On 4/11/2023 11:49 AM, Don Y wrote:

>> Rule of thumb is that people who outright lie about trivial things
>> will do the same about major things. Again, I'm not talking about
>> stretching the truth like claiming 20k sales when it was really only
>> 19k in the way just about everyone does, but genuine bullshitting.
>
> Another rule of thumb is that Manglement will ignore any facts that
> interfere with their intended goal (esp on the short term).  The
> applicant in question was hired -- despite my comments re: his
> "misrepresentation" as well as personally contacting folks at his
> previous employer (to ask the sorts of questions that the law prevents
> Personnel folks from asking/disclosing)
>
>>> Let "Personnel" sort out the verifiable claims (education, age, past
>>> work history, etc.) and ignore the rest -- except as trivia.
>>
>> Ya but YOU tend to be the fall guy when they turn out to be a bad
>> apple; you made the call to send their shit to personnel in the first
>> place. Everyone knows "Personnel" is barely conscious to begin with,
>> it's not going to fall on their heads
>
> It's usually the other way around; you don't see applications until
> Personnel has at least done a preliminary vetting, based on your
> advertised criteria ("No, I'm not keen on talking to an accountant
> who learned how to code in his spare time...")

Either way it goes I don't expect they figure it's their job to check
self-reported chess rankings or whether someone actually has a General
amateur radio license when they claim to be Amateur Extra. But it's been
a long time since I've worked for an organization big enough to have a
big "Personnel Department" with their own offices somewhere in a big
complex.

> [I know of at least one Personnel Director who had falsified *her*
> credentials!  Ooops!]
>
>

It doesn't surprise me that even Google missed that James Damore wasn't
ranked nearly as well in chess as he claimed to be. It surprises me
slightly more that they didn't pick up that he lied about his education,
also, claiming to have completed a PhD when he was only a candidate.

Contrary to his insistence that the G is overrun with woke-ism I expect
being confident & white helped him slide by well enough.

I don't know if he had any diagnosable condition other than being a wing
nut with odd ideas about evolutionary psychology. But I do know people
with a sociopath inclination will begin testing the waters to see what
they can get over on you and/or your organization very early on.

On 4/11/2023 9:07 AM, bitrex wrote:
>>>> Let "Personnel" sort out the verifiable claims (education, age, past
>>>> work history, etc.) and ignore the rest -- except as trivia.
>>>
>>> Ya but YOU tend to be the fall guy when they turn out to be a bad apple; you
>>> made the call to send their shit to personnel in the first place. Everyone
>>> knows "Personnel" is barely conscious to begin with, it's not going to fall
>>> on their heads
>>
>> It's usually the other way around; you don't see applications until
>> Personnel has at least done a preliminary vetting, based on your
>> advertised criteria ("No, I'm not keen on talking to an accountant
>> who learned how to code in his spare time...")
>
> Either way it goes I don't expect they figure it's their job to check
> self-reported chess rankings or whether someone actually has a General amateur
> radio license when they claim to be Amateur Extra.

No. They will typically only verify the aspects of the CV/application that
you've specified as "job requirements". I.e., don't expect to lie about
your past employer, job title there, etc.

Nowadays, this is often contracted out to a firm that specializes in
this sort of activity. For a few hundred dollars, they can get a
"report" on your claims -- as well as other "pertinent details"
(e.g., arrest record, etc.)

My BinL (personnel) routinely runs these checks before he gets anyone
in the organization looking at your application.

> But it's been a long time
> since I've worked for an organization big enough to have a big "Personnel
> Department" with their own offices somewhere in a big complex.
>
>> [I know of at least one Personnel Director who had falsified *her*
>> credentials!  Ooops!]
>
> It doesn't surprise me that even Google missed that James Damore wasn't ranked
> nearly as well in chess as he claimed to be. It surprises me slightly more that
> they didn't pick up that he lied about his education, also, claiming to have
> completed a PhD when he was only a candidate.

The chess claim is just "noise" to a potential employer. Who would care
if you claimed to have the world's largest collection of cupie dolls?
Or, a vintage automobile?

Ideally, you would want to bring up a topic to which the interviewer could
relate (e.g., a common hobby/interest). But, then would have to be sure there
was some substance to your claim!

> Contrary to his insistence that the G is overrun with woke-ism I expect being
> confident & white helped him slide by well enough.
>
> I don't know if he had any diagnosable condition other than being a wing nut
> with odd ideas about evolutionary psychology. But I do know people with a
> sociopath inclination will begin testing the waters to see what they can get
> over on you and/or your organization very early on.

*Everyone* has some degree of "oddness". The questions are: does it interfere
in *their* life *or* their ability to perform the duties required in the
environment available.

I've a friend/colleague who just can't deal with paperwork. You'll wait
forever for him to draw up a *draft* copy of a schematic. But, he's an
excellent designer. So, you can choose to bear the cost of having someone
(paid considerably less!) take his "napkin notes" and make them look
pretty (he'll be happy to REVIEW a schematic that you've drawn... just not
willing to do so, himself!)

I am notoriously averse to mornings. So, any activity that requires me
to be "in attendance" (physically or virtually) in those hours is just
not going to work. As I have control over my schedule, it can be
argued that I should be able to *meet* such demands; I simply choose
not to (reasoning that "you" can just as easily adapt to *my* schedule).

<shrug> I consider these two examples "fudgeable" -- if you want the
skills being offered, you adapt to the constraints being imposed.

Or, find a droid who's less competent but more malleable!

On 11/04/2023 22:40, Carl wrote:
> On 4/11/23 10:32, Ricky wrote:
>> On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 3:46:32 PM UTC-4, Carl wrote:
>>> On 4/10/23 13:48, RichD wrote:
>>>> If an interview of job applicant reveals he's a
>>>> high rated chess player - or maybe it's on his
>>>> resume - is that a point in his favor? Or do you
>>>> regard it as an irrelevant hobby?
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Rich
>>> If nothing else it shows they possess one set of intellectual skills
>>> that may or may not help with electronics, and that they put in the work
>>> and time to earn that rating. Hopefully that perseverance would
>>> transfer to the job.
>>
>> What makes you think this would "transfer" in any useful way?
>> Clearly, chess is a hobby for such people, and so, is done out of
>> pleasure seeking.  Much more appropriate would be seeing electronics
>> as a hobby on a resume.  If you love your work, you are much more
>> likely to be good at it.  Enjoying something that is only loosely
>> related is much less likely to indicate an applicant that will do well.
>>
>
> I said may or may not, but one example of a potential cross-over would
> be the ability of a chess player to rapidly visualize and rank possible
> moves, which sounds to me to be potentially pretty useful for laying out
> circuits or routing a PCB.  Mostly my take was having evidence of some
> kind of intelligence and dedication, even in a field completely
> unrelated to electronics, is probably better than having no information
> at all.

Back in the 1800's there was a fair amount of moral panic about students
playing chess and wasting away in their rooms and/or becoming violent. eg.

https://www.techdirt.com/2014/06/20/that-time-when-people-thought-playing-chess-would-make-you-violent/

https://medium.com/message/why-chess-will-destroy-your-mind-78ad1034521f

Original source SciAm 1859 July 2nd (scanned image):

<http://books.google.com/books?id=90hGAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA9>

These days we think we know better but you only have to look at some of
the utterances about the internet/WWW/AI to see that it isn't true.

Moral panics about anything "new" or "unfamiliar" abound.

--
Martin Brown

On 4/12/2023 1:27 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
> Moral panics about anything "new" or "unfamiliar" abound.

Primarily from the "older generations" (afraid of change?).

I'm always amazed at how eagerly (affordable!) 96 inch TVs,
increased cancer/heart-attack survival rates, etc. are
embraced. But, let someone come out of the closet (i.e.,
their "preferences" haven't changed... they're just being
OPEN about them) and folks are suddenly scared shitless.

"Let's make it ILLEGAL to talk about, teach, or even publish
literature that acknowledges that REALITY!" (as if that
will somehow CHANGE reality)

I suspect, if on the fateful Titanic voyage, they'd just
refuse to look at the iceberg and that would make everything better.

Of course, this from the folks who feel the *need* to own
(and carry!) a personal weapon... (living in perpetual fear must
really suck!)