necessarily going to stand
| behind everything I say, but the interaction is genuine).
| I assume many others here do the same.
| spacemadness wrote:
| I really hope you are not a manager. And if you are you think
| a little more about your personal biases when hiring.
| rpmisms wrote:
| I can set aside my impressions, but they exist. That's
| pretty normal, and unfortunately I'm a lot less biased than
| many tech hiring panels these days.
| sizzle wrote:
| correlation \= causation
| Gibbon1 wrote:
| I've come to the conclusion affinity fraud is a very wide
| spectrum. You got guys like Madoff on one end. And people
| carefully picking out clothes and watching their accent on the
| other. I think of the latter as low grade affinity fraud.
|
| An example a friend. Branches of her family are very wealthy
| almost old money. She could take something out of her closet
| and go to a party thrown by old money, fit right in and no one
| would suspect she's broke.
| elcritch wrote:
| For better or worse it's all part of human social networks.
| The looks, the lingo, etc all add up to help identify in-
| group vs out-group.
|
| Don't get me wrong, when I was younger it annoyed me much
| more. However now I accept that at some level it's just part
| of the "human social dance". Given that large societies,
| governments, corporations, etc all exist and can function
| shows that there's something to it. Who knows, perhaps
| Neanderthals didn't do these social rituals and that
| prevented them scaling social networks and eventually dying
| out.
| creer wrote:
| On average, they report, but good vs bad marketing is normally
| worth much more. So the extremes in great vs bad photo are most
| likely much more. Paying attention and getting help is worth
| money.
| foobarian wrote:
| Wait until you hear how many more cars I sold at the local
| dealership once I started showing up in a nice suit instead of
| shorts and flip-flops!
| hgomersall wrote:
| It's funny, because i really really distrust that super slick
| fully suited salesman getup. I'm much more likely to be
| suckered in by a surfer dude in beach wear.
| sizzle wrote:
| What was the car segment such as luxury, economy, etc.?
| m3kw9 wrote:
| Don't profile!" People yell. But deep down humans are profiling
| machines
| LanceH wrote:
| And nobody is allowed to research in which instances they are
| correct.
| Danjoe4 wrote:
| This is actually rational discrimination. Excessive near-work
| literally causes myopia so one should deduce individuals with
| glasses have spent more time in front of a computer.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| LASIK/PRK laser correction is only a few thousand dollars. I
| haven't had myopia since I was 25, and I should not need
| (reading) glasses again until 45. And of course, contact
| lenses.
| vikingerik wrote:
| The latter part is true, just FYI for anyone, you do need
| reading glasses eventually post-Lasik. I had it at age 29,
| and now at age 45 (and starting around 42) I do need reading
| glasses for anything closer than about a foot.
| bluGill wrote:
| I looked into it when I was 20 and decided that the risk were
| not worth it. Of course things are probably better 25 years
| later, I haven't checked again. But then again at almost 50 I
| now cannot work at a computer without reading glasses and
| surgery still can't fix that.
|
| A large part of the risk for me was I discovered I can get
| prescription safety glasses, and if I can't see without
| glasses I will never risk forgetting to put on safety glasses
| when I need them.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| As far as I understand, there are very few risks these
| days.
|
| You can even move your eye around while the laser is
| shaping your cornea, since the laser has the ability to
| keep track of it and move along with the eye.
|
| One of the best decisions I ever made, in terms of making
| life more convenient, especially physical activities.
| kragen wrote:
| [citation needed]
| satvikpendem wrote:
| > _Excessive near-work literally causes myopia_
|
| Evidence shows that not getting enough sunlight when young is
| what causes myopia, as there is a gene involved in stopping the
| process of natural eye lengthening that is enabled by sunlight.
| This need not _necessarily_ correlate to excessive work, as
| children don 't play outside for a variety of reasons.
| jtwaleson wrote:
| afaik the jury is still out on this. There is a lot of
| correlation, but the causal relation is not widely accepted
| by science yet. Happy to be shown otherwise!
| euroderf wrote:
| I hope this is being studied intensely in Finland. It has
| both a strong IT sector and a practice of ensuring kids have
| plenty of outdoor play/free time.
| DaiPlusPlus wrote:
| > Finland
|
| And also having 18 hours of darkness in winter
| SoftTalker wrote:
| Can't be the only cause though -- I have a -6.0 diopter
| prescription, needed glasses starting in 2nd grade, and I was
| outside a lot as a kid (grew up in the 1970s -- staying
| inside was boring).
| svachalek wrote:
| I spent my entire childhood reading, my teen years hacking, and
| my adulthood as a software engineer and gamer. I've spent my
| life doing all the things mom warned you about. I'm in my 50s
| and still have 20/20 vision.
| mlhpdx wrote:
| Funny you say that, as I just got back from an eye
| appointment and in my 50s also still have 20/20 vision (after
| more than 40 years of programming/staring at the screens).
| pfannkuchen wrote:
| There are a number of 90 year old chain smokers without lung
| cancer too.
| makeworld wrote:
| It's a statistically correct bias. That doesn't make it ethical
| for hiring.
| cantSpellSober wrote:
| The study concludes that your first sentence is not accurate
|
| > _we do not find a strong correlation between "looking the
| part" and job performance_
|
| https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/10.1287/mksc.2022.1425
| Bjartr wrote:
| And you might go and hire the person that makes sure they
| always look like they're working over the person who can
| actually get the job done without breaking a sweat and clock
| out early.
| saagarjha wrote:
| That's not how myopia works. I had glasses prescribed in
| childhood; the only thing causing that would be genetics or a
| couple hours of video games a week.
| Danjoe4 wrote:
| Someone please post the full article link. I'm uninterested in
| some journalist's interpretation of the study.
| greyface- wrote:
| It's the first and only hyperlink in the article.
| creer wrote:
| (Clickbait because it's really not much about eyeglasses)
|
| This is really interesting because not so long ago, photos were
| frowned upon on resumes because they were too obvious a path to
| racial, gender or class-based discrimination (not that names
| wouldn't often give it away but still). So that some companies
| would discuss removing photos or even names.
|
| Now photos are a good way to keep the recruiting process honest
| by avoiding someone else doing the interview - other than the
| candidate. Aaaand perhaps discrimination is encouraged again (?)
| with things like "looking the part" - and no doubt age? Suprised
| this paper doesn't mention that? How about a tie? Is
| discriminating on the basis of tie-wearing okay? A fundamental
| problem with class-based discrimination law: eyeglasses-
| discrimination is most likely fine.
|
| But some of what the research "uncovers" is really just good
| marketing: "For graphic designers, [...] have a high quality,
| professional-looking photo (with a small plus for glasses). Other
| hacks for programmers: [...] keep a computer visible". I removed
| the bits about "female" and "beard" - also marketing but less
| legally acceptable.
|
| "having particular characteristics is comparable to a 5 percent
| boost in pay" and "0.3 percent increase in the stars [...]
| rating". Now that one is shocking and mostly invalidates the
| study. Because normally good marketing is worth a lot more than
| that. That hints to me that customers are actually not paying
| attention to photos? I suspect it's much more extreme in Bad and
| Great photos (Great not in Professional but in Fitting.)
| irrational wrote:
| Or... don't get a job through a platform that requires a photo.
| otikik wrote:
| Only if you look the part.
| kleiba wrote:
| There are countries where an application photo is mandatory.
| DaiPlusPlus wrote:
| ...wait, ...why?
|
| Call it a failure-of-imagination on my part, but I can't see
| any good reason for having a law like that; it gives of the
| vibes of wanting to protect an establishment based on
| discrimination.
| bomewish wrote:
| Feels like the researchers were going for a race/gender angle but
| it didn't come through in the data so the result was just super
| vague "pictures often end up as tie breakers". Maybe the pictures
| give hiring managers some utils because they show the person is
| real or something? Also not clear what control variables they
| used. Overall just not super clear or convincing. Shoulda done an
| experiment -- although that would have probably wasted even more
| human capital.
| mlhpdx wrote:
| 36% of the US workforce? Stopped reading right there. My
| experience as an employer tells me they are not entirely
| trustworthy and that kind of absurd claim confirms it IMHO.
| cj wrote:
| > Freelancers constituted 36 percent of the US workforce in
| 2021, according to Upwork
|
| The stat seems plausible if you replace "freelancer" with
| "independent contractors". Although some quick googling
| surfaces stats closer to 10-20% for the percent of workers who
| are contractors.
|
| (The majority of these contract jobs aren't ones you would find
| on Upwork, though)
| pengaru wrote:
| Ages ago when I got my first pair of glasses, already working as
| a sysadmin/system engineer with long hair and a unix beard... my
| friend and colleague said on my first day @ work in glasses,
| something to the effect of:
|
| "it's amazing how by just adding glasses you went from stoner to
| professor"
| rdelpret wrote:
| I noticed years ago that people treated me differently at work
| when I wore glasses.
|
| I would do experiments and wear them for a couple weeks to a
| month then go back to contacts and observe the difference.
|
| I work in tech.
| makeworld wrote:
| Could you expand on the differences you experienced?
| polski-g wrote:
| There is a positive correlation between IQ and corrective vision,
| so this in turn leads to stereotyping as "those with glasses are
| higher IQ". There are so many problems caused by Griggs v Ohio
| (which banned IQ tests for employment).
| DaiPlusPlus wrote:
| IQ is not a useful metric (both as far as most prospective
| employers, and myself, go): what matters more to the bottom-
| line is total ability to-do-the-job, where soft-skills and EQ
| matter just-as-much, if not far greater than, a dimenionless
| scalar that simply indicates' one's ability to do well on IQ
| tests.
|
| I'm glad IQ tests are banned for employment purposes.
| obviouslynotme wrote:
| IQ is an incredibly useful metric and why we sort our society
| on SAT scores. It's just not the only useful metric.
| assimpleaspossi wrote:
| Long ago, I was on the advertising board of a major restaurant
| chain. We had a meeting with out advertising agency where they
| were trying to push some statistics to us about when and where to
| place some TV ads. Some of us were skeptical and we asked to be
| given a presentation by the lady who came up with the figures.
|
| Before we met her, one of the board members said, "I was told
| that it always works out that if this person is frumpy and
| wearing glasses then we should believe her."
|
| She was frumpy. Wore glasses. And 100% correct on her TV time
| buying recommendations.
| thejazzman wrote:
| > I HAVE NOTICED THAT WHITE PEOPLE REVERE BLACK PEOPLE IN GLASSES
|
| -- Leon Black
|
| https://amphetamem.es/meme?id=curb-your-enthusiasm_08_09_198...
| maest wrote:
| Is this a US thing?
| cantSpellSober wrote:
| Superficial biases might land someone the _interview_ but
|
| > _freelancers who "look the part" are more likely_ to be hired*
|
| ...to be _hired_? This surprises me, a good hiring process would
| mitigate the effects of this bias somewhat, no?
| extrememacaroni wrote:
| ah yes, the mythical good hiring process.
| cantSpellSober wrote:
| Are all hiring processes exactly the same? Or are some better
| than others? If the latter, are any better enough to be
| _good_?
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > Are all hiring processes exactly the same?
|
| No, but almost none of them are "good" if "good" is defined
| as "eliminates all influence of biases irrelevant to
| performance such that superficial things like appearance
| play a role not explicable by their ability to predict
| performance."
| cantSpellSober wrote:
| >> _Are all hiring processes exactly the same?_
|
| > _No_
|
| Agreed! Some _are_ better than others.
|
| > _if "good" is defined as..._
|
| Oh, I never defined "good" that way. Keyword being
| "mitigate" (you replaced it with "eliminate"). Apologies
| for your confusion.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| You used the word "mitigate" but in the same post also
| expressed surprise that _any_ bias effect was left at
| all, which indicated you expected elimination of the
| effect from a "good hiring process " rather than mere
| mitigation.
| cantSpellSober wrote:
| No, I used the word "mitigate" to indicate I expected
| mitigation...
|
| > _expressed surprise that any bias effect was left at
| all_
|
| Nope, if you scroll up you'll see that "somewhat" word
| there (you replaced it with "at all").
| dragonwriter wrote:
| You responded to a post saying that the effect _exists_
| (neither characterizing magnitude nor what the base rate
| would be without mitigation) and said you were surprised
| that was the case.
|
| If you only expect mitigation, there would be no basis
| for surprise, of any degree, at the mere fact of the
| effect existing.
| cantSpellSober wrote:
| > there would be no basis for surprise, of any degree
|
| That's what the "somewhat" is for. Apologies again for
| your confusion.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| If it was mitigated somewhat, the effect would still
| exist.
|
| The issue is the expression of surprise with the mere
| statement that the effect exists. I'm not confused, you
| said two things that don't make sense together in one
| post, each of which is perfectly clear.
| wly_cdgr wrote:
| Yes, well, we keep making people read Shakespeare during our most
| impressionable years.
| wedn3sday wrote:
| This is why I wear blue light glasses to all my interviews.
| Glasses bias is a real thing!
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-11-08 23:01 UTC)