the "tramp stamp", what do we think about it?

[holy king]

Truth is that it's something for 'those' kind of people for a lot of us

what do you mean?

 

[Yeekim]

So you cannot provide any rational reason for this? There is no rational, logical reason why a blue-haired person with the same qualifications cannot perform the same job as a brown-haired person?

So you are not willing to try out for yourself?

Again, I am generally opposed to stupid, irrational behaviour. This is stupid, irrational behaviour. That most people also display this stupid, irrational behaviour in no way makes it acceptable, it just makes most people stupid and irrational. I can't defend or accept stupid and irrational behaviour.

We are apparently in disagreement what constitutes "stupid and irrational behaviour". I think it is "stupid and irrational behaviour" to create difficulties for yourself in return for the privilege of having an unnatural haircolor with doubtful aesthetic qualities.

Hence my perfectly answer to your question above: the candidate in question displays stupid and irrational behavior.
EDIT: That does not mean he won't be hired period. For really talented people, lots more is frequently forgiven. However, they are rare.

 

[fugazi]

what do you mean?

Exactly what I said. Its for 'those' kind of people - something you look down upon.

 

[Mise]

@Yeekim: You can't provide a rational reason why a pink haired person is any less suitable for an accountancy job than a brown haired person with the same credentials. It is therefore irrational to choose a brown haired person over a pink haired person with the same credentials. You say it's not irrational, but you can't provide me with a rational reason... Face it, you're wrong.

 

[Yeekim]

@Yeekim: You can't provide a rational reason why a pink haired person is any less suitable for an accountancy job than a brown haired person with the same credentials. It is therefore irrational to choose a brown haired person over a pink haired person with the same credentials. You say it's not irrational, but you can't provide me with a rational reason... Face it, you're wrong.

It is a fact that having a highly unorthodox appearance decreases one's chances of getting a job. You said so yourself, for God's sake.
Ergo, people who choose highly unorthodox appearance display irrational and stupid behaviour.
Irrational and stupid behaviour is completely rational reason not to hire someone.
Q.E.D.

 

[Mise]

Sorry, you fail at the first hurdle. It only decreases their chances of getting a job because the vast majority of people -- by your own admission -- are irrational and stupid, and judge people by the fact that they have pink hair, rather than on their ability to perform the job. They are not, a priori, less likely to find a job, but are in fact less likely because of the irrational stupidity of people who discriminate against them.

Unless you can provide an a priori rationale for them being unsuitable for a job that doesn't depend on your conclusion that they are irrational and stupid, you are using circular logic...

 

[Yeekim]

Sorry, you fail at the first hurdle. It only decreases their chances of getting a job because the vast majority of people -- by your own admission -- are irrational and stupid.

So, if I really really like old Sumerian, it's ok to send all my motivation letters in cuneiform? After all, it only decreases my chances of getting a job because the vast majority of people are too uneducated to understand them?

EDIT: Hmm, a ninja edit.
Alright. First, there is no flaw in logic, because regardless of my own position on the matter, my first assumption is objectively true.
Second, I shall come back to my assertion that one's look is more often than not a statement. What kind of statement exactly, obviously depends on every particular look, with "blue hair" being a bit too vague to make any judgement beyond most general one.
However, do you think that any of the following people would be suitable to work as teachers? judges? policemen? even as stewardesses?
Even if by some metric they have "ability to perform the job?" Would you hire any of them as your lawyer?

Spoiler :

 

[Mise]

No, unless you can provide an a priori rationale for them being unsuitable for a job that doesn't depend on your conclusion that they are irrational and stupid, you are using circular logic...

For example, an a priori reason for your ridiculous example would be: You shouldn't send your job application in a foreign language because not demonstrating the ability to speak the native language significantly impairs your ability to perform your job. Perhaps you could stop making ludicrous diversions, and actually give me a logical, rational reason for your beliefs.

 

[IglooDame]

It is a fact that having a highly unorthodox appearance decreases one's chances of getting a job. You said so yourself, for God's sake.
Ergo, people who choose highly unorthodox appearance display irrational and stupid behaviour.
Irrational and stupid behaviour is completely rational reason not to hire someone.
Q.E.D.

Sorry, you fail at the first hurdle. It only decreases their chances of getting a job because the vast majority of people -- by your own admission -- are irrational and stupid, and judge people by the fact that they have pink hair, rather than on their ability to perform the job. They are not, a priori, less likely to find a job, but are in fact less likely because of the irrational stupidity of people who discriminate against them.

Unless you can provide an a priori rationale for them being unsuitable for a job that doesn't depend on your conclusion that they are irrational and stupid, you are using circular logic...

I think you (we?) are arguing a chicken&egg situation. Factually - yes, people will prejudge based on appearance (or for that matter, other personal characteristics) that don't necessarily have any impact in and of themselves on their ability to do a job. And yes, people who voluntarily alter their appearance (with whatever motive) would have to be morons to think that it will not cause people to prejudge them negatively, and it'll have a magnified impact when it comes to employment.

I personally don't assume that waitstaff will do a better or worse job based on their hair color or style. I simply don't consider a mohawk cut to be as visually appealing as a less dramatic style, and to the extent that waitstaff are part of the decoration, they can either add to it or detract from it. Now if it was a question of someone repairing my car, handling my taxes, or being my doctor (none of which particularly involve visual appeal) it would have no significant impact on my patronage.

 

[CurtSibling]

You could profile that a person with a whacked punk dress style has a good chance of
having the wrong attitude to being an accountant or data-entry agent...The same
reason a bible-carrying theocrat might be the wrong guy to work in an abortion clinic.

People should be judged on individual merit too, of course!

 

[Traitorfish]

However, do you think that any of the following people would be suitable to work as teachers? judges? policemen? even as stewardesses?
Even if by some metric they have "ability to perform the job?" Would you hire any of them as your lawyer?

Spoiler :

The latter two, yes, of course, and I only exclude the first because he is self-evidently a neo-Nazi and a criminal. That I may hold some distaste for their choice of casual dress is an utterly unreasonably basis on which to withhold employment from them; that it is a common madness in no way justifies it. One may as well argue that a turbaned Sikh or a skullcapped Jew should also be excluded from employment because they chose to dress in an unorthodox manner.
Yes, looking "normal" may help you find a job. But it shouldn't, and is an indefensible state of affairs.

You're probably part of a subculture that highly approves of all this, Traitorfish. Hence why you feel the need to defend it at all costs. Truth is that it's something for 'those' kind of people for a lot of us. Maybe I'm too 'middle-class' for it

And you're part of a subculture that does not approve of it, hence your need to condemn it absolutely; that your subculture claims more adherents does not add any weight to your argument.

 

[Mise]

@Curt/IglooDude: That's why I'm specifically talking about two people with the same credentials and interviewing ability, but with different colour hair. There's no doubt that a brown haired person would be chosen over a blue or pink or green haired person with the same credentials. But there's no logical, rational reason for that to be the case - it is simply a result of prejudice. I don't believe it to be chicken and egg at all, because I have provided explanations for the prejudice -- people simply have irrational fear and dislike of things that are different. They say, "he's not normal, he's weird, lets avoid him." That's the ultimate source of employers' misgivings toward people; the reason Yeekim gave was merely its proximal cause. It's the same reason that boys who wear pink shirts are bullied in school. That kind of attitude is hardwired into our brains; it's the wellspring of prejudice pervasive throughout history and in all cultures around the world. That's the egg, and we should crack it before we all turn into chickens...

It's heartening to know that people wouldn't personally (knowingly or willingly) judge someone negatively beyond mere aesthetic taste. But it's disheartening to know that people don't seem willing to challenge societal norms that are completely irrational and illogical.

 

[IglooDame]

You could profile that a person with a whacked punk dress style has a good chance of
having the wrong attitude to being an accountant or data-entry agent...The same
reason a bible-carrying theocrat might be the wrong guy to work in an abortion clinic.

People should be judged on individual merit too, of course!

I have friends that are careful to separate their personal and work lives. One is a very dominant sadistic person, can you guess what job she has (and is very good at)? Others are meekly submissive and do well in supervisory positions. Another is a biker (in the more traditional tough-guy/leather-wearing sense of the term) that happens to be an exceptional precision machinist. Obviously if one's morals conflict with their job's duties, that's a whole different kettle of fish and I'm not likely to be the arbiter of that situation anyway.

If their employer or customer base thinks they're well in a job that doesn't involve personal aesthetics in the first place, I'm inclined to give them a shot, no matter how they dress, because as you say, individual merit is what matters to me.

 

[CurtSibling]

A great many bosses look at the face and dress style of an interviewee, and decide if
they would fit in with the team, many times this takes place over actual skills, etc.

I reckon if some dreadlocked-wearing guy sloped into my office looking for work,
I would not employ him, unless the whole slacker look was a clever disguise...

...

 

[IglooDame]

@Curt/IglooDude: That's why I'm specifically talking about two people with the same credentials and interviewing ability, but with different colour hair. There's no doubt that a brown haired person would be chosen over a blue or pink or green haired person with the same credentials. But there's no logical, rational reason for that to be the case - it is simply a result of prejudice. I don't believe it to be chicken and egg at all, because I have provided explanations for the prejudice -- people simply have irrational fear and dislike of things that are different. They say, "he's not normal, he's weird, lets avoid him." That's the ultimate source of employers' misgivings toward people; the reason Yeekim gave was merely its proximal cause. It's the same reason that boys who wear pink shirts are bullied in school. That's the egg.

It's heartening to know that people wouldn't personally (knowingly or willingly) judge someone negatively beyond mere aesthetic pleasure. But it's disheartening to know that people don't seem willing to challenge societal norms that are completely irrational and illogical.

Challenge away, I've got my own social issues to address. But the interview is really a bad example for your argument - your awareness of and ability to adhere to corporate norms (whatever they might be) is one of the things they're explicitly judging during the interview. Thus pink hair is not just judged as inocuous personal expression, but as an explicit challenge to or repudiation of those norms.

 

[galdre]

is there a point where self-expression becomes self-destruction? Is there a level that is considered unhealthy, and where is that line?

the pics yeekim showed above made me think of this guy

Spoiler :

 

[Traitorfish]

I reckon if some sidelock-wearing guy sloped into my office looking for work,
I would not employ him, unless the whole Jew look was a clever disguise...

See, now you sound like a jerk. Didn't take much, did it?

Granted, yes, my comparison is hyperbolic, but it stands. To judge people solely on irrelevant superficial grounds is illogical, unreasonable and counter-productive, as is judging them upon irrelevant aspects of their personal life. If the "slacker" was otherwise turned out in a professional manner, proved to be the most capable applicant, and the job was in no way effected by the wearing of dreadlocks, on what reasonable basis could you refuse him? Certainly, at that point it appears no more reasonable a bias than one against a particular religious or cultural group.

 

[Mise]

Challenge away, I've got my own social issues to address. But the interview is really a bad example for your argument - your awareness of and ability to adhere to corporate norms (whatever they might be) is one of the things they're explicitly judging during the interview. Thus pink hair is not just judged as inocuous personal expression, but as an explicit challenge to or repudiation of those norms.

Actually, the problem with many established companies is that they don't challenge existing corporate norms, and therefore are slow to change. Japanese companies are experiencing this problem; Toyota's recent (I say recent, it's been going on for years now!!) failure to (a) identify a problem, (b) admit there was a problem, and (c) fix the problem is a prime example of how the corporate norms -- which were to be entirely subservient to senior managers, and to not displease them with bad news -- completely destroyed the reputation of a company that had long been associated with the highest standards of quality and safety.

The idea that diversity enhances a company is not new, it's been around for decades. And it's not just because it's politically correct; studies have shown that companies that adapt to fit their employees, rather than simply employ people who already fit the established mould, show better shareholder returns, because of the wider applicant pool that they can draw from. Senior managers are on-board with new ideas on how to recruit, how to reward employees, and how to fit their jobs around their families or social lives. But middle-managers -- the people who actually do the interviews -- are not. They are slow to react (there are many reasons why, but I won't get into them here) and are more fuddy-duddy than their more senior managers. They tend to employ people who are similar to them, rather than people who are fit for the job. They dress this up as wanting employees who fit to the corporate environment, even though they have been instructed not to do this by senior managers!

The problem, then, is not about fitting to corporate norms, it's that many interviewers are simply not very good at conducting interviews, don't know enough about management best-practices, and employ people who are similar to themselves, rather than people who are good for the job.

 

[Yeekim]

Granted, yes, my comparison is hyperbolic, but it stands. To judge people solely on irrelevant superficial grounds is illogical, unreasonable and counter-productive, as is judging them upon irrelevant aspects of their personal life. If the "slacker" was otherwise turned out in a professional manner, proved to be the most capable applicant, and the job was in no way effected by the wearing of dreadlocks, on what reasonable basis could you refuse him?

If your Persian cat/gerbil/canary bird proved to be the most capable guardian of your house, why prefer a German shepherd? Correct, for no reason at all.
But is it likely enough to try?

Granted, yes, my comparison is hyperbolic, but it stands.

 

[IglooDame]

The problem, then, is not about fitting to corporate norms, it's that many interviewers are simply not very good at conducting interviews, don't know enough about management best-practices, and employ people who are similar to themselves, rather than people who are good for the job.

And we're back to the chicken&egg issue.

But FWIW, I agree that interviewing is a lost art these days.