[astrodust]

Are there techniques for neutralizing the effects of things like race during the hiring process that could help make these sorts of decisions more objective?

I'm reading The Undoing Project by Michael Lewis and it digs into things like this with great enthusiasm. Making people aware of their own inherent biases and devising criteria that help make objective decisions is not easy, but often necessary. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Undoing_Project)

[maxerickson]

Blinding.

An example is orchestras. They use a screen so that the people deciding between musicians can't see the person auditioning.

[astrodust]

You can only get so far with this, that's the problem. Eventually the candidate will show up and people will make snap judgements.

"He's wearing gang clothes" or "I thought he was a rapper" and you're going to have massively skewed data.

A coding interview conducted via online chat only, no voice, could be educational, but it might also over-select those used to texting and online chatting.

[infosample]

> You can only get so far with this

Is improving a problem not worthwhile without completely eliminating it?

> "He's wearing gang clothes" or "I thought he was a rapper"

Are gang clothes business attire now? That's what I see people of color wearing to interviews and work.

[astrodust]

I'm speaking about impressions, not the actuality of it. One person's casual attire, which is the norm for a lot of interviews now, might be interpreted as "gang clothes" even when they're clearly not.

Like is a simple Kangol t-shirt "gang clothes"? By the same token a Lulu Lemon or Izod shirt is, they're just different "gangs". People have a way of reading into things. A well-dressed black person might look "like a drug dealer" while a scruffy white dude might look "like a real programmer". It's a matter of perception. Our pattern matching is often badly distorted by the media.

Improving is always a good idea, but if it completely handicaps entire groups of people it's not necessarily an improvement, it's just shifting the artificial rejection criteria.

[infosample]

Please don't use clothing as a straw man for a real issue.

Blind interviewing does not handicap anyone. The way to improve the perception of an applicant as a gangster or a rapper is for them to prove it on the job. You want the most qualified right? Hire based on actual qualifications. Implement a dress code for your conscience and get back to business.

[astrodust]

It's a real issue. Many people have found that clothing is often the biggest impediment to being treated seriously on the job.

It affects women and minorities in different but equally profound ways. Meanwhile white males can wear whatever and nobody cares. Bath robe to work? "He's a 10x coder, we just let him do his own thing..."

This isn't about a "dress code", this is about perception. You could have a company mandated uniform where everyone wears exactly the same thing and they'd still find reason to be suspicious of people.

I use the clothing problem as an example because it's the biggest one. There are too many stories of people not being taken seriously because of what they wear when what they're wearing isn't the least bit unprofessional or inappropriate. It's just how people project things onto appearances.

> Blind interviewing does not handicap anyone.

Can you name one company that uses an actual blind interview for a technical positions successfully? How about a company that can apply the same rigour to technical and performance reviews?