Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Think about Loose Coupling
 
PerlMonks  

Re^4: Stop with the interview questions already

by BrowserUk (Pope)
on Aug 31, 2009 at 06:05 UTC ( #792304=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re^3: Stop with the interview questions already
in thread Stop with the interview questions already

Well done for speaking up!++

Frankly, I'm sad and disappointed that this thread exists. More so that the bigotaratii fell over themselves to leap on the bandwagon. Whether you categorise it under rascism, xenophobia, nepotism or protectionism. tarring any group of people on the basis of the actions of one or a few, is blind discrimination. When the group is defined as "that part of the world" and encompasses 1/6th or 1/5th or 1/4th of the population of the planet, it goes beyond simple short-sightedness.

To quote me from my home node:

Whenever we make a judgement about someone on the basis of 'that is typical of "them"', where 'them' is some non-specific group of people to which you have subscribed the individual without knowing their individual circumstances--and we all do this to some greater or lesser degree, including me--we are acting upon, and perpetuating prejudice. And whilst each act by each individual is small; collectively, they can have a significant affect upon the recipients of our lack of thought and care.

Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.


Comment on Re^4: Stop with the interview questions already
Re^5: Stop with the interview questions already
by Jenda (Abbot) on Aug 31, 2009 at 14:33 UTC

    Define "a few"!

    Prejudice, if not taken to extremes, is healthy. Prejudice, is just a bad name for the generalization of experience. You've met a few sharp knifes, so you learn to handle knifes with care. Even those you do not know. Even those that might be so blunt that you could not cut yourself no matter how much you tried. But what's "knifes are sharp" if not prejudice? Handling knifes with care is no worse neither better than making sure I have my wallet safe when a bunch of gipsy kids get on the tram/bus. Except that no one is gonna scream BS about racism when it comes to knifes. No one has made a nice living for him/her-self from "protecting" knifes.

    You should be ready to change what/how you think about something/someone once you get more information about that individual, but banning "prejudice" is silly. And dangerous. Let's aim for moderation, not for absolute $whatever.

    Jenda
    Enoch was right!
    Enjoy the last years of Rome.

      Define "a few"!

      I guarantee that however many individuals you think you are basing your pre-judgement of the entire 1 billion plus people of the Indian sub-continent on, it does not constitute a valid sample by any measure of statistics.

      I also guarantee that how ever big you think that the sample of individuals is, the reality is that it is far fewer. Maybe 1 in 10 of those 'bad' individuals are people you personally have had any dealings with at all. The rest will be repeated 'anecdotal evidence' you've heard from like-minded members of your acceptable group, that you've subconsciously added to your own "general experience".

      And so it is! The real misdemeanors of a few individuals of the given target group, get repeatedly relayed around by the members of the targeters, and so become reinforced and multiplied through selective memories of the "general experience" of those predisposed to that pre-judgement.

      And I'll add my gut-feel pre-judgement that for every individual from the subcontinent that has come to this place in the last 2, 5 or 8 years, asking 'the wrong type of question', there have been three times as many asking similarly wrong types of questions, that have less distinctive user names and exhibiting a less recognisable form of English. But through their lack of distinction, they pale in significance because they do not fit the criteria of the predisposition.

      There is a considerable moral distinction between the caution born of personal experience, and prejudice born of collective reenforcement of predisposed positions. You'd do well to consider the pre-judgements others will arrive at regarding you on the basis of the predispositions you display here.


      Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
      "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
      In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.

      And just in case you think that the vague possibility that some less-than-stellar workaday candidate for a $2/hour position 5000 miles away might actually profit from your answering their simple question is such a big deal. Then consider also the possible affect of your callous pronuncement of their "obvious incompetence and dishonesty" in this place.

      Consider the possibility that they are struggling to land a job--any job--such that they can repay the many years of sacrifice, deprivation, and faith their parents and siblings have invested in their education. Let's just suppose for a moment that they did use your answer to fill a gap in their knowledge and so land a job in one of the outsourcing sweat-shops. Do you think for one moment that their success could ever have the slightest affect upon your income or employment prospects? Could the fact that they got a job that was maybe a tad above their knowledge or skills base, have the slightest influence upon whether your company or customers take a decision to outsource their work to "that part of the world"?

      Conversely, have you even vaguely considered the possible effect your "ligitimate prejudice" might have upon that individual? If you think that a few harsh words by a stranger on the internet will have little or no effect upon their target, tell it to the mother of Megan Meier!


      Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
      "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
      In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.

        "Blame Canada! ... We must blame them and cause a fuss Before somebody thinks of blaming uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuus!!!!"

        Is that the case when the mother neglected her kid until she killed herself and then started campaigning or is that yet another "internet" suicide? There's something wrong with a thirteen years old that doesn't run acrying to her mother instead of hanging herself. And I dare saying that if she did not kill herself because of this harassment she would find a different reason. Yup, people should be nice to each other. but people should also me able to handle if someone is not so nice to them. If they can't, something was wrong long before the "few harsh words".

        Update: fixed a typo (s/If /Is /;). And no it looks I was thinking about a different case. An older one.

        Update: This is the case I had in mind. "Mother Channels Grief to Activism". Yeah.

        Jenda
        Enoch was right!
        Enjoy the last years of Rome.

Reaped: Please delete:wrong place
by NodeReaper (Curate) on Sep 01, 2009 at 07:28 UTC

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://792304]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others surveying the Monastery: (4)
As of 2014-07-26 13:18 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    My favorite superfluous repetitious redundant duplicative phrase is:









    Results (176 votes), past polls