[Zimahl]

To level the argument, let's just say that everyone has the same skill for a position. You can probably assume that there are a lot of equally qualified 'A' players who have applied at Google, Valve, Facebook, etc. So what sets all of them apart? Off the top of my head, I can only think of two things: personality and looks.

While I can't comment on the personality of the author, from the picture in the article it seems as though she is attractive. Is that enough to set her apart? Would she have seen the same possibilities if she wasn't so attractive? Would she have seen the same possibilities if she didn't have the novelty (not sure what to call it) of being an attractive, capable woman in a male-dominated field?

[breadbox]

In my experience (and studies seem to bear this out), most people will automatically assume an attractive woman has poor skills in X (where X is anything that doesn't involve dealing with customers). So I don't think your "commonsense" argument actually holds in the real world.

[moistgorilla]

"most people will automatically assume an attractive woman has poor skills in X (where X is anything that doesn't involve dealing with customers). "

Could you provide a source on that please? Because from the wording of your statement it seems that what you are claiming is completely anecdotal. I remember studying in one of my psychology courses that attractive people are instantly assumed to be smarter and more successful than unattractive people. It even has a name although I can't think of it right now. If I could I would provide a source.

edit: Here is a source, not really great but it's something. http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/wired-success/201108/why...

edit2: The word I was looking for was halo effect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_attractiveness_stereot...

[glaak]

As I recall being told by one of my professors as an MBA student, attractive people -- both men and women -- are generally assumed to be more competent. This effect is stronger for women than men. However, attractive women in "masculine" fields, like engineering, technology, or construction, are generally seen as being less competent.

[moistgorilla]

If you already objectively know that the person is qualified the fact that they are attractive is only a plus. I think the study you a mentioning is done with people that do not know the qualifications of the person they are viewing.

[glaak]

True, it is done with people whose qualifications are unknown. However, I would find it very hard to believe that the bias against attractive women in a "masculine" field would be removed as soon as you knew the qualifications. Diminished a bit? Sure. But removed? Unlikely. Your initial assumptions will give you a lens through which you view someone's accomplishments.

[hwz]

A study found that this isn't really true for attractive women though. Attractive women who included their photo with their resume got less response than less attractive women who did the same. The result was the opposite for men.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1378298/Attractive-w...

[Zimahl]

So assumptions aside, once you've vetted the person (a woman in this case) through an interview and they seem to be the real deal, what would be the deciding factor at that point?

People can exploit any number of traits to help them accomplish things, be it connections, looks, charms, etc.

[glaak]

Interesting, but I disagree.

(1) You can't assume that there are a lot of equally qualified A players for those companies. In fact, those companies struggle to hire enough qualified engineers.

(2) You're assuming that those companies, if they were presented with multiple qualified people, can only hire one of them. In many cases, they would just hire all of them.

(3) You're assuming that, if a company has to decide between multiple qualified people, it would use personality or looks as a dividing factor. Obviously, the people aren't actually identical, other than looks. The companies could instead decide based on a preference for public universities over equally ranked private ones, or what city the people are from, or whatever. There are many differences between people.

(4) You're assuming that attractiveness would help someone's candidacy for an engineering role, and not hurt it. If you were talking to two people -- one was a very attractive woman and one was a very unattractive woman -- which would you assume is more technical, if you had to bet? You'd probably bet on the less attractive person.

[Zimahl]

(1) True. However, I was making an assumption for sake of the argument to take it out of the equation.

(2) Even large companies have needs that wouldn't allow them to hire 5 great individuals for a singular position.

You seem to just be complicating the argument with undue thoughts about the position and a company. My post was trying to remove the job-specific factors and think about how personality and looks affect hiring.

(3) I've interviewed a lot of people for various positions that were all capable, that when it finally came down to it we argued more over team fit than anything else. If you had a grumpy, divisive individual or a friendly, articulate individual, which would you chose? This happens in 'A' player companies as much as any.

(4) I'm not assuming anything about attractiveness of an individual. I merely presented a couple (albeit somewhat loaded) questions to invoke a conversation.

[waterlesscloud]

The implications of your point 4 are precisely the same as the implications of the GP post.

[alid]

Hey man! I didn't quite understand your argument, but in this arena looks shouldn't come into it. The greater weight attributed by some people to women's appearance is a form of unconcsious discrimination. I appreciate you weren't sure what to call it, but the 'novelty of being attractive' doesn't sit well with me. She has the novelty of being highly skilled - that's what counts :)

[moistgorilla]

He is trying to point out that unfair bias is everywhere.