|
|
Post by happyhornet on Dec 1, 2023 17:04:24 GMT
No, that's pretty much the opposite of what I said. I recommend people make decisions based on factual evidence and observeable reality rather than feelings. I don't want to see any kind of prejudice in the job market. So if two CVs have exactly the same merit and the only difference is an exotic sounding name to an anglo-saxon sounding one, can you advise the employer on the factual evidence and observable reality as whom to choose the job should go to? I'd suggest putting them both on the interview shortlist. |
|
|
|
Post by buccaneer on Dec 1, 2023 17:05:23 GMT
So if two CVs have exactly the same merit and the only difference is an exotic sounding name to an anglo-saxon sounding one, can you advise the employer on the factual evidence and observable reality as whom to choose the job should go to? I'd suggest putting them both on the interview shortlist. Then what? Who do they choose? |
|
|
|
Post by happyhornet on Dec 1, 2023 17:06:18 GMT
I'd suggest putting them both on the interview shortlist. Then what? Who do they choose? Whoever interviews best. |
|
|
|
Post by buccaneer on Dec 1, 2023 17:09:04 GMT
Then what? Who do they choose? Whoever interviews best. And if the anglo-saxon one interviews best do you drop your accusations of prejudice, or does your cycle begin again? |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Dec 1, 2023 17:09:33 GMT
That doesn't really compute in reality. If you get to decide what aspects of reality are allowed to contribute to their decision, then you are getting to decide for them based on your priorities. This is exactly the sort of thing the market was set up to avoid. When did I say that I should decide what aspects of reality are allowed to contribute to their decision? When you said this - I recommend people make decisions based on factual evidence and observeable reality rather than feelings.Presumably there will be a correction if they fail to follow this advice 'correctly'? |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Dec 1, 2023 17:18:33 GMT
Are you saying Tory voters are so stupid they believed the lie again and again. You might be right after all they believed them when they said they'd get Brexit done and we'd be better off for it. Its your argument that the people voted a large Tory majority because the public supported Brexit and that was not because they were stupid. Now you're arguing the same people voted a large Tory majority because they were stupid enough to not look at the previous years they had been in government. They did get Brexit done - we have left. We had already left in 2019 when the Tories said they'd get Brexit done. But you're dodging the point as usual. Tat point being the claim that the large majority for Tories is proof people continued to want Brexit done. Therefore the large majority for Tory is also proof people wanted Tory immigration figures. Yet when I made the same argument that people voted Tory in 2019 because the alternative was Corbyn, you insisted I was wrong and it was proof we all wanted Brexit (Despite numerous polls showing otherwise) So yes everyone who voted Tory surely wanted Tory immigration. Hoisted on your own petard. |
|
|
|
Post by happyhornet on Dec 1, 2023 17:19:28 GMT
And if the anglo-saxon one interviews best do you drop your accusations of prejudice, or does your cycle begin again? Naturally if they've interviewed best they get the job. I really cannot fathom what is so contestable about the best qualified candidate getting the job based on merit alone. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Dec 1, 2023 17:19:56 GMT
No, that's pretty much the opposite of what I said. I recommend people make decisions based on factual evidence and observeable reality rather than feelings. I don't want to see any kind of prejudice in the job market. So if two CVs have exactly the same merit and the only difference is an exotic sounding name to an anglo-saxon sounding one, can you advise the employer on the factual evidence and observable reality as whom to choose the job should go to? Then you decide on who interviewed better. |
|
|
|
Post by buccaneer on Dec 1, 2023 17:21:38 GMT
And if the anglo-saxon one interviews best do you drop your accusations of prejudice, or does your cycle begin again? Naturally if they've interviewed best they get the job. I really cannot fathom what is so contestable about the best qualified candidate getting the job based on merit alone. Because you'll just claim prejudice if not. |
|
|
|
Post by happyhornet on Dec 1, 2023 17:22:01 GMT
When did I say that I should decide what aspects of reality are allowed to contribute to their decision? When you said this - I recommend people make decisions based on factual evidence and observeable reality rather than feelings.Presumably there will be a correction if they fail to follow this advice 'correctly'? I said I recommend not dictate. I recommend people exercise too but I don't frog march then to the gym. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Dec 1, 2023 17:25:43 GMT
When you said this - I recommend people make decisions based on factual evidence and observeable reality rather than feelings.Presumably there will be a correction if they fail to follow this advice 'correctly'? I said I recommend not dictate. I recommend people exercise too but I don't frog march then to the gym. So no prosecutions for hiring the wrong candidate? fine. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Dec 1, 2023 17:26:45 GMT
They did get Brexit done - we have left. We had already left in 2019 when the Tories said they'd get Brexit done. No we had not - Parliament rejected the deal by use of the Benn Act. Then we had the General Election and the new Parliament eventually passed the same deal. You are making no sense. You are claiming that the people voted for the Tories because they said they would get Brexit done (which they did) and voted for more immigration even though the Tories said they would reduce it (which they didn't). Nobody voted Tory for more immigration - you are deluded. |
|
|
|
Post by happyhornet on Dec 1, 2023 17:54:58 GMT
Naturally if they've interviewed best they get the job. I really cannot fathom what is so contestable about the best qualified candidate getting the job based on merit alone. Because you'll just claim prejudice if not. Well if people are making hiring decisions based on anything other than merit what conclusion should one reach? |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Dec 1, 2023 17:58:57 GMT
Same principle. Uncontrolled migration of aliens causing a negative affect on society. You can’t only make the connection that suit you . ...or disregard a connection because it doesn't suit you... It’s the same principle. |
|
|
|
Post by buccaneer on Dec 1, 2023 18:00:47 GMT
Because you'll just claim prejudice if not. Well if people are making hiring decisions based on anything other than merit what conclusion should one reach? It's not going to stop people like you claiming prejudice. For example: In the interview, the anglo-saxon may come across better merely because of shared norms, traditions, culture and values. The employer may feel at ease better with that person and get a better sense of commonality. This may make him or her interview better, and be awarded the job. |
|
