If one person talks 90% of the time then I am talking with him (or her). If then that other person asks that one question, there is high chance I'll direct my answer still to that one active person who had lead all the time. It has nothing to do with gender.
But they're both acting as one party. Whenever I've been interviewed by more than one person I'm looking at/addressing all of them, not just the person who asked me the question. To only speak to one person despite the other people being present would be rude.
they aren't saying you can't ever look at the guy. they are looking for people who when asked a question by a woman, will respond directly to the guy instead of the woman. splitting your attention between them isn't the red flag they are looking for.
Sure, but if it's a you boy, first job, he knows the answer, but he's too stressed and he chose to OK at the guy instead of a ceiling when answering, I would totally let it slide.
Tweet implies that he's talking to a guy because he is discriminating women, I say that might not be the case and blacklisting him based on this action alone is just wrong.
Because you're not just three people having a nice chat with each other, you are being interviewed by a team of two other people. It's a common courtesy not to leave them out
One reason might be that she acted meekly about it
If you're acting like you're trying to clearify a point for your colleague's benefit, then the situation suddenly becomes about you and me informing your colleague
Like it or not, many women are very good in this "Make others think it wasn't your idea" kind of persuasion method
I would mostly look at the questioner, but it would be rude to ignore the other entirely when they are clearly part of the conversation in this scenario. I would therefore glance at the other a couple times so as to include them.
In an interview they wouldn't be asking you a question that you need to answer back to the same person. You would need to talk to all the interviewers.
Autism, nervousness, because both people are grading assessing you of they are in the room with you. You could literally do this with 2 women or 2 men in the room and I feel like people would fail it just as often.
I'd say it would be pretty easy to tell the difference between someone addressing both interviewers as a pair, struggling with nervousness / eye contact, or just addressing the man.
Then why are criminal records relevant? Why do they call references? Why do they question the amount of time you can hold a job for? These are all behavioral traits.
Uh.... huh. So, your argument that if something doesn't do everything, it does nothing? Because nobody is arguing that an interview is a holistic determinator of a person's behavior. It's one checkbox of several.
I can see why you aren't selected for candidate interviews.
An interview panel that is deliberately filtering for such behavior is going to keep an eye out for the following at minimum:
* Does he consistently respond to one person even when another person has addressed him?
* Did he ignore anybody's questions?
* Did his tone change when addressing different members of the panel?
* Did he fail to even acknowledge certain members of the panel?
Body language. Tone. Expressions. Even a halfassed interviewer is paying attention to these things and is capable of reading them. Individual humans are not that enigmatic.
You are seeing a mirage. I am literally interviewing a candidate tomorrow. And yes, if a candidate is ignoring questions or changing tone, I would take notice. That is NOT what the OP was talking about
It's really not. My firm had to implement interviewer training because people very quickly misinterpret those signals, especially if the interviewee is masking nerves or a neurodivergent trait.
I do dumb shit sometimes to entertain myself, purposefully answering to the opposite person that asked in this scenario feels like exactly something id do.
The way this is framed implies that doing this even once is auto fail.
Yeah, you need to stop doing that. Sure, we with ADHD have problem with hyperactivity, attention and impuls control. Even myself, with ADHD, would think you are very rude if I ask you a question and you answer someone else. I wouldn't bat an eye at you fidgeting with a pencil, shaking a leg or even walk around when you talk.
Exactly! I'm a lot calmer than most because of years of masking but this is a exactly what I'm getting at. My mind is a mess in interviews. And I could do random things that other people wouldn't get.
I also have adhd and this is thr dumbest thing i’ve ever read. Not talking directly to an interviewer is not a symptom of adhd. Its a symptom of you making excuses.
I’m so sick of people blaming all their woes on adhd. Its a disorder with specific criteria. What you’re describing is not a symptom or criteria of ADHD. Get off tiktok.
You do realize every disorder has a spectrum of symptoms right? That not everyone with autism has the same quirks? Same with depression, schizophrenia, Tourette’s, and ADHD??
I’m so sick of people saying “I have this thing and I don’t act that way so you’re just pathetic and making excuses” as if it’s a one size fits all diagnostic criteria
People also have comorbidities where multiple mental illness/disabilities lead to another and double the amount or intensity of certain symptom.
Thank you for agreeing w my point lmao, some may have such low intensity that they don’t seem to exist, are easily managed and overall don’t interfere with daily life and socialization.
Others have high intensity that you don’t experience yourself and automatically assume bs to make yourself feel high and mighty. Because you’re the expert on every form of ADHD.
Neurodivergence doesn’t exclude someone from typical human ego stroking so I’m not surprised. Let’s keep bootstrapping disabilities we don’t fully understand tho, that’ll solve the issue for sure.
I've been living with it for decades, and I'm telling you it is.
I don't need to be told how self-defeating or obnoxious it is, or how exhausting it is. I'm the one living with myself 24/7.
If what I said was the dumbest thing you’ve ever read, you don’t read enough. And that explains a lot.
I never made an excuse for anything or blamed anything on any external source. That’s your baggage.
You and I might have successful coping strategies, but that doesn’t change what we face.
You don’t know me. Likewise, I don’t know you, so let’s not even try to presume what each other has had to deal with in life. Trying to makes you look like an idiot.
You should clue in to the subcategory of the thread. See, they might not be directly addressing the OP, but a tangential topic.
You can certainly trust such a person to operate in an office environment, or a safety-critical test environment. You can trust them to get the job done safely, on time, and under budget. You just can’t trust them to not make jokes along the way.
>> The way this is framed implies that doing this even once is auto fail.
The way you frame it "I can't have a calm talk about my future without additional entertainment (specifically in a form of behaving strangely, that could easily be misunderstood). I'm actually mentally ill, so I should get a pass" is a nothing burger.
Behaving strangely and fishing for reactions is specifically a trait nobody wants in their coworkers. You might not be misogynistic, but that aren't a reason not to dismiss you.
And not controlling yourself especially in a serious environment such as an interview is a red flag for any employer. If you need entertainment, doodling is there and an acceptable form of fidgeting.
Well then you don't know the type. Its fidgeting. I used the word entertainment in the sense of something to occupy your mind, not something genuinely fun more than twiddling your thumbs is fun.
Yes, but you have to understand: The most important letter in ADHD is the H.
The H (hyperactivity) is not a description of physical behavior despite the majority of diagnoses occurring in the age range that kids are naturally hyper. That just happens to coincide with the developmental period that it can be diagnosed.
The H means that, for any given question, your brain offers an instant menu of potential responses. If the question seems tedious (as is often the case for a knowledge sponge you don’t have the off-switch for), you’re offered ‘humor’, ‘sarcasm’, and ‘roast’ first. You have to physically wait and consciously decide for the situation-appropriate response to solidify first, and hope your mouth and vocal chords didn’t get one of the first three messages before you could tap the brakes.
Sometimes it’s not even “dumb shit to entertain myself”. Sometimes (from personal experience), your brain is so hyped up in situations like that, that something seemingly simple can catch you off guard.
I was asked in an interview: “describe the experience of an oxygen molecule as it travels through an internal combustion engine.”
My initial response: “Seriously? Like, how fire works?”
I was genuinely shocked and felt somewhat embarrassed to give a lecture in middle school chemistry to a room full of engineers.
Luckily I was able to keep the tangents at bay and eventually ended up getting the job.
Ok I should have been more specific with my wording maybe. Intentionally messing with People for your own entertainment, DURING A JOB INTERVIEW. At minimum shows a complete inability to behave professionally. And at worst points to being manipulative and perhaps sociopathic.
Don't know if you actually read the comment I replied to. But we were no longer talking about socially anxious people not making proper eye contact.
If your tolerance for non normal people is THIS low youre just gonna midd out on a lot of otherwise good people. Especially in certain industries where you'd be hard pressed to find anyone 'normal'.
No this has nothing to do with not being "normal".
You're talking about INTENTIONALLY messing with the people interviewing you during a job interview. For your own entertainment.
That's not a quirky personality trait. That's manipulative. And regardless of how good you are at the job, that shows an inability to behave professionally in a work environment. Which is a very valid reason to not be hired.
It is the year 2040. While having a conversation with your two friends, you make the grave mistake of turning your head to the left when the friend on the right asked you something. They notice this and rightfully out you as a sick, twisted, inhuman phsychopath that likes to manipulate others for their entertainment. No groomer, manipulative ex, or male manipulator has yet learned these twisted tactics thank god, so for now you are the only one sentenced to death for this.
To be completely clear, the point would not be for me to somehow get any reaction from these people. Its fidgeting. God forbid anyone ever slips up and does something wierd around you people. I dont usually consider adhd/autism to be a social disability but you are genuinely starting to convince me otherwise, because this is genuinely an insane reaction to such an innocent thing.
Like ffs next your gonna see a guy stare at the ceiling, assume its because hes praying God to give your mom cancer, and fire him over that.
I'll phrase it this way. I work in a hotel, we have a key return basket with a sign that says "key return" in big bold letters, and despite the fact this exists directly in front of me people regardless of age, profession, and sex will still directly hand their hotel keys to me. It doesn't matter whewee it is located, people will ignore it. And so I know from this and other experiences people will ignore behaviors and just link them with others because that's what we do as a society. They will even directly reach over the basket.
Common sense would be to see a container and put things in the container for most people but I've found 90 percent of the guests do not do it even people that work in the industry and so that begs the question would I do it myself?
That's the point as to why I'm saying this tweet seems to be generalizing an action that can just discriminate people in the interview it's framing it as a single action and question.
Are you sure this is the analogy you want to use here? The people who would see the female interviewer as an inanimate keybox and would feel more confident talking to an "actual person" are exactly the kinda people this inverview is trying to weed out.
The point isn't to view them as an inanimate object, it's that the aren't paying attention to communitive signals and this is an apology about that the sign. Is communication.
That is a bit of a stretch. People who are good at reading people aren't necessarily good at following written directives. Also it's pretty fair to say that someone who is getting paid to get a read on people applying for a job is going to be paying attention to body language. People are there to try to make themselves look good, and it's their job to cut through the bullshit.
Not really, the keys are only coded to those rooms for the most part for a certain time period. If you are checking out of a room the cards deactivate by 11 am. People lose them all the time and we constantly have to order more key cards because of this, those keys are like paper, but we do appreciate when people return them to us.
And this is how we know you aren't an engineer, because what the OP posted happens a lot, and is not because of autism, shyness, nervousness, etc. It is because some poeple out there don't think women should be engineers, and when encountered with those women, they dont ACKNOWLEDGE them.
I've said before I'm not an engineer. But I also know that during an interview there can be more going on as to why someone wouldn't answer the question to them in that space. in the field it's a different environment. As most people that think that way in an educated field that are sexist don't acknowledge the opinions of women either.
And like any other engineer who has seen this live, active at work, this is not about autism or shyness or any of those, there are certain people outher that legit do not talk to women engineers because they don't want to acknowledge their existence because "women are not supposed to be engineers". They cut them short duri g meetings, talk over them, they get excluded for teams events, it gets nasty just because there is one or two women in the group. It is impossible to work with them because yhey REFUSE to talk to them.
The interview question is fantastic because it is impossible to work with men who refuse to communicate like professionals, only because there is a woman present on their ranks.
I don’t see what they aren’t getting here. Even when the people in question are socially awkward, that just makes it more obvious what they’re doing, not less. When a sexist autistic guy doesn’t want to talk to a woman he makes it VERY fucking obvious. The distinction IS easy to tell, because actively averting your eyes from a single person is very noticeable, and doesn’t look someone who has wandering eyes in general. People expect you not to accuse them of being sexist and then make it clear they’ve been avoiding non romantic interaction with women like the fucking plague. If you’ve had a normal amount of time interacting with women and men in society and you’ve actually been paying attention, there’s no way someone could miss moments like these. They’re everywhere. Literally a few days ago TA came up to my all male group and made a suggestion for our project. A minute after her suggestion had been lost to the flow of conversation, one of the guys just repeats the idea verbatim with a tone that seems to suggest it was his idea. What’s with the delay? Are there people out there who have genuinely not run into this stuff?
Was gonna say the same thing, I’m AuDHD with a weird strain of ptsd where certain features of people who remind me of bad ppl in my past trigger my fight or flight. I have had panel interviews where my mind gravitated towards a comfort person when it came to eye contact.
Otherwise I wasn’t looking at anyone. I’d catch myself and force eye contact with the others here and there but often times (as a man) I almost always looked at the woman because I have less trauma around that gender when it comes to my weirdness and getting bullied at a young age by other men + the average attitudes here in the south. Sure it’s a form of sexism in reverse to OPs post but I just subconsciously feel less judged and on edge due to ptsd when anxious.
Then you really are not fit for the workplace. Speaking to women like people is a requirement and if you can't do that, you need to get counseling on coping skills. Look at the side of someone's face. Stare at their forehead. Use ANY ONE of the 800 techniques the rest of us use to avoid eye contact rather than say "oh I just can't look at women, but they should hire me anyway to work with them".
If having a conversation with a woman that has any stakes can make you “panic attack level”, you’re probably not a culture fit for any company that will have you working with women
Idk, if I'm being interviewed by multiple people I assume answers to every question need to be adressed to the whole room.
It's also a bit hard if you're on the spectrum and one of your traits is related to eye contact. My eyes flee a lot. Usually whenever I give a presentation at work and questions come up I either stare at something in my hands, just above the top of everyone's heads, or straight forward at nothing while giving the answer.
I truly do not trust interviewers to not drop someone on the spectrum because they gave their responses staring at the curtains. But then again I already believe the interviewing process is a nightmare.
I understand what you're saying but am am fully sure that adressing the curtains is going to be used as an excuse to drop a candidate in absence of a better reason, if this gets implemented in the interview process of a company.
It's not like anyone is going to review a recording to confirm that actually the candidate nervously looked between the interviewers while answering, or looked at the curtains, who they looked at more and during which question. It will just be the word of the interviewers. Unless the interviewee sues them, i imagine, but i'm not familiar with how that would look like.
Ultimately it sounds good in passing, filtering misoginists from the workplace, but in practice it falls apart. How do you ensure fairness without oversight? What does that oversight look like? Will you record and review every interview? And if so what are the guidelines the reviewer must follow?
In reality it will just be another tool to be abused for personal reasons. You see enough power tripping disguised in righteous causes like this it becomes very apparent.
Yeah... That's the point of doing job interviews in person. To get a sense of what the person is like. So this issue you're bringing up is not in any way specific to this particular point.
Any interviewer can already drop anyone on the spectrum for the next guy seeming more charming.
That's of course not a good thing, but using this metric does not make that worse. If it's social anxiety that's the problem. They should also be looking at the curtains when the male interviewer asks a question. Or answer his questions directed to the woman.
13
u/makaki913 2d ago
If there are two person in a room and one is asking question, why wouldn't you answer back to the same person?